Young Galaxies Surprisingly Magnetic

[BeAChooser]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080716-magnetic-galaxies.html


Young Galaxies Surprisingly Magnetic

By Clara Moskowitz Staff Writer

posted: 16 July 2008

Galaxies much like ours harbor mysterious magnetic fields, which turn out to build up much faster than scientists realized, a new study has found.

... snip ...

Scientists think galactic magnetic fields start from tiny magnetic seeds, perhaps created inside stars or quasars, and are then amplified over time as the turbulent movement of galactic gas, stirred up by stellar explosions, and the galaxy's rotation cause the magnetic fields to grow. This standard picture, however, can only account for strong magnetic fields that build up slowly over time. The new finding means scientists must come up with an improved explanation for how magnetic fields build up inside galaxies in the young universe such as those Miniati and his team observed.

[Wangler]

Gee, BAC, it's been three hours since your post, and no derrogatory reply posts?

Everyone must be on vaycay.

[Reality Check]

That is a good article.
Of course BeAChooser is doing his usual quote mining and weird highlighing so lets add a quote from the researcher:
"The magnetic fields in these galaxies were very strong, at least as strong as they are today, at a time when the age of the universe was only one third of its current age," said researcher Francesco Miniati of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. "That puts strong constraints on the evolution of magnetic fields."
The only surprising thing that the scientists found was the ease in measuring the fields so cleanly.

I see all of the electric and plasma universe crackpots have jumped on this in the comments.

[Dancing David]

:cool:

[Zeuzzz]

Interestingly the plasma model of galaxy formation has been suggested by gallo et al to be a suitable model for the early stages of galaxy evolution, where the plasma density is much higher, and the r-1 exponent of the attraction between plasma filaments starts to dominate the r-2 relationship of newtonian gravity. Using general theory of relativity you can work out the EM contribution to the total mass of a current channel in space. The magnetic field increases with the current, and so the magnetic contribution can be many orders of magnitude higher than the sum of masses of the charges.

Either that, or the density of the ISM has been underestimed, i've seen values for the density of interstellar space some 10,000 times at odds with each other, depending on which methods are used to deduce it. Fourty years ago we thought that space was a pure vacuum, how wrong we were :)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.3203v1.pdf
We wish to conjecture about the nature of some of this ordinary baryonic matter which appears dark. In addition to stars, this material is some combination of dust, grains, lumps, planets, plasma and gases.
Consider hydrogen gas. Since the temperature is higher in the galactic core and cooler towards the galactic periphery, we expect more ionized hydrogen (plasma) in the hotter core, then more atomic hydrogen away from the core, and finally more molecular hydrogen out towards the cooler periphery. This molecular hydrogen is often ignored, although measurements have revealed its presence (Ref.[62]). However, quantitative estimates of its density vary widely. We note that molecular hydrogen is a naturally dark material since it has very low emission and absorption coefficients due to its high molecular structural symmetry.[....]





Plasma effects are certainly active in the formation and evolution of galaxies from the original hot plasma (Refs.[65]-[67]). However, for mature spiral galaxies, the free plasma density has dropped to levels sufficiently low that plasma does not affect the predominantly gravitational galactic dynamics. This is evidenced in our own Solar System in which gravitational dynamics dominate even with the observed effects of solar wind, coronal mass ejections, auroras, comet tails, etc.

[65]Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets (http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf) A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.(1.7M)
[66]Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies (http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf) A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986 (1.9M).
[67]Physics of the Plasma Universe (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ppu..book.....P)

[Reality Check]

Interestingly the plasma model of galaxy formation has been suggested by gallo et al to be a suitable model for the early stages of galaxy evolution, where the plasma density is much higher, and the r-1 exponent of the attraction between plasma filaments starts to dominate the r-2 relationship of newtonian gravity. Using general theory of relativity you can work out the EM contribution to the total mass of a current channel in space. The magnetic field increases with the current, and so the magnetic contribution can be many orders of magnitude higher than the sum of masses of the charges.

Either that, or the density of the ISM has been underestimed, i've seen values for the density of interstellar space some 10,000 times at odds with each other, depending on which methods are used to deduce it. Fourty years ago we thought that space was a pure vacuum, how wrong we were :)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.3203v1.pdf
Gallo et al do not have a "plasma model of galaxy formation". They merely refer to the debunked theory of Anthony Peratt.

A little information about Gallo et al:
The paper is Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models by C. F. Gallo, James Q. Feng. This preprint looks like the first astrophysics paper by either author (or to be more exact the first 3 papers ever submitted by the authors, all in the last 4 months and all on the same subject). James Q. Feng lists his credentials on his home page which are impressive but are not in astrophysics.
It may be that they are computer scientists who have strayed out of their area of expertise. This would explain why there is no sign of publication yet (no journal ref or comments). This suggests a lot of to and fro between the authors and reviewers.

P.S. Any sign of the 200 billion galactic sized plasma filiaments needed by Peratt's theory yet?

[Wangler]

P.S. Any sign of the 200 billion galactic sized plasma filiaments needed by Peratt's theory yet?

Yep, they are commonly called "galaxies".












I don't know, just thought I'd interject. :D

[Reality Check]

Hi Wrangler
In case you did not know Peratt's debunked theory is that galaxies are formed by 2 (or more) galactic sized plasma filaments. The primary reason for his theory is to explain their velocity dispersions without need for dark matter. His "proof" of this is that the computer simulations of just the EM interactions (no gravity!) between galactic sized plasma filaments produce maps of plasma density that look like the optical photos of galaxies. This is of course comparing apples and oranges since the mass distribution of galaxies does not reflect their optical image.

The big problem is that 100 billion galaxies require 200 billion galactic sized plasma filaments. These filaments are energetic enough to power galaxies but for some strange reason not energetic enough to be visible.

[Zeuzzz]

Gallo et al do not have a "plasma model of galaxy formation". They merely refer to the debunked theory of Anthony Peratt.


I was not referring to Gallo's model, I was referring to Peratts plasma model, which most certainly is a "plasma model of galaxy formation"

A little information about Gallo et al:


Why on Earth would you do this? Why not just discuss their work and conclusions? You seem to be doing the can't attack their work so attack them instead approach.

The paper is Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models by C. F. Gallo, James Q. Feng. This preprint looks like the first astrophysics paper by either author (or to be more exact the first 3 papers ever submitted by the authors, all in the last 4 months and all on the same subject). James Q. Feng lists his credentials on his home page which are impressive but are not in astrophysics.
It may be that they are computer scientists who have strayed out of their area of expertise. This would explain why there is no sign of publication yet (no journal ref or comments). This suggests a lot of to and fro between the authors and reviewers.



This is plain silly RC. You dont like the message so you just try to shoot down the messenger. And your completely wrong anyway, Gallo is an expert in atrophysics, and especially the conductivity and various properties of plasma which was his area of work before he became involved in astronomy/astrophysics. He has also done plently of work on Raman Scattering, the preffered explaination for cosmological redshifts by most PC proponents, the physics of glow discharges, properties of plasma vortex's, and various other plasma based experiments at the IEEE. He has made many contributions to plasma cosmology (published in the PC journal IEEE transactions on plasma science), some very important ones infact, you would do well to read some of his publications. Heres a couple of his publications, most are reviewed and published in journals, and some highly cited;

Systematic study of the electrical characteristics of the ``Trichel'' current pulses from negative needle-to-plane coronas (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JAPIAU000045000001000103000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes) J. Appl. Phys. 45, 103 (1974) (one of his older publications)

Redshifts of cosmological neutrinos as definitive experimental test of Doppler versus non-Doppler redshifts (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1265343) - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on, 2003

The observed cosmological redshifts of electromagnetic photons have been interpreted as due to Doppler recessional velocities and/or space-expansion. However, energy-loss interactions between light and intervening matter can also lead to redshifts. It is proposed that experimental observation of neutrino redshifts compared with photon redshifts will provide distinctive definitive evidence for the validity of a Doppler versus non-Doppler mechanism as the cause of any observed redshift.[....]



Dynamics of rotating spiral galaxies modeled with plasmas, molecular hydrogen, and ellipsoidal + disk mass distributions (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1707333) - Plasma Science, 2006. ICOPS 2006. IEEE Conference Record - Abstracts. The 33rd IEEE International Conference on
Publication Date: 2006

The early evolution of spiral galaxies is modeled with electromagnetic plasma interactions which cause the initial coalescence, rotation, wispy spirals, filamentary structures and magnetic pinches to initiate clumps. As time progresses, the interstellar plasma density decreases, EM plasma effects become weaker and gravitational effects become stronger. Stars are gravitationally formed from the clumps initiated by magnetic pinches. Simultaneously, the galactic temperature decreases and molecular species form in the cooler regions. The model includes the presence of molecular hydrogen at a level similar to the densities observed by the European Space Agency's infrared space telescope, ISO. The mass distribution in the galaxy is modeled with the sum of ellipsoidal and thin disk distributions. The resulting dynamics compare favorably with the mass distribution required to produce the rotational characteristics encountered in mature spiral galaxies with low plasma density



SuperNova 1A Redshifts - Major Questions (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..APRV13012G) - American Physical Society, April Meeting, 2004

Observations of Redshifts from Type 1A Supernovae have led to speculations about "Dark Energy". But this Supernova Redshift data is obtained only for a limited range of the variables: (1) Distance, (2) Wavelength Range, (3)Neutrino vs Photon Arrival Times. [......] This data is critical since there are several non-Doppler redshift mechanisms (Wolf, Raman, CREIL, etc) that yield smaller redshifts (or even blueshifts) at these low energies. [......] Conclusion: For Supernova 1A Redshifts, extensive examination must be made of all possible NON-Doppler (or Non-Space-Expansion) redshift mechanisms which may be active. Without these data and critical examinations, Supernova 1A Redshifts and their interpretation are highly speculative.



Rotation of Spiral Galaxies Described with a Simple Disc Gravitational Model (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007APS..APRE12004F) - American Physical Society, APS April Meeting, April 14-17, 2007

Spiral Galaxy Model with Axial Plasma/Gas Vortex: A Possible Suggestion (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007APS..APR.S1009G)

Quasar Additional Intrinsic Redshift Mechanism?? (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008APS..APR.S1019G) American Physical Society, 2008

Red-Shifts via Incoherent Raman Processes. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003APS..APR.R9005N) - American Physical Society, April Meeting, 2003, April 5-8, 2003

Ordinary Dark Matter versus Mysterious Dark Matter in Galactic Rotation (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008APS..APR.H8005G) - American Physical Society, 2008 APS April Meeting and HEDP/HEDLA Meeting, April 11-15, 2008

Large Quasar Redshifts due to Non-Doppler, Non-Expansion Mechanism (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..APRV13013G) - American Physical Society, April Meeting, 2004

Neutrino Red-Shifts in Cosmology? (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003APS..APR.R9011G) -American Physical Society, APS April Meeting, April 16-19, 2005

If the photon and neutrino redshifts are similar, then a Doppler and/or Space Expansion interpretation is justified. If the neutrino redshift is much smaller than any corresponding photon redshift, then an interpretation via a cumulative energy-loss mechanism is justified. This is a very definitive experimental test of redshift interpretations. The latest neutrino data will be examined, particularly relevant to quasars and supernova. Reference: ``Redshifts of Cosmological Neutrinos as Definitive Experimental Test of Doppler versus Non-Doppler Redshifts'' by C. F. Gallo in IEEE Trans. Plasma Science, vol. 31, No. 6, pgs. 1230-1231, Dec. 2003.



Galactic Rotation Described with Thin-Disk Gravitational Model (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0803.0556F)

Theres probably more, I remember reading a model of his about dusty plasmas interacting with stars in a specific way, but that list will do for now.


P.S. Any sign of the 200 billion galactic sized plasma filiaments needed by Peratt's theory yet?


Is there any definitive explanation in the standrd model for the billions of plasma filaments protruding from galaxies that we do observe? Does the standard model explain the morphology of every galaxy? I was under the impression that the morphology of galaxies are well known to be extrememly varied, and finding a theory that fits all galaxies exactly would be extremely hard.

[Zeuzzz]

Hi Wrangler
In case you did not know Peratt's debunked theory is that galaxies are formed by 2 (or more) galactic sized plasma filaments. The primary reason for his theory is to explain their velocity dispersions without need for dark matter. His "proof" of this is that the computer simulations of just the EM interactions (no gravity!) between galactic sized plasma filaments produce maps of plasma density that look like the optical photos of galaxies.


Utter nonsense. I'm amazed that you can spend so long discussing a theory and still remain utterly ignorant about its features. If it wasn't for the gravity in peratts model the nucleus of the galaxy would not form, thats why the current density is so much higher in the centre of the galaxy (the Bennet pinch also contributes to this) gravity forms a vital and specific role in Peratts model. Whereas you would just prefer to belive that the mass in the centre of galaxies formed in a huge bang that happened quadrillions of years ago, Peratt has tried to find a more down to Earth and prosaic explanation for the origin of galaxies based on the interaction between plasma filaments in space, not one based on mythological stories.

The big problem is that 100 billion galaxies require 200 billion galactic sized plasma filaments. These filaments are energetic enough to power galaxies but for some strange reason not energetic enough to be visible.


The big problem for you is that nearly every galaxy you have chosen me or BAC have actually found these plasma filaments, or objects alligned along a plane (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060123_andromeda_plane.html) that could be dispersed by the filaments, which are very hard to explain with standard theories, and would be exactly what you would expect from Peratts model.

Using this logic, do the hundreds of billions of galaxies that do contain these plasma filaments extending from their nucleus falsify the standard model? It certainly does not predict them.

[Dancing David]

The big problem for you is that nearly every galaxy you have chosen me or BAC have actually found these plasma filaments, or objects alligned along a plane (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060123_andromeda_plane.html) that could be dispersed by the filaments, which are very hard to explain with standard theories, and would be exactly what you would expect from Peratts model.


Could be is not the same as is, sorry need more substantial data, Is this prone to sample bias the way most of Arp's work is? :)

i tried to find any data to look at and this is what I found
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Eva+Grebel+Andrew+Koch+Andromeda+satellite+galax y+alignment&spell=1

So I am not sure that two articles in news magazines gives enough data to work this out. Do you have more?

[Tubbythin]

I'm amazed that you can spend so long discussing a theory and still remain utterly ignorant about its features. If it wasn't for the gravity in peratts model the nucleus of the galaxy would not form, thats why the current density is so much higher in the centre of the galaxy (the Bennet pinch also contributes to this) gravity forms a vital and specific role in Peratts model. Whereas you would just prefer to belive that the mass in the centre of galaxies formed in a huge bang that happened quadrillions of years ago, Peratt has tried to find a more down to Earth and prosaic explanation for the origin of galaxies based on the interaction between plasma filaments in space, not one based on mythological stories.

The hypocrisy is hilarious. You accuse RC of being ignorant of the theory he's been discussing so long and then show how uttelry ignorant of the big bang theory you are, the theory you keep saying is rubbish. Zeuzzz gold.

[Zeuzzz]

The hypocrisy is hilarious. You accuse RC of being ignorant of the theory he's been discussing so long and then show how uttelry ignorant of the big bang theory you are, the theory you keep saying is rubbish. Zeuzzz gold.


So your not going to actually show what your talking about here? Sorry, I left my mindreading cap at home today.

Or maybe you could show how RC's comment is infact correct? Would that not be a bit more productive?

[Zeuzzz]

Could be is not the same as is, sorry need more substantial data, Is this prone to sample bias the way most of Arp's work is? :)

i tried to find any data to look at and this is what I found
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Eva+Grebel+Andrew+Koch+Andromeda+satellite+galax y+alignment&spell=1

So I am not sure that two articles in news magazines gives enough data to work this out. Do you have more?


I think this is what your looking for;

THE ANISOTROPIC DISTRIBUTION OF M31 SATELLITE GALAXIES: A POLAR GREAT PLANE OF EARLY-TYPE COMPANIONS (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/131/3/1405/204951.web.pdf?request-id=40fefe73-3c55-4ac2-a92b-52842dbab95d[/url) The Astronomical Journal, 131:1405–1415, 2006 March

[Tubbythin]

So your not going to actually show what your talking about here? Sorry, I left my mindreading cap at home today.
Very well, see the bolded bits:

Utter nonsense. I'm amazed that you can spend so long discussing a theory and still remain utterly ignorant about its features. If it wasn't for the gravity in peratts model the nucleus of the galaxy would not form, thats why the current density is so much higher in the centre of the galaxy (the Bennet pinch also contributes to this) gravity forms a vital and specific role in Peratts model. Whereas you would just prefer to belive that the mass in the centre of galaxies formed in a huge bang that happened quadrillions of years ago, Peratt has tried to find a more down to Earth and prosaic explanation for the origin of galaxies based on the interaction between plasma filaments in space, not one based on mythological stories.


Or maybe you could show how RC's comment is infact correct? Would that not be a bit more productive?
Perhaps. Although I am not RC and I'm sure RC can argue is case for himself.
What would be productive would be if you would stopping using words like "mythology" and "fairy tale" to describe a scientific theory you are so clearly utterly ignorant of.

[Zeuzzz]

What would be productive would be if you would stopping using words like "mythology" and "fairy tale" to describe a scientific theory you are so clearly utterly ignorant of.


But your not going to say why? does the mere fact that I dont believe in your theory act as evidence I am ignorant of it? what ever happened to having an opinion.

Does it work both ways? can I also say that the only reason you dont believe PC is that you remain uttery ignorant of it?

I can outline the main problem with it in pretty simple terms. Infact any layperson can see it. Its a quite fundamental core concept of the theory, and is impossible to justify.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded. - Terry Pratchett.

[robinson]

Big Bang Theorist really need to learn some technical writing skills.

[Zeuzzz]

Perhaps. Although I am not RC and I'm sure RC can argue is case for himself.
What would be productive would be if you would stopping using words like "mythology" and "fairy tale" to describe a scientific theory you are so clearly utterly ignorant of.


Definition of woo: "concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age"

We have a thread here where everyone continually calls PC woo, its even in the title of the thread, which is almost always used as a term of derision. (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Woo-woo) So you are saying that you can call PC that continually, but I cant say that the Big Bang is a nothing but mystical fairy tale in return? Thats my opinion. Just like your opinion about PC. In my opinion the Big Bang requires a lot more faith than is required to believe in PC, which is not based on this erroneous initial assumption of a definitive origin in space and time.

[Tubbythin]

Definition of woo: "concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age"

We have a thread here where everyone continually calls PC woo, its even in the title of the thread, which is almost always used as a term of derision. (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Woo-woo)
The title of the thread is a question rather than a statement.
I do not continually call PC woo. When you repeatedly fail to provide the numbers to back up your line of reasoning, then your presentation of PC becomes woo. When you rely on false dichotomy or arguments from authority or debunked theories then your arguments become woo.


So you are saying that you can call PC that continually, but I cant say that the Big Bang is a nothing but mystical fairy tale in return? Thats my opinion.

Of course. And you could start your own thread, "Is the Big Bang a fairytale?". Where you can argue why this is the case. The point is you need to back it up, otherwise people who study the area in question might get a little annoyed. In the same way that my car mechanic would get annoyed if I told him he was fixing the car wrongly without supporting my statement with a good grasp of car maintenance.



Just like your opinion about PC. In my opinion the Big Bang requires a lot more faith than is required to believe in PC, which is not based on this erroneous initial assumption of a definitive origin in space and time.

Ah yes. So perhaps you might like to explain to me the following:
What stops the Universe from contracting under its own gravity?
Why do we observe no stars older than 13.7 billion years?
Where does all the hydrogen come from so that we can burn it in stars for an infinite amount of time?

[Reality Check]

I was not referring to Gallo's model, I was referring to Peratts plasma model, which most certainly is a "plasma model of galaxy formation"

Then you should have mentioned that it was Peratt's debunked model not wriiten that it was Gallo's.

Why on Earth would you do this? Why not just discuss their work and conclusions? You seem to be doing the can't attack their work so attack them instead approach.

This is plain silly RC. You dont like the message so you just try to shoot down the messenger. And your completely wrong anyway, Gallo is an expert in atrophysics, and especially the conductivity and various properties of plasma which was his area of work before he became involved in astronomy/astrophysics. He has also done plently of work on Raman Scattering, the preffered explaination for cosmological redshifts by most PC proponents, the physics of glow discharges, properties of plasma vortex's, and various other plasma based experiments at the IEEE. He has made many contributions to plasma cosmology (published in the PC journal IEEE transactions on plasma science), some very important ones infact, you would do well to read some of his publications. Heres a couple of his publications, most are reviewed and published in journals, and some highly cited;
...snip...
Theres probably more, I remember reading a model of his about dusty plasmas interacting with stars in a specific way, but that list will do for now.

Thanks for the information about Gallo. The problem was that the only information that I could find about the credentials of the authors was for Wong.


Is there any definitive explanation in the standrd model for the billions of plasma filaments protruding from galaxies that we do observe? Does the standard model explain the morphology of every galaxy? I was under the impression that the morphology of galaxies are well known to be extrememly varied, and finding a theory that fits all galaxies exactly would be extremely hard.

The big problem for you is that I know Peratt's model better than you. I know how big his filaments have to be since I read it in his papers. You state that you have read his papers but confuse these tiny filaments with his?

[Zeuzzz]

The title of the thread is a question rather than a statement.
I do not continually call PC woo. When you repeatedly fail to provide the numbers to back up your line of reasoning, then your presentation of PC becomes woo. When you rely on false dichotomy or arguments from authority or debunked theories then your arguments become woo.


Of course.

And you could start your own thread, "Is the Big Bang a fairytale?". Where you can argue why this is the case. The point is you need to back it up, otherwise people who study the area in question might get a little annoyed.


Maybe in the same way people who study PC get annoyed when no-one takes it seriously or dismisses it without giving a reason to respond to?


Ah yes. So perhaps you might like to explain to me the following:
What stops the Universe from contracting under its own gravity?


In PC models gravity is not the only force at work, so the old problem that perplexed einstein and lead to the introduction of the cosmological constant, ie, "the only force that effects objects in the universe is the exclusively attractive field of gravity, so why does it not collapse?" doesn't apply, as EM also has a repulsive component to mirror the attractive. In PC not every piece of matter attracts each other on the large scale (which was the assumption in Newtonian gravity that lead to the original notion of an expanding universe) repulsion also takes effect, so this argument is moot.

Why do we observe no stars older than 13.7 billion years?


We do. We just dont know it yet :) Thats why they have introduced an alternative interpretation of the HR diagram and the lifecycle of stars, not all based on the assumption that BBT is correct. Surely you have worked this out by now?

Where does all the hydrogen come from so that we can burn it in stars for an infinite amount of time?


Thermonuclear burning from massive stars in the Early stages of galaxy evolution is what produces the various elements usually associtaed with BBT. Not using a finite galaxy model.

References;

EJ Lerner, Galactic model of element formation (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Galactic%20Model%20of%20Element%20Formation.pdf), IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 17, April 1989, p. 259-263.
EJ Lerner, Plasma model of microwave background and primordial elements - an alternative to the big bang ( http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Plasma%20Model%20an%20Alternative%20To%20The%20Big %20Bang.pdf)
EJ Lerner, On the Problem of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis ( http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/On%20The%20Problem%20Of%20Big%20bang%20Nucleosynth esis.pdf), Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 145-149

[Zeuzzz]

Back to the subject at hand, what ideas (other than Peratts model) can explain why Early galaxies are surprisingly more magnetic than the standard model predicts they should be? What causes these higher strength magnetic fields?

[Reality Check]

Hi Zeuzzz,
Maybe you should read some of the abstracts from the papers that you cite, e.g.
Ordinary Dark Matter versus Mysterious Dark Matter in Galactic Rotation (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008APS..APR.H8005G) (American Physical Society, 2008 APS April Meeting and HEDP/HEDLA Meeting, April 11-15, 2008, abstract #H8.005)

To theoretically describe the measured rotational velocity curves of spiral galaxies, there are two different approaches and conclusions. (1) ORDINARY DARK MATTER. We assume Newtonian gravity/dynamics and successfully find (via computer) mass distributions in bulge/disk configurations that duplicate the measured rotational velocities. There is ordinary dark matter within the galactic disk towards the cooler periphery which has lower emissivity/opacity. There are no mysteries in this scenario based on verified physics. (2) MYSTERIOUS DARK MATTER. Others INaccurately assume the galactic mass distributions follow the measured light distributions, and then the measured rotational velocity curves are NOT duplicated. To alleviate this discrepancy, speculations are invoked re ``Massive Peripheral Spherical Halos of Mysterious Dark Matter.'' But NO matter has been detected in this UNtenable Halo configuration. Many UNverified ``Mysteries'' are invoked as necessary and convenient. CONCLUSION. The first approach utilizing Newtonian gravity/dynamics and searching for the ordinary mass distributions within the galactic disk simulates reality and agrees with data.
Note the conclusion is that option 1 (ordinary dark matter) matches reality.

[Zeuzzz]

Hi Zeuzzz,
Maybe you should read some of the abstracts from the papers that you cite, e.g.
Ordinary Dark Matter versus Mysterious Dark Matter in Galactic Rotation (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008APS..APR.H8005G) (American Physical Society, 2008 APS April Meeting and HEDP/HEDLA Meeting, April 11-15, 2008, abstract #H8.005)
Note the conclusion is that option 1 (ordinary dark matter) matches reality.


Maybe you should read the abstracts I cite. That paper pretty much sums up my opinions. And by 'ordinary dark matter' he doesn't mean what you think, he means ordinary as in its made of matter we already know exists, baryonic matter. He thinks that the normally used "Massive Peripheral Spherical Halos of Mysterious Dark Matter" is silly, stating himself that due to this "Many UNverified `Mysteries'' are invoked as necessary and convenient."

And his conclusion; "The first approach utilizing Newtonian gravity/dynamics and searching for the ordinary mass distributions within the galactic disk simulates reality and agrees with data." This is what Peratts model does, it assumes a different initial (ordinary baryonic plasma) mass distribution.

Some info on this ordinary Hydrogen and other elements that could exist, eliminating the need for Dark Matter, can be seen in his later publication (or any other publication on the various density estimate methods in space);

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.3203v1.pdf
We wish to conjecture about the nature of some of this ordinary baryonic matter which appears dark. In addition to stars, this material is some combination of dust, grains, lumps, planets, plasma and gases. Consider hydrogen gas. Since the temperature is higher in the galactic core and cooler towards the galactic periphery, we expect more ionized hydrogen (plasma) in the hotter core, then more atomic hydrogen away from the core, and finally more molecular hydrogen out towards the cooler periphery. This molecular hydrogen is often ignored, although measurements have revealed its presence (Ref.[62]). However, quantitative estimates of its density vary widely. We note that molecular hydrogen is a naturally dark material since it has very low emission and absorption coefficients due to its high molecular structural symmetry. Combined with its presence towards the cooler periphery, we qualitatively believe this molecular hydrogen (Refs.[63][64]) is one component of the ordinary baryonic dark matter in the disk periphery we have found from analysis of galactic rotation profiles.

[robinson]

I love a good smackdown. And now, round five in the never ending match up between Plasma and Gravity. In the red corner, we have plasma theorist, with multiple source papers, and endless links to published documents.

In the black corner, we have the usual gang of "I refuse to read any papers I don't agree with", as well as the ad hominem ad infinitum. And it is no surprise, questions about the ever expanding Universe, that came from the primeval atom, 14 to 18 Billion years ago.

No hitting below the belt, protect yourself at all times, obey my instructions, touch gloves, and get ready to fight.

[Reality Check]

Maybe you should read the abstracts I cite. That paper pretty much sums up my opinions. And by 'ordinary dark matter' he doesn't mean what you think, he means ordinary as in its made of matter we already know exists, baryonic matter. He thinks that the normally used "Massive Peripheral Spherical Halos of Mysterious Dark Matter" is silly, stating himself that due to this "Many UNverified `Mysteries'' are invoked as necessary and convenient."

And his conclusion; "The first approach utilizing Newtonian gravity/dynamics and searching for the ordinary mass distributions within the galactic disk simulates reality and agrees with data." This is what Peratts model does, it assumes a different initial (ordinary baryonic plasma) mass distribution.

Some info on this ordinary Hydrogen and other elements that could exist, eliminating the need for Dark Matter, can be seen in his later publication (or any other publication on the various density estimate methods in space);

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.3203v1.pdf
I do not have access to the actual paper in the citation so we will have to agree to disagree:
It could be "'ordinary dark matter" as in the usual use of "dark matter".
Or it could be ordinary matter that just happens to be dark.

But Peratt's model is invalid as you know. So someone basing their conclusions on Peratt's model have a few problems to contend with.

P.S. Any sign of the 200 billion galactic sized plasma filiaments needed by Peratt's theory yet?

[Reality Check]

I love a good smackdown. And now, round five in the never ending match up between Plasma and Gravity. In the red corner, we have plasma theorist, with multiple source papers, and endless links to published documents.

In the black corner, we have the usual gang of "I refuse to read any papers I don't agree with", as well as the ad hominem ad infinitum. And it is no surprise, questions about the ever expanding Universe, that came from the primeval atom, 14 to 18 Billion years ago.

No hitting below the belt, protect yourself at all times, obey my instructions, touch gloves, and get ready to fight.
Hi robinson: You are wrong. I do read as many of the papers that Zeuzzz cites as possible (but not every one since he is fond of link spamming). For example I now have a large collection of Peratt's papers and seem to know them better than Zeuzzz.

Can you tell me how many of his citations you have read?
Perhaps you can tell Zeuzzz the size of the galactic plasma filaments in Peratt's model.

[Tubbythin]

Maybe in the same way people who study PC get annoyed when no-one takes it seriously or dismisses it without giving a reason to respond to?

How are we supposed to take it seriously from your presentation? You repeatedly resort to arguments from authority, debunked alternatives to the mainstream (eg tired light), vague hand-waving theories, false-dichotomy, misrepresentation of the mainstream theories you object to etc etc.


In PC models gravity is not the only force at work, so the old problem that perplexed einstein and lead to the introduction of the cosmological constant, ie, "the only force that effects objects in the universe is the exclusively attractive field of gravity, so why does it not collapse?" doesn't apply, as EM also has a repulsive component to mirror the attractive. In PC not every piece of matter attracts each other on the large scale (which was the assumption in Newtonian gravity that lead to the original notion of an expanding universe) repulsion also takes effect, so this argument is moot.

Don't distort history Zeuzzz. The cosmological constant was inserted because at the time Einstein thought the Universe was stationary. He recognised it as his biggest blunder when the evidence showed it wasn't.
So... where can you show us a calculation to illustrate how the EM forces between us and your favourite galaxy prevent them coming together?


We do. We just dont know it yet :) Thats why they have introduced an alternative interpretation of the HR diagram and the lifecycle of stars, not all based on the assumption that BBT is correct. Surely you have worked this out by now?
The electric Sun stuff? The mainstream interpretation of the HR diagram isn't based on the assumption that BBT is correct.


Thermonuclear burning from massive stars in the Early stages of galaxy evolution is what produces the various elements usually associtaed with BBT. Not using a finite galaxy model.
So you're disowning the Electric Sun stuff now? Or would this be a point where you're going to accept multiple inconsistent theories?
My question was more along the lines of why there's any hydrogen left if the universe is infinitely old?

[GoodGuysEatPie]

I was not referring to Gallo's model, I was referring to Peratts plasma model, which most certainly is a "plasma model of galaxy formation"




Why on Earth would you do this? Why not just discuss their work and conclusions? You seem to be doing the can't attack their work so attack them instead approach.





This is plain silly RC. You dont like the message so you just try to shoot down the messenger. And your completely wrong anyway, Gallo is an expert in atrophysics, and especially the conductivity and various properties of plasma which was his area of work before he became involved in astronomy/astrophysics. He has also done plently of work on Raman Scattering, the preffered explaination for cosmological redshifts by most PC proponents, the physics of glow discharges, properties of plasma vortex's, and various other plasma based experiments at the IEEE. He has made many contributions to plasma cosmology (published in the PC journal IEEE transactions on plasma science), some very important ones infact, you would do well to read some of his publications. Heres a couple of his publications, most are reviewed and published in journals, and some highly cited;

Systematic study of the electrical characteristics of the ``Trichel'' current pulses from negative needle-to-plane coronas (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JAPIAU000045000001000103000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes) J. Appl. Phys. 45, 103 (1974) (one of his older publications)

Redshifts of cosmological neutrinos as definitive experimental test of Doppler versus non-Doppler redshifts (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1265343) - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on, 2003





Dynamics of rotating spiral galaxies modeled with plasmas, molecular hydrogen, and ellipsoidal + disk mass distributions (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1707333) - Plasma Science, 2006. ICOPS 2006. IEEE Conference Record - Abstracts. The 33rd IEEE International Conference on
Publication Date: 2006





SuperNova 1A Redshifts - Major Questions (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..APRV13012G) - American Physical Society, April Meeting, 2004





Rotation of Spiral Galaxies Described with a Simple Disc Gravitational Model (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007APS..APRE12004F) - American Physical Society, APS April Meeting, April 14-17, 2007

Spiral Galaxy Model with Axial Plasma/Gas Vortex: A Possible Suggestion (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007APS..APR.S1009G)

Quasar Additional Intrinsic Redshift Mechanism?? (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008APS..APR.S1019G) American Physical Society, 2008

Red-Shifts via Incoherent Raman Processes. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003APS..APR.R9005N) - American Physical Society, April Meeting, 2003, April 5-8, 2003

Ordinary Dark Matter versus Mysterious Dark Matter in Galactic Rotation (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008APS..APR.H8005G) - American Physical Society, 2008 APS April Meeting and HEDP/HEDLA Meeting, April 11-15, 2008

Large Quasar Redshifts due to Non-Doppler, Non-Expansion Mechanism (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..APRV13013G) - American Physical Society, April Meeting, 2004

Neutrino Red-Shifts in Cosmology? (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003APS..APR.R9011G) -American Physical Society, APS April Meeting, April 16-19, 2005





Galactic Rotation Described with Thin-Disk Gravitational Model (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0803.0556F)

Theres probably more, I remember reading a model of his about dusty plasmas interacting with stars in a specific way, but that list will do for now.





Is there any definitive explanation in the standrd model for the billions of plasma filaments protruding from galaxies that we do observe? Does the standard model explain the morphology of every galaxy? I was under the impression that the morphology of galaxies are well known to be extrememly varied, and finding a theory that fits all galaxies exactly would be extremely hard.

I don't have much to add to the scientific content of this thread, but I do take issue with the nature of the citations being bandied about.

1) The majority of them are abstracts for talks at meetings
Meeting abstracts mean nothing. Anybody can give a talk at a meeting. Meeting abstracts are not peer reviewed, nor is the content of the talk. A meeting abstract carries no weight in a discussion of this sort. If you're going to talk astronomy, you need clear results, reproduced by many independent authors (not just the few names I'm seeing here, over and over again), and published in peer-reviewed journals.

2) Just about any of the full papers given are from paper archive sites (arXiv.org, etc).
Again, anybody can post their papers on the archive sites. Citing a reference from arXiv.org does not in any way demonstrate that the author has credible results. Show me something that has actually been published (not just submitted) in Astronomy & Astrophysics, or in the Astrophysical Journal, and then I'll think the citation is worth looking at.

~ggep~

[Zeuzzz]

Perhaps you can tell Zeuzzz the size of the galactic plasma filaments in Peratt's model.


On average 35 Kpc, but the whole point of his model is that it scales for different sized galaxies. And why do you think I didn't know this? was it something to do with the galaxy you asked for evidence of the filaments on, and I showed that there was evidnce that the filaments have dispersed and alligned all orbitting satellites in a 2 kpc plane? It really doesn't take a genius to work out how this can happen from Peratts model RC. That ever scientific approach of "look at this one galaxy, so your wrong", its just like the "look at the bullet cluster, now dark matter has been observed" rubbish.

Oh, and I'm half way through my list of the 100 billion galaxies you keep insisting I provide evidence for filaments on, only 50 billion to go now.

[Reality Check]

I don't have much to add to the scientific content of this thread, but I do take issue with the nature of the citations being bandied about.

1) The majority of them are abstracts for talks at meetings
Meeting abstracts mean nothing. Anybody can give a talk at a meeting. Meeting abstracts are not peer reviewed, nor is the content of the talk. A meeting abstract carries no weight in a discussion of this sort. If you're going to talk astronomy, you need clear results, reproduced by many independent authors (not just the few names I'm seeing here, over and over again), and published in peer-reviewed journals.

2) Just about any of the full papers given are from paper archive sites (arXiv.org, etc).
Again, anybody can post their papers on the archive sites. Citing a reference from arXiv.org does not in any way demonstrate that the author has credible results. Show me something that has actually been published (not just submitted) in Astronomy & Astrophysics, or in the Astrophysical Journal, and then I'll think the citation is worth looking at.

~ggep~
I agree with point 2. It would be nice to be able to always cite a published paper. However most of the people on the forum are not associated with institutes that have access to the journals. This means that they would have to take out expensive individual subscriptions to multiple journals ($1525.00 for the Astrophysical Journal).
I am an alumni of my local university so in theory I could use their library to look up journal citations. Quoting those would leave people without access no means to verify the citation.
So we have to cite from paper archive sites and hope that the autors come back and note that the papers have actually been published.

[Zeuzzz]

I don't have much to add to the scientific content of this thread, but I do take issue with the nature of the citations being bandied about.

1) The majority of them are abstracts for talks at meetings

Correct.

Meeting abstracts mean nothing.

Incorrect.

Anybody can give a talk at a meeting.

Incorrect.

Meeting abstracts are not peer reviewed, nor is the content of the talk.

Generally, correct.

A meeting abstract carries no weight in a discussion of this sort.



Incorrect. I was not aware of any ground rules to this discussion, I am citing work that this author has contributed to astrophysics to prove my original point.

If you're going to talk astronomy, you need clear results, reproduced by many independent authors (not just the few names I'm seeing here, over and over again), and published in peer-reviewed journals.


I suppose that the IEEE transactions on plasma Science (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2008&isnumber=4539852&Submit32=Go+To+Issue) and the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_Nuclear_and_Plasma_Sciences_Society) doesn't count as "peer reviewed" to you?

2) Just about any of the full papers given are from paper archive sites (arXiv.org, etc).
Again, anybody can post their papers on the archive sites.
Citing a reference from arXiv.org does not in any way demonstrate that the author has credible results.

Correct. (But not if your a blacklisted scientist at arxiv, like Carlos Castro Perelman, or others...)

Show me something that has actually been published (not just submitted) in Astronomy & Astrophysics, or in the Astrophysical Journal, and then I'll think the citation is worth looking at.


What for? Gallo's work, or general plasma cosmology material on galaxies and space plasma?

[Dancing David]

I think this is what your looking for;

THE ANISOTROPIC DISTRIBUTION OF M31 SATELLITE GALAXIES: A POLAR GREAT PLANE OF EARLY-TYPE COMPANIONS (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/131/3/1405/204951.web.pdf?request-id=40fefe73-3c55-4ac2-a92b-52842dbab95d[/url) The Astronomical Journal, 131:1405–1415, 2006 March


Thanks Zeuzzz, IOP was down for maintainence earlier.

I missed the part where they say the structure is not possible to account for under the current model however.

[GoodGuysEatPie]

Incorrect.


OK, what does an abstract for a meeting talk mean to you? To me, it's just a description of some idea to be presented. An assertion wrapped up in jargon. The bread and butter comes when others listen to it and pick it apart, and when, and if, they can reproduce the results independently. Those latter pieces are not available for review when all you present is an abstract to a talk at a meeting.


Incorrect.


Fine. You have to be a member of the meeting's organization. I still contend that this means little. Just submitting an abstract still means little. For the American Physical Society (for which many abstracts were given), they have just a few guidelines (http://www.aps.org/meetings/abstract/policy.cfm). None of them involve the quality or plausibility of the ideas being presented.


Incorrect. I was not aware of any ground rules to this discussion, I am citing work that this author has contributed to astrophysics to prove my original point.

I suppose that the IEEE transactions on plasma Science (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2008&isnumber=4539852&Submit32=Go+To+Issue) and the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_Nuclear_and_Plasma_Sciences_Society) doesn't count as "peer reviewed" to you?


These are publications I know little about (and I suspect the same for you), so I will hold comment on them for now. I asked for A&A and ApJ because those are pretty much the standard for publishing in astronomy.


Correct. (But not if your a blacklisted scientist at arxiv, like Carlos Castro Perelman, or others...)


...and why is he 'blacklisted' and what does that mean to you?

[GoodGuysEatPie]

I agree with point 2. It would be nice to be able to always cite a published paper. However most of the people on the forum are not associated with institutes that have access to the journals. This means that they would have to take out expensive individual subscriptions to multiple journals ($1525.00 for the Astrophysical Journal).
I am an alumni of my local university so in theory I could use their library to look up journal citations. Quoting those would leave people without access no means to verify the citation.
So we have to cite from paper archive sites and hope that the autors come back and note that the papers have actually been published.

I'm afraid I'm not so trusting. It's also not so difficult to find out if the papers have been published. ADS (http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/) certainly would allow you to do this. You could even go a step further and find out if, once the paper had been published, it had been cited by a wide variety of other authors (not just the original author and their collaborators) in many papers for many years.

You can read the article preprints if you like, I'm just saying that merely listing them in a thread like this doesn't necessarily lend credibility to whatever idea is being discussed. In fact, merely listing ANY article, without clearly discussing why it supports that idea, is just a form of argument from authority.

~ggep~

[tusenfem]

Whereas you would just prefer to belive that the mass in the centre of galaxies formed in a huge bang that happened quadrillions of years ago,


Are you implying here that you think mainstream cosmology thinks that the nuclei of galaxies were created by the big bang? Or what do you mean with "formed in a huge bang"? This is plainly ridiculous.

[tusenfem]

Back to the subject at hand, what ideas (other than Peratts model) can explain why Early galaxies are surprisingly more magnetic than the standard model predicts they should be? What causes these higher strength magnetic fields?

This implies mainly that the models that were used for the dynamo action creating the magnetic fields in the young galaxies is off at the time scale.

Basically, when comparing to the solar magnetic field, this means that the initial growth of the seed magnetic fields, which are always present in plasmas, is faster, and this can happen by various methods, e.g. faster turn-over time of the matter in the center of the galaxy.

I think that the problem with Peratt's model would be that the young galaxies would have too small magnetic fields, if the galaxies are created by the interaction and twisting of galactic scaled "Birkeland currents" in plasma filaments through the universe. What is the current in P's filaments (too lazy to look it up at the moment) and what would be the related magnetic field?

[tusenfem]

I'm afraid I'm not so trusting. It's also not so difficult to find out if the papers have been published. ADS certainly would allow you to do this. You could even go a step further and find out if, once the paper had been published, it had been cited by a wide variety of other authors (not just the original author and their collaborators) in many papers for many years.

You can read the article preprints if you like, I'm just saying that merely listing them in a thread like this doesn't necessarily lend credibility to whatever idea is being discussed. In fact, merely listing ANY article, without clearly discussing why it supports that idea, is just a form of argument from authority.

~ggep~

I agree with ggep, abstract of talks CANNOT be really regarded as a good reference. If I see what is being submitted now and then as abstracts, or is given as a talks, I am dumbfounded sometimes, that people really have the nerve to present that junk. So, no, an abstract of a talk/poster does not mean a thing

It is not only worthwhile, but necessary to go to ADS and see if a paper has been published. Here on the board there are numerous members that somehow can get to papers that "amateurs" cannot get to. (I often offer to send pdfs of papers to people on BAUT for example, though I seldomly am asked for the papers).

Anyone can put stuff in Arxiv, if you want to tell that the moon is made of cheese and the Dutch are planning to mine it, go ahead. It does not have any weight, most of the time I don't even see to which journal the paper is submitted, which is, at least, an indication of how serious a paper is meant to be.

And on a personal note, I really consider IEEE plasma physics to be a low low low level journal, when looking at the junk that is published now and then.

[DeiRenDopa]

A quick note on preprints in arXiv/astroph: the abstract nearly always gives a good indication of status, as well as a link to the reference in ADS.

In the "Comments" field you can read things such as (a random selection from this week's listings):

"An overview of recent constraints on the baryon density parameter and the effective number of neutrinos to be published in the proceedings of the NO-VE IV International Workshop on: Neutrino Oscillations in Venice"

"ApJ, in press, about 27 pages, 29 figures"

"Accepted to MNRAS"

"to be published in Proc SPIE 7014: Ground-based & Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II"

"Submitted tu MNRAS" - not sure this one will be published, at least in its present version.

If you read the v1 of papers that appear in astroph, and compare them with the papers eventually published (in ApJ, MNRAS, etc), there is usually little substantive difference; although it's often the case that the v2 preprint (if there is one) is much closer to what ends up getting published.

However, occasionally you'll see entries that have gone through many versions, and yet have still not been published (or even submitted!) - surely a good sign that this preprint may be good for some laughs, but it is highly unlikely to be good science.

You'll also often see that a paper presented at a conference later gets published in ApJ (etc); comparing the two versions is quite instructive. For what it's worth, I think some authors/teams' conference papers are gold, if only because they've clearly polished their results before presenting them at a conference; others' papers are little better than toilet paper - sloppy, inconsistent, missing key prior work, etc, etc, etc ... often these folks' papers do not appear later in ApJ (etc), or if they do, they bear little resemblance to the conference paper.

[Tubbythin]

References;

EJ Lerner, Galactic model of element formation (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Galactic%20Model%20of%20Element%20Formation.pdf), IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 17, April 1989, p. 259-263.
EJ Lerner, Plasma model of microwave background and primordial elements - an alternative to the big bang ( http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Plasma%20Model%20an%20Alternative%20To%20The%20Big %20Bang.pdf)
EJ Lerner, On the Problem of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis ( http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/On%20The%20Problem%20Of%20Big%20bang%20Nucleosynth esis.pdf), Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 145-149

Anything based on WMAP data?

[DeiRenDopa]

References;

EJ Lerner, Galactic model of element formation, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 17, April 1989, p. 259-263.
EJ Lerner, Plasma model of microwave background and primordial elements - an alternative to the big bang
EJ Lerner, On the Problem of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 145-149Anything based on WMAP data?As Z would rather undergo waterboarding before answering questions on papers by his fave authors, allow me to update you (and any other reader curious enough).

Lerner's work on the CMB got as far as the COBE results, where the angular power spectrum was detected, statistically, but where the individual details were not resolved above the noise. Even at this level, his alternative explanation was in trouble (though he put the best marketing spin on it, kinda like "95% fat-free!!" - "80% consistent with the data!", or some such).

However, once ACBAR, BOOMERANG, WMAP, DASI, etc, etc, etc, data started to appear in peer-reviewed publications, he fell silent; you may infer whatever you wish from that silence, but the net is quite clear: no paper has been published, by Lerner or any other among Z's faves, purporting to present a quantitative match between any PC-derived prediction and cold hard data.

Bad enough, you might think, but it gets much worse (or better, depending on your viewpoint).

Lerner is on record (thanks for the links Z) as all but accepting Arp's 'quasars are local, due to intrinsic redshift!' ideas ... but he is not on record as acknowledging that this completely blows his own PC ideas out of the water. :p

But then, if you worship in the church of PC, you are not required to be consistent ...

[Dancing David]

Zeuzzz, I have noticed that are certain number of your citation do seem to be based upon old data.

How do you feel about that, I recall the preCOBE material you cited from Perrat.

[Zeuzzz]

Bad enough, you might think, but it gets much worse (or better, depending on your viewpoint).

Lerner is on record (thanks for the links Z) as all but accepting Arp's 'quasars are local, due to intrinsic redshift!' ideas ... but he is not on record as acknowledging that this completely blows his own PC ideas out of the water. :p

But then, if you worship in the church of PC, you are not required to be consistent ...



How many PC witches did you burn today DRD?

Its really quite ironic that you say that people "worship in the church of PC" when the theory that you defend is the single biggest reason in science for people to start believing in god/religion. Religious people love the Big Bang, its completely unlike any other scientific theory. Dr Flandern writes a critique of the Big Bang, (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp), this highly annoys many creationists, that feel he is challenging their creationist belief system, and the only reply to this list so far is from the number one creationist site (www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html ), which staunchly defends the Big Bang theory to defend their cherished event of god given creation.

Most worrying to me is that even the top people in this field seem to threat the Big Bang theory as a religion. 'Science should read the mind of God' Steven Hawkins

"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.]

This is a historic quote, when Hawkins himself aknowledges that a less problematic appraoch to cosmology than the Big Bang would infact be one where "there would be no boundary to space-time", exactly like Plasma Cosmology proposes. Well, cosmologists may have found a way out of all the problems with the Big Bang with ad hoc mathematical constructs like quantum loop gravity, but theories like this are like string theory, they can never be proved and dont provide any predictions to test. How that can even be called a 'scientific theory' I really dont know.

"If you're religious, it's like looking at God. The order is so beautiful and the symmetry so beautiful that you think there is some design behind it." George Smoot, cosmologist and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate for his work on COBE, which led to the measurement of the black body form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. He later said "Whatever caused the rapid expansion of the universe following the Big Bang--the same forces caused tiny ripples. Because if you try to do something too fast, you shake a little. God might be the designer." ..... "It is a mystical experience, like a religious experience," Smoot said, "It really is like finding the driving mechanism for the universe, and isn't that what God is?" --(San Jose Mercury News, May 12, 1992. Story by John Noble Wilford of the New York Times.)

Popular cosmologist Andrew E Lange: "we can come to the conclusion that there must be something that isn't normal matter, something that's some new form of matter. And any particle that exists--that God put in from the beginning--if it's stable, would still be around in great abundance.” --Andrew Lange (April 26, 1991 issue of the East Bay Express: "The Revenge of the WIMPS" an article by Steve Heimoff on current cosmology.)

Founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute and Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute Robert Jastrow: [I]"What is the ultimate solution to the origin of the Universe? The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation. " Robert Jastrow, (Until the Sun Dies, 1977)

"The evolution of the universe from nothing is described by the big bang theory." :D astrophysicists Fang Li Zhi and Li Shu Xian, (Creation of the Universe, World Scientific, 1989)

"In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded" Terry Pratchett.


The unscientific and mysterious properties of the Big Bang are the reason why even the top experts that study in this field tend to come over all woo when speaking about the universe. I read Hawkins a history of time myself, and was so annoyed that Hawkins even mentioned God, but he insisted on doing so quite frequently.

The good thing about PC is that most religious people hate it. It does not give them any of the mysteries associated with the Big Bang to say "God did this!" at. Its a completely different approach to cosmology, not at all like the Big Bang, or continual creation (steady state) theories, no initial assumption of an origin X billion yeas ago in the past, and then trying to prove this prophecy with whatever limited data is picked. Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 10,000 years ago, BB theorists now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago. This approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective, and is unlike any other scientific theory.

[Zeuzzz]

Back to the subject at hand, what ideas (other than Peratts model) can explain why Early galaxies are surprisingly more magnetic than the standard model predicts they should be? What causes these higher strength magnetic fields?This implies mainly that the models that were used for the dynamo action creating the magnetic fields in the young galaxies is off at the time scale.


You presume that its just the timescale? the timescale could be correct, but the model of galactic magnetic fields not. I was under the impression that the origin of magnetic fields in galaxies was a bit of a mystery, and sort of an open question still, with various people using various different theories.

Basically, when comparing to the solar magnetic field, this means that the initial growth of the seed magnetic fields, which are always present in plasmas, is faster, and this can happen by various methods, e.g. faster turn-over time of the matter in the center of the galaxy.


You presume that its the gravity in the galaxy that creates the magnetic fields, and not vice versa? From an initial perspective the universe had no dense objects or stars, so EM forces in the nebulae would be dominant at the very beginning of formation (when acting on the high charge mass ratio of ions, not the low ratio of large objects). Its the point where gravity starts to dominate (with the creation of dense stars (when they eventually form)) that would be very interesting to know.

Seed magnetic fields. Heard of them before, but never been quite sure what they actually are. Is this linked to the MHD dynamo thought to be in the galactic core? Or is it separate? have we got any experimental evidence for seed magnetic fields, or are they a tool used only in cosmology?

I think that the problem with Peratt's model would be that the young galaxies would have too small magnetic fields, if the galaxies are created by the interaction and twisting of galactic scaled "Birkeland currents" in plasma filaments through the universe. What is the current in P's filaments (too lazy to look it up at the moment) and what would be the related magnetic field?


The current (for a galaxy of rough dimensions 1020 - 1021m) implies a total current in Peratts model of ~1017 -1019 A. But this varies with each size of galaxy, and also with each type of galaxy in different stages of evolution.

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Ap&SS.244...89P) Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, 1996


tusenfem, I was wondering what your thoughts were on unipolar induction in the galactic core instead of the usual MHD dynamo. Alfven proposed this many years ago for galaxies (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t12874633l884606/) (though far earlier than that link, i cant find it at the mo), and this idea seems to have been accepted by some recently, as it excells at explaining the accelerated particles from galactic cores, and a number of other issues. Similar EM models using a unipolar inductor have been proposed recently for pulsars by many astronomers (following mainly from the work of Wu et al (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.331..221W) on binaries), and some have now suggested it for galaxies too.

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/programreview/2006/Talks/Madejski_rev_Jun7a_06.ppt (power point pop up)
BURNING QUESTIONS:

* How is the jet formed? What is the connection of the jet to the accretion process? (electromagnetic processes - unipolar inductor?)

* How is the jet so precisely collimated, over many decades of distance?

* What is the jet content? e+/e- pairs, or e-/p+ ?


As an expert in this field (I think?), what are your thoughts on this model applied to galaxies?

I think that excels at explaining the jets, and could also explain some of the central morphologies of galaxies. Generally unipolar inductors in space take a galaxy type shape.


[And some info on the unipolar induction model of pulsars can be seen in this basic tutorial, if anyones interested; Electromagnetic Models of Gamma Ray Bursts: A Tutorial (www.batse.msfc.nasa.gov/~santorini/Santorini2005_Talks/BlanfordGranot_Santorini05.ppt) (powerpoint pop up)]

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/9929/pulsarkg5.jpg

[Zeuzzz]

Bad enough, you might think, but it gets much worse (or better, depending on your viewpoint).

Lerner is on record (thanks for the links Z) as all but accepting Arp's 'quasars are local, due to intrinsic redshift!' ideas ... but he is not on record as acknowledging that this completely blows his own PC ideas out of the water. :p



Well this is a lie again. Lerner was very specific about Arps work. Arps work has not actually been that prominent in PC journals, its certainly not a 'core' part of PC, but various PC proponents have worked on theories that would account for his observations if they turn out to be what he claims.

If you must know, to be precise, Lerner said this;

As in previous years, evidence continues to accumulate that quasar (QSO) redshifts are at least in part intrinsic, and that many QSOs are no where near as distant as the redshifts imply. Ryabinkov showed that there are periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs, a pattern that would not be expected if the absorption lines were from intervening galaxies. Bell and McDiarmid showed that the angular motions in quasar jets are more easily understood if the QSOs are not at extreme distance.

There may be a plasma-based explanation of what could generate the redshifts within the atmosphere of the quasar. Sisir Roy et al have devoted such a theory and have compared it to quasar observations.

The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra

Authors: A.I. Ryabinkov, A.D. Kaminker, D.A. Varshalovich

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703277v1

An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is Compatible in all Respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model

Authors: M.B. Bell, D.R McDiarmid

arXiv:astro-ph/0701093

Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy

Authors: Sisir Roy, Malabika Roy, Joydip Ghosh, Menas Kafatos.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701071

[DeiRenDopa]

Well this is a lie again. Lerner was very specific about Arps work. Arps work has not actually been that prominent in PC journals, its certainly not a 'core' part of PC, but various PC proponents have worked on theories that would account for his observations if they turn out to be what he claims.

If you must know, to be precise, Lerner said this;So we can all go home now?

But wait! DRD covered just why the acceptance, by Lerner, of Arpian 'QSOs have intrinsic redshift' blows Lerner's own models of the CMB out of the water, in another JREF thread!!

Now did Z take the time and trouble to go through that material?

(no prize for correctly guessing the answer)

NO! He did not! What did he do? Why, he completely ignored the material, as if it didn't exist.

I really should have saved sol invictus' description of your posting behaviour Z, it rings sooo true. In this case, when your pet ideas are shown - six ways to Sunday - to be woo of the finest kind, you blithely abandon the thread ... only to spam a new thread with the same woo, a few weeks or months later.

(oh, and also the tapdancing, in this case avoiding the question of whether there is any PC proponent's paper on the CMB, using post-COBE data ...)

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm gonna "do a Zeuzzz" here ... Dr Flandern writes a critique of the Big Bang, (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp), [...] and the only reply to this list so far is from the number one creationist site (www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html ),

What did someone else say, a little earlier in this thread?

"The hypocrisy is hilarious. You [...] show how utterly ignorant of the big bang theory you are, the theory you keep saying is rubbish. Zeuzzz gold."*

Dude, TvF's list has been trotted out in internet discussion fora for years now, and where there are folk who actually know something about the items on his list (or who bother to do the research to find out), it has been demolished as a peculiar mixture of ignorance, cynicism, misrepresentation, and just plain being behind the times (a bit like how nearly all the "PC" papers you cite are a decade or more old).

Normally I'd challenge you to start a thread on it, and try to keep you honest and focussed on the points listed (and, of course, current LCDM cosmological models), and demolish it (again).

However, as I'm now quite familiar with your seagull woo spam MO, I realise it would be a waste of everyone's time ...

* credit Tubbythin; edits mine

[Zeuzzz]

Dude, TvF's list has been trotted out in internet discussion fora for years now, and where there are folk who actually know something about the items on his list (or who bother to do the research to find out), it has been demolished as a peculiar mixture of ignorance, cynicism, misrepresentation, and just plain being behind the times (a bit like how nearly all the "PC" papers you cite are a decade or more old).

Normally I'd challenge you to start a thread on it, and try to keep you honest and focussed on the points listed (and, of course, current LCDM cosmological models), and demolish it (again).

However, as I'm now quite familiar with your seagull woo spam MO, I realise it would be a waste of everyone's time ...


DRD, The point i was making is nothing to do with whether Flanderns (now ancient) list of probems with the Big Bang is correct, judging from his reputation I suspected that it was not, I didn't even read it all, the point I was making that the creationists hate it when people challenge their event of creation, and the creationist site that debunks it is one of the most popular creationist sites there is.

Crikey, you do like hijacking threads. Must be boing for people to read. I would very much like to talk about the subject of this thread. Maybe you have an explanation for why Early magnetic fields in galaxies are so high? maybe you can find the associated science publication that lead to this news story?

[Zeuzzz]

So we can all go home now?

But wait! DRD covered just why the acceptance, by Lerner, of Arpian 'QSOs have intrinsic redshift' blows Lerner's own models of the CMB out of the water, in another JREF thread!!

Now did Z take the time and trouble to go through that material?

(no prize for correctly guessing the answer)

NO! He did not! What did he do? Why, he completely ignored the material, as if it didn't exist.

I really should have saved sol invictus' description of your posting behaviour Z, it rings sooo true. In this case, when your pet ideas are shown - six ways to Sunday - to be woo of the finest kind, you blithely abandon the thread ... only to spam a new thread with the same woo, a few weeks or months later.

(oh, and also the tapdancing, in this case avoiding the question of whether there is any PC proponent's paper on the CMB, using post-COBE data ...)


Your usual pseudoskeptic arm waving and sophistry is showing again Nereid, you are the one who persistently bring up arps work as if it is a core aspect of PC, whenever I post a decent PC theory you ignore it and just say "this is not consistent with Arps work, woo-woo-woo", and in the very first conversation I had with you, I said that I cant see any particular reason to include Arps work in PC, and explained my position on Arps work and PC.

Q: If Arps ideas are correct, which cosmology would they be most consistent with?

Thats why, if any cosmology was going to consider Arps work more than others, it would be PC proponents, thus why more attention has been payed to potential explanations to it. But i'm still waiting for a publication in PC journal that completely agrees with, and has a full model for, Arps conclusions. CREIL has got pretty close actually now, though I haven't really kept up with this of late.

In a dission about LCDM I could make the same argument about something like SIDM, although written in and LCDM framework which could be discussed in any conversation about LCDM, you would certainly not call it a core part of LCDM.

If you must know, to be precise, Lerner said this;

As in previous years, evidence continues to accumulate that quasar (QSO) redshifts are at least in part intrinsic, and that many QSOs are no where near as distant as the redshifts imply. Ryabinkov showed that there are periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs, a pattern that would not be expected if the absorption lines were from intervening galaxies. Bell and McDiarmid showed that the angular motions in quasar jets are more easily understood if the QSOs are not at extreme distance.

There may be a plasma-based explanation of what could generate the redshifts within the atmosphere of the quasar. Sisir Roy et al have devoted such a theory and have compared it to quasar observations.

The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra

Authors: A.I. Ryabinkov, A.D. Kaminker, D.A. Varshalovich

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703277v1

An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is Compatible in all Respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model

Authors: M.B. Bell, D.R McDiarmid

arXiv:astro-ph/0701093

Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy

Authors: Sisir Roy, Malabika Roy, Joydip Ghosh, Menas Kafatos.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701071

[DeiRenDopa]

Crikey, you do like hijacking threads. Must be boing for people to read. I would very much like to talk about the subject of this thread. Maybe you have an explanation for why Early magnetic fields in galaxies are so high? maybe you can find the associated science publication that lead to this news story?(bold is mine, not in original)

Let's see now ... is that why you spammed the thread with a whole lot of debunked PC material?

I mean, for example, you trotted out the Peratt 'galaxy' papers, right on cue, and then added some Lerner ones for good measure.

And you did this despite the fact that you'd posted them in another JREF Forum thread, watched them being ripped to shreds (in terms of their scientific credibility), and not once addressed the key points in the debunking. Worse, you consistently and persistently passed up dozens of opportunities to defend both the papers and the underlying ideas, choosing instead to drop more spam, change the subject, and so on.

Of course, if you'd like, I can simply copy and paste, here, a subset of the dozens of questions you walked away from, on the PC papers you've spammed this thread with so far ....

No wait; I see that others have already tried that, only to have have you do your Z thing (change the subject, drop more seagull woo spam, ...) ...

[Tubbythin]

Its really quite ironic that you say that people "worship in the church of PC" when the theory that you defend is the single biggest reason in science for people to start believing in god/religion. Religious people love the Big Bang, its completely unlike any other scientific theory. Dr Flandern writes a critique of the Big Bang, (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp), this highly annoys many creationists, that feel he is challenging their creationist belief system, and the only reply to this list so far is from the number one creationist site (www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html ), which staunchly defends the Big Bang theory to defend their cherished event of god given creation.
AND? Many creationists think the world is only 6000 years old. And hate the Big Bang. I'm guessing their's religions out there that believe the Universe is eternal. What does the above have to do with the efficacy of the Big Bang?


Most worrying to me is that even the top people in this field seem to threat the Big Bang theory as a religion. 'Science should read the mind of God' Steven Hawkins

"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.]

This is a historic quote, when Hawkins himself aknowledges that a less problematic appraoch to cosmology than the Big Bang would infact be one where "there would be no boundary to space-time", exactly like Plasma Cosmology proposes. Well, cosmologists may have found a way out of all the problems with the Big Bang with ad hoc mathematical constructs like quantum loop gravity, but theories like this are like string theory, they can never be proved and dont provide any predictions to test. How that can even be called a 'scientific theory' I really dont know.
As opposed to PC which is merely is completely inconsistent with observation after observation after observation.


"If you're religious, it's like looking at God. The order is so beautiful and the symmetry so beautiful that you think there is some design behind it." George Smoot, cosmologist and Nobel Prize in Physics laureate for his work on COBE, which led to the measurement of the black body form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. He later said "Whatever caused the rapid expansion of the universe following the Big Bang--the same forces caused tiny ripples. Because if you try to do something too fast, you shake a little. God might be the designer." ..... "It is a mystical experience, like a religious experience," Smoot said, "It really is like finding the driving mechanism for the universe, and isn't that what God is?" --(San Jose Mercury News, May 12, 1992. Story by John Noble Wilford of the New York Times.)
I can quote mine randomly too. I'd rather have a scientific argument though. The above and the other quotes are all utterly meaningless to the efficacy of the theory.


The unscientific and mysterious properties of the Big Bang are the reason why even the top experts that study in this field tend to come over all woo when speaking about the universe. I read Hawkins a history of time myself, and was so annoyed that Hawkins even mentioned God, but he insisted on doing so quite frequently.
Its a long time since I read it but from what I recall all he was really saying was that there was no we could conclusively say "God didn't do it."


The good thing about PC is that most religious people hate it. It does not give them any of the mysteries associated with the Big Bang to say "God did this!" at. Its a completely different approach to cosmology, not at all like the Big Bang, or continual creation (steady state) theories, no initial assumption of an origin X billion yeas ago in the past, and then trying to prove this prophecy with whatever limited data is picked.
We've been through this before Zeuzzz. Scientists used to think the Universe was steady until Hubble discovered the redshift-distance relation. Science then worked backwards from there. This discovery is what led to Einstein calling his lambda term his greatest blunder (you know about this, you mentioned it the other day!). The initial assumption was the precise opposite of what you say above.


Instead of saying that the universe was created out of nothing by God 10,000 years ago, BB theorists now simply say to us it was created 10 billion years, or 20 billion years ago. This approach from the very outset has serious problems from a strictly scientific perspective, and is unlike any other scientific theory.
Approximately 13.7 billion years ago as determined from a number of different sources actually.

[Zeuzzz]

only to spam a new thread with the same woo, a few weeks or months later


Please point out what you are referring to in this thread is woo, maybe the EM pulsar model?, and maybe we can discuss it.

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

If you must know, to be precise, Lerner said this;Indeed, that is what L said.

