Reality Check

Plasma Cosmology proponents often cite this plasma model of galaxy formation and evolution. When the errors in it are pointed out they then ignore these until they have an excuse to cute Peratt yet again (as one poster has stated: "blather, rinse, repeat"). So I have started this thread to reduce the number of repetitions. I will prime the pump with the flaws that I perceive (I am not an expert so there may be errors).

In 1986 Anthony Peratt published a pair of papers in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science about a model for galaxy formation and evolution that only included plasma and plasma interactions. This was inspired by experiments with plasmoids where the plasmoids showed galaxy like structures (on a tiny scale). Peratt ran some computer simulations based on these experiments and concluded that the simulations matched observations of galaxies.

His model was that the galaxies start as a bundle of galactic sized plasma filaments each with an electric current running through them. These galactic plasma filaments are estimated to have a width of 35 kiloparsecs (100,000 light years) and a length of from 35 megaparasec to 3.5 gigaparasec (an average length of 350 megaparasec or 1 billion light years).

For simplicity he used pairs of filaments. The interaction between the filaments caused them to twist around each other and distort. The initial distribution of plasma looked like radio images of double lobed radio galaxies. This evolved into distributions that looked like optical images of the various types of spiral galaxies. Later he concluded that his model also explained the rotation of galaxies without dark matter.
The computer simulation was done using a couple of plasma simulation packages - SPLASH and TRISTRAN.



The relevant papers are

• On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas (1983) for the SPLASH simulation details.
• Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets (1986).
• Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies (1986).
• Rotation velocity and neutral hydrogen distribution dependency on magnetic field strength in spiral galaxies (1995) - no dark matter needed.

The Fatal Error
The results of the computer simulations are maps of the distribution of plasma particles in a plane through the plasma filaments. These are maps of the distribution of the mass in the galaxies since all of the mass is in plasma. Peratt then proceeds to compare these mass distribution maps to radio and optical images. But
* Radio galaxies are almost universally hosted in elliptical galaxies.
* The reason that spiral galaxies look like they have spiral arms is not because there are actual arms (with no matter in between them) but because they are "arms" of high mass density containing lots of bright young stars. The density of matter in between the arms is 10-20% less than the density of matter in the arms (not 100%).
The mass distribution of elliptical galaxies is ellipsoidal so a plane through them produces various ellipses from nearly a circle to flattened to a large degree.
The mass distribution of spiral galaxies is a central bulge contained within a flat disk along with a near-spherical halo outside the disk and bulge. The mass distribution of a plane running through the disk produces a disk with minor variations in density.

Neither mass distribution matches the results from the computer simulations.

This invalidates the model completely and so we need not really continue. But there are other points that are also relevant.

Gravity in the Model
Gravity is ignored in the SPLASH and TRISTRAN simulation packages. This makes them useful only for situations where gravitational forces can be ignored, i.e. on short time scales or where EM forces are known to dominate. Section IX in Peratt's second paper describes proposed extensions to the three-dimensional electromagnetic particle simulation to include gravitational forces. No further work on these extensions seems to have been done since 1986. If the extensions were developed then there are no reports of them having being applied to the plasma model.

Gravitational forces will always have an effect on the formation and evolution of galaxies since they cannot be shielded like electromagnetic forces. Ignoring gravity is the second fatal flaw in Peratt's model.


Galactic plasma filaments should be easily detected.
The large electric current through them will cause synchrotron radiation. There is no evidence for this. See the forum posting Cluster-sized diffuse radio waveband synchrotron radiation and its footnote:

Quote:

Peratt makes it clear that he expects the synchrotron radiation from (galactic-sized) "Bennett-pinched filaments" to be observed from the x-ray to the microwave wavebands ... IOW, the plasma processes will generate copious quantities of (highly) relativistic electrons, and the magnetic fields associated with the field aligned currents are strong enough. Needless to say that a lack of synchrotron emission in wavebands other than the radio (and microwave, depending on how you define the bands) is but one more inconsistency between his model and the observed universe.

IMHO the movement of filaments through the intergalactic medium will cause shock waves and detectable X-rays (see below).

There is also the problem of why the filaments are not seen in studies of the mass distribution of matter within galactic clusters using gravitational lensing.
See this posting in the extremely long Plasma Cosmology - Woo or Not thread.

