Dark matter and Dark energy

Take a close look at this source, Olowkow:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap&SS.227..167S "Rotation velocity and neutral hydrogen distribution dependency on magnetic field strength in spiral galaxies, Charles M. Snell and Anthony L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science, May 1995, "Abstract: The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show flat rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations. Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed."
 
BeAChooser said:
In 1937 Hannes Alfven proposed that our galaxy contained a large-scale magnetic field and that charged particles moved in spiral orbits within it, owing to forces exerted by the field.
Click to expand...

Slight problem: positive an negative particles will orbit in opposite directions.

When Plasma Physicists add known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects into the Gravitational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies, they obtain the observed rotational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies.
Click to expand...

Numbers, please. What's the size of the field? Or is this just more handwaving?

The peculiarities are that the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed away from the center. This is completely different than expected from gravitational forces alone. For instance, in the simplest Solar System model, the planets closest to the center rotate at the very fastest speeds, and gradually decrease in speed at larger distances from the center
Click to expand...

Yes, gravity falls off as you get farther away from an object, but the farther away you are from the galactic center, the more mass there is pulling on you. That is in marked contrast to solar system dynamics, where the relevant mass, to first order, is solely from the sun. So we shouldn't expect the same dynamics, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you or doesn't know what they're talking about.

The measured behavior is all very different than that obtained from gravitational effects alone,
Click to expand...

Only if you assume particular mass distributions. But you can find mass distributions which will describe it correctly with gravity alone.

but the inclusion of ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects mimic the observed behavior.
Click to expand...

But to get this, you're still going to be fiddling around with finding correct fields, charges and currents in order to get it to fit - why is fitting a field you don't know exists intrinsically better than fitting a mass distribution?

And what are the fields involved? That's curiously absent. I take that back: it's not curious at all, it's entirely predictable.
 
Olowkow said:
there remains no direct observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents[citation needed] and mainstream astrophysical explanations for large-scale phenomena preclude plasma current mechanisms.
Click to expand...

By the way, that statement is absolutely false.

Everywhere we look we see evidence of Birkeland currents.

The sprites, elves, and blue jets associated with electrical storms on are examples in Earth's atmosphere. They contribute to Earth's auroras.

They are found on other planets (such as this evidence for them on Saturn: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=4egjus1n and http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984agu..conf..340H ).

They are seen on the surface of the sun in solar flares.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/solarflare.jpg

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Twists.jpg

They are the "magnetic ropes" or "flux tubes" that astronomers recently discovered carrying vast amounts of energy between the sun and the earth and into the solar wind in general.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000932000001000026000001

We find them in the interstellar medium ...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0004/cygloop_blair.jpg

The Cygnus Loop (above) has all the characteristics of an interstellar Birkeland current.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/CIV.html "IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS ... snip ... 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. ... snip ... 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.' ... snip ... 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. ... snip ... The discovery was called "Exciting," by S. T. Lai, a researcher at the Air Force Research Laboratory in Hanscom, MA. Lai, an authority on a phenomena called "critical ionization velocity," who noted that the data fell precisely where predicted by the late physics Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995), who in his theory about the origin of planets in 1942, calculated that if a neutral cloud in space fell through a magnetized plasma, the neutral gas would itself become ionized at discrete velocities. Alfvén predicted that the signature of his plasma theory in space would be the observation of filaments and his discrete velocities."

We find them in the heart of our own galaxy ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/images/040723galactic-filaments.jpg

... and also in other galaxies.

For example, a close up of the NGC 3079's core reveals four columns of gaseous filaments that rise above the galaxy's disk.

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2001/28/images/c/formats/full_jpg.jpg

The filaments reach the amazing height of 2,000 light-years with each about 75 light-years wide. Big Bang astronomers "suspect" that these filaments are particles blown by "winds" released during a burst of star formation. But experts in plasma and electromagnitism would say those are spiraling Birkeland currents that are part of the galaxy's homopolar magnetic field.

And we find evidence of Birkeland currents between the galaxies.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v341/n6244/abs/341720a0.html "Discovery of intergalactic radio emission in the Coma–A1367 supercluster ... snip ... THE Coma cluster is a rich cluster of galaxies nested in an even larger supercluster of galaxies. ... snip ... The Coma cluster of galaxies seems to be located on the rim of a giant void in the three-dimensional distribution of galaxies. Here we describe the detection of faint, supercluster-scale radio emission at 326 MHz that extends between the Coma cluster of galaxies (Abell 1656) and the Abell 1367 cluster and which is apparently not associated with any individual galaxy system in the complex. The radiation's synchrotron origin implies the existence of a large-scale intercluster magnetic field with an estimated strength of 0.3–0.6 G, which is remarkably strong. The synchrotron-emitting relativistic electrons cannot be older than a few times 10^^8 yr, but we speculate that the magnetic field is the fossil of a pre-galactic primaeval field, which was amplified in the course of the formation of intergalactic voids and superclusters."

Everywhere we look there is evidence of Birkeland currents ... yet mainstream astronomers just can't seem to see it. Because to do so threatens their precious gnomes.
 
Ziggurat said:
Numbers, please. What's the size of the field? Or is this just more handwaving?
Click to expand...

I provided you with links to peer reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals describing large-scale super computer calculations using well validated point in cell computer codes which incorporated known electromagnetic physics as well as the effects of gravity. That's not handwaving. I can't help it that you, like mainstream astrophysicists in general, are too lazy to actually read those articles, Ziggurat. You just prove my point.

Of course, coming from some one who recently denied that most of the visible matter in the universe was plasma ...
 
Ziggurat said:
But you can find mass distributions which will describe it correctly with gravity alone.
Click to expand...

Only if you posit the existence of VAST amounts of dark matter ... far, far more than any matter which has actually been observed or which even stellar remnants and particles like neutrinos might explain. Dark matter which seems to only interact with the universe via gravity and even then in ways that mainstream astrophysics are having problems explaining (Why do some galaxies show no sign of dark matter? Why are there vast voids that apparently contain no dark matter?). Dark matter, that even after 30 years and billions and billions of dollars spent looking, you haven't found.
 
I thought the 90% dark matter mass number was an estimate of the size of the black hole in the center of the galaxy?
 
BeAChooser said:
The lengths to which the mainstream will go to explain away the observations that don't fit their model get sillier and crazier all the time.
Click to expand...
This is a remarkably short-sighted view of science. Relativity seemed crazy at the time. Heck, the idea that gravity affected all bodies equally seemed crazy at the time. Dismissing an idea simply because it appears to be "silly" or "crazy" is ludicrous.

The theory I described above is a direct result of the mathematics of (I had to bring it up) superstring theory and M-theory. And before you go and grab a rope, let me just say that superstring theory is still the leading candidate for a quantum theory of gravity. I haven't seen any articles about loop quantum gravity (for example) for some time in New Scientist, but there's one on string theory in the 9th January edition.

Okay, I've brought up superstring theory. I'll go get my flameproof underwear now.
 
robinson said:
Worrying about dark matter/dark energy is like contemplating the nature of the Universe, while a bomb is ticking under your house.

It might be interesting to you, but most people would consider the bomb a more important issue.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, going after the bomb is much more important than probing the secrets of the universe.

Luckily with the invention of things called "farmers" and "farms" its now possible for for a majority of the population to concern themselves with pursuits other than immediate survival. We have enough farmers that we can grow the food people need, look for a bomb under your house, and investigate the secrets of the universe all at the same time! Isn't it great?

LLH
 
Beth said:
Thanks. When you say 'distributed spherically', do you mean distributed evenly within a sphere (a multivariate uniform distribution) or distributed with the heaviest concentrating at the center and tapering out in all dimensions evenly (a multivariate normal distribution)?
Click to expand...

The second, although the density profile isn't very well known. To explain galactic rotation curves, I guess you need the density to fall of like 1 over radius squared at large radius.

69dodge said:
Do we know why the dark matter became distributed differently from visible matter, or just that it currently is distributed that way?
Click to expand...

Ordinary matter forms a disk because it interacts strongly and can expel mass as it collapses. Galaxies begin as more or less spherical collections of rotating dust. As they collapse, matter is ejected due to interactions. But angular momentum is conserved by that process, and so the remaining matter must flatten into a pancake. Dark matter on the other hand interacts only very weakly, has no mechaism to eject mass and so never flattens.
 
BeAChooser said:
Again, note that there are NO peer reviewed papers directly challenging the calculations of Peratt with regards to galactic rotation.
Click to expand...

Good point.

