Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

Zeuzzz · Jun 13, 2009

tusenfem said:
For those interested, I managed to get the pdf of Meierovich Equilibrium of a high-current channel in the general theory of relativity. However, I am not sure if I can totally comprehend this paper, as I am not well versed in general relativity any more (what you don't use, you lose). However, I will take a look at it, and distribute it if necessary.

I think that tusenfem is asking for help. And if tusenfem doesn't understand some of the paper, I proably aint gonna be much help either. I dont even have access to it anyway.

Maybe if tusenfem uses shashbox.org to upload the document, and posts the url of the files location at shashbox when its uploaded that would be a good idea for anyone to have a look at it (if its downloadable PDF) If not PM's will have to do.

.......Calling SolInvictus or Ziggurat.....

Anybody in?

tusenfem · Jun 13, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
I think that tusenfem is asking for help. And if tusenfem doesn't understand some of the paper, I proably aint gonna be much help either. I dont even have access to it anyway.

Maybe if tusenfem uses shashbox.org to upload the document, and posts the url of the files location at shashbox when its uploaded that would be a good idea for anyone to have a look at it (if its downloadable PDF) If not PM's will have to do.

.......Calling SolInvictus or Ziggurat.....

Anybody in?

Well, actually, I have had so much work to do, that I did not find time to put some effort in it. It might be over my head, but a first impression is that what is found is just a gravitoelectrodynamic correction to the (let's call it) extended Bennett pinch. Basically, the conclusions say that if the currents are not relativistic (which they clearly are not in the Peratt view) then this relativistic effect does not show up. So, we could care less about this Meierovich paper. Anyone, who wants the paper can always IM me (however, I am out of the office for the next two weeks and don't have the paper on my laptop).

Reality Check · Jun 18, 2009

Dr W.T."Tom" Bridgman has a new blog post on Peratt's model:
Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background

Zeuzzz · Jun 22, 2009

tusenfem said:
Well, actually, I have had so much work to do, that I did not find time to put some effort in it. It might be over my head, but a first impression is that what is found is just a gravitoelectrodynamic correction to the (let's call it) extended Bennett pinch.

Well I find that odd as Peratt used Gravitoelectrodynamics before that paper in other publications.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Gravitoelectrodynamics

I dont have a clue what he's proposed though as I dont the paper.

Reality Check · Jun 22, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Well I find that odd as Peratt used Gravitoelectrodynamics before that paper in other publications.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Gravitoelectrodynamics

I dont have a clue what he's proposed though as I dont the paper.

The real points are that

He never used gravito-electrodynamics in his original papers,
He has never attempted to update his results to include gravito-electrodynamics.
He has never attempted to run his simulation since 1986 (even without gravito-electrodynamics) to take advantage of more powerful computers and better plasma simulation software.

But this is moot - the first fatal flaw in the OP is all anyone needs to falsify his model.

tusenfem · Jun 26, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Well I find that odd as Peratt used Gravitoelectrodynamics before that paper in other publications.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Gravitoelectrodynamics

I dont have a clue what he's proposed though as I dont the paper.

Okay, I used the wrong term I was supposed to say Gravitomagnetic or Gravitoelectromagnetic correction and not just adding gravity to the equation of motion of a charged particle.

you could have pm'ed me to ask if I could send you the paper by email

Ziggurat · Jun 26, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
One would presume that "Equilibrium of High Current Channels in General Relativity." would elaborate further on the relativistic matter you brought up and their findings.

Happy reading (to anyone with the right priveleges)

Equilibrium of a high-current channel in the general theory of relativity Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, Volume 85, Number 2 / August, 1997

I haven't looked at it in any great detail (and see no reason to), but even a cursory reading makes it clear that the inclusion of general relativity makes the gravitational contribution stronger than for the case of Newtonian gravity. He present their previous result (using Newtonian gravity) as equation 9.1, and his final equation (using GR) as 9.10. The difference? An additional positive gravitational term in 9.10 not present in 9.1. I'm not going to bother putting numbers in, but if (as tusenfem showed) gravity dominates in the Newtonian case, it's going to dominate even more in the GR case. At low velocities the difference will be negligible, but it will, in all cases, make gravity stronger than the Newtonian case, not weaker.

Zeuzzz · Jul 2, 2009

Ziggurat said:
I haven't looked at it in any great detail (and see no reason to), but even a cursory reading makes it clear that the inclusion of general relativity makes the gravitational contribution stronger than for the case of Newtonian gravity. He present their previous result (using Newtonian gravity) as equation 9.1, and his final equation (using GR) as 9.10. The difference? An additional positive gravitational term in 9.10 not present in 9.1. I'm not going to bother putting numbers in, but if (as tusenfem showed) gravity dominates in the Newtonian case, it's going to dominate even more in the GR case. At low velocities the difference will be negligible, but it will, in all cases, make gravity stronger than the Newtonian case, not weaker.

