Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

 Notices IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar. Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer. If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email. NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags Anthony Peratt

 3rd June 2009, 05:54 PM #3 DeiRenDopa Master Poster   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,582 OK Z, please point out which of the post-1986 papers in your list contain presentations of new material that relates directly to Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation, and which is built on new simulations, or new runs with the same simulations. You see, I think I've read every paper which cites the 1986 Peratt ones, and none contain any new material; of course, I may have missed something, so please, take your time and respond to my post thoughtfully. BTW, in case anyone is wondering how Peratt arrived at ~35 kpc as the width of these plasma filaments, the reason is quite interesting, and in turn is one reason why no one has taken his idea very seriously. You see, Peratt, following Alfvén, created a model based solely on plasma scaling relationships, and used estimates for a small number of observed quantities to tie the model down. Having done that, the characteristic width of the filaments falls out automatically, as ~35 kpc. One corollary of this is that ANY well-observed quantity which is quite inconsistent with what Peratt's model predicts is enough to kill the whole model (there are essentially no free parameters) ... and, as RC has pointed out, there is not just one such well-observed quantity, not just two, ... but rather a large number of them. (As an aside: if Peratt had done his astronomy homework, he'd have realised this before he submitted the paper for publication, and either dropped it or made extensive modifications; too, if he'd submitted it to a journal such as ApJ, I'm sure the reviewers would have had quite a few recommendations re changes needed before giving an 'OK' to the editor).
 3rd June 2009, 05:55 PM #4 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 17,718 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Errr, wrong. There are more, and more recent ones. Those are infact pretty old now, there are many more that you missed, published and peer reviewed in other journals too. From my recent post in the plasma cosmology thread: Btw, haven't actually fully read your post yet. Not really got the time or the will to get into this again. My thoughts on Peratts model are here for all to see in the plasma cosmology thread. And no, its not essentail to PC that its correct. Just as one might consider some of the various competing theories that are written within the LCDM cosmological framework. Its just best to have all the info and papers here for others to see before people start the inevitable. There are more recent papers as in your list but Peratt's original computer simulations have never been reported as repeated. If you have citations to papers that repeat the simulations and fix the flaws (e.g. do not predict that spiral galaxies are actual spirals rather than the observed disk + bulge) then I would be interested. I agree that Peratt's theory is not essential to PC. None of the theories (dozens of theories?) in PC is essential. The point of this thread is the inability of PC proponents to grasp the obvious flaws in Peratt's model and to provide a single resource to point lurkers to. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 4th June 2009, 05:13 AM #5 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 37,511 Zeuzzz, is that it, just a spam and run post? Argument by fact attrition? __________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
 4th June 2009, 05:37 AM #6 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,795 Interstingly, the "new" papers by Peratt all show the same "old" simulations. But then Peratt was probably busy writing his book and organizing IEEE meetings. I will re-read some of the papers, before I continue here. __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom) follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
 4th June 2009, 05:54 PM #7 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 975 Skip the PC thread Originally Posted by Zeuzzz My thoughts on Peratts model are here for all to see in the plasma cosmology thread. Screw the "plasma cosmology thread". It is totally contaminated by the long discussions of Sol88's nonsense. If you have something to say about this topic, say it here, not there. Nobody will see it there, but it might get attention here, if you can keep Sol88 from ruining this thread as well. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
 5th June 2009, 03:03 AM #9 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,795 Well, I spend (wasted) some time reading "the later paper" by Peratt (well at least the first part), to see whether there was something new. But, as expected there was not. It's the particle beams paper from 1988 (maybe not that much "later" but anywho). What is a total puzzle to me, is the shear size of the current "filaments" that he is using, the 35 kpc wide and 3.5 Gpc long, with a total current of 1019 Amps. Now, this current represents a current density of 3 10-24 A/m2, really a weeeee current density, representing 2 10-5 electrons/m2 s. In the simulation the plasma density is 1.79 10-3 cm-3 (why exactly THAT number ...???), however, this gives us the drift velocity of the electrons (don't forget the 106 from cc to m3) 10-8 m/s. Now, according to the table the temperature of the plasma is 2 - 32 eV, so assuming Ti = Te (as there is no mention which temp is used) we find a thermal velocity of 8 - 30 105 m/s. Now, I have no problem with very small drift velocities to create currents, but this cannot be taken seriously anymore. There is a paper (again IEEE) in which I thought they (Meierovich & Peratt) were going to do something real "Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents", where they basically add a gravitational potential to the system of particles. A bit of a schoolbook example, and they show, as could be expected, that you can describe the system (again these 35 kpc "filaments") also when you include gravity and get a formula, basically describing the Bennett pinch including gravity. The only conclusion they reach, however, is that if you include gravity and then in the end say that the gravitational potential is much smaller than the electric one, you can reduce the result to the normal Bennett pinch. Now what is interesting at the end of the paper is that they did it "relativistically," i.e. they write the velocity as β (however, they never define β in the paper, but is it clear it is v/c). We just determined v as 10-8 m/s, so we can plug in the numbers in the left hand side of their Eq. 12: plasma term: $0.5 e_e^2 N_e^2 \beta^2 \rightarrow 4.5 \times 10^{-65}$ grav. term: $0.5 G (m_i N_i + m_e N_e)^2 \rightarrow 2.9 \times 10^{-58}$ Now, there is only one strange thing happening in the beginning, when expressing the number density n as a function of the total potential, and N as used above is actually the number of particles per unit length of the "filament" but as N2 is in both terms, it does not matter. Now, question, does anyone see something strange in the equations above? __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom) follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
 5th June 2009, 06:49 AM #10 sol invictus Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,613 Originally Posted by tusenfem Now, question, does anyone see something strange in the equations above? Hmmm, let me guess.... the gravitational term is bigger?