Here's what he did not say:

"However, if quasars and other AGNs are not at, or near, the cosmological distances implied by their redshifts and the Hubble relationship, then the mechanisms proposed by Peratt, Lerner, and others to account for the blackbody CMB SED will all be rendered irrelevant, as the following simple argument shows: {insert simple case here}".

Now if he has as good a grasp of astronomy (etc) as you have claimed, this realisation must have come to him within hours of him reading his first Arpian paper. Yet, as far as I know, this inconsistency has not been acknowledged by any PC proponent, ever, anywhere ... not Peratt*, not Lerner, not Z, not Thornbill, not Scot, ... Given how marvelous these folk are, in terms of the self-proclaimed scientific acumen, their silence can only be interpreted as deeply cynical. Z, you are being played for a fool - accept the Arpian claims (such as those in the Lerner quote) and it's game over for PC ...

* to be fair to Peratt, it's pretty clear, reading between the lines and from his comment about Tifft's work, that he has no time for Arp's work at all.

[Tubbythin]

The good thing about PC is that most religious people hate it.

Hmm, a group of people sticking to their own personal views of the Universe despite the fact that piece after piece of scientific evidence has contradicted it. Sounds like PC is a religion to me.

[Tubbythin]

Z, you are being played for a fool - accept the Arpian claims (such as those in the Lerner quote) and it's game over for PC ...


Was it ever game on?

[Zeuzzz]

Hmm, a group of people sticking to their own personal views of the Universe despite the fact that piece after piece of scientific evidence has contradicted it..


You've said this quite a lot of times now.

Conjecture without Confirmation.

[DeiRenDopa]

Z, you are being played for a fool - accept the Arpian claims (such as those in the Lerner quote) and it's game over for PC ...Was it ever game on?There's a key difference, I think:

With the possible exception of Peratt, who has not (as far as I know) publicly said anything about any Arpian claims, the PC leading lights are easily shown to be dolts (in a scientific sense) or deeply cynical, by any embrace of Arpian ideas (and in the absence of any statements about how comprehensively their own ideas are thereby demolished).

Now I grant you that a good case could be made that Thornbill, Talbutt, and Scot (among others) do not, in fact, understand the relevant astronomy and physics well enough to even understand the demolition, but Lerner obviously does ...

[Tubbythin]

You've said this quite a lot of times now.

Conjecture without Confirmation.

The Hubble relation
General Relativity
The second law of thermodynamics
Solution to Olbers' paradox
The bullet cluster
WMAP
Hydrostatic equilibrium of stars
Neutrinos...

[Zeuzzz]

Indeed, that is what L said.

Here's what he did not say:

"However, if quasars and other AGNs are not at, or near, the cosmological distances implied by their redshifts and the Hubble relationship, then the mechanisms proposed by Peratt, Lerner, and others to account for the blackbody CMB SED will all be rendered irrelevant, as the following simple argument shows: {insert simple case here}".

Now if he has as good a grasp of astronomy (etc) as you have claimed, this realisation must have come to him within hours of him reading his first Arpian paper. Yet, as far as I know, this inconsistency has not been acknowledged by an PC proponent, ever, anywhere ... not Peratt*, not Lerner, not Z, not Thornbill, not Scot, ... Given how marvelous these folk are, in terms of the self-proclaimed scientific acumen, their silence can only be interpreted as deeply cynical. Z, you are being played for a fool - accept the Arpian claims (such as those in the Lerner quote) and it's game over for PC ...



So you'd prefer to just completely ignore all the work of Arp, burbide, etc? No explanation for the quantization of redshifts?, Just ignore it completely? Ignore the periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs? and the anmalous angular motions in quasar jets discovered by Bell and McDiarmid?

I dont see any attempt to explain this data in 'mainstream' cosmology theories.

[Tubbythin]

So you'd prefer to just completely ignore all the work of Arp, burbide, etc? No explanation for the quantization of redshifts?, Just ignore it completely? Ignore the periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs? and the anmalous angular motions in quasar jets discovered by Bell and McDiarmid?

I dont see any attempt to explain this data in 'mainstream' cosmology theories.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107779

[Zeuzzz]

We have a thread to discuss PC: Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not?] (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3880195#post3880195) before DRD completely hijacks this thread into another PC argument.

Now,

Does anyone have an explanation for why Early magnetic fields in galaxies are so high? maybe you can find the associated science publication that lead to this news story?


Crikey, its like trying to talk to an angry two year old.

[Reality Check]

You've said this quite a lot of times now.

Conjecture without Confirmation.
Add: Lyman-alpha forest to Tubbythin's list.

Zeuzzz: Any idea where all the galaxies appeared from to ionize the neutral hydrogen? If galaxies have always been around then why is there any neutral hydrogen at all? If you have some mechanism to create neutral hydrogen then why does the amount of neutral hydrogen increase as we look back in time?

If you are really interested in the various theories about the formation of magnetic fields in galaxies, etc. then there is a nice review paper in arXiv:
Origin of Galactic and Extragalactic Magnetic Fields (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207240v1)
(published in 2002 and so there may be a more up to date review somewhere)

[Zeuzzz]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107779


No explanation for the quantization of redshifts?, Just ignore it completely? Ignore the periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs? and the anomalous angular motions in quasar jets discovered by Bell and McDiarmid?

I dont see any attempt to explain this data in 'mainstream' cosmology theories.


No mention of them in that thread.

[Tubbythin]

No mention of them in that thread.

Quantized redshift certainly was discussed. Possibly not the other bits.

[DeiRenDopa]

So you'd prefer to just completely ignore all the work of Arp, burbide, etc?
Why would anyone want to do that?!?

My comments were to do with Arpian ideas on intrinsic redshift, specifically those to do with quasars and other AGNs.

And who is "burbide"?
No explanation for the quantization of redshifts?, Just ignore it completely? Ignore the periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs? A reference to the Ryabinkov preprint in your earlier post?

You might like to take the trouble to read the published paper (not the preprint); I think you'll find its conclusions considerably more, shall we say, nuanced than your (or Lerner's) characterisation ...

and the anmalous angular motions in quasar jets discovered by Bell and McDiarmid? Well ...

... when (if?) they finally get a version (of the preprint linked to in your earlier post) published, let's resume.


I dont see any attempt to explain this data in 'mainstream' cosmology theories.Perhaps that's because you are, shall we say, rather selective in what you choose to read?

Not to mention that the "this data" should refer to what's in the SDSS database, or LEDA, or ... and "this data" forms the basis for hundreds of other papers, which reach conclusions different than what you have reported in this thread ...

[Zeuzzz]

Add: Lyman-alpha forest to Tubbythin's list.

Zeuzzz: Any idea where all the galaxies appeared from to ionize the neutral hydrogen? If galaxies have always been around then why is there any neutral hydrogen at all?


In general charge will flow in the direction of charge equalization, so theres no problem there. Simple EM forces would be able to neutralize large areas, that what positive and negative charges naturally do. I can't see that being much of an issue to be frank. Give the ionization rate and i'll see what I think.

And you reminded me that Lerner has shown that Lyman break galaxies certainly appear not be in the place they should. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.2948v1.pdf) "Do local analogs of Lyman Break Galaxies exist?"

If you are really interested in the various theories about the formation of magnetic fields in galaxies, etc. then there is a nice review paper in arXiv:
Origin of Galactic and Extragalactic Magnetic Fields (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207240v1)
(published in 2002 and so there may be a more up to date review somewhere)



I'm well aware of the theories, I just wanted to get someone to clarify what the exact properties of a seed magnetic fields are, as i've only got a vague memory of it.

[Reality Check]

Maybe you have an explanation for why Early magnetic fields in galaxies are so high? maybe you can find the associated science publication that lead to this news story?
Zeuzzz: The associated science publication that lead to this news story is the July 17 issue of the journal Nature.

Nature: Strong magnetic fields in normal galaxies at high redshift (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7202/abs/nature07105.html)
Scientific American: Galaxies' Mysterious Magnetic Fields Grew Up Fast (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne)

As the researcher stated:

"We were surprised that we could actually measure this so cleanly, and we were surprised that these galaxies had such strong magnetic fields early on," Miniati told SPACE.com. "This has been suggested before, but seen convincingly only for some individual galaxies. What we were able to show with this measurement is that all regular galaxies early on have these kinds of strong magnetic fields."

That early magnetic fields in galaxies that are similar in strength as they are currently have been suggested before. I do not know where or by whom.

In case DRD is busy:
I believe that the theories usually start with creation of magnetic fields during the early history of the universe. These then act as seeds for the galactic magnetic fields. However this leads to slower buildup of magnetic fields than seen in this observation.
An explanation suggested by Miniati is that the magnetic fields acting as seeds were created from energetic events in quasars and so start as stronger then the usual seeding magnetic fields.

[Reality Check]

In general charge will flow in the direction of charge equalization, so theres no problem there. Simple EM forces would be able to neutralize large areas, that what positive and negative charges naturally do. I can't see that being much of an issue to be frank. Give the ionization rate and i'll see what I think.
You don't know the ionization rate of neutral hydogen by galaxies? Then I suggest you look it up.

However it does not matter for the Lyman-alpha forest. The forest is used to measure the amount of neutral hydrogen between us and distant galaxies and quasars. These measurements show that the amount increases as we look back in time. This is a really, really big problem for all steady state universe theories since they want the universe to look the same as we look back in time. They especially do not want the actual composition of matter in the universe (ionized vs neutral hydrogen) to change.

So now we know that there was a large amount of neutral hydrogen in the early universe and that this amount decreased.
What causes neutral hydrogen to decrease (become ionized)? Light ionizes hydrogen.
Where does light come? Galaxies.

So why did galaxies start to ionize neutral hydrogen at a certain point in the universe's history and not before? I can think of 2 reasons:
They did not exist before then.
There was a change in the fundemental laws of physics that allowed hydrogen to be ionized.
What is your explanation for this?
ETA: This is really a question for the "Plasma Cosmology: Woo or Not" thread so I will post it there and you can answer it there.

[GoodGuysEatPie]

You don't know the ionization rate of neutral hydogen by galaxies? Then I suggest you look it up.


I don't think we're dealing with a professional astronomer, or anybody with formal training in astronomy research at the graduate level, which is needed to really discuss this material in depth.

All of this PC stuff has long been discredited in march of modern cosmology. I recall hearing about it as a graduate student (Arp's quasars, etc...I even met Tifft while I was an undergraduate intern). And even then it was easy to see that while there are a few astronomers (once highly respected ones, too) that reject modern CDM BB cosmology, they are in a stubborn minority that refuse to accept any of the modern observational results of, say, the last fifty years.

Remember, it's not enough for a scientific model of the Universe to previous observations. For a model to really be respected, it has to do that and more. It has to make novel predictions that other models do not make, and that are borne out by actual observations. The best model will do this better than all other competing models. Modern cosmology is so successful at this, nitpicking over little pieces like galactic magnetic fields seems to me like the creationists nitpicking over the minor things in evolutionary theory that are being worked out.

There is no "blacklist" that I know in astronomy. When I met Bill Tifft, he was working with the premier radio telescope of the day, before most astronomers got to use it. And he was doing his quantized redshift research. Everybody knew that those ideas were discredited, but that didn't stop the telescope committee from letting him have time on the 'scope.

Astronomers aren't involved in a conspiracy to keep PC down. If PC worked better than CDM BB cosmology, they would use it!

I'm sorry if this reply is in the wrong place, but I just think arguing over this magnetic field stuff is not seeing the (L-alpha?) forest for the trees.

~ggep~

[Third Eye Open]

Hello. I still have no Idea what plasma cosmology or electric universe (same thing?) exactly says about the universe. My first impression, judging from the very long and colorful posts from it's proponents is that it is a conspiracy theory of some kind?

Anyway, my question is, what is it that is attractive about this theory? Does it allow for an eternal static universe? Or is it that it allows the universe to be much younger than we currently say it is? Or something else more interesting?

Also, could someone try to explain plasma universe in one sentence.

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Is an acceptable sentence for big bang, something simple and straight forward like that for plasma theory would be nice.
Thanks!

[Zeuzzz]

Remember, it's not enough for a scientific model of the Universe to previous observations. For a model to really be respected, it has to do that and more. It has to make novel predictions that other models do not make, and that are borne out by actual observations. The best model will do this better than all other competing models.



Go on then, name the predictions the Big Bang has made first over other cosmologies, where the theory clearly predicted it based on the Big Bang model, and then where this was subsequently confirmed with the hard data (The prediction has to stem from the actual Big Bang theory, [not a prediction just based on trends in data]) I dare you to say the CMB temparature. :)

[Zeuzzz]

Hello. I still have no Idea what plasma cosmology or electric universe (same thing?) exactly says about the universe. My first impression, judging from the very long and colorful posts from it's proponents is that it is a conspiracy theory of some kind?

Anyway, my question is, what is it that is attractive about this theory? Does it allow for an eternal static universe? Or is it that it allows the universe to be much younger than we currently say it is? Or something else more interesting?

Also, could someone try to explain plasma universe in one sentence.

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Is an acceptable sentence for big bang, something simple and straight forward like that for plasma theory would be nice.
Thanks!


You going to stick around to listen to my reply this time? or just say this again an vanish? take a look at this for an overview; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194

[Zeuzzz]

Hello. I still have no Idea what plasma cosmology or electric universe (same thing?) exactly says about the universe. My first impression, judging from the very long and colorful posts from it's proponents is that it is a conspiracy theory of some kind?