Indeed. Thats why the centre of galaxies are so dense, as shown in peratts experiments which match observations quite well. I dont know what point your trying to make by saying that newtonian gravity term may be stronger than the EM component. Can you see any reference in the paper saying that this (if true) falsifies the model in any way? I dont think it does... but i still dont know... as I haven't read it.

Depends on what scales your extrapolating to and which scales you ignore.

wollery · Jul 2, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
I agree, they are the most well respected journals. But, whats your beef with "Astrophysics and Space Science" then?, of which the last four peratt papers were published. They had a pretty good stading last time I checked. Or is the fact that they published his material enough for you to dismiss them as only publishing nonsense?

Well, impact factors are a very good indicator of how seriously a journal is taken in the community, and, by extension, how seriously it should be taken. Journals with low impact factors are less read than those with high impact factors, and tend to attract less rigorous work. This is because they usually have lower peer review standards in order to get people to submit papers to them. I mean, why would anyone submit to a low impact journal, which is unlikely to be read or cited, if their work was good enough to be accepted by a high impact journal, where it will be read by everyone in the field and cited a lot? After all, grant applications are often judged by the applicant's citation history. Good work will be cited a lot more than bad work. (Self citation is usually ignored for these purposes)

So, let's have a look at the impact factors for ASS, MNRAS and A&A;

Oops. That's a very low impact factor. More of a quiet sploosh than an impact.

Data courtesy of the Journal Info website - http://jinfo.lub.lu.se

Reality Check · Jul 2, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Indeed. Thats why the centre of galaxies are so dense, as shown in peratts experiments which match observations quite well. I dont know what point your trying to make by saying that newtonian gravity term may be stronger than the EM component. Can you see any reference in the paper saying that this (if true) falsifies the model in any way? I dont think it does... but i still dont know... as I haven't read it.

Depends on what scales your extrapolating to and which scales you ignore.

Peratt's experiments do not match observations at all.

One more time Zeuzzz:
Perrat compared the locations of his plasma particles (essentially a mass distribution) with optical images. But...
Spiral galaxies do not have their mass distributed as their photographs suggest.
The gaps between their spiral arms are not empty as in Peratt's results.
The gaps between their spiral arms do not have a density of ~10% of the arms - taking a generous guess at the density difference from Peratt's papers.

The gaps between their spiral arms have a density of 10-20% less than the arms.
Peratt's maps should have been disks with slightly lighter areas for the gaps.

The match with double lobe radio galaxies is even worse since these are hosted in elliptical galaxies - their mass distribution is a disk without density variations. But I do not know when the type of host galaxy was established so an old paper like Perrat's (published in 1986) might just be based on old information.

The gravitational term being > the EM term s relevant because Perrat ignored gravity in his 1986 papers!
Thus this paper shows that his 1986 computer simulations were not a model of reality (as if the actual results were not a clue

).

Zeuzzz · Jul 2, 2009

tusenfem said:
you could have pm'ed me to ask if I could send you the paper by email

Done.

Zeuzzz · Jul 2, 2009

Reality Check said:
One more time Zeuzzz:
Perrat compared the locations of his plasma particles (essentially a mass distribution) with optical images. But...
Spiral galaxies do not have their mass distributed as their photographs suggest.
The gaps between their spiral arms are not empty as in Peratt's results.
The gaps between their spiral arms do not have a density of ~10% of the arms - taking a generous guess at the density difference from Peratt's papers.

Okay fair enough. Peratts model is totally wrong then. As I said before:

Zeuzzz said:
But hey, PC (Lerner [1980-95] + Peratt) is pretty much dead. I spoke with Lerner the other day on his fusion forum, he acknowledged this himself

.....or

Taking into consideration occams razor you could consider the fact that Peratt has one clever model that explains a lot of phenomenon very well. The explanation for the densities inbetween arms on the other hand uses a plethora of models and explanations to explain the interstellar densities. The simplest theory that explains the most phenomenon should win.

I think that its important to consider the fact that interstellar space is ionized and thus (though not in all conditions) a plasma. The exact ionization state of the local interstellar medium still remains uncertain even to this day. Yes theres GHRS measurements and other methods, most of which imply a very high hydrogen ionization fraction. But lack a reason underlying this ionization. The temp and density of the ISM are already known to change on small distance scales (Linsky & Wood 1996; Piskunov et al. 1997) further implying the filamentary structure to the ISM impled by PC theories, and average density measurements can ofetn be very misleading when this is considered. For me the most plausable explanation is that put forward by Verschuur and Peratt (THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, 118:1252-1267) and (Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on, Observation of the CIV effect in interstellar clouds: a speculationon the physical mechanism for their existence) also (The Astronomical Journal, 127:394–407, 2004 January)

We regard the coincidence between the magnitudes of the CIVs for common interstellar atoms and H I line width regimes discussed above as more than fortuitous and in a subsequent paper will conclude that H I profile shapes are affected by the CIV phenomenon in interstellar space. This implies the existence of a previously unrecognized source of ionization that needs to be taken into account in the study of interstellar gasdynamics, physics, and chemistry.[....]

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

The gravitational term being > the EM term s relevant because Perrat ignored gravity in his 1986 papers!
Thus this paper shows that his 1986 computer simulations were not a model of reality (as if the actual results were not a clue ).

I dont care about old papers really, there are more recent ones that we are discussing that will have developed the ideas since the ones decades old. Do you have access to the paper? What were the conclusions? I'll hopefully have it soon.

Reality Check · Jul 2, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Okay fair enough. Peratts model is totally wrong then. As I said before:
.....or

Taking into consideration occams razor you could consider the fact that Peratt has one clever model that explains a lot of phenomenon very well. The explanation for the densities inbetween arms on the other hand uses a plethora of models and explanations to explain the interstellar densities. The simplest theory that explains the most phenomenon should win.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Peratt's "one clever model" of galaxy formation is wrong (explains no phenomenon correctly) and so it does not matter what occams razor says about it.

Zeuzzz said:
...snipped off topic stuff...
I dont care about old papers really, there are more recent ones that we are discussing that will have developed the ideas since the ones decades old. Do you have access to the paper? What were the conclusions? I'll hopefully have it soon.

What paper?
Is this the one where Peratt adds gravity to his model and runs the computer simulations again?
Or is is a more recent paper by some other author that takes Peratt's broken plasma model and fixes it somehow?

But if this is the previously mentioned gravito-electrodynamics paper:
If you want to discuss gravito-electrodynamics then I suggest that you start a new thread rather then derailing this thread.

ETA:
The "explains no phenomenon correctly" above was a bit hasty. It should be that his model has not been confirmed to explain any phenomenona correctly. That is because any competent astronomer has seen the basic mass/light comparison mistake and not bothered to read any further. This also explains the lack of citations for his papers on the model.

The only thing that I (as a non-astronomer) think that his model got right is the velocity curves from his wrongly shaped galaxies. The problem is that his model works "without the need of dark matter" and the existence of dark matter is observational fact now. When his paper was published the existence of dark matter within galactic clusters had been established. But they could have been excluded from galaxies somehow (as MACHOs?). Now we have gravitational lensing maps of galactic clusters that show dark matter as a background to the entire cluster, including galaxies.

ETA2:
You need to read up on occams razor , especially the bit about the application to the scientific method.
Even if you apply it you have to apply it to each theory in the "plethora of models and explanations" not to the set of theories as a whole. Since Peratt's theory is does not explain any of the structure of galaxies, one of the other theories must be correct (scientific method) and the one that postulates the fewest entities is probably the correct one (Occam's Razor).

Zeuzzz · Jul 4, 2009

wollery said:
Well, impact factors are a very good indicator of how seriously a journal is taken in the community

Precisely, and this work is obviously underapprectied. As your post clearly shows.

So, let's have a look at the impact factors for ASS, MNRAS and A&A;

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/9574a4c0cb73dfc1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/9574a4c0cb752863.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/9574a4c0cb75fc74.jpg[/qimg]

Oops. That's a very low impact factor. More of a quiet sploosh than an impact.

Data courtesy of the Journal Info website - http://jinfo.lub.lu.se

Whether impact factors are an accurate indicator of the accuracy of the material is a materr of debate. I know of no such peer reviewed refutations of the work, unless JREF forum is peer reviewed.

Zeuzzz · Jul 5, 2009

Uploaded the paper on relativity and Peratts model to stashbox for anyone interested: http://stashbox.org/560708/JETP_85_209-216_1997_relativity.pdf Haven't had the time to read it in its entirety but there she be for anyone else to ponder over...

Reality Check · Jul 5, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Precisely, and this work is obviously underapprectied. As your post clearly shows.

Whether impact factors are an accurate indicator of the accuracy of the material is a materr of debate. I know of no such peer reviewed refutations of the work, unless JREF forum is peer reviewed.

Impact factors have no effect on whether a work is "underapprectied" or accurate.
They are an indication of the possibility that a work will be peer reviewed by peers (e.g. an astronomy paper should be peer reviewed by astronomers). The fact that Anthony Peratt chose to publish in lower impact journals means

It is less likely that the papers were competently peer reviewed before publication.
It is less likely that they will be peer reviewed after publication because the peers are not reading them.

The fact that there are no "reviewed refutations of the work" is a good indication that the few professional astronomers who read his papers have quickly determined not to waste their time on such an obviously wrong work.

Astroman · Jul 31, 2010

It doesn't take much to figure out that Peratt and Co obviously have very little clue to what they're actually talking about. Another forum I am on is going through the same process of having to sort out this precise nonsense with the same topic. Quite frankly, it's come to the point where these rabidly zealous proselytes of dodgy science (at its best) are being ignored, except by those silly enough to take any notice. Their behaviour in pushing their brand of reality verges on the fanatical and then they have the hide to label anyone else who disagrees with their drivel the same. A case of the pot calling the kettle black. I suppose though, when you have inspirations of the likes of David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill and Eric Lerner anything is possible.

Siggy_G · Aug 6, 2010

Saying that Anthony Peratt has very little clue to what he's talking about is quite ad hoc and ignorant about his background and research, to say the least. Do a google search for "Anthony Peratt biography". (As a new user, I'm not allowed to post URL links yet).

Now, the Peratt galaxy model of 1986 is a genuine approach to explain galaxy formation in the context of plasma behavior. He used both computer simulations (of 1986...) and laboratory experiments to elaborate on the model. His theoretical work is also based on respected work and math of Hannes Alfven, Per Carlquivst, W. Bennet and other plasma physicists.

Whether the modeling didn't end up having enough parameters or would need further work, is not equivalent of not having used a proper scientific method. Gravity driven models have also changed since the 80s (hypothetical factors included), as new paradoxical observations ticked in. Accretion disk models or the Big Bang theory hasn't gone out the window for that reason. We say that the theory or model needs further work. I don't think Peratt's model was intended as a final Theory of Everything, as some of you seem to expect.

It should be a curious and important aspect to astrophysics that plasma filaments (Birkeland currents) can interact in the ways Peratt demonstrated. When we know that most of the matter in the universe is in the plasma state (including interplanetary and intergalactic medium), and that each star is engulfed in a magnetic bubble (i.e. heliosphere), it beats me that plasma interactions at galactic scales aren't researched more extensively. Hereby, when viewing space as plasma in various densities, it is evident that filamentary electric currents occur (with magnetic fields as co-product), that can pinch into more concentrated objects (read: Bennet pinch and Marklund convection). Bringing dusty plasma interactions and objects of higher mass values into the dynamics, will be an extension for a more advanced model.

I'll try to elaborate further on the model and possible extended research in an upcoming post.

Astroman · Aug 6, 2010

Siggy_G said:
Saying that Anthony Peratt has very little clue to what he's talking about is quite ad hoc and ignorant about his background and research, to say the least. Do a google search for "Anthony Peratt biography". (As a new user, I'm not allowed to post URL links yet).

Now, the Peratt galaxy model of 1986 is a genuine approach to explain galaxy formation in the context of plasma behavior. He used both computer simulations (of 1986...) and laboratory experiments to elaborate on the model. His theoretical work is also based on respected work and math of Hannes Alfven, Per Carlquivst, W. Bennet and other plasma physicists.

Whether the modeling didn't end up having enough parameters or would need further work, is not equivalent of not having used a proper scientific method. Gravity driven models have also changed since the 80s (hypothetical factors included), as new paradoxical observations ticked in. Accretion disk models or the Big Bang theory hasn't gone out the window for that reason. We say that the theory or model needs further work. I don't think Peratt's model was intended as a final Theory of Everything, as some of you seem to expect.

It should be a curious and important aspect to astrophysics that plasma filaments (Birkeland currents) can interact in the ways Peratt demonstrated. When we know that most of the matter in the universe is in the plasma state (including interplanetary and intergalactic medium), and that each star is engulfed in a magnetic bubble (i.e. heliosphere), it beats me that plasma interactions at galactic scales aren't researched more extensively. Hereby, when viewing space as plasma in various densities, it is evident that filamentary electric currents occur (with magnetic fields as co-product), that can pinch into more concentrated objects (read: Bennet pinch and Marklund convection). Bringing dusty plasma interactions and objects of higher mass values into the dynamics, will be an extension for a more advanced model.

I'll try to elaborate further on the model and possible extended research in an upcoming post.