 5th June 2009, 10:27 AM #11 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,795 10 bonus points for Sol Invictus! Now, please check my math, but I am pretty sure I did it correctly. __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom) follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
 5th June 2009, 01:49 PM #12 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by tusenfem What is a total puzzle to me, is the shear size of the current "filaments" that he is using, the 35 kpc wide and 3.5 Gpc long, with a total current of 1019 Amps. They are arbitrarily chosen lengths chosen roughly to be the size (width) of galactic arms. And due to the geometric properties of the Bio-Savart force law they scale for all galaxy sizes, whether bigger or smaller. You could have them 2Kpc, and still get the same morphology galaxy as a result. Quote: There is a paper (again IEEE) in which I thought they (Meierovich & Peratt) were going to do something real "Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents", where they basically add a gravitational potential to the system of particles. A bit of a schoolbook example, and they show, as could be expected, that you can describe the system (again these 35 kpc "filaments") also when you include gravity and get a formula, basically describing the Bennett pinch including gravity. The only conclusion they reach, however, is that if you include gravity and then in the end say that the gravitational potential is much smaller than the electric one, you can reduce the result to the normal Bennett pinch. Now what is interesting at the end of the paper is that they did it "relativistically," i.e. they write the velocity as β (however, they never define β in the paper, but is it clear it is v/c). We just determined v as 10-8 m/s, so we can plug in the numbers in the left hand side of their Eq. 12: plasma term: $0.5 e_e^2 N_e^2 \beta^2 \rightarrow 4.5 \times 10^{-65}$ grav. term: $0.5 G (m_i N_i + m_e N_e)^2 \rightarrow 2.9 \times 10^{-58}$ Now, there is only one strange thing happening in the beginning, when expressing the number density n as a function of the total potential, and N as used above is actually the number of particles per unit length of the "filament" but as N2 is in both terms, it does not matter. Now, question, does anyone see something strange in the equations above? Could you elaborate on what the two terms above represent please, hopefully with a physical explanation. And could you spell out where Peratt and Meierovich went wrong. Was it an honest mistake? A case of simply getting the mubers wrong? Or just ignoring some figures that weren't too kind to their model? I'm confused as to its overall relevance. And bearing in mind that this is a publication from way back in 1992, you may want to check out the following more recent papers on this material. I presume they address your concerns (but I dont know as I dont have access to them) Taking a look here, any one of these could be relevant: http://www.geocities.com/meierovich/...blications.htm Quote: Astrophysical plasma and general relativity Intergalactic currents * Equilibrium of intergalactic currents. IEEE Trans. on Plasma Sci., 1992, 20, 891 (with A. L. Peratt) * Equilibrium of High Current Channels in General Relativity. Sov. Phys. JETP, 1997, 112, No.8, p. 385. (In Russian) * Limiting Current in General Relativity. Gravitation & Cosmology, 1997, Vol.3, No.1(9), pp. 29-37. * High Current in General Relativity. In: Particles, Field, and Gravitation, pp. 498-517. American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, New York, 1998. * Electromagnetic contribution to gravitational mass of a current-conducting channel. Phys. Rev. D61, 024004, (2000). 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 Quote: The condition for equilibrium of a high-current channel taking account of both electromagnetic and gravitational interactions of the charges with an arbitrary drift-to-light velocity ratio is derived from the equations of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. The relative motion appearing between the electron and ion subsystems as a result of the current flow gives rise to an additional gravitational attraction between these subsystems. This is a relativistic effect that cannot be obtained in the Newtonian approximation. Last edited by Zeuzzz; 5th June 2009 at 01:57 PM. Reason: compulsive editting disorder
 5th June 2009, 02:08 PM #13 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson There are several journal well known to have higher quality peer review, for example ...The Astrophysical Journal The Astronomical Journal Astronomy and Astrophysics Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 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? Quote: Lerner has done that (i.e., Scarpa, Falomo & Lerner, 2007), and he is commonly refuted when he does (i.e., Overzier, et al., 2008). Evidently, plasma cosmologists prefer to avoid venues where they might actually be required to defend their ideas against competent colleagues or competent reviewers. Indeed he has. And others to. Whether the refutation is sufficient is another matter, I'm sure Lerner can back up his reasoning and has made a counter argument, and may even publish a further reply. Ahhhhh. The scientific method. Isn't it wonderful? To quote another one Lerner, Eric J., Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF March 21, 2006 -- Volume 822, pp. 60-74, 1st Crisis in Cosmology conference. And there are a good few more in rather more respected journals (than his own )..... but they are not relevant to this thread and belong in the plasma cosmology thread. So any replies to this a little off topic material in there, please. Dont want this thread to be another hijacked off at a tangent. Last edited by Zeuzzz; 5th June 2009 at 02:13 PM. Reason: compulsive editting disorder
 5th June 2009, 08:59 PM #14 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 17,718 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz They are arbitrarily chosen lengths chosen roughly to be the size (width) of galactic arms. And due to the geometric properties of the Bio-Savart force law they scale for all galaxy sizes, whether bigger or smaller. You could have them 2Kpc, and still get the same morphology galaxy as a result. Only half right. According to Peratt's 1990 "3-Dimensional, Particle-In_cell Simulations of Spiral Galaxies" paper (top of the third page) the width is selected to be typical of galaxies. The length is calculated using the width/length ratio of current filaments in laboratory plasmas. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Could you elaborate on what the two terms above represent please, hopefully with a physical explanation. You can read it yourself: Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992 (152KB) Originally Posted by Zeuzzz And could you spell out where Peratt and Meierovich went wrong. Was it an honest mistake? A case of simply getting the mubers wrong? Or just ignoring some figures that weren't too kind to their model? I'm confused as to its overall relevance. They did not really go wrong. They just derived their energy balance equation and never plugged the numbers in to realize that their equation (if correct) means that the gravitational contribution to the energy balance equation is 7 OOM greater than that of the plasma contribution. The paper is not that relevant to the topic ("Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation") since his model assumes that plasma interactions dominate and thus totally ignores gravity. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 6th June 2009, 08:09 PM #16 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 975 Where's the Beef? Originally Posted by Zeuzzz But, whats your beef with "Astrophysics and Space Science" then? I don't have a major beef with it. I merely point out that it is well known in the community that their review standards are not as strong as other publications. As a result, most astronomers & astrophysicists do not follow papers therein very closely. Certainly Peratt knows this. His choice of both Astrophysics and Space Science and the IEEE Transactions as publishing venues implies to me that he does not want his papers to be seen widely by the community of scientists working in the field relevant to the papers. Why that may be is a question for Peratt. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
 7th June 2009, 07:27 AM #17 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by tusenfem I doubt that they will have a followup on this. Why do you say this? I quoted the papers that may indeed follow it up, but I cant access them. Quote: Why don't YOU do some work, Zeuzzz? Because I dont have access to them. And was hoping someone else would. And I am doing work atm, just not work relevant to PC or Jref. So hold your horses.
 7th June 2009, 07:30 AM #18 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Did I touch a nerve tusenfem to warrant your last post? PS: Bolding and capitals comes over as inpolite and shouting. Please try to refrain from this in the future.
 8th June 2009, 04:45 AM #20 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,795 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. __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom) follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
 12th June 2009, 10:27 PM #21 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by tusenfem 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?
 17th June 2009, 05:45 PM #23 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 17,718 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 __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 21st June 2009, 08:55 PM #24 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by tusenfem 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...lectrodynamics I dont have a clue what he's proposed though as I dont the paper.
 21st June 2009, 09:13 PM #25 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 17,718 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Well I find that odd as Peratt used Gravitoelectrodynamics before that paper in other publications. http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...lectrodynamics I dont have a clue what he's proposed though as I dont the paper. The real points are thatHe 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 26th June 2009, 08:28 AM #26 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,795 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Well I find that odd as Peratt used Gravitoelectrodynamics before that paper in other publications. http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...lectrodynamics 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 __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom) follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
 26th June 2009, 10:28 AM #27 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 33,861 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz 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. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 1st July 2009, 05:24 PM #28 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by Ziggurat 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.
 1st July 2009, 06:45 PM #29 wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!     Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 10,901 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz 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 __________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
 1st July 2009, 07:04 PM #30 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 17,718 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz 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 ). __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 1st July 2009, 08:04 PM #31 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by tusenfem you could have pm'ed me to ask if I could send you the paper by email Done.
 1st July 2009, 08:37 PM #32 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by Reality Check 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: Originally Posted by Zeuzzz 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) Quote: 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 Quote: 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. Last edited by Zeuzzz; 1st July 2009 at 10:08 PM.
 4th July 2009, 03:48 PM #34 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Originally Posted by wollery 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. Quote: So, let's have a look at the impact factors for ASS, MNRAS and A&A; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c0cb73dfc1.jpg http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c0cb752863.jpg http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c0cb75fc74.jpg 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.
 4th July 2009, 04:00 PM #35 Zeuzzz Banned   Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,211 Uploaded the paper on relativity and Peratts model to stashbox for anyone interested: http://stashbox.org/560708/JETP_85_2...relativity.pdf Haven't had the time to read it in its entirety but there she be for anyone else to ponder over...
 4th July 2009, 06:00 PM #36 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 17,718 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz 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 meansIt 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 31st July 2010, 12:20 AM #37 Astroman New Blood   Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 13 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.
 6th August 2010, 12:54 AM #38 Siggy_G Scholar   Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 98 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. Last edited by Siggy_G; 6th August 2010 at 01:05 AM. Reason: typo

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit