Something new under the sun

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

What is a "grounding" in cosmology, RC? Gnomes 101? Advanced Gnomes 200? Big Bang Priesthood Independent Study?

You ought to know oh master of Blind Faith! You have many Gnomes, the top three:

1. Claiming Arp showed an association between his galaxies and QSOs.
2. Waving Perrat's model around without being able to discuss the scaling to galactic size and what forces are involved.
3. Claiming that a Lerner plasmoid will not undergo gravitational collapse.

If you would , please link to Perra's paper (assuming you can spell his name correctly this time) where he proves that plasma will create a flat rotation curve for a galaxy.


If it is another 10cm and 4.3 Gauss experiment then the scaling should be interesting.

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I would advise you to make the same deal with Zeuzzz I did.

That is, force him to agree that if you debunk some definite claim, he will stop posting this garbage.

If the definite claim is that those experiments look like the sun because the sun IS an anode, you'll be done immediately. But I doubt he has the balls to make such a claim - he'll just hide behind vague nonsense.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Well, thats the big question isn't it. We know that Birkeland currents show nearly exactly the same form and shape over lengths of 10¹⁰, from the lab to the auroras, so the Terrella and the sun should be comparible on some level.

The comparison between the two comes in when you actually look at the precise nature of many of his results. They are far too consistant with the features of the sun to be mere co-incidence, and all were created with electrical effects.

Birkeland had this to say about it, but he never came up with a definitive solution for the scaling relationships between the two;

Quote:

I have sought by various methods to find a value for the very singular capacity of this globe corresponding to disruptive discharges, a capacity which seems to vary perceptibly according to the conditions of the discharge. In the case of this globe (8 cm. in diameter), this capacity varies about 1/100 of a microfarad, and if I assume that the sun has a corresponding capacity C in the relation of the square of the diameters, I find that C = 3 x 10^18 microfarads.

So although Birkeland saw some interesting visual effects, he was unable to predict the charge on the sun from his experiments. Thanks for the info.

[Dancing David]

doppo post

[sol invictus]

Here's a simpler way to get a similar estimate. Let's just compare the electromagnetic force between a pair of stars to the gravitational force.

The gravitational force is G m1 m2/r^2, and the electromagnetic force is q1 q2/(4 pi epsilon_0 r^2). Taking the stars to be similar to the sun and using our 100C figure for the charge, G m^2 is about 10^50, and q^2/(4 pi epsilon_0) is about 10^14. So the gravitational force is larger by a factor of 10^36.

Of course that's actually a huge overestimate of how strong the electromagnetic forces in the galaxy are (at least those due to charges on stars), since some objects have positive charge and some have negative and there will be large cancellations.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I suspect MM will no more want to share his thoughts on that than he did on the post I offered on plasmas and filaments.

He'll probably just go on ignoring us.

Or desperately try to ...

Just as you wave your Gnomes around and do not explain how YOUR models work BAC!

1. What about Arp's use of statistics?

2. What is the force scale in Perrat's model? Is it magnetism that makes the rotation curve flat? If so what size is the field?

3. What keeps a Lerner plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses in an area with 43 AU radius from collapsing to a black hole?


You blame me for YOUR inability ti explain YOUR models.

You are IGNORING the questions, why is that BAC, why not answer the questions?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

You have the same problem as David, RC. You don't want to learn. You can't be troubled to take the time to actually read what Peratt said about his model, even though links to his papers have been provided on this thread (and many others). I understand mainstream astrophysics at least well enough to debate it. You don't begin to even want to understand what scientists like Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Arp, Hoyle and Narlikar propose.

See what I mean

You wave around thier bames, you hide , you dodge you evade, you distract but the one thing you won't do is answer the direct question.

You are hiding BAC.

Explains why Arps' statistics are not subject to sampling error.

Explain what Perrat's model uses as a force to have a flat rotation curve and what size that force is.

Explain how Lerner's model of a 40,000 solar mass plasmoid avoids gravitational collapse.

You are Karl Roving again, you can't EXPLAIN OR UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN MODEL so you blame others for your inabilty to answer a direct question.

Whatever will FOX noise and the Publican party do when you can't spin thier trash for them?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

No, you have NOT *observed* the missing dark matter. You've INFERRED it from velocities, a perhaps incorrect understanding of lensing, and from underlying assumptions in your mainstream models (such as ignoring EM effects on plasmas). They've no more observed dark matter than they observed the mass you claim they've "observed" at the center of galaxies.

Yeah right BAC, and pray tell dear Master of Obstufication, how does the plasma model explain gravitational lensing.

Are you going to violate gravitationa again.

Oh wait I know, you will Hide Behind a Name of Great Power.

1. How do you explain the opbserved motion of star's at the core of our galaxy BAC, that is how the mass at the center is derived?
2. How do you explain gravitational lensing? (Do you want to see some pretty pictures of light arcs?)

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

No, what I'm doing is observing that you don't even want to understand.

And your undersatnding of it as well, which is zero.

I observe that you will not answer the direct questions about the Three Gnomes of BAC.

Why is that BAC, is it because you just wave words around but you can't comprehend your own model enough to explain it.

I observe, you refuse to answer.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

No, what I'm doing is observing that you don't even want to understand.

And your undersatnding of it as well, which is zero.

I observe that you will not answer the direct questions about the Three Gnomes of BAC.

Why is that BAC, is it because you just wave words around but you can't comprehend your own model enough to explain it.

I observe, you refuse to answer.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

We have had this conversation many times before Ziggurat, i suggest we save each other some time and agree to disagree, the actual value is still open to debate and has not been measured in any direct way, so it could turn out to far less or more than 100C.

Let's not. This is at the heart of this whole debate. You want to cling to an idea despite every indication that it simply is not possible. Could the calculation be off? I suppose so. By a factor of 2? Don't see how. By a factor of 10⁶? No bloody chance in hell. By a factor of 10²⁰? Laughable. But that's the sort of factors the EU folks require. So why can you not conceed that such large charges are impossible? You cannot defend the idea, and yet you refuse to dismiss it. Why?

Quote:

You say the sun is not an anode, but why then were Birkelands experiments such a resounding success?

How, exactly, are they a resounding success? In that they produce pictures which look qualitatively similar? Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. That isn't enough. Not when the voltage required to produce those effects on a stellar scale are physically impossible.

Quote:

If you are thinking on the scale of planets and large bodies, then yes, this charge will have little, if any, effect. But the effect this small amount of charge could have on individual particles is thousands of times greater than gravity,

Which is exactly why significant charges CANNOT BE CONFINED on the sun, and it will self-discharge by repelling all but about 100 C of positive charge. And it will do so explosively if that charge is significantly larger than 100 C.