I don't know any peer-reviewed papers in astrophysics challenging the conclusion that Leos with Virgo ascendant are perfectionists, either.
 
robinson said:
Worrying about dark matter/dark energy is like contemplating the nature of the Universe, while a bomb is ticking under your house.

It might be interesting to you, but most people would consider the bomb a more important issue.
Click to expand...

Powerful, cogent argument, as usual.

I mean, it seems like every day I see another article in the paper about some head-in-the-clouds astrophysicist killed by a bomb that had been loudly ticking away under her house while she sat there moronically trying to figure out "dark matter".

Seriously, what's wrong with those people??
 
Last edited:
In my opinion the true nature of empty "space" has to be further explored if you want to unlock the secrets of DM and DE
Is space "created " by something?" Is it just there, no explanations needed?
Is it homogenous as one big entity, or is it as matter is, composed of tiny parts glued together in various concentrations thoughout the universe, some sectors com-pletely devoid of boths "space" and matter?
If space is being caused by "something"? How is that "something" interacting with matter, with other "somethings", and are those "somethings" even charged at all?
 
If I am reading between the lines correctly from these posts, there appears to be a theory that the galaxy has some sort of magnetic field plasma going for it that permeates our solar system.
If true would that explain the planets rotations?
The Earth is after all, a great conductor with an enormous theorized current flowing in it
If that is true, the only element missing in a Motor System is a magnetic field. If the galaxy is providing that, voila! ( Or eureka! if you don't know French) we have a motor!
 
BeAChooser said:
I provided you with links to peer reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals describing large-scale super computer calculations using well validated point in cell computer codes which incorporated known electromagnetic physics as well as the effects of gravity.
Click to expand...

In the post I replied to, you linked to two PDF's. Only the first was a published article. And neither source lists the magnetic fields used for or derived from their simulations.

I can't help it that you, like mainstream astrophysicists in general, are too lazy to actually read those articles, Ziggurat. You just prove my point.
Click to expand...

Oh, the irony. There's only one reference to an actual magnetic field strength in either of those PDF's (page 10 of your first PDF), and it isn't in connection with the simulations. They never state what fields were used or calculated in those simulations, so there's no way to compare those simulations to anything real. But let's take a look at it in more detail, shall we? They suggest a field of 10-9 to -10 Tesla. OK, fine. How much force would this field apply to the sun? Well, we need a charge on our sun. Your predictions for the charge have always been absurd. So let's find a real estimate:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti.../articles/aa/abs/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html
"The net positive charge has to be smaller than 10−36 qA Coulombs, where q is elementary electric charge (charge of proton) and A is number of baryons in the star."
That works out to be on the order of 100 Coulombs for the sun (which has ~1057 baryons).

So what's an upper bound on the force on the sun from this large a magnetic field? qv x B. Our solar system is moving at about 220 km/s ~ 2x105 m/s. So 100 C x 2x105 m/s x 10-9 T = 2x10-2 N. What acceleration does this provide? a=F/m = 2x10-2 N/2x1030 kg = 10-32 m/s2.

Now, what's our actual acceleration about the galactic core? Well, it's 2pi*v/t, where v is our velocity and t is the period. Our period is about 8x1015 seconds, so 1.4x106/8x1015 ~ 1.7x10-10 m/s2.

So magnetic forces can only account for roughly 1 part in 1022 of our acceleration. Same basic calculations will apply for other stars. So either you need to drastically increase the magnetic field for your model or you need to find some way of containing many orders of magnitude more charge on your sun in order for the difference to even register against the error bars, let alone describe the discrepency between visible mass gravity and observed acceleration. But there's about a 20 orders of magnitude gap to close, and it cannot be done. I've already demonstrated how unfeasible cranking up the charge on the sun is, and you have never responded.

So you go ahead and keep telling me I'm not the one reading what was written. Meanwhile, I'll keeo showing that I can do calculations to demonstrate the absurdity of your ideas and you can't do a single calculation to support them.
 
Tumbleweed said:
If I am reading between the lines correctly from these posts, there appears to be a theory that the galaxy has some sort of magnetic field plasma going for it that permeates our solar system.
Click to expand...

It's more than that. BAC doesn't believe in the Big Bang, and thinks that an "electric universe" model can produce an infinitely old universe. He also thinks that the sun is powered by electricity and not by fusion. In short, he's a believer in nonsense.

If true would that explain the planets rotations?
Click to expand...

Nope. The planets' orbits are very well explained by gravity alone.