Anyway, my question is, what is it that is attractive about this theory? Does it allow for an eternal static universe? Or is it that it allows the universe to be much younger than we currently say it is? Or something else more interesting?

Also, could someone try to explain plasma universe in one sentence.

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Is an acceptable sentence for big bang, something simple and straight forward like that for plasma theory would be nice.
Thanks!


You going to stick around to listen to my reply this time? or just say this again an vanish? take a look at this for an overview; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194

And you can find any material with these journals, or previous/later ones;

IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (See for example issues in 2000 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2000&isnumber=19507), 2003 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2003&isnumber=28301), [/url=http://plasmascience.net/ieeetps/SpecialIssuesUpcoming/SpacePlasmas.html]2007[/url], etc) as well as in other peer-reviewed journals.

[Third Eye Open]

You going to stick around to listen to my reply this time? or just say this again an vanish? take a look at this for an overview; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194

Great. A wiki page. I am not educated in this area, which is why I asked for a simple explanation of what it is all about. From this wiki page I gathered that:

1. The electromagnetic force is more important than we think
2. Lots of things are made of plasma, so plasma is important
3. The universe was not created ex nihlo

So, what does this change about the way you look at the universe? Older? Younger? Always been? Larger? Smaller? Different shape? Anything else that is more interesting, but can be said in simple terms?

I'm not asking for links or evidence or to be convinced, I just want you to say straight forward and simply, what you think the universe is like that is different from the big bang model.

I don't care to debate, I'm just curious.

[Dancing David]

So you'd prefer to just completely ignore all the work of Arp's terrible statistics, burbide's horrible statistics, etc? No explanation for the quantization of redshift's terrible statistics?, Just ignore it completely? Ignore the periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs which are more bad statistics? and the anmalous angular motions in quasar jets discovered by Bell and McDiarmid?


I don't see any attempt understand why 'sample error' is a real problem.

Maybe Zeuzz you should read here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0806v1.pdf

Pg. 12



This structure in the catalog redshift histogram can be understood by careful modelling of the selection effects (e.g., accounting for emission line effects and using only objects selected in regions whose spectroscopic observations were chosen with the final version of the quasar target selection algorithm; also see Figure 8 in Richards et al. 2006). Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals
no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006). To construct the lower histogram we have partially removed the effect of host galaxy contamination (by excluding extended objects), limited the sample to a uniform magnitude limit of i < 19.1
(accounting for emission-line effects), and have corrected for the known incompleteness near z ∼ 2.7 and z ∼ 3.5 due to quasar colors lying close to or in the stellar locus. Accounting for selection effects significantly reduces the number of objects as compared with the raw, more heterogeneous catalog, but the smaller, more homogeneous sample is what should be used for statistical analyses.


With the histogram on Pg. 24

Hmmmmm?

[Reality Check]

Hello. I still have no Idea what plasma cosmology or electric universe (same thing?) exactly says about the universe. My first impression, judging from the very long and colorful posts from it's proponents is that it is a conspiracy theory of some kind?

Anyway, my question is, what is it that is attractive about this theory? Does it allow for an eternal static universe? Or is it that it allows the universe to be much younger than we currently say it is? Or something else more interesting?

Also, could someone try to explain plasma universe in one sentence.

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Is an acceptable sentence for big bang, something simple and straight forward like that for plasma theory would be nice.
Thanks!
Hi Third Eye Open. The Plasma Cosmology - Woo or Not (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112661) thread is gradually getting to a comprehensive definition of plasma cosmology as used by Zeuzzz and others. You are going to be disappointed in its definition of the "plasma universe" which is basically all cosmological theories that are not the Big Bang theory.


Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_Cosmology) is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.

This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:

Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.
Multiple inconsistent theories on anything else that is contained in "plasma cosmology"
The PC collection includes:

Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation (His 1986 papers I (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf) and II (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf)).
Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Galactic%20Model%20of%20Element%20Formation.pdf).
Gallo et al. calculations of Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0804.3203G).
Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
Wolf Effect (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1987Natur.326..363W&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML) (non-cosmological redshifts).
Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1265341).
Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies. E.g. Halton Arp's The Origin of Companion Galaxies (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/305412).
Other theories which may include the Electric Universe ().
Lerner's explanation of the CMB.
Peratt's explanation of the CMB, but it hasn't been introduced yet.
Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).
Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above). Lerner's paper (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Force%20Free%20Magnetic%20Filaments.pdf).
Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..822...40K) (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
All standard plasma theories.
Electric Universe e.g. electrically powered stars (see the earlier posts).
The Van Allen Hypothesis—The Origin of the Magnetic Fields of the Planets and Stars (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4287019)
etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)
There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_scaling) (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it

[Third Eye Open]

Thanks RC, but do you know what's the point of it? Is it the old steady state theory in a new form?

Also, the link from Zeuzzz was an 'old revision' the 'new revision' contained this line

"Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's Theory of general relativity explains the origin and evolution of the universe on its largest scales,"

Sounds promising!

[Zeuzzz]

So you'd prefer to just completely ignore all the work of Arp's terrible statistics, burbide's horrible statistics, etc? No explanation for the quantization of redshift's terrible statistics?, Just ignore it completely? Ignore the periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs which are more bad statistics? and the anmalous angular motions in quasar jets discovered by Bell and McDiarmid?


I don't see any attempt understand why 'sample error' is a real problem.

Maybe Zeuzz you should read here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0806v1.pdf

Pg. 12

With the histogram on Pg. 24

Hmmmmm?


Well if thats true it pretty much rules out Bell & McDiarmids conclusion. I wonder what "using only objects selected in regions whose spectroscopic observations were chosen with the final version of the quasar target selection algorithm" means? what determined the selection?

[Reality Check]

Thanks RC, but do you know what's the point of it? Is it the old steady state theory in a new form?

Also, the link from Zeuzzz was an 'old revision' the 'new revision' contained this line

"Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's Theory of general relativity explains the origin and evolution of the universe on its largest scales,"

Sounds promising!
It is not even a theory. It is just a collection of any theory at all that is not the Big Bang theory. "plasma cosmology" and the "plasma universe" do not actually exist as a scientific theory or model since there is no definition of them that does not contain mutually inconsistent theories.
Zeuzzz has acknowledged this and is even now helping to add more (and possibly inconsistent) theories to the collection. This will make plasma cosmology even more of a crackpot theory.

There does not seem to be any point to it except to placate people who don't like the Big Bang theory and want a pseudo-scientific excuse.

[Zeuzzz]

It is not even a theory. It is just a collection of any theory at all that is not the Big Bang theory. "plasma cosmology" and the "plasma universe" do not actually exist as a scientific theory or model since there is no definition of them that does not contain mutually inconsistent theories.
Zeuzzz has acknowledged this and is even now helping to add more (and possibly inconsistent) theories to the collection. This will make plasma cosmology even more of a crackpot theory.

There does not seem to be any point to it except to placate people who don't like the Big Bang theory and want a pseudo-scientific excuse.


Translation: When a viable PC theory is presented to explain the data instead of addressing this I pick a publication related to PC that is inconsistent with it and dismiss the lot without addressing the theory being discussed.

Dare I ask which theory you deem inconsistent now?

Do you want to choose two theories like other cosmologies (as you said LCDM is just relativity and DM, nothing else) and limit my parameters? most of those things in your list are perfectly consistent. The cmb from early stellar evolution in the 4He synthesis which is thermalized and isotropized by the magnetically confined plasma filaments we have detected in the intergalactic medium, and 'because the amount of energy released in producing the observed amount of 4He is the same as the amount of energy in the CMB', and is part of Lerners model (ref: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1896v1.pdf). Would be one.

What would you advise for my second, I could choose plenty, but which one would meet the criteria to brand PC a cosmology by your standards? Do I have to explain the Big Bang? the anisotropy of the cosmic gamma-ray background (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512217)? :)

[technoextreme]

You going to stick around to listen to my reply this time? or just say this again an vanish? take a look at this for an overview; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194

And you can find any material with these journals, or previous/later ones;
I'll just throw this out again but any science that has to be in published in an engineering journal has serious problems. And yes Robinson it may be an electrical engineering journal but the demonstrative word is engineering. And I've read those journals. The only time I've read an appeal to emotion from an IEEE paper.

[GoodGuysEatPie]

You going to stick around to listen to my reply this time? or just say this again an vanish? take a look at this for an overview; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194

Do not use that link, Third Eye. At the very least, be mindful of it. That is an outdated and heavily disputed version of the wikipedia article that was edited by the scientist (E. Lerner) who has a vested interest in the way the material is presented.

The current article (from which E. Lerner has been banned from editing) is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology).

~ggep~

[GoodGuysEatPie]

Go on then, name the predictions the Big Bang has made first over other cosmologies, where the theory clearly predicted it based on the Big Bang model, and then where this was subsequently confirmed with the hard data (The prediction has to stem from the actual Big Bang theory, [not a prediction just based on trends in data]) I dare you to say the CMB temparature. :)

I suppose you have a post-hoc rationalization for the high-z Type Ia SN data (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~rkirshner/whowhatwhen/AJ_Accelerating_Universe.pdf) (check it out a real refereed astronomy journal publication) that not only confirms many of the geometrical models of CDM BB cosmology, but of one of the novel and original predictions of general relativity: cosmic acceleration.

~ggep~

[Zeuzzz]

The Hubble relation
General Relativity
The second law of thermodynamics
Solution to Olbers' paradox
The bullet cluster
WMAP
Hydrostatic equilibrium of stars
Neutrinos...


Periodic Quasar Abundances
Tully-Fisher Relationship
The first law of thermodynamics
The sombrero galaxy
Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
Missing mass

A list means nothing. What are you talking about. You have to show how each applies.

The milky way
Rotation curves of galaxies
Production of >Gev gamma rays
Heating of corona
Trevor Mc Donald

[Reality Check]

...snip...
Replied in the appropriate thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3884072#post3884072).

[Zeuzzz]

I suppose you have a post-hoc rationalization for the high-z Type Ia SN data (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~rkirshner/whowhatwhen/AJ_Accelerating_Universe.pdf) (check it out a real refereed astronomy journal publication) that not only confirms many of the geometrical models of CDM BB cosmology, but of one of the novel and original predictions of general relativity: cosmic acceleration.

~ggep~


Thanks, I'll check it out tomorrow. And Sn Ia data has an alternative explanation in PC; see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0702/0702075v1.pdf for a start.

[BeAChooser]

The current article (from which E. Lerner has been banned from editing)

My my ... won't there be some embarrassment if Lerner's focus fusion group beats everyone else to commercially viable fusion. :D

[Zeuzzz]

The current article (from which E. Lerner has been banned from editing) is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology).

~ggep~


Yes, strangely not a single PC theory after Alfvens ancient PC is listed in this current version. It clearly confuses Plasma Cosmology with Klein-Alfven Cosmology. Not really what you call a "current version" considering that all the PC material since then was published in reputable peer reviewed journals, and wikipedia has detailed pages on enlightening theories such as Astrology and Handreading. You might want to check out the discussion tab on that page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plasma_cosmology#Uncensored_version), ScienceAppologist has started to lose favor with many of the admins there after Lerner posted the uncensored version, they may soon let people update the current ancient version for some of the newer stuff. Or the entire page might be banned by SA like GEMS theory one. The alterntaive plasma universe site (which was setup due to Science Appologists censorship on wiki) offers a comprehensive list of all the peer reviewed articles and papers of plasma cosmology that wikipedia admins (currently) refuse to acknowledge. For those interested; http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Special:Allpages

one of many comments from the wiki talk page, you can even go and contribute if you want;
Experts reject astrology, but it does not stop us from writing a decent article about the subject. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles on which we can draw to produce a verifiable text. We haven't. The current article confuses Plasma Cosmology with Klein-Alfven Cosmology, and includes a section on "mainstream cosmology" which belongs in a article on "mainstream cosmology". The current article contains errors and speculation (as highlighted by missing citations). The article is indeed a travesty.

[Reality Check]

Thanks, I'll check it out tomorrow. And Sn Ia data has an aletrnative explanation in PC; see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0702/0702075v1.pdf for a start.
The cited paper is very interesting. Thank you Zeuzzz.
However it's title and abstract make it clear that they are explaining an event - not proposing a general mechanism.
"Explaining the pearl necklace of SNR 1987A by coherent optics".

A lot of beautiful observations of Supernova remnant 1987A give a precise idea of its structure and its evolution. The regular interpretations of the observations set that the large energy needed to explain the brightness of the pearl necklaces is provided by shock waves involving remnants of a first explosion and a wave produced by the observed explosion although the existence of this wave is discussed. We develop the alternative explanation of the necklaces by photoionization. Our main hypothesis is that the explosion of the blue supergiant progenitor produces two neutron stars and a central brilliant object, a linear system similar to those which were observed by Halton Arp.
We suppose that these stars remains bright in extreme UV, to maintain the strong ionization of a bubble of hot hydrogen nearly transparent in far UV ( defined as the range of Lyman frequencies of atomic hydrogen). Outside the bubbles, three shells containing atomic hydrogen generate resonant, superradiant scatterings at Lyman frequencies, in tangential competing modes. The superradiance cools the gas and absorbs strongly the radial far UV light, hiding the stars. The shells may be identified with the inner active shells found from light echoes.

In addition there is no sign of publication yet in arXiv or ADS for this 16 month old paper.

[GoodGuysEatPie]

Thanks, I'll check it out tomorrow. And Sn Ia data has an alternative explanation in PC; see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0702/0702075v1.pdf for a start.

The cited paper is very interesting. Thank you Zeuzzz.
However it's title and abstract make it clear that they are explaining an event - not proposing a general mechanism.
"Explaining the pearl necklace of SNR 1987A by coherent optics".

In addition there is no sign of publication yet in arXiv or ADS for this 16 month old paper.

I replied in the appropriate thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112661&page=23). While the paper may prove interesting, it has absolutely nothing to do with the data/predictions I asked about.

~ggep~

[Reality Check]

Yes, strangely not a single PC theory after Alfvens ancient PC is listed in this current version. It clearly confuses Plasma Cosmology with Klein-Alfven Cosmology. Not really what you call a "current version" considering that all the PC material since then was published in reputable peer reviewed journals, and wikipedia has detailed pages on enlightening theories such as Astrology and Handreading. You might want to check out the discussion tab on that page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plasma_cosmology#Uncensored_version), ScienceAppologist has started to lose favor with many of the admins there after Lerner posted the uncensored version, they may soon let people update the current ancient version for some of the newer stuff. Or the entire page might be banned by SA like GEMS theory one. The alterntaive plasma universe site (which was setup due to Science Appologists censorship on wiki) offers a comprehensive list of all the peer reviewed articles and papers of plasma cosmology that wikipedia admins (currently) refuse to acknowledge. For those interested; http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Special:Allpages

one of many comments from the wiki talk page, you can even go and contribute if you want;
WikiPedia does have one defect: It is based on articles about topics. So in order to write an article about a topic (e.g. astrology) you have to be able to define the topic. We are still in the process of defining what plasma cosmology is. If the definition turns out to be something like "all cosmological theories that are not the Big Bang theory and all theories that mention plasma" then imagine the gigantic size of the topic.

On the other hand it would to interesting to have your list of the many theories in plasma cosmology in one place so people can see exactly what plasma cosmology really is.

[robinson]

It seems the importance, as well as the mystery surrounding the data, has escaped notice here.

In one of those ironic twists, the "cranks" and "crackpots" (on other forums) discussing this discovery are far more civil and interesting than those here who should know better.

[robinson]

WikiPedia does have one defect: It is based on articles about topics. So in order to write an article about a topic (e.g. astrology) you have to be able to define the topic.

I would venture WP has more than one defect, but in regards to articles, defining and explaining the words that head an article are part of what an encyclopedia does. You not only have to define what the word or words mean, they have to be notable, and only after you have defined something, and justified an entry, then you can expand into all sorts of details and expanded information about an article.

[Reality Check]

It seems the importance, as well as the mystery surrounding the data, has escaped notice here.

The data is certainly important. It shows that we need to refine the model for the formation of the magnetic field in galaxies. The researcher Francesco Miniati has even suggested such a refinement - that galaxies are seeded with the more powerful magnetic fields from quasars rather than the magnetic fields form the early history of the universe.

I personally wonder if the formation of the cosmic filalments as shown by the Lambda-CDM simulation has anything to do with it. The filamants may have large enough magnetic fields so that when galaxies form in them it does not take as long for magnetic fields to get to the observed strength.

[Tubbythin]

Periodic Quasar Abundances
Tully-Fisher Relationship
The first law of thermodynamics
The sombrero galaxy
Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
Missing mass

A list means nothing. What are you talking about. You have to show how each applies.

The milky way
Rotation curves of galaxies
Production of >Gev gamma rays
Heating of corona
Trevor Mc Donald

I've started over here ('http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3886129&posted=1#post3886129').

[tusenfem]

You presume that its just the timescale? the timescale could be correct, but the model of galactic magnetic fields not. I was under the impression that the origin of magnetic fields in galaxies was a bit of a mystery, and sort of an open question still, with various people using various different theories.


I am not an expert on magnetic field generation in galaxies, however, as I noted later, I assume that there is some dynamo mechanism working. If that is the case, and a paper by (url = cdsads u-strasbg fr/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1990A%26A...240..289D&amp;data_ type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetyp e=.pdf)Donner & Brandenburg(/url) seems to agree with this, then indeed the time scales are wrong for the young galaxies, and the growth is much faster. But, like at the sun or the Earth, the growth is limited.


You presume that its the gravity in the galaxy that creates the magnetic fields, and not vice versa? From an initial perspective the universe had no dense objects or stars, so EM forces in the nebulae would be dominant at the very beginning of formation (when acting on the high charge mass ratio of ions, not the low ratio of large objects). Its the point where gravity starts to dominate (with the creation of dense stars (when they eventually form)) that would be very interesting to know.


Yes, I think that "gravity" (to be more precise turbulent motion in the nucleus of a galaxy) is creating the magnetic fields, and most definitely not vice versa, I do not believe in the ATM theory that magnetic fields create gravity.

There are always statistical variations in any gas/plasma density, there is never homogeneous plasma (as you yourself complained about in another thread here on the board, thinking that mainstream only uses homogeneous plasmas). EM forces could be dominant, depending on which forces you are thinking about, e.g. the influence of the field of a single charge does not reach any further than the Debye length.


Seed magnetic fields. Heard of them before, but never been quite sure what they actually are. Is this linked to the MHD dynamo thought to be in the galactic core? Or is it separate? have we got any experimental evidence for seed magnetic fields, or are they a tool used only in cosmology?


As plasma is a statistical phenomenon, the motion of the ions and electrons will "combine spontaneously" and create small current loops, which in their turn create small magnetic field loops. These small loops we call seed magnetic field and they can be distorted and strengthened by dynamo action (the so called alpha and omega dynamos). And sure there are all kinds of measurements of such magnetic loops either in laboratory or their occurrence in the solar wind (because a background magnetic field will not forbid the creation of new loops, but it does get slightly more difficult). And they are used everywhere, not just in cosmology.


The current (for a galaxy of rough dimensions 1020 - 1021m) implies a total current in Peratts model of ~1017 -1019 A. But this varies with each size of galaxy, and also with each type of galaxy in different stages of evolution.


Wow, how are you going to drive such big currents! But anywho. there are two current "filaments" that make the galaxy, so say each one is half the size, then we find a field of:

B = μ0 I / 2 π R = 2 nanoTesla = 2 10-5 Gauss

outside of the filament. So maybe my feeling was wrong on this.


tusenfem, I was wondering what your thoughts were on unipolar induction in the galactic core instead of the usual MHD dynamo. Alfven proposed this many years ago for galaxies, and this idea seems to have been accepted by some recently, as it excells at explaining the accelerated particles from galactic cores, and a number of other issues. Similar EM models using a unipolar inductor have been proposed recently for pulsars by many astronomers (following mainly from the work of Wu et al. on binaries), and some have now suggested it for galaxies too.

As an expert in this field (I think?), what are your thoughts on this model applied to galaxies?

I think that excels at explaining the jets, and could also explain some of the central morphologies of galaxies. Generally unipolar inductors in space take a galaxy type shape.


Unipolar inductor. This is basically the creation of an electric field by the motion of a magnetic field, and basically it is described by E = v x B, and was used to e.g. for the description of the currents flowing in the flux tube of Io in Jupiter's magnetosphere (which later was corrected into the more appropriate Alfvén wing model). I am not sure if it excels in accelerating particles, when possible, the electric field will drive currents.

How does this work on a galactic scale? First of all there has to be a magnetic field and then there needs to be motion of something through this magnetic field in order to get the EMF working. You have to be in a frame that has a velocity with respect to the magnetic field in order for vxB to work. There is no problem that this mechanism can work on a galactic scale, however, there needs to be plasma to let the current flow.

At pulsars e.g. the strong electric field at the magnetic poles is created by the rotation of the neutron star. The Wu et al. paper wants to heat the non-magnetic star by induced currents through the magnetic partner. I fail to see the connection with young galaxies where magnetic field needs to be generated.

I saw in the powerpoint presentations that the unipolar inductor was mentioned, and only the second one did some calculations on it.

However, I am rather confused what this has to do with the young galaxies. In order for the unipolar inductor to work you already need to have a magnetic field, it will not create a large scale magnetic field, it will change an already existing magnetic field.

[tusenfem]

The data is certainly important. It shows that we need to refine the model for the formation of the magnetic field in galaxies. The researcher Francesco Miniati has even suggested such a refinement - that galaxies are seeded with the more powerful magnetic fields from quasars rather than the magnetic fields form the early history of the universe.

I personally wonder if the formation of the cosmic filalments as shown by the Lambda-CDM simulation has anything to do with it. The filamants may have large enough magnetic fields so that when galaxies form in them it does not take as long for magnetic fields to get to the observed strength.


As I said in the previous message, I am no expert in galactic formation. However, if indeed the filaments have magnetic fields then after the collapse the subsequent dynamo action will naturally happen much faster, as the seed field will be much stronger.

(Yippie, finally at 15 posts, now I can put links in my posts)

[Dancing David]

Well if thats true it pretty much rules out Bell & McDiarmids conclusion. I wonder what "using only objects selected in regions whose spectroscopic observations were chosen with the final version of the quasar target selection algorithm" means? what determined the selection?

Maybe here?:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-3881/133/4/1615
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/131/6/2766/205010.text.html
http://www.shao.ac.cn/tianwu/JC_galaxy/file/QSO_SDSS.pdf
http://www.sdss.org/dr5/algorithms/target.html
http://www.cfa.ustc.edu.cn/others/summerschool/Doc/%E6%A8%8A%E6%99%93%E8%BE%89/%E6%A8%8A%E6%99%93%E8%BE%892.ppt
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0604373

http://sancerre.as.arizona.edu/~fan/pub/


It will be beyond me.

Help DRD?

[DeiRenDopa]

Well if thats true it pretty much rules out Bell & McDiarmids conclusion. I wonder what "using only objects selected in regions whose spectroscopic observations were chosen with the final version of the quasar target selection algorithm" means? what determined the selection?Maybe here?:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-3881/133/4/1615
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/131/6/2766/205010.text.html
http://www.shao.ac.cn/tianwu/JC_galaxy/file/QSO_SDSS.pdf
http://www.sdss.org/dr5/algorithms/target.html
http://www.cfa.ustc.edu.cn/others/summerschool/Doc/%E6%A8%8A%E6%99%93%E8%BE%89/%E6%A8%8A%E6%99%93%E8%BE%892.ppt
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0604373

http://sancerre.as.arizona.edu/~fan/pub/


It will be beyond me.

Help DRD?Z's "selection" could be referring to two different things in the quote from the Schneider et al. SDSS DR5 paper: "using only objects selected", or "with the final version of the quasar target selection algorithm".

The meaning of the quoted phrase is a little difficult to grock, without an awful lot of background on SDSS; here's my attempt:

* SDSS involved the automatic estimation of the photometric magnitude, in five 'colours' (i.e. through five different filters), of everything the imaging software considered either a galaxy or a "star" (it did an awful lot more, but that's all we need here)

* a subset of the "galaxies" and "stars" were selected for later observation, in the spectroscopic part of the survey (this is where the redshifts of objects were estimated)

* as a key objective of SDSS was an unbiased survey of quasars (or QSOs), a great deal of work went into identifying and characterising systematic (selection) effects

* from the five-colour photometry, "stars" were selected (by an algorithm encoded in software) as "quasar targets" - essentially all objects ("stars") within certain regions of the multi-dimensional colour space; this is one part of the "the quasar target selection algorithm"

* as the project progressed, the quasar target selection algorithm was modified, hence "the final version"

* so, in what parts of the sky (the full database of objects from the SDSS photometric survey) was "the final version of the quasar target selection algorithm" used to select objects for spectroscopic observation? Not all the regions of the sky observed by SDSS (in some regions objects for spectroscopic observation were selected by earlier versions of the algorithm).

Needless to say, there are many potential biasses and selections effects in this type of astronomy! And it is all too easy to find a trend in the final database that is not due to something physical but simply an otherwise overlooked systematic effect.

One well-known effect is exactly "the dips in the curve at redshifts of 2.7 and 3.5" - in colour space a very large number of ordinary stars "look like" quasars with these redshifts, and the project scientists decided to go for "significant incompleteness" rather than use scarce spectrograph resources on a great many stars.

The part of the Schneider et al. paper from which the quote comes makes reference to Richards et al (2006) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2766R); that paper contains a discussion of the various aspects of the SDSS quasar target selection algorithm, as well as presenting estimates of the completeness of the (quasar) survey by redshift; however, most of the groundwork is presented in an earlier paper ("Richards et al. paper (2002a) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123.2945R)"); this paper also contains the full description of "the quasar target selection algorithm" Schneider et al. used.

Of DD's links, this one is (IMHO) the most pertinent; note that I have provided a link to the ADS citation of "Richards et al. (2002)" above: http://www.sdss.org/dr5/algorithms/target.html:The final adopted SDSS quasar target selection algorithm is described in Richards et al. (2002)

[...]

The quasar target selection algorithms are summarized in this schematic flowchart (http://www.sdss.org/dr5/algorithms/qsotargchart.gif). Because the quasar selection cuts are fairly numerous and detailed, the reader is strongly recommended to refer to Richards et al. (2002) [...] for the full discussion of the sample selection criteria, completeness, target efficiency, and caveats.Questions?