Another Electric Universe devotee...I see. Not only am I aware of who Anthony Peratt is and what his "research" at present is in, I also know where he publishes his "findings" and why he publishes there. If his theories held any veracity at all, then how come he hasn't published his articles in more rigorously peer reviewed journals such as ApJ, MNRAS, AJ or the like. I can tell you why he publishes in journals such as IEEE Trans Plasma Sci, APSS and the like. Because they're the only journals this sort of rubbish that he so diligently researches would be published in....by dint of the fact that they're solely concerned with plasma science/engineering and that he has a good reputation in the field. But, he is not an astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist, particle physicist, geologist or any other "ist". He is basically an electrical engineer with an interest in plasma physics. Most astronomers and even other physicists wouldn't even read these journals because they have little or no relevance to their own fields of study, except where they can be applied to those fields. I can tell you now that plasma science is quite a legitimate and very well studied area within astronomy, but the sort of pseudoscientific fantasy the has been promoted by him, Talbott, Lerner, Thornhill and others has no place in any area of science. Where Peratt has published in an astronomical journal, it's been in the one where peer review and citation is rather lacking...as has been made abundantly clear in previous posts in this thread. You can quote from as many articles as you like, cherry pick journal papers to try and prove your ideas as having some sort of scientific currency (and usually taking what was said in those papers entirely out of context), it makes no difference. Any competent scientist or any lay person with even a modicum of scientific training in any of the fields mentioned would see through the nonsense that's being promulgated. There's nothing wrong with having alternative ideas or theories about anything in science, but those alternatives have to be based on sound scientific principles and sense. Not some fantasy based on a bad confabulation and misunderstanding of science and wanting to believe in some alternative based of even badly contrived ideas of catastrophism and semi religious rantings.

Peratt needs to stick to plasma physics and electrical engineering, which he's good at and leave the rest of science to those that know something about it.

Plasma Science has its place in astronomy, no doubt. But not in the way you might think of it as being in. In the right contexts and at the right scales, yes, but not in what you and your fellows seem to believe.

Dancing David · Aug 6, 2010

Welcome to the Forum.

Siggy_G said:
Saying that Anthony Peratt has very little clue to what he's talking about is quite ad hoc and ignorant about his background and research, to say the least. Do a google search for "Anthony Peratt biography". (As a new user, I'm not allowed to post URL links yet).

Excuse me, it is not A. Peratt's credientials or work taht is the issue.

The issue is that his galaxy plasma formation model fails in a number of ways, first off the magnetic field strengths in his experiments have no bearing on reality (in astrophysics).

Then you have the obvious places where the model falls apart because it just does not match the behavior of the universe.

Now the last and more important problem is the silly people who insist the model works when it doesn't.

Now, the Peratt galaxy model of 1986 is a genuine approach to explain galaxy formation in the context of plasma behavior. He used both computer simulations (of 1986...) and laboratory experiments to elaborate on the model. His theoretical work is also based on respected work and math of Hannes Alfven, Per Carlquivst, W. Bennet and other plasma physicists. \

Except for certain problems, like the charges, feild strength and composition that are actually seen in reality, that apparently you are ignoring.

Whether the modeling didn't end up having enough parameters or would need further work, is not equivalent of not having used a proper scientific method. Gravity driven models have also changed since the 80s (hypothetical factors included), as new paradoxical observations ticked in. Accretion disk models or the Big Bang theory hasn't gone out the window for that reason. We say that the theory or model needs further work. I don't think Peratt's model was intended as a final Theory of Everything, as some of you seem to expect.

Nope the model falls down in that it does not match the behavior of the universe.

It should be a curious and important aspect to astrophysics that plasma filaments (Birkeland currents) can interact in the ways Peratt demonstrated.

Uh huh, in your imagination, where are they visible in the universe and at what scales?

When we know that most of the matter in the universe is in the plasma state (including interplanetary and intergalactic medium), and that each star is engulfed in a magnetic bubble (i.e. heliosphere), it beats me that plasma interactions at galactic scales aren't researched more extensively.

Excuse me your fanatic side is showing, there are thousands of people doing research into plasma physics in the universe, they just happen to disagree with you.

Hereby, when viewing space as plasma in various densities, it is evident that filamentary electric currents occur (with magnetic fields as co-product), that can pinch into more concentrated objects (read: Bennet pinch and Marklund convection). Bringing dusty plasma interactions and objects of higher mass values into the dynamics, will be an extension for a more advanced model.

In your imagination, these things are not what makes stars or galaxies.

I'll try to elaborate further on the model and possible extended research in an upcoming post.

Bring on the data!

Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

New Blood

Scholar

New Blood

Penultimate Amazing

Share this page

ISF - Join now!