If that is true, the only element missing in a Motor System is a magnetic field. If the galaxy is providing that, voila! ( Or eureka! if you don't know French) we have a motor!
Click to expand...

Except this wouldn't produce the right observed differences in the orbits of different planets, since the forces involved wouldn't share the same r dependence that gravity does.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's more than that. BAC doesn't believe in the Big Bang, and thinks that an "electric universe" model can produce an infinitely old universe. He also thinks that the sun is powered by electricity and not by fusion. In short, he's a believer in nonsense.



Nope. The planets' orbits are very well explained by gravity alone.



Except this wouldn't produce the right observed differences in the orbits of different planets, since the forces involved wouldn't share the same r dependence that gravity does.
Click to expand...
No no, I was talking about the Earth's daily rotation, not its orbit around the sun
 
Tumbleweed said:
No no, I was talking about the Earth's daily rotation, not its orbit around the sun
Click to expand...

Oh. Well, that doesn't require any forces at all. That's just conservation of angular momentum. Spinning objects don't stop spinning unless you put a drag on them, but there's not much to drag on the earth's rotation.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh. Well, that doesn't require any forces at all. That's just conservation of angular momentum. Spinning objects don't stop spinning unless you put a drag on them, but there's not much to drag on the earth's rotation.
Click to expand...
>>>

But isn't true that there is not agreement as to why the Earth spins? If so, I am merely speculating from lesson I took on motors. The Earth and motors have very similar characteristics: both spin, and both have conductors with current flowing in them. The magnetic field is the Missing Link
 
Tumbleweed said:
But isn't true that there is not agreement as to why the Earth spins?
Click to expand...

No.

The Earth and motors have very similar characteristics: both spin, and both have conductors with current flowing in them. The magnetic field is the Missing Link
Click to expand...

Motors also have loads and friction. The earth has almost no friction, and so if there were a driving force for it, it should speed up over time, not maintain a constant rotation rate. And in fact, the earth's rotation is slowing down (because the drag isn't zero - it comes from tidal friction with the moon), though at a very slow rate.

Furthermore, the combination of magnetic fields and currents don't always act like a motor. Often times, they act like a brake. So naive comparisons like this aren't a good way of predicting what the actual behavior will be.
 
Aaargh! Will there never be an astrophysics thread at JREF which isn't hijacked by this same cut-and-paste posting from the same fringe theory?

BAC, plasmas can't account for rotation curves, no matter how strong you make the fields and how dense you make the plasmas. Why not? Because there are a zillion objects of different types orbiting galaxies in different directions. If there's a Galactic electromagnetic field pushing on stars, then it pushes on the star's charges, solar winds, and magnetic fields. Neutron stars, white dwarfs, black holes, main-sequence stars (from T-Tauri to Wolf-Rayet to O to red giant), binary stars, planetary nebulae, gas clouds, and so on ... they all have the same centripetal acceleration. In your theory, then, they all have to have the same charge to mass ratio. Utter baloney. Stars orbiting in the main Galactic disk have the same centripetal acceleration as stars going perpendicularly through the halo. In elliptical galaxies, there's no well-oriented plane---so stars orbit every which way. There's no way for F = v x B + q E to account for that. Period.

Ditto on galaxy cluster scales. What fields do you have to plug in to, say, NGC 4889, to make Plasma Cosmology explain its rotation curve? How about NGC 4874? OK, then, good luck explaining why these two galaxies are themselves bound to the Coma Cluster, and why the intergalactic magnetic fields, or whatever, magically happens to make this attraction look like Dark Matter. Oh, and Coma Cluster orbits are isotropic. Please specify the electric and magnetic field vector directions, and show where the current sources are, which explain these orbits.

You can't. You never will. You'll just post another picture of a solar flare, wind, or a magnetosheath and say, "look, plasmas exist!" "Look, the Sun has something to do with plasma!" and draw the unnecessary conclusion "Look, plasmas explain everything!" for the dozenth time.

Please go away. Look, we were talking about dark matter---say, did anyone see the new ACBAR microwave-background results? Incredibly good agreement with standard cosmology out to L=2500. Check it out: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0801.1491 especially figure 5 and 6 on page 11. Wow.
 
Ziggurat said:
No.



Motors also have loads and friction. The earth has almost no friction, and so if there were a driving force for it, it should speed up over time, not maintain a constant rotation rate. And in fact, the earth's rotation is slowing down (because the drag isn't zero - it comes from tidal friction with the moon), though at a very slow rate.

Furthermore, the combination of magnetic fields and currents don't always act like a motor. Often times, they act like a brake. So naive comparisons like this aren't a good way of predicting what the actual behavior will be.
Click to expand...

Could not the outer crust of the earth be considered the core's (motors) load and friction. Seems a base would be established with a constant load and a constant magnetic field (EMF), leading to a constant day (excepting tides et al)
As for the forces possibly acting as a brake, does that not presume that they possibly are not as well?
 
Tumbleweed said:
Could not the outer crust of the earth be considered the core's (motors) load and friction.
Click to expand...

No.

As for the forces possibly acting as a brake, does that not presume that they possibly are not as well?
Click to expand...

No.

There is no mystery for why the earth spins, and it's got nothing to do with electromagnetism and everything to do with conservation of angular momentum. Any explanation you come up with to explain a mystery which doesn't exist is going to be nonsensical.
 
Smackety said:
I thought the 90% dark matter mass number was an estimate of the size of the black hole in the center of the galaxy?
Click to expand...

No. Extra mass in the center of the galaxy does not solve the rotation curve problem. Mainstream theorists assume need vast amounts of extra mass in the outer regions and beyond of galaxies to make the rotation curves look right. And almost all of it is not ordinary matter but something quite bizarre which they haven't yet (after 30 years and spending billions of YOUR dollars) been able to identify. :)
 
Yes, but finding out about that dark matter is worth trillions! No matter how much money is sucked out of the national budget, it will be worth it. Because we have to know.
 
It's ironic that the woos here are complaining about the cost of dark matter searches. DM detection experiments (at least the ones I know of) are extremely cheap - they make up a tiny drop in the bucket of federal funding for physics research.

Basically they consist of a chunk of some material or fluid with a sensitive detector hooked up to it that looks for energy being deposited. They're often located at the bottom of (pre-existing) mine shafts where the backgrounds are smallest.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
There is no mystery for why the earth spins, and it's got nothing to do with electromagnetism and everything to do with conservation of angular momentum. Any explanation you come up with to explain a mystery which doesn't exist is going to be nonsensical.
Click to expand...

This was the best explanation I could find to explain why the Earth spins:
"The Earth spins on its axis because of conservation of angular momentum. The classic example of this is a figure skater. When a figure skater pulls in her arms, she spins faster. The Earth formed when gas left over from making the Sun condensed into the planets. As this gas cooled and condensed, it started to spin faster. Now that it is spinning (and not condensing any more), it will keep spinning at a steady rate unless something stops it."

From what I remember reading somewhere, the arguement with this theory is:
1. If the Earth was formed by a gaseous cloud, what caused that cloud to spin to begin with and
2. Isn't there an alternate theory that states the Earth formed from the collision of numerous asteroids and not from a gaseous cloud? Hence no spinning like a skater from condensing?
If #2 is correct, would not a different theory be needed?
 
sol invictus said:
DM detection experiments (at least the ones I know of) are extremely cheap - they make up a tiny drop in the bucket of federal funding for physics research.

Basically they consist of a chunk of some material or fluid with a sensitive detector hooked up to it that looks for energy being deposited. They're often located at the bottom of (pre-existing) mine shafts where the backgrounds are smallest.
Click to expand...

Dark matter research gets major funding boost
Wednesday February 06, 2008
A project aimed at discovering the nature of the universe has received $18 million in Ontario government funding.

The funding will go to astrophysics professor and lead researcher Anthony Noble, Canada Research Chair in Particle Astrophysics, to fund ongoing research in SNOLAB, the world’s deepest underground laboratory near Sudbury

“I am extremely delighted by the success of this terrific projectn, says Vice Principal (Research) Kerry Rowe. “We sincerely thank the Ontario government for the financial support from the Ontario Research Fund that recognizes research excellence.

This funding will allow Queen’s to move to a new level of cutting-edge research in astroparticle physics by supporting direct and indirect operational costs.”