Galactic plasma filaments are not stable.
The SPLASH simulation started with 2 columns that were 32 grids high and 6 wide (the grids defined the spatial extent of the simulation). The 1983 paper describing the SPLASH simulation does mention that periodic boundary conditions are imposed (this essentially makes the simulated filaments infinite in length). So it is possible that the factor of 10,000 between the filament lengths in the simulation and model is not a factor. However in my (limited) knowledge of plasma physics, long filaments of plasma are inherently unstable.

The big problem comes because galaxies are dynamic – they move. Galactic clusters also move. Galaxies collide. Galactic clusters collide. Galaxies pass each other and cannibalize each other. The filaments considered alone may be stable but I cannot see them maintaining themselves when they get close or even collide. Not only could separate filaments collide and short circuit their electric currents but a filament could even collide with itself!

Out of nothing
PC proponents are fond of labeling the Big Bang theory an ex nihilo (out of nothing) argument even though the Big Bang theory does not address the origin of the universe. But they do not condemn a similar ex nihilo argument used twice in Peratt’s model.
The first ex nihilo argument is that the galactic plasma filaments are assumed to come into existence (and to form bundles of parallel filaments) at some point in the past to begin the formation of the galaxies.
The second ex nihilo argument is the electric current through each filament that starts from nothing and goes to nothing. IMHO this assumption is especially bad in physical terms because the electric current will experience losses. There will be synchrotron emission and energy loss to the creation of galactic magnetic fields. This means that there must be an external power source. Laboratories studying plasmoids obviously have external power sources but where are the cosmological power sources in Peratt’s model?

__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Zeuzzz

Errr, wrong. There are more, and more recent ones. Those are infact pretty old now, there are many more that you missed, published and peer reviewed in other journals too.

From my recent post in the plasma cosmology thread:


Btw, haven't actually fully read your post yet. Not really got the time or the will to get into this again. My thoughts on Peratts model are here for all to see in the plasma cosmology thread. And no, its not essentail to PC that its correct. Just as one might consider some of the various competing theories that are written within the LCDM cosmological framework.

Its just best to have all the info and papers here for others to see before people start the inevitable.

DeiRenDopa

OK Z, please point out which of the post-1986 papers in your list contain presentations of new material that relates directly to Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation, and which is built on new simulations, or new runs with the same simulations.

You see, I think I've read every paper which cites the 1986 Peratt ones, and none contain any new material; of course, I may have missed something, so please, take your time and respond to my post thoughtfully.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering how Peratt arrived at ~35 kpc as the width of these plasma filaments, the reason is quite interesting, and in turn is one reason why no one has taken his idea very seriously. You see, Peratt, following Alfvén, created a model based solely on plasma scaling relationships, and used estimates for a small number of observed quantities to tie the model down. Having done that, the characteristic width of the filaments falls out automatically, as ~35 kpc.

One corollary of this is that ANY well-observed quantity which is quite inconsistent with what Peratt's model predicts is enough to kill the whole model (there are essentially no free parameters) ... and, as RC has pointed out, there is not just one such well-observed quantity, not just two, ... but rather a large number of them.

(As an aside: if Peratt had done his astronomy homework, he'd have realised this before he submitted the paper for publication, and either dropped it or made extensive modifications; too, if he'd submitted it to a journal such as ApJ, I'm sure the reviewers would have had quite a few recommendations re changes needed before giving an 'OK' to the editor).

Reality Check

There are more recent papers as in your list but Peratt's original computer simulations have never been reported as repeated. If you have citations to papers that repeat the simulations and fix the flaws (e.g. do not predict that spiral galaxies are actual spirals rather than the observed disk + bulge) then I would be interested.

I agree that Peratt's theory is not essential to PC. None of the theories (dozens of theories?) in PC is essential. The point of this thread is the inability of PC proponents to grasp the obvious flaws in Peratt's model and to provide a single resource to point lurkers to.

__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Dancing David

Zeuzzz, is that it, just a spam and run post?

Argument by fact attrition?

__________________
"Join the Crusade against Moderator Impropriety -- a tradition since Tuesday!"-Remirol
"I'm sick of the sexually repressed, freak god Yahweh attacking free people. "-Beerina
"When there is no place safe and no safe place to put my head
When you feel the world shake from the words that are said"- Train

tusenfem

Interstingly, the "new" papers by Peratt all show the same "old" simulations. But then Peratt was probably busy writing his book and organizing IEEE meetings. I will re-read some of the papers, before I continue here.

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Tim Thompson

Screw the "plasma cosmology thread". It is totally contaminated by the long discussions of Sol88's nonsense. If you have something to say about this topic, say it here, not there. Nobody will see it there, but it might get attention here, if you can keep Sol88 from ruining this thread as well.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Tim Thompson

As far as I am concerned, any paper published on this topic in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science should be ignored. They are not serious papers, for 2 reasons:

1. They are deliberately published in a venue where they are guaranteed to never be seen or read by anyone who actually does research in galaxy formation or any other field of astrophysics or cosmology.
2. They are deliberately published in a venue where they are guaranteed to receive sub standard peer review. IEEE Transactions is a journal on industrial plasma science and the peer reviewers are all experts in that field, but have zero knowledge or experience in topics relative to the astrophysics of galaxies.

The point is that Peratt does not want his papers to be considered seriously, which is why he deliberately publishes them where they will not be seen by the community of relevant astrophysicists.

Where you publish is as important as what you publish. That's a fact of life in the real world, whether anyone particularly likes it or not. Professional scientists rarely have a lot of time to explore journals outside their field, and generally hand pick the few in their field that they will pay attention to, time being highly limited. IEEE Transactions is where the plasma cosmology people publish because they know they will not have to defend their work from any criticism. This makes it look like they have lots of papers that nobody has ever refuted, and that becomes a clarion call to the fans of PC. If their papers are so bad, why has nobody ever "refuted" them? Well, the answer is that nobody has ever read them, at least nobody involved seriously in the galaxy business, and that is exactly what Peratt and others intend.

My last position at JPL before retiring was with the Evolution of Galaxies Group. Based on my experience with those astronomers & astrophysicists and their collaborators, I am quite certain that most of them do not even know that the IEEE journal exists at all (I have reviewed papers for the group from astronomy journals that were readily online in our library which they had never heard of, so IEEE is in another universe). Likewise, the European journal Astrophysics and Space Science is generally ignored by American astronomers because it has a peer review system which allows more speculative papers with a weak basis in theory or observation to be published. Papers in that journal are likely to be ignored by most of the American astronomers I know, and many of the foreign collaborators as well.

There are several journal well known to have higher quality peer review, for example ...

• The Astrophysical Journal
• The Astronomical Journal
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

The first 2 are American journals and the latter 2 are European. There are a number of other journals that are not as heavily read for various reasons, though they are not inferior; i.e., Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific does not publish much on theoretical topics, but covers instrumentation and data analysis, observational reports and historical perspectives.

in the Zeuzzz list, only Physical Review Letters is a journal likely to be high on the accepted list for astronomers. And one need only look at the paper (Evolution of Colliding Plasmas) to see that it is purely an industrial application paper (there is no mention of galaxies or astronomy or astrophysics or cosmology anywhere in the paper), so why would any astronomer read it anyway?

If Peratt actually intended to seriously introduce a serious plasma model for galaxy formation or morphology, he would never have published them in the venues he chose. He would have published them in a venue where the community of scientists in that field would see them and engage in a real discussion. I think that until he actually does that, then his version of plasma cosmology is nothing going nowhere, and by his own deliberate choice. Lerner has done that (i.e., Scarpa, Falomo & Lerner, 2007), and he is commonly refuted when he does (i.e., Overzier, et al., 2008). Evidently, plasma cosmologists prefer to avoid venues where they might actually be required to defend their ideas against competent colleagues or competent reviewers.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

tusenfem

Well, I spend (wasted) some time reading "the later paper" by Peratt (well at least the first part), to see whether there was something new. But, as expected there was not. It's the particle beams paper from 1988 (maybe not that much "later" but anywho).

What is a total puzzle to me, is the shear size of the current "filaments" that he is using, the 35 kpc wide and 3.5 Gpc long, with a total current of 10¹⁹ Amps. Now, this current represents a current density of 3 10^-24 A/m², really a weeeee current density, representing 2 10^-5 electrons/m² s. In the simulation the plasma density is 1.79 10^-3 cm^-3 (why exactly THAT number ...???), however, this gives us the drift velocity of the electrons (don't forget the 10⁶ from cc to m3) 10^-8 m/s.

Now, according to the table the temperature of the plasma is 2 - 32 eV, so assuming Ti = Te (as there is no mention which temp is used) we find a thermal velocity of 8 - 30 10⁵ m/s. Now, I have no problem with very small drift velocities to create currents, but this cannot be taken seriously anymore.

There is a paper (again IEEE) in which I thought they (Meierovich & Peratt) were going to do something real "Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents", where they basically add a gravitational potential to the system of particles. A bit of a schoolbook example, and they show, as could be expected, that you can describe the system (again these 35 kpc "filaments") also when you include gravity and get a formula, basically describing the Bennett pinch including gravity. The only conclusion they reach, however, is that if you include gravity and then in the end say that the gravitational potential is much smaller than the electric one, you can reduce the result to the normal Bennett pinch.

Now what is interesting at the end of the paper is that they did it "relativistically," i.e. they write the velocity as β (however, they never define β in the paper, but is it clear it is v/c). We just determined v as 10^-8 m/s, so we can plug in the numbers in the left hand side of their Eq. 12:

plasma term:
grav. term:

Now, there is only one strange thing happening in the beginning, when expressing the number density n as a function of the total potential, and N as used above is actually the number of particles per unit length of the "filament" but as N² is in both terms, it does not matter.

Now, question, does anyone see something strange in the equations above?

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

sol invictus

Hmmm, let me guess.... the gravitational term is bigger?

tusenfem

10 bonus points for Sol Invictus!

Now, please check my math, but I am pretty sure I did it correctly.

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Zeuzzz

They are arbitrarily chosen lengths chosen roughly to be the size (width) of galactic arms. And due to the geometric properties of the Bio-Savart force law they scale for all galaxy sizes, whether bigger or smaller. You could have them 2Kpc, and still get the same morphology galaxy as a result.


Could you elaborate on what the two terms above represent please, hopefully with a physical explanation.

And could you spell out where Peratt and Meierovich went wrong. Was it an honest mistake? A case of simply getting the mubers wrong? Or just ignoring some figures that weren't too kind to their model? I'm confused as to its overall relevance.

And bearing in mind that this is a publication from way back in 1992, you may want to check out the following more recent papers on this material. I presume they address your concerns (but I dont know as I dont have access to them)

Taking a look here, any one of these could be relevant: http://www.geocities.com/meierovich/...blications.htm

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

Happy reading (to anyone with the right priveleges)

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

Zeuzzz

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


Indeed he has. And others to. Whether the refutation is sufficient is another matter, I'm sure Lerner can back up his reasoning and has made a counter argument, and may even publish a further reply. Ahhhhh. The scientific method. Isn't it wonderful?
To quote another one Lerner, Eric J., Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF March 21, 2006 -- Volume 822, pp. 60-74, 1st Crisis in Cosmology conference. And there are a good few more in rather more respected journals (than his own )..... but they are not relevant to this thread and belong in the plasma cosmology thread. So any replies to this a little off topic material in there, please. Dont want this thread to be another hijacked off at a tangent.

Reality Check

Only half right. According to Peratt's 1990 "3-Dimensional, Particle-In_cell Simulations of Spiral Galaxies" paper (top of the third page) the width is selected to be typical of galaxies. The length is calculated using the width/length ratio of current filaments in laboratory plasmas.

You can read it yourself: Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992 (152KB)

They did not really go wrong. They just derived their energy balance equation and never plugged the numbers in to realize that their equation (if correct) means that the gravitational contribution to the energy balance equation is 7 OOM greater than that of the plasma contribution.

The paper is not that relevant to the topic ("Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation") since his model assumes that plasma interactions dominate and thus totally ignores gravity.

__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

tusenfem

So, just fantasy, which I guessed already

They come out of a paper YOU quoted, Zeuzzz so I guess you don't even read what you post yourself. It is the Meierovich & Peratt paper on the stability of currents in the universe (or whatever the title was, check your own message please in the Plasmawoo thread).

The first term is the "normal" magnetic pinching term from the Bennett pinch
The second term it the "gravitational" pinching term from the augmented Bennet pinch from the paper by M&P.

Clearly, it shows that for the Peratt model: 1. the current carriers are not relativistic; and 2. in the non-relativistic case the gravitational component is orders of magnitude larger than the plasma term.

The whole derivation is sound, as far as I could see. However, the model by Peratt about the cosmic 35kpc current channels sucks, but hey, we knew that already. Peratt seems to have the idea that the particles are relativistic (beta => 1) and yes then that term dominates, but as I have shown beta << 1. This is just stupidity from both the authors AND the referees.

I doubt that they will have a followup on this.

Why don't YOU do some work, Zeuzzz? As you seem to be on the defensive side of M&P.

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Tim Thompson

I don't have a major beef with it. I merely point out that it is well known in the community that their review standards are not as strong as other publications. As a result, most astronomers & astrophysicists do not follow papers therein very closely. Certainly Peratt knows this. His choice of both Astrophysics and Space Science and the IEEE Transactions as publishing venues implies to me that he does not want his papers to be seen widely by the community of scientists working in the field relevant to the papers. Why that may be is a question for Peratt.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Zeuzzz

Why do you say this? I quoted the papers that may indeed follow it up, but I cant access them.


Because I dont have access to them. And was hoping someone else would.

And I am doing work atm, just not work relevant to PC or Jref. So hold your horses.

Zeuzzz

Did I touch a nerve tusenfem to warrant your last post?

PS: Bolding and capitals comes over as inpolite and shouting. Please try to refrain from this in the future.

tusenfem

I always bold the names of forum users. I bolded/capitalize once YOU as emphasis, as you seem to be oblivious about what you post, neither here, nor in the electric universe (for whatever reason you started that) nor in the plasmawoo thread. You have decided to just post-and-run.

The question about "what do these terms mean" was weird, because that came out of a paper which is easily available for free from ADS, or even the link that you posted yourself. So, I clearly see that you do not even read what you post.

Then the other link, I have no access at the moment to get that Meierovich paper. But from the abstract it seems that he found some "gravito-electromagnetic" extra term (which usually are very small), for the rest, the abstract does not even mention what exactly this term does, except that it is not Newtonian. I will see if my colleague can get the paper.

However, this still does not take you responsibility away from all this Zeuzzz, you seem to support the plasma universe, but you don't put any effort in it, you expect the "anti plasma universe" peeps to do all the work for you. That is not how it works.

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

tusenfem

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

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Zeuzzz

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

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

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

Anybody in?

tusenfem

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

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Reality Check

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

__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Zeuzzz

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

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...lectrodynamics

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

Reality Check

The real points are that

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

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

__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

tusenfem

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

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

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)

Ziggurat

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

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

Zeuzzz

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

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

wollery

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

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







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

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

__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

Reality Check

Peratt's experiments do not match observations at all.

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

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

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

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

__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Zeuzzz

Done.

Zeuzzz

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

.....or

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

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




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

Reality Check

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Zeuzzz

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


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

Zeuzzz

Uploaded the paper on relativity and Peratts model to stashbox for anyone interested: http://stashbox.org/560708/JETP_85_2...relativity.pdf Haven't had the time to read it in its entirety but there she be for anyone else to ponder over...

Reality Check

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

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

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

__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Astroman

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

Siggy_G

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

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

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

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

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

Astroman

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

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

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

Dancing David

Welcome to the Forum.

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

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

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

Now the last and more important problem is the silly people who insist the model works when it doesn't.
Except for certain problems, like the charges, feild strength and composition that are actually seen in reality, that apparently you are ignoring.
Nope the model falls down in that it does not match the behavior of the universe.
Uh huh, in your imagination, where are they visible in the universe and at what scales?
Excuse me your fanatic side is showing, there are thousands of people doing research into plasma physics in the universe, they just happen to disagree with you.
In your imagination, these things are not what makes stars or galaxies.
Bring on the data!

__________________
"Join the Crusade against Moderator Impropriety -- a tradition since Tuesday!"-Remirol
"I'm sick of the sexually repressed, freak god Yahweh attacking free people. "-Beerina
"When there is no place safe and no safe place to put my head
When you feel the world shake from the words that are said"- Train