Quote:

and so this alone could indicate that the particle acceleration and coronal heating problems that have been so troublesome for astronomers to solve could have a solution by employing the suns global E-field.

"Could"? Maybe. Does? Not yet. Nobody has shown how a 100 C charge and the accompanying field could contribute significantly to that problem. So this is really just faith on your part. You'll have to excuse me for not sharing in it.

Quote:

I think that this calculation you did is not using the full relationships proposed by Peratt, I will have a look at it when I have more time, I would be surprised if you were the first to refute his work when no-one else seems able to fault it, and other authors are still citing it to this day.

The galactic rotation curve stuff? The thing is, I didn't actually refute it. I just demonstrated that it is not applicable to and cannot explain galactic rotation of stars. Which, for our discussion, is rather central. But it's not what he was calculating, so it's not quite a refutation. As far as I can tell, he was calculating a plasma-only model - in effect, what's sometimes referred to as a toy model. Physicists do that all the time. Sometimes such toy models prove to be useful, sometimes they're only intellectual exercises. It looks like it's the latter in this case.

And it's true, I didn't include everything in my calculation. I left out the magnetic dipole term, and I didn't calculate the electric field term. I think those terms are negligible. The latter term is easy to calculate if you posit a galactic electric field. What would it need to be to be significant? That's an easy calculation, why don't you try it? As for the dipole term, that's a bit trickier. It requires positing a magnetic field gradient, as well as figuring out the magnetic dipole on the sun. Care to give that a crack? I suspect not. But given the size of the galaxy, I'm confident in asserting that the gradient is going to be far too small to have a noticeable impact.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Thank God! finally, you have admitted defeat

Translation: "Phew! It's a good thing he gave up before I had to admit defeat, myself!"

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Translation: "Phew! It's a good thing he gave up before I had to admit defeat, myself!"

Sums it up. Nutjobs can wear down honest people because insanity is self-stimulating.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

That is absolutely correct. Claiming that stars must behave just like interstellar gas because the particles in both are ionized makes as much sense as saying that chunks of lead and styrofoam will have the same behavior in the ocean since both are solids.

Who said that "stars must behave just like interstellar gas"? You implied that yoursef. Firstly, the word you are looking for is plasma, which is evident from the numerous observations of strong electric currents connecting bodies through the Interstellar medium (ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref) the high temparatures observed there (hotter than the photosphere of the sun in some places, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Interstellar_Cloud), and electric currents can only flow long distances through plasma, not gas.

And also (RealityCheck), I dont think you comprehend the magnitude of size difference we are talking about when we are modelling the galaxy in comparison to the stars in it. The milky way has an estimated 200 billion stars in it, and if it were scaled down to 130 km (80 mi) in diameter, the Solar System would be a mere 2 mm across. What you fail to note is that the galactic force moving all the stars is large enough to move them all together, with the ISM, in a very similar way that current gravity models do. So you point that stars are more dense and so this can not work is moot. (unless current gravitational models dont work either?)

Quote:

If we're back to the claim that the rotation curves of galaxies are affected by electromagnetic forces, here's something to think about. We've known since the 1970's that stars orbit around the galactic center too fast given how much visible matter there is. Let's see what contribution EM forces could make to that.

What a good idea!

(as long as you use the right EM forces)

Quote:

We know what the maximum charge on a star is - around 100C.

Correction. We dont know what the charge on the sun is, apart from a very rough value postulated from one science paper, whose material is entirely theoretical and not based on any observations whatsoever.

However, the paper you used Sol does make some interesting reading.

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?optio...24/aah2649.pdf

Quote:

The purpose of this paper is remind of the existence of the global electrostatic field of the Sun and other stars, since it has been ignored by the authors of textbooks and review papers during the last several decades. Consequently, it has probably not been taken into account in the concerning works.

Weird that, maybe plasma cosmologists are correct when they say that standard atronomers largely ignore the effects of charge and E-fields in the cosmos due to the way they are taught about magnetism in space, seldom with reference to the electrcal currents that produce them, and what the circuitry of these currents are.

That paper then goes on to say:

Quote:

More recent books and review papers on the solar corona or the Sun have generally omitted the effect of electric field (e.g. Parker 1963; Newkirk 1967; Gibson 1973; Athay 1976; Zirin 1988; Bird & Edenhofer 1990; Foukal 1990; Stix 1991; Low 1996). Since we have not found any paper mentioning a reason why the field should not exist, it seems that it was simply forgotten.

Whoops! Astronomers just forgot that space is filled with charge and E-fields, so naturally that makes it OK to completely leave the effects of these fields out of their models.

And some of their assumptions are outlined:

Quote:

Inspecting the conditions assumed in the derivation procedure of the eld (3) in more detail, it is clear that the result is valid for an ideally quiet, perfectly spherical, non-rotating star. Obviously real stars do not have physical properties completely identical to ideal stars and this causes the instantaneous global charge of a given star to differ from the value Q of an ideal star. Nevertheless, the star permanently tends to set up this charging and we can assume it as a rough approximation (rough but much better than exact neutrality)

So the very theoretical nature of this paper would lead me to question the accuracy of their final value. If it was an observational paper showing evidence of this E-field, then that would be much better evidnce, but it really is just pure theory at this point.

And one of the most interesting observations in the paper is the order of magnitude jump from what the previous maximum value of the charge was thought to be to the one proposed in this paper.

Quote:

It is possible that the claim about the electrical neutrality of stars originates in a misunderstanding of net charge on a star. For example in the textbook by Glendenning (1997; p. 71), there is subsection entitled \Electrical Neutrality of Stars", in which the upper limit on the net charge is derived. The net positive charge has to be smaller than 10−36 qA Coulombs, where q is elementary electric charge (charge of proton) and A is number of baryons in the star. Hence, the author concludes that \the net charge per nucleon (and therefore the average charge per nucleon on any star) must be very small, essentially zero". Of course, we must agree that the charge per nucleon is negligible, even the charge of a small macroscopic volume of plasma is usually negligible.

So the value jumped from a value of charge way below 0, right up to ~100 with just one theoretical paper, lets say this trend continues as more research is done in this area, say to 10⁵? and then maybe to 10⁸? the fact is: we just dont know. It has never been measured, so any of these values are possible.

A further interesting section of this paper states that current models (that still do not take this E-field into account) are prone to "serious physical problems" if they do not include the effects of this E-field. And they then go on to say that the E-field effects protons very differently to electrons (mainly due to mass difference).

Quote:

We can demonstrate that the existence of the global
charge is necessary to avoid some serious physical problems.[..]

If the charge were not taken into account (if we assumed its zero value), then we would obtain a partial electron pressure about three orders lower in comparison with the partial proton (ion) pressure. This would be in disagreement with the common assumption of equal electron and ion pressures in a stellar plasma.

Now, where have i heard this idea before of protons and electrons being effected independantly of one another? creating a backstreaming electron effect in the solar wind? This effect of electrons separating from the other ions in the solar wind and travelling backward against the normal direction of the solar wind have also been linked directly to energetic solar events: Backstreaming Electrons Associated With Solar Electron Bursts - 12/2007

But ayway, I digress.

Quote:

We know that the orbital speeds of stars in a typical galaxy are 100s of km/s - let's say 250 km/s, using numbers for the Milky Way at 10,000 parsecs. The visible mass of our galaxy inside that radius is about 50 billion solar masses. So the acceleration due to gravity is G M/r^2 ~ 10^-4 m/s^2. As a check, this should be roughly v^2/r (that's the virial theorem, or just the equation for an orbit), and it's close at this level of accuracy (the actual discrepancy is part of the evidence for DM).

OK, so the acceleration is about 10^-4. Now, given an object with a mass of 10^30 kg and a charge of 100C, how big of an electric field would one need to create that acceleration? Well, the answer is E = F/q = ma/q=10^24 V/m . How about a magnetic field? Well, then we have B = ma/qv = 10^19 T.

You are using simple electrostatics equations? You really have not grasped anything here have you. If you had read Peratts material then you would know that electrostatics has very little to do with it, it is using a the Biot savart law for charge carrying plasma filaments and their reaction with each other. It is also related to the inverse solution to Amperes force law, a particular area of interest recently for many plasma astrophysicists/cosmologists due to recent improvements in measuring of such fields, especially the work of Andre Koch Assis on Ampere's force between current elements and electric fields created outside steady currents and their scaleability relationships (some can be seen here)


Because of the EMF-induced current, Iz, a galactic filament can be expected to retain its columnar filamental form provided the Bennett-pinch condition is satisfied,

i.e, that,



where N is the electron density per unit length.

In addition to confining plasma in filaments radially, the axial current flow produces another important effect; a long-range interactive force on other galactic filaments. The Biot-Savart electromagnetic force between filaments is:





for all space, where j x B is the Lorentz force. If the current path greatly exceeds the filament widths, the attractive force between two similarly oriented filaments is approximately given by:





where the subscripts 1 and 2 denote columns 1 and 2, respectively, and R12 is their separation. Because of the axial magnetic field B„ the particles spiral as they drift or accelerate and thereby produce an azimuthal component in the generalized current . The magnetic moment associated with the azimuthal current is . If the magnetic moments in adjacent filaments are aligned, a short-range repulsive force is generated between them:





Hence, the electromagnetic forces between filaments are ordered as (long-range attractive) and (shortrangerepulsive).



Some of the other relationships and values can be seen here: "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets" - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14 (now the tenth time i have posted this paper without anyone directly commenting on it) or in his second paper: Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14

This model is not definitive, there are other factors at work, including the force resulting from the galactic centres unipolar inductor configuration, but these objects were not well known when Peratt wrote this paper. But the basic principles are all there, and it certainly does not need to invoke galaxies full of dark matter and energy to work sucessfully, and so could be called the better theory of the two.

Quote:

Let me give you a sense of how utterly ridiculous these numbers are.

Well thats entriely expected, as the calculation you did was a ridiculous calculation, based on an entirely faulty premise that the only force at work is simple electrostatics.

Quote:

Draw your own conclusions.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Correction. We dont know what the charge on the sun is, apart from a very rough value postulated from one science paper, whose material is entirely theoretical and not based on any observations whatsoever.

You keep saying this. But it's complete nonsense. The difference needed isn't small. It's many orders of magnitude. And there's simply no possible way you can close the gap. In fact, you haven't even tried. You have not ONCE suggested how it's possible to confine a charge much larger than 100 C to the sun. Not once. So your repeated assertions that this paper should not be taken seriously because it's just "theoretical" is nonsense. and it's deeply dishonest. Admit it: you've got no reason to think it's wrong, you just want it to be.

Quote:

And some of their assumptions are outlined:

We've been through this before. A non-uniform charge distribution has ZERO first-order effect. Second-order and higher effects will be small, and such deviations will be small too, since the sun is conductive. The no-rotating aspect is likewise an irrelevant perturbation, and obviously so because it does not distort the sun's shape significantly from spherical.

Quote:

So the very theoretical nature of this paper would lead me to question the accuracy of their final value.

That is, frankly, because you're clueless. Is their number correct to within 1%? Probably not. Within 10%? I'd say yes. Within an order of magnitude? You've got to come up with a charge confinement method other than gravity iif you want to advance that notion. Off by a factor of 10⁶ or more? No chance in hell. But that's what the EU folks are proposing, and a factor of around 10²⁰ is required to make it relevant for galactic rotation curves.

Quote:

So the value jumped from a value of charge way below 0, right up to ~100 with just one theoretical paper,

Uh, no. That's exactly what did NOT happen. The reference to a previous limit is in fact in line with this paper, if you go through the calculations. The point of the paper isn't that the charge is larger than previously thought, but rather that it shouldn't be ignored all the time. And that's true. But much of the time it's still quite fine to ignore it (calculating planetary orbits, for example).

Quote:

lets say this trend continues as more research is done in this area, say to 10⁵? and then maybe to 10⁸?

Not going to happen unless you propose completely new methods to confine the charge. But there aren't even any candidates.

Quote:

the fact is: we just dont know. It has never been measured, so any of these values are possible.

Uh, no. That's the whole point of science: the ability to make predictions. Our models are good enough to categorically rule out such numbers. You'd have to rewrite the laws of physics at a pretty low level in order to do it. And there's simply no reason to think that's required.

Quote:

You are using simple electrostatics equations?

No, actually, he isn't only using electrostatics. Electrostatics don't include magnetism. That's why they're called electrostatics. Pay particular attention to his last line in the part you quoted.

Quote:

If you had read Peratts material then you would know that electrostatics has very little to do with it, it is using a the Biot savart law

Which is magnetostatics. And for a moving localized charge like the sun, it's not appropriate - the Lorentz force law is what you want. And that's exactly what Sol included with that last equation (B=ma/qv, which is just solving F=qv x B). The Biot-Savart law is just an extension of the Lorentz force to non-localized moving charges (aka currents) anyways. But the fact that you couldn't recognize the fact that Sol DID include the magnetic terms just shows that you have no clue what you're talking about.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Who said that "stars must behave just like interstellar gas"? You implied that yoursef. Firstly, the word you are looking for is plasma, which is evident from the numerous observations of strong electric currents connecting bodies through the Interstellar medium (ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref) the high temparatures observed there (hotter than the photosphere of the sun in some places, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Interstellar_Cloud), and electric currents can only flow long distances through plasma, not gas.