The funding will go to astrophysics professor and lead researcher Anthony Noble, Canada Research Chair in Particle Astrophysics, to fund ongoing research in SNOLAB, the world’s deepest underground laboratory near Sudbury.
Click to expand...
http://qnc.queensu.ca/story_loader.php?id=47aa0d1b808a5
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
The thing is, nothing close to us, in any way, shows evidence for dark matter/dark energy. Which also brings up the obvious question. If 90% of the mass is invisible mythical dark "stuff", why doesn't it effect anything nearby? That much mass would be in our solar system, between us and the nearest stars, everywhere. Why no gravitational problems with those systems?
Click to expand...

That is rather a gross mis-statement. Gravity is a very large scale force. There appears to be more gravitational attraction than current theory allows for.

Go out and look at the Andromeda galaxy, if you could see it turn then the rate of revolution of the stars around the center is at a speed that would say there is more gravity than the visible material.

Could be anything we cant see that warps space time.

Like black holes.

It does effect us, very much all the time, but like neutrinos it is a matter of scale.
 
arthwollipot said:
This is a remarkably short-sighted view of science. Relativity seemed crazy at the time.
Click to expand...

But Einstein didn't ignore electromagnetism as mainstream astrophysicists seem intent on doing (in the case of rotation curves, for instance). In fact, he paid a great deal of attention to electromagnetism. In fact, his theory of Relatively stemmed from observations involving electromagnetic phenomena. And he made sure he showed his theory was compatible with electromagnetic theory. Mainstream astrophysicists are not doing that.

arthwollipot said:
And before you go and grab a rope, let me just say that superstring theory is still the leading candidate for a quantum theory of gravity.
Click to expand...

Lee Smolin in his recent book "The Trouble With Physics" made a good case, without realizing it, that string theorists have gone off the mathematical deep end, just like mainstream astrophysicists.

arthwollipot said:
Okay, I've brought up superstring theory. I'll go get my flameproof underwear now.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Tumbleweed said:
From what I remember reading somewhere, the arguement with this theory is:
1. If the Earth was formed by a gaseous cloud, what caused that cloud to spin to begin with
Click to expand...

Electric theories don't help there. On earth, motors spin because they have something to spin against. But in space, you can only start something spinning in one direction by spinning something else in the other direction. But everything within the solar system is spinning the same direction. And it's doing that because the material it all condensed from had angular momentum in one direction.

But it started out with angular momentum because fluctuations early in the universe created local imbalances in angular momentum.

2. Isn't there an alternate theory that states the Earth formed from the collision of numerous asteroids and not from a gaseous cloud? Hence no spinning like a skater from condensing?
Click to expand...

Doesn't make any difference. Whether you're concentrating that mass from a gas, dust, or lots of rocks, the basic effect is identical.
 
robinson said:
Dark matter research gets major funding boost
Wednesday February 06, 2008

http://qnc.queensu.ca/story_loader.php?id=47aa0d1b808a5
Click to expand...

First of all, $18m Canadian is a small amount of money on the scale of these things, especially spread over many years (which is almost certainly the case here).

Secondly, the primary experiment there is a neutrino detector (which has already produced very interesting results, by the way). Noble's research is focused on neutrinos.

There are also two (cheap) dark matter experiments in the same shaft, and a seismic detection station.

Go away, troll.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
In the post I replied to, you linked to two PDF's. Only the first was a published article. And neither source lists the magnetic fields used for or derived from their simulations.
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read the 1998 article I linked from Astrophysics and Space Science, "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas, Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale"? Apparently not. It states very clearly that papers by him published in 1996 and 1997 contain a complete description of the algorithms and computational parameters. Just a little digging on your part (i.e., looking at the reference list at the end of the article) would have handed you the specifics for these two references:

Peratt, A.L.: 1996, Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas, Advanced Topics on Astrophysical and Space Plasmas, Vol 242, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. (see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Ap&SS.242...93P ).

Peratt, A.L.: 1997, Advances in Numerical Modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas", Astrophys. Space Sci., 252, 93-163.

And if you'd spent 1 minute using your browser you'd have encountered those papers on the web. They, and other peer reviewed papers by Peratt, can be downloaded here:

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers.html

I suggest you download the following 3 articles from that site:

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, APSS 242, 1997 (3.3MB)

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 (2.1MB)

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A .L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 [Adobe annotated edition] (8.3MB)

They should answer any questions you have. If you aren't too lazy to read them. And again, folks, note that NOT ONE peer reviewed article by mainstream astrophysicists was published challenging the specifics of this model or it's results. They simply ignored it.

By the way, Ziggorat, note this statement in the conclusion section of the first paper: "Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state." I mention it so you don't try to again argue it's mostly neutral gas. :D

And you might also want to download these from the above link:

Guest Editorial Sixth Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt and C.-G. Fälthammer, December 2003 (1.4MB)

Guest Editorial Seventh Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt and T. E. Eastman, August 2007 (3 MB)

They show that Peratt and other experts in plasma and electromagnetism haven't just gone away since 1998. They are still out there, publishing in peer reviewed journals of the IEEE, and still being ignored by mainstream astrophysicists. You see, folks, there are other known electromagnetic phenomena in plasmas that mainstream astrophysicists are simply ignoring. The plasma focus (z-pinch) they mention is one. :)

And you want some other peer reviewed articles by Peratt that were just ignored by Big Bang supporting mainstream astronomers and astrophysicists? Here:

Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 3-11, A. L. Peratt, 1995.

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103, A. L. Peratt, 1996.

Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 97-107, A. L. Peratt, 1995.

Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 167-173, A. L. Peratt, 1995.

Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253, A. L. Peratt, 1995.

And by the way, Ziggurat ... you and the other naysayers might find this a very disconcerting development:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503657 "Astronomy & Astrophysics, September 12, 2006, Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?, E. Battaner and E. Florido, Abstract: Following the model of magnetically supported rotation of spiral galaxies, the inner disk rotation is dominated by gravity but magnetism is not negligible at radii where the rotation curve becomes flat, and indeed becomes dominant at very large radii. ... snip ... This magnetic alternative requires neither galactic dark matter (DM) nor modification of fundamental laws of physics ... snip ... Recent data about regular magnetic fields in spiral galaxies have been presented by Beck (2004b) in a recent review that clearly confirms what is to be expected in the magnetic scenario for rotation curves ... snip ... The magnetic alternative remains a serious, competitive theory. It requires neither the existence of DM nor the modification of classical laws (including General Relativity). It is based on MHD, a relatively recent chapter of Astrophysics, but one that has roots in classical electro-magnetism. ... snip ... the inclusion of magnetic effects, which is in any case necessary, could help to theoretically reproduce some unexplained, well known facts, for example, the rotation curve. Gravity alone does not explain the rotation curve very well, simply because magnetic fields cannot be ignored. ... snip ... The dynamic role of galactic magnetic fields is a matter that can no longer be ignored, neither at the small nor at the large scale."

Because where there are magnetic fields, there are electric currents. And the above is NOT inconsistent with Alfven and Peratt's model or numbers. :D
 
Ziggurat said:
BAC doesn't believe in the Big Bang, and thinks that an "electric universe" model can produce an infinitely old universe. He also thinks that the sun is powered by electricity and not by fusion.
Click to expand...

Don't misquote me Ziggurat.

I have not stated I believe in an infinitely old universe ... just that the observations appear to suggest it must be much older than what the mainstream, Big Bang supporting community claims. And I've cited source after source and observation after observation to prove it. I've even cited mainstream astrophysicists admitting that there just isn't enough time for some of the observed structures to have been formed and it's "back to the drawing board." And your side's response has been been to ignore the problem. Par for the course with you Big Bang advocates.

I also have not stated with 100% certainty that I believe the sun is powered by electricity. What I've offered are a number of sourced observations that strongly suggest the gravity only, fusion model doesn't work ... not without introducing various gnomes to explain phenomena and even then many unanswered questions remain (such as why the Voyager spacecraft are behaving the way they are). An electric model would readily explain these phenomena and even offer a reasonable explanation for phenomena that even the mainstream's gnomes don't explain.

An electric model might not only explain observations on the sun but produce a consistent explanation for various observed stellar phenomena that the mainstream astrophysicists continue to struggle with ... even after introducing additional unproven gnomes. Even the HR diagram and the observation that stars have been observed to rapidly change locations on it (a serious problem for mainstream theorists) can be easily explained with an electric model. And if the rotation curves of galaxies can be explained with a model like Peratt's, then that suggests there are large currents flowing through interstellar space which might drive an electric star model. Ergo, the possibility shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand.

And whether the sun is electric or not, there still are electromagnetic phenomena that mainstream astrophysicists are just ignoring when it comes to the sun. Birkeland currents. Double layers. Explosive double layers. z-pinches. I think your side is afraid that if you open the door even a crack to electromagnetic explanations, your precious Big Bang theory will be at risk. And there are now too many jobs, reputations, and Big Science projects relying on that gnome to risk that. :)

Ziggurat said:
The planets' orbits are very well explained by gravity alone.
Click to expand...