And also (RealityCheck), I dont think you comprehend the magnitude of size difference we are talking about when we are modelling the galaxy in comparison to the stars in it. The milky way has an estimated 200 billion stars in it, and if it were scaled down to 130 km (80 mi) in diameter, the Solar System would be a mere 2 mm across. What you fail to note is that the galactic force moving all the stars is large enough to move them all together, with the ISM, in a very similar way that current gravity models do. So you point that stars are more dense and so this can not work is moot. (unless current gravitational models dont work either?)

Okay this is where the rubber meet the road Zuezz.


Please explain to us a number of things.

What field or force is moving the stars at the rate to give them a flat rotation curve that which can be accounted for by gravity (no dark matter/energy) + your force = flat rotaion curve.
What is the strength of that force or field. So far you have made a scale comparison without mentioning the scale of the forces involved. Given the mass of a star , what strength must the charge on the star be, what strenth must the force be to add the extra velocity and make for a flat rotation curve.

It is not acceptable to just say, well the galaxy is large and the stars are small, what force or field add the extra velocity and what strengh is it?


This is where you give a scale and start to explain how to get from point A to point B without the *insert miaracle* here. Since dark matter is a cludge of a factor of twenty , you get that for free.

Thanks

david



PS: Scaling should include, please and thank you,

1. Mass of average plasma partcile in model to average mass of star in galaxy.
2. Scale of magnetic field, electrical current or other EM force in model to magnetic field, electrical field or other EM force in the galaxy.
3. Force or field needed to move plasma particle in model to force needed to move a star in galaxy.
4. Charge on plasma particle and scaled charge upon star.


For example if someone uses a 10 cm plasma to model a galaxy with a diameter of 100 million light years that is a distance scale of 1mm=1million light years.
If a plasma partcile has the outrageous mass of 1 gram and a star has an outrageous mass of 1 million grams then we have a scale of 1:1,000,000

And so say that the expected velocity of a star is x but the observed value is y then the force needed to move that star will be f=(star mass) x acceleration to produce y-x in terms of chosen velocity.

(I think my math is wrong because acceleration is change in velocity , not the difference between two velocities but you get the sort of idea).

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

...And also (RealityCheck), I dont think you comprehend the magnitude of size difference we are talking about when we are modelling the galaxy in comparison to the stars in it. The milky way has an estimated 200 billion stars in it, and if it were scaled down to 130 km (80 mi) in diameter, the Solar System would be a mere 2 mm across. What you fail to note is that the galactic force moving all the stars is large enough to move them all together, with the ISM, in a very similar way that current gravity models do. So you point that stars are more dense and so this can not work is moot. (unless current gravitational models dont work either?)

Gas = plasma that has not ionized. Or if you actually read the article: the interstellar medium is a mixture of gas and plasma.
Forget about "size" - we are talking about mass. Tell me what you disagree with in the following:

1. More than 99% of the visible universe is plasma.
2. This means that more than 99% of the visible galaxy is plasma.
3. 95% of the visible matter in the galaxy is in stars. That leaves 5% of the mass in the interstellar medium. Let us call that mass "gaseous plasma" since you seem to have a prejudice against the gas word. Or if you want we can call it "low-density plasma".
4. The plasma in stars differs from gaseous plasma by factors of 10³¹ (electron density) and 10⁶ (temperature).
5. A plasma with an electron density of 10²⁵ electrons per cubic centimeter can be described as high density plasma. The average density of the sun is 1.4 that of water.
6. Any thing with mass is affected by gravity.
7. A star has mass and so it is affected by gravity.
8. A star has a charge which has not yet been measured. Calculations show that it cannot be more than 100 Coulombs using an electrostatic, non-rotating model. No one has calculated the charge from a more complete model as far as we know.
9. You have the calculations that show that the gravitational force is many (28) orders of magnitude greater the the EM force on a star from a typical plasma when the star has a 100 Coulomb charge. The only way that EM forces can dominate is if we make the plasma or star unrealistic, e.g. increase the EM force by a million times while also increasing the charge on the star by a million times.
10. Therefore a plasma model that ignores gravity cannot be applied to a galaxy containing stars.

I can take your interstellar medum = plasma = star logic to an absurd conclusion:

• The interstellar medium is a plasma.
• I can see stars through the interstellar medium.
• Thus I can see stars through plasma.
• The sun is plasma.
• Therefore I can see stars through the sun.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Gas = plasma that has not ionized. Or if you actually read the article: the interstellar medium is a mixture of gas and plasma.
Forget about "size" - we are talking about mass. Tell me what you disagree with in the following:

1. More than 99% of the visible universe is plasma.
2. This means that more than 99% of the visible galaxy is plasma.
3. 95% of the visible matter in the galaxy is in stars. That leaves 5% of the mass in the interstellar medium. Let us call that mass "gaseous plasma" since you seem to have a prejudice against the gas word. Or if you want we can call it "low-density plasma".

1. Some estimates say the visible universe is up to 99.999% plasma.
   
   But its not a gasseuos plasma! that is where you totally misunderstand what a plasma is. It is a different state of matter, and has completeoly unique properties from other states of matter, you do not say that something is "gaseuos solid", do you? The charges are separated, the electrons have become free from the atoms, and are creating currents, and the subsequent magnetic fields that currents create. You would know this if you had read any of my refs on that subject. You need charge flow to create these electric currents we observe in them, so by definition, the ISM is largely plasma. Not all, of course, but mostly. The Critical Ionization Velocity effect between a neutral gas and plasma (an ionized gas) is the relative velocity at which the neutral gas will start to ionize. Given this relationship, the currents should neutralize a very substancial amount of the gas into the plasma state. (ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)
   
   
   Quote:

   Critical ionization velocity
   From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   
   Critical ionization velocity experiment onboard space shuttle Discovery (STS-39), releasing a plume of nitrous oxide gas. Full text
   Critical ionization velocity experiment onboard space shuttle Discovery (STS-39), releasing a plume of nitrous oxide gas. Full text
   
   Critical ionization velocity (CIV, also called Critical velocity, CV) is the relative velocity between a neutral gas and plasma (an ionized gas), at which the neutral gas will start to ionize. If more energy is supplied, the velocity of the atoms or molecules will not exceed the critical ionization velocity until the gas becomes almost fully ionized.
   
   The phenomenon was predicted by Swedish engineer and plasma scientist, Hannes Alfvén, in connection with his model on the origin of the Solar System (1942)[1][2][3]. At the time, no known mechanism was available to explain the phenomenon, but the theory was subsequently demonstrated in the laboratory,[4]. Subsequent research by Brenning and Axnäs (1988)[5] have suggested that a lower hybrid plasma instability is involved in transferring energy from the larger ions to electrons so that they have sufficient energy to ionize. Application of the theory to astronomy though a number of experiments have produced mixed results [6] [7].
   
   
   Quote:

   You have the calculations that show that the gravitational force is many (36) orders of magnitude greater the the EM force on a star from a typical plasma when the star has a 100 Coulomb charge. The only way that EM forces can dominate is if we make the plasma or star unrealistic, e.g. increase the EM force by a million times while also increasing the charge on the star by a million times.
   
   Yes, I learnt that ratio in secondary school physics. Thats why THIS IS NOT AN ELECTROSTATIC MODEL. did you read my post? or the rest of the paper?
   
   It is using PLASMA PHYSICS relationships. A bennet pinch, with a Biot savart force law in a force free configuration, including gravity as a variable, and using the electric fields induced by the double layers of the plasma filaments to induce the currents. All well researched plasma physics.
   
   
   
   Quote:

   
   Therefore a plasma model that ignores gravity cannot be applied to a galaxy containing stars.

Quote:

I can take your interstellar medum = plasma = star logic to an absurd conclusion:

• The interstellar medium is a plasma.
• I can see stars through the interstellar medium.
• Thus I can see stars through plasma.
• The sun is plasma.
• Therefore I can see stars through the sun.

[/quote]


That has to be one of the silliest things i have heard in a long time. The solar wind is a plasma, and you have no trouble seeing the sun through it, the sun is nearly infinitely denser than the solar wind, or ISM, so your analogy, claiming i am saying you should be able to see thorugh the sun, is truly stupid.

I will try to answer the rest tomorrow, and Dancing Davids Q, but please, try to keep the comments relevant RC.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

What field or force is moving the stars at the rate to give them a flat rotation curve that which can be accounted for by gravity (no dark matter/energy) + your force = flat rotaion curve.
What is the strength of that force or field. So far you have made a scale comparison without mentioning the scale of the forces involved. Given the mass of a star , what strength must the charge on the star be, what strenth must the force be to add the extra velocity and make for a flat rotation curve.

It is not acceptable to just say, well the galaxy is large and the stars are small, what force or field add the extra velocity and what strengh is it?


This is where you give a scale and start to explain how to get from point A to point B without the *insert miaracle* here. Since dark matter is a cludge of a factor of twenty , you get that for free.

Thanks

david



PS: Scaling should include, please and thank you,

1. Mass of average plasma partcile in model to average mass of star in galaxy.
2. Scale of magnetic field, electrical current or other EM force in model to magnetic field, electrical field or other EM force in the galaxy.
3. Force or field needed to move plasma particle in model to force needed to move a star in galaxy.
4. Charge on plasma particle and scaled charge upon star.


For example if someone uses a 10 cm plasma to model a galaxy with a diameter of 100 million light years that is a distance scale of 1mm=1million light years.
If a plasma partcile has the outrageous mass of 1 gram and a star has an outrageous mass of 1 million grams then we have a scale of 1:1,000,000

And so say that the expected velocity of a star is x but the observed value is y then the force needed to move that star will be f=(star mass) x acceleration to produce y-x in terms of chosen velocity.

(I think my math is wrong because acceleration is change in velocity , not the difference between two velocities but you get the sort of idea).

I think all you want may be answered in these, but i'll check fully tomorrrow when i have more time.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Some of the other relationships and values can be seen here: "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets" - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14 (now the tenth time i have posted this paper without anyone directly commenting on it) or in his second paper: Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14

And also: http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/AdvancesI.pdf
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloa....annotated.pdf

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

What field or force is moving the stars at the rate to give them a flat rotation curve that which can be accounted for by gravity (no dark matter/energy) + your force = flat rotaion curve.

David, have you asked yourself what field or force is moving the planets at the rate they are moving around the sun? And don't say gravity. That's just what's keeping them from flying away now.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Some estimates say the visible universe is up to 99.999% plasma.

I agree: 99.999% is more then 99%.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

But its not a gasseuos plasma! that is where you totally misunderstand what a plasma is. It is a different state of matter, and has completeoly unique properties from other states of matter, you do not say that something is "gaseuos solid", ...

Zeuzzz, I know that a plasma is the fourth state of matter. I used the term "gaseous plasma" to show that I was talking about a low density plasma like the the solar wind or interstellar medium. If you had read a few words later then you would have read exactly that.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Yes, I learnt that ratio in secondary school physics. Thats why THIS IS NOT AN ELECTROSTATIC MODEL. did you read my post? or the rest of the paper?

It is using PLASMA PHYSICS relationships. A bennet pinch, with a Biot savart force law in a force free configuration, including gravity as a variable, and using the electric fields induced by the double layers of the plasma filaments to induce the currents. All well researched plasma physics.

Are you saying that using a model that is NOT AN ELECTROSTATIC MODEL will increase the charge on stars by a million fold? Or will it make the EM force in the plasma a million times greater?

And yes I read the post and the paper.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

That has to be one of the silliest things i have heard in a long time. The solar wind is a plasma, and you have no trouble seeing the sun through it, the sun is nearly infinitely denser than the solar wind, or ISM, so your analogy, claiming i am saying you should be able to see thorugh the sun, is truly stupid.
...

I guess you have not heard about sarcasm or the sarcasm emoticon .

You need to justify treatinig 95% of the mass of the galaxy as if it was a low density plasma when it is "nearly infinitely denser than the solar wind, or ISM".

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Therefore a plasma model that ignores gravity cannot be applied to a galaxy containing stars.

I'll ask you the same question as David. What force or field is making the planets circling the sun move at the rate they now do, RC? It's not gravity. Could the answer be that the plasmas from which the planets formed were moving in that way before the planets formed? And if that's true (and I suspect it is), then couldn't it also be true that the plasmas from which stars formed were moving just as the stars they became are now moving? You see where I'm going with this ... don't you?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I'll ask you the same question as David. What force or field is making the planets circling the sun move at the rate they now do, RC? It's not gravity. Could the answer be that the plasmas from which the planets formed were moving in that way before the planets formed? And if that's true (and I suspect it is), then couldn't it also be true that the plasmas from which stars formed were moving just as the stars they became are now moving? You see where I'm going with this ... don't you?

Wow - a first year undergraduate physics question that I can actually answer: Kinetic energy
Of course it is plasma magic that is the force or field that is making the satellites circle the earth move at the rate they are now .

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Wow - a first year undergraduate physics question that I can actually answer: Kinetic energy.

But ask yourself ... where did that kinetic energy come from? Isn't the angular momentum that kinetic energy represents the result of a cloud of plasma that was rotating BEFORE the star (or galaxy) condensed and formed? Indeed, why does the sun rotate, RC?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

But ask yourself ... where did that kinetic energy come from? Isn't the angular momentum that kinetic energy represents the result of a cloud of plasma that was rotating BEFORE the star (or galaxy) condensed and formed? Indeed, why does the sun rotate, RC?

Yes, the kinetic energy comes from the angular momentum of the rotating cloud. What is your point?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

David, have you asked yourself what field or force is moving the planets at the rate they are moving around the sun? And don't say gravity. That's just what's keeping them from flying away now.

Uh, huh. It is very apparent you don't have a clue, you are the one who made the claim that somehow Perrat developed a model that explains the flat rotation curve of the galaxies without darm matter.

Yet when asked you refuse to name the force that adds to the velocity of the stars in a galaxy.

Because you really don't understand Perrat's work, you just wave his name around but you don't understand the concepts at all. So while you knock dark matter as a gnome you are much worse because you are just a blind faith based demagogue. You spout words as magic mantras put you are like the catholic schools boy who chants latin but knows not what he says.

The 'force' is called inertia or momentum. (The one that provides for the velocity of planets in thier orbits)

See I answered you question, something you can't do because while you abuse the name of Perrat you haven't a clue what his model means.

So procede with your arm waving, opaqueness and distraction.

You do not understand Perrat's model, that is apparent.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Yes, the kinetic energy comes from the angular momentum of the rotating cloud. What is your point?

I'm surprised you don't see the point. So let me help you.

The rotational velocities of the planets are not a result of gravity but of the rotation of the plasmas from which the sun and planets formed. At that time, electromagnetic phenomena played a very large role in the motions of those plasmas. Indeed, the reason most of the angular momentum in the solar system is not in the sun but in the planets is because EM effects transferred that angular momentum from the sun's plasmas to the plasmas that eventually became planets. This now accepted theory was first introduced by ... guess who? ... Alfven and Arrhenius. Although the mainstream likes to credit others for the discovery.

Now take what you've learned from this example and consider the galaxy. When it first began to form, most of the matter in the galaxy was probably still plasma not bound by stars. Most of the stars formed AFTER the galaxy formed. Hence, the rotation velocities of the stars (like the planets in our solar system) are due not to gravity but to the initial angular momentum of the condensing PLASMA cloud, modified by whatever EM phenomena were present in the forming galaxy. So a model like Peratt's which treats the matter creating the rotation curves as plasma is quite reasonable. And note that galaxies have the same problem that our solar system has ... moving the angular momentum out from the center. Explaining that is no problem for plasma astrophysicists (see Peratt's model) but gravity-only astrophysicists have to invent gnomes ... like vast amounts of dark matter ... to do it. Now do you see my point?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I'll ask you the same question as David. What force or field is making the planets circling the sun move at the rate they now do, RC? It's not gravity. Could the answer be that the plasmas from which the planets formed were moving in that way before the planets formed? And if that's true (and I suspect it is), then couldn't it also be true that the plasmas from which stars formed were moving just as the stars they became are now moving? You see where I'm going with this ... don't you?

You 'suspect'? What that the Underwear Gnomes are stealing your underwear?

No. Because of the acceleration of the actual angular momentum as the material collapses has on the material as it contracts. Less area of rotation, same mass means that the velocity of rotation increases.

So , no it is not the same.

Have you actually looked at the pictures of the Eagle nebula or parts of the Pleadies? Your ignorance is showing again. Do you even understand that which you claim to critique, no you don't. Or you would provide an answer as to what keeps Lerners plasmoid from collapsing, if it was 40,000 soalr masses in a sphere of 43 AU radius.

What is really patheic is you don't understand the models you wave around as magic mantras.

Please explain your new Gnome "plasma creates the angular momnetum of planets", ever heard of a Bok globule or a dark molecular clouds, how about colliding galaxies? Are you really going to say that it is the EM force which is causing us to be attracted to the Andromeda galaxy? (Cue more bad statistics from Arp.)

Your gnome has now aquirred an unexplained Pixie.


So now try to show how Jupiter aquirred it's angular momentum from EM forces and how it couldn't be accounted for by just being a high velocity mass that got captured in orbit around the sun.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I'm surprised you don't see the point. So let me help you.

The rotational velocities of the planets are not a result of gravity but of the rotation of the plasmas from which the sun and planets formed. At that time, electromagnetic phenomena played a very large role in the motions of those plasmas. Indeed, the reason most of the angular momentum in the solar system is not in the sun but in the planets is because EM effects transferred that angular momentum from the sun's plasmas to the plasmas that eventually became planets. This now accepted theory was first introduced by ... guess who? ... Alfven and Arrhenius. Although the mainstream likes to credit others for the discovery.

Uh huh , roight, where and when did they explain that BAC, in some newpaper tabloid. Let us see the math , okay?

Does it explain the formation of the moon of earth and why Uranus rotates backwards, while you are at it.

You are such a charlatan Karl JR.

Stop waving your magic gnames aroun, they are your Protective Gnomes, but you don't understand the teachings of the Gnames you Invoke.

So , put the pedal to metal and show where that is demonstrated and accepted.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I'm surprised you don't see the point. So let me help you.

The rotational velocities of the planets are not a result of gravity but of the rotation of the plasmas from which the sun and planets formed. At that time, electromagnetic phenomena played a very large role in the motions of those plasmas. Indeed, the reason most of the angular momentum in the solar system is not in the sun but in the planets is because EM effects transferred that angular momentum from the sun's plasmas to the plasmas that eventually became planets. This now accepted theory was first introduced by ... guess who? ... Alfven and Arrhenius. Although the mainstream likes to credit others for the discovery.

Now take what you've learned from this example and consider the galaxy. When it first began to form, most of the matter in the galaxy was probably still plasma not bound by stars. Most of the stars formed AFTER the galaxy formed. Hence, the rotation velocities of the stars (like the planets in our solar system) are due not to gravity but to the initial angular momentum of the condensing PLASMA cloud, modified by whatever EM phenomena were present in the forming galaxy. So a model like Peratt's which treats the matter creating the rotation curves as plasma is quite reasonable. And note that galaxies have the same problem that our solar system has ... moving the angular momentum out from the center. Explaining that is no problem for plasma astrophysicists (see Peratt's model) but gravity-only astrophysicists have to invent gnomes ... like vast amounts of dark matter ... to do it. Now do you see my point?

I see your point and your circular reasoning:
The rotation of galaxy was caused by the angular momentum of the initial material that formed it. BeAChooser chooses to ignore the evidence for dark matter and so the only material available is plasma. Thus the rotation of the galaxy was caused only by the "initial angular momentum of the condensing PLASMA cloud, modified by whatever EM phenomena were present in the forming galaxy". Therefore dark matter does not exist.

The reality is:
The rotation of galaxy was caused by the angular momentum of the initial material that formed it. We have evidence that dark matter exists. We have evidence that plasma exists. Therefore the rotation of the galaxy was caused by the initial angular momentum of the condensing plasma cloud, modified greatly by the dark matter and insignificantly by whatever "EM phenomena" were present in the forming galaxy.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Wow - a first year undergraduate physics question that I can actually answer: Kinetic energy
Of course it is plasma magic that is the force or field that is making the satellites circle the earth move at the rate they are now .

Oh dear.

That's not even undergrad, that's high school.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

acceleration of the actual angular momentum

"Acceleration of the angular momentum"?

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Please explain your new Gnome "plasma creates the angular momnetum of planets"

David, I didn't say that. You need to learn to read if you want to understand ANYTHING.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

So now try to show how Jupiter aquirred it's angular momentum from EM forces and how it couldn't be accounted for by just being a high velocity mass that got captured in orbit around the sun.

I'm surprised at you, David. You demonstrate that you know less than you think about the distribution of mass and angular momentum in the solar system. And where that angular momentum came from originally. Why you don't even appear to know that the total angular momentum is conserved. You also again demonstrate that you haven't read anything I previously posted on this subject even though you were present on such threads. Because I explained all this on previous threads.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The "99+ percent of the observed matter is plasma" of your statement is incorrect. We have observed dark matter which consists of about 22% of the energy density of the universe. The 74% of the universe that is dark energy is more inferred than observed but it is needed "to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe" (as in the article). This leaves 4% of matter in various forms of plasma.

Ahhhh, the ol' "the observable universe is 99.99999% plasma!" claim... yawn!

As you know RC, this fact has been pointed out repeatedly to these woo by you, me and others. The fact of the matter is they simply wish to ignore it and push their woo-nonsense.

Flap... flap... flap...

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Oh dear.

That's not even undergrad, that's high school.

Nope, more like junior high...

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

The gravitational force is G m1 m2/r^2, and the electromagnetic force is q1 q2/(4 pi epsilon_0 r^2). Taking the stars to be similar to the sun and using our 100C figure for the charge, G m^2 is about 10^50, and q^2/(4 pi epsilon_0) is about 10^14. So the gravitational force is larger by a factor of 10^36.

The irony here is that I and others have pointed this fact out numerous times to Zeuzzz. Even more ironic is the fact that this same calculation appears in a paper that Zeuzzz has referenced many times as a way to support his Electric Sun claims.

I've also noticed something else. It seems to me (tough to tell since I'm "ignoring" him) that Zeuzzz is now backing off his earlier claims that the discrepancies in the acceleration of the Pioneer probe (the Pioneer Anomaly, about which this thread was created) could be explained by electrostatic effects assuming a charge of 100C on the Sun. He seemed very adamant about this in the beginning of his posts, yet now he's acting as if it's a ludicrous claim.

Am I reading this wrong? Is he actually backing off those earlier claims or is he just trying to spin things like he usually does?

If it's the former, I can understand why (see post #465) and hats off to Zeuzzz for finally learning something. If it's the latter, well... I think it's all been said already...

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Translation: "Phew! It's a good thing he gave up before I had to admit defeat, myself!"

I'm not sure that Zeuzzz or BAC or the other woos on this thread even think they are in a position to "admit defeat." I'm beginning to develop the opinion that they are legitimately deluded, most likely self-deluded, but deluded none-the-less.

If such is the case, no amount of pointing out glaring inconsistencies within their arguments (going on for 15+ pages now) will make any difference to them.

Folks, I say let the trolls starve...

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Uh huh , roight, where and when did they explain that BAC, in some newpaper tabloid. Let us see the math , okay? ... snip ... So , put the pedal to metal and show where that is demonstrated and accepted.

Sigh.

Don't let me stop you from looking foolish, David.

Here is something recent from the mainstream:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...collapse.html: "New Spin on How Stars are Born By Ker Than, 31 October 2007 ... snip ... New stars form from enormous clouds of gas and dust collapse under their own gravity into dense spheres. The packed cores are ignited by thermonuclear reactions. As they collapse, the clouds rotate, and like an ice skater pulling in his arms while spinning, rotation speed increases as the collapsing cloud gets smaller. Some of this rotation energy, called angular momentum, must be dissipated before the star can contract completely. How this happens, though, is unknown. 'Given the size difference between an ordinary star like our sun and a typical molecular cloud, if the rotation was allowed to increase as the cloud collapsed, the [apparent] centrifugal forces would never allow the material to collapse into anything small enough to form a star," said study team member Antonio Chrysostomou at the University of Hertfordshire in the United Kingdom. "Hence, there needs to be a mechanism present which removes this angular momentum." A new model by Chrysostomou and colleagues suggests excess material and energy are borne away from the protostar along helical magnetic field lines that surround the star. This stellar exodus carries away enough angular momentum to allow the spinning cloud to undergo the final phase of collapse necessary to become a star. Their findings are detailed in the Nov. 1 issue of the journal Nature."

Now in case you are having difficulty understanding that, they are saying EM phenomena (see where they talk about helical magnetic fields, David?) are transferring the angular momentum out of the mass that will become the sun. If that doesn't happen, then the cloud of plasma can't become a star.

What is funny is that these mainstream astrophysicists apparently didn't know (perhaps because they aren't taught this stuff in school?) that Alfven (you know, that Nobel Prize winner in physics) already solved this problem using EM phenomena. They should have located and read "Cosmogony As An Extrapolation Of Magnetospheric Research" by Hannes Alfven, 1984, "Abstract. A theory of the origin and evolution of the Solar System (Alfven and Arrehnius, 1975, 1976) which considered electromagnetic forces and plasma effects is revised in the light of new information supplied by space research." Reading that paper, they'd have seen that Chrysostomou's finding aren't all that original. And Chrysostomou is approaching the problem from the wrong direction. Basically he's saying the magnetic fields are twisted due to the charged particles spinning as a result of the gravitational collapse. He overlooks the question of why particles are charged and therefore ignores the role that electricity has in the process. He apparently missed the fact that helically wound magnetic fields are characteristic of Birkeland Currents. And perhaps the greatest symptom of Chrysostomou's lack of understanding is calling the material "gas" instead of "plasma". Now mainstream astronomers may eventually get there ... but they sure are taking a circuitous route to understanding the role that EM has in the formation of the solar system (and galaxies).

According to Alfven, the Sun behaves as a unipolar inductor producing a current that flows (look at the the drawing http://www.plasma-universe.com/image...nt-circuit.png ) outwards along both axes B2, and inwards in the equatorial plane, C, and along Solar magnetic field lines B1. The current closes at a large distance, B3. Alfven wrote (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...urrent_circuit ) "The central body acts as a unipolar inductor and the e.m.f. is produced in region A. The mechanical force on the solar atmosphere dF = I ds x B tends to decelerate the rotation of the central body. The current transfers angular momentum from the central body to the surrounding plasma. Hence, we have a decelerating force applied to the solar atmosphere in the polar region. This should produce a non-uniform rotation of the Sun of the type which is observed (angular velocity decreasing with increasing latitude. Whether this interpretation is the correct quantitative explanation of the non-uniform rotation is an open question. In region B1 , the currents are field-aligned. It seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments (II.4). If the current in B1 is spread over an extended region, we should expect filaments. Equatorial streamers in the solar corona may be explained in this way. Similarly, in the polar region, the vertical currents near the solar surface may produce the polar plumes in the solar corona. The model predicts that there should be currents near the axis strong enough to match the current in the equatorial plane. Such currents should be observed when a spacecraft is sent to the high latitude regions. It is an open question to what extent they flow very close to the axis. They may be distributed over a large region and may in part flow at medium latitudes."

I've noted (with sources) in previous threads that you participated in, David, that currents have been found flowing above the axes of the sun. They've been detected at medium latitudes too. And it's now an established fact that a heliospheric current sheet, like Alfven postulated, exists. So I'm curious why you doubt the role EM played in distributing the angular momentum of the original cloud of plasma throughout the solar system. I'm curious why you still think it's *all about gravity*

Now just for you, David, here are some other sources you can fail to actually read or understand.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../258692a0.html "Nature 258, 692 - 693 (25 December 1975) ... snip ... Angular momentum transfer to the inner Jovian satellites, A.MOGRO-CAMPERO... snip ... THE transfer of angular momentum from a central rotating body in the presence of a magnetic field has been discussed in connection with the evolutionary history of the Solar System¹. We here consider angular momentum transfer in the inner Jovian satellite system. Electron flux measurements near Io's flux tube, and theoretical estimates of the electric current flowing through Io's flux tube are used to estimate the angular momentum transfer during the evolutionary history of the Jovian system. We find that, under certain conditions, those currents are sufficient to produce an angular momentum transfer from Jupiter equal to the present angular momentum of the inner satellites. References 1. Alfvén, H., and Arrhenius, G., Astrophys. Space Sci. 21, 117 (1973)."

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/1995/T60/023 "Plasma vortex structures and the evolution of the solar system—the legacy of Hannes Alfvén, Rickard Lundin et al 1995 Phys. Scr. T60 198-205 ... snip ... The transfer of angular momentum from the magnetized sun to the planets was due to partial plasma corotation in the early solar nebula. In this report some important aspects of plasma vortex structures and the Alfvén cosmogony will be addressed and it will be shown that a number of new observations within the plasma environment of planets and in interplanetary space corroborate cosmogony as envisaged by Hannes Alfvén."

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I see your point and your circular reasoning:
The rotation of galaxy was caused by the angular momentum of the initial material that formed it.

Where is the circular reasoning in that, RC? What do you think causes galaxies to rotate? Gravity? By all means ... tell us how. In contrast, EM phenomena have no problem introducing rotation into systems.

Papers (by Peratt) already linked on this thread (you know, the ones we are debating), describe large scale computer simulations of interacting galactic sized Birkeland currents that produce all of the observed types of galaxy shapes, including spirals with the rotation curves that are observed. And they do it using known physics that can even be experimentally reproduced here on earth in labs. And your complaint was that he didn't model stars. But as I just showed, at the origin of the rotation of a galaxy, a galaxy would have been mostly made of plasma not yet bound by stars. So it would be subject to the EM forces Peratt simulated. So modeling plasmas instead of stars was the right thing to do if you truly want to understand rotation curves of galaxies. So your objection is baseless and no dark matter is needed to explain galaxy rotation curves.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The rotation of galaxy was caused by the angular momentum of the initial material that formed it. We have evidence that dark matter exists. We have evidence that plasma exists. Therefore the rotation of the galaxy was caused by the initial angular momentum of the condensing plasma cloud, modified greatly by the dark matter and insignificantly by whatever "EM phenomena" were present in the forming galaxy.

And you are doing nothing more than desperately waving hands.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Originally Posted by sol invictus
Oh dear. That's not even undergrad, that's high school.

Nope, more like junior high...

What's hilarious, folks, is that these two witty posters, because they've chosen to put me on ignore and are only seeing one side of a conversation, haven't a clue what is really being discussed. I wonder what they think causes the rotation of the planets in solar systems and stars in galaxies?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Where is the circular reasoning in that, RC? What do you think causes galaxies to rotate? Gravity? By all means ... tell us how. In contrast, EM phenomena have no problem introducing rotation into systems.

Papers (by Peratt) already linked on this thread (you know, the ones we are debating), describe large scale computer simulations of interacting galactic sized Birkeland currents that produce all of the observed types of galaxy shapes, including spirals with the rotation curves that are observed. And they do it using known physics that can even be experimentally reproduced here on earth in labs. And your complaint was that he didn't model stars. But as I just showed, at the origin of the rotation of a galaxy, a galaxy would have been mostly made of plasma not yet bound by stars. So it would be subject to the EM forces Peratt simulated. So modeling plasmas instead of stars was the right thing to do if you truly want to understand rotation curves of galaxies. So your objection is baseless and no dark matter is needed to explain galaxy rotation curves.



And you are doing nothing more than desperately waving hands.

There is BeAChooser again "desperately waving hands"

Please show the proof that EM forces dominate the gravitational forces.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Where is the dark matter in the model?

What dark matter, RC? As Peratt showed, we don't need dark matter to explain the rotation curves that you use as your proof of dark matter.