Except that gravity-only mainstream astronomers have to invoke gnomes to get the angular momentum of the solar system to look like it does. While Alfven and Arrehnius supplied an electromagnetic solution to this more than 30 years ago. And Ziggurat also fails to mention that mainstream astrophysicists have many ongoing problems with their gravity only model. For example:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060328_gas_giant.html "Death Spiral: Why Theorists Can't Make Solar Systems, Ker Than, 8 March 2006 ... snip ... According to the standard model of planet formation, called "core accretion," planets form over millions of years as enormous blocks of rock and ice smash together to form planetary embryos, called "protoplanets," and eventually full-fledged planets. Most scientists agree that core accretion is how terrestrial planets such as Earth and Mars were created, but the model can't convincingly explain how gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn came to be. One major problem is that developing gas giants through core accretion takes too long. According to the best current models, the process requires several million years-longer than the typical observed lifetime of the stellar gas disks from which planets are born. The other main difficulty is the so-called "migration" problem. Protoplanets are not sitting stationary in the gas disks as they bulk up. Due to gravitational interactions with the disks, the protoplanets swirl rapidly inwards toward their central stars in what scientists call "Type 1" migration. Models predict that this death spiral can take as little as 100,000 years. This so-called "migration" problem is the toughest challenge facing theorists trying to explain gas giant formation through core accretion, said Alan Boss, a planet formation expert at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. "The migration problem is scary," Boss told SPACE.com. "[The models] are off by a factor of 10 or 100, so you really have to wonder if there's going to be a solution here."
 
BeAChooser said:
Don't misquote me Ziggurat.

I have not stated I believe in an infinitely old universe ... just that the observations appear to suggest it must be much older than what the mainstream, Big Bang supporting community claims.
Click to expand...

I've asked you before how old you think the universe is, and you didn't answer. Considering that so many of the EU folks you refered us to before rambled on about perpetual universe, I consider my assumption about your position to be fair. If you want to correct the record, you are free to do so.

I've even cited mainstream astrophysicists admitting that there just isn't enough time for some of the observed structures to have been formed and it's "back to the drawing board." And your side's response has been been to ignore the problem.
Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself. Again. If they're saying "back to the drawing board" then they aren't ignoring the problems.

I also have not stated with 100% certainty that I believe the sun is powered by electricity.
Click to expand...

But you think it could be. Which means you're clueless. I've already demonstrated why it's impossible. You have yet to show how the requisite charge could possibly be confined. In fact, your previous attempts to do so only revealed that you were pathetically ingorant of basic electrodynamics, the field you say is being ignored. Oh, the irony. You have since abandoned even trying to justify this absurdity, but yet you will not conceed how completely and obviously impossible that scenario is.

What I've offered are a number of sourced observations that strongly suggest the gravity only, fusion model doesn't work
Click to expand...

Strawman. MHD models aren't gravity-only.

An electric model would readily explain these phenomena
Click to expand...

No, it can't. We've been through this before. The limit on the charge of the sun to keep it from exploding is so many orders of magnitude smaller than what would be required to power it that it's not even funny. An electric-powered sun is impossible. Nothing can contain the requisite charge. You have yet to provide any calculations to counter what I have already demonstrated. Because you can't. Because you don't know what you're talking about.

And if the rotation curves of galaxies can be explained with a model like Peratt's, then that suggests there are large currents flowing through interstellar space which might drive an electric star model.
Click to expand...

No, actually, it doesn't suggest that at all. As has already been pointed out, the fact that the rotation rates are the same for all manner of objects suggests that gravity is indeed the driving force.

Ergo, the possibility shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand.
Click to expand...

I didn't dismiss it out of hand. I took the numbers from your source and demonstrated that they don't work, by about 20 orders of magnitude. Come up with better numbers if you want to be taken seriously. But physics is a quantitative science, and you seem to be allergic to actual numbers.
 
BeAChooser said:
Just a little digging on your part (i.e., looking at the reference list at the end of the article) would have handed you the specifics for these two references:
Click to expand...

It's funny, but despite the obvious time you put into quote-mining, you still can't actually pull up any numbers for the strength of the magnetic field that they're proposing. Those are your sources. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase trying to find buried information which might not even be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom