seb wrote:I don't think so, because you are assuming that we have classified Sirius with its current distance and then are comparing that against what it would be if it were at 10 times or 1/10th that distance. The point is that instead of thinking that it was a large bright star 8.6ly away we would interpret it as a small faint star only 0.86ly away, and classify it accordingly (by way of example only, perhaps white dwarf instead of main sequence). The electric/plasma theories should still match observations and give answers in keeping with a white dwarf at 0.86ly.
In other words, the standard model does not lose its explanatory power just because Sirius's distance is different by a factor of 10, you would just invent another class to plot on the H-R diagram. If doing so caused problems for the stellar model, you would just invent a mechanism to explain it, as is already done with all of the different kinds of stars from brown dwarfs without internal fusion all of the way up to red supergiants burning heavy elements, along with neutron stars and whatever other exotic things there may be out there. Some explanation could be found to fit the observations in hindsight, as has been done numerous times before without much complaint.
To put this another way: let's say that all of our derived/interpreted values for Sirius are done on the basis of it being 8.6ly away, and Peratt's model matches this. If it then turns out to be only 0.86ly away then a recalculation of all of the derived/interpreted values should still yield sensible answers in standard theory, and should still be matched by Peratt's model. If it didn't then there is far more wrong with physics than just Peratt's model.
Thanks for making the effort to try to explain this. However, I really can't make head nor tail of it.
Anyway, no one - not even Peratt - has worked on this model (and simulation) for over two decades now, and unless and until someone does, there's little point to this kind of speculation, is there?
I think it would be fairer to say that present interpretations within the theory cannot explain observations if the distances are all wrong. There are stars from here to 16 billion light-years way (allegedly...
) and they're all supposed to run on fusion; why would fusion fail to work if there were stars within 1.6 billion light years of here, or as far as 160 billion light years? Why would Relativity break down if any star were at a different distance to what it is? Only our interpretation of the observations would fall, and maybe we would find that there are observations which we can no longer interpret - how do you determine the distance to a star or galaxy if it is too far away for parallax measurements and none of your proxies are valid? That is surely a scary prospect for many astronomers, and I reckon that they would cling less tightly to the redshift-distance relationship if there were any viable alternatives available.
Once again, I'm having difficulty following much of this; however one part is surely wrong: while there would undoubtedly be some astronomers for whom it would be a scary prospect, I think many would be excited, and some downright ecstatic.
The idea - apparently quite common among forum members who write on it - that there's 'clinging' going on with respect to the Hubble relationship, in face of mountains of high quality, objective, independently verifiable evidence to the contrary (whether any viable alternatives exist or not) is, um, well, er, how about downright laughable.
What I mean is that if you took a pile of electrons, put them into one place in space, and let them loose then they would fly away with electrostatic repulsion. But we're not talking about electrostatics; the Sun is an electrodynamic system. Whether the magnetic fields would be strong enough would be a case for a calculation to be done, but as said elsewhere, electrons are not accumulating in the Sun, they are travelling through in a circuit. The total charge per cubic metre is relatively low in the scheme of things.
I think we're too far from Peratt's model by now for further discussion on this to be meaningful; for example, Peratt's model does not include 'stars in a circuit' (or as part of a circuit).
Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. For example, if we measure the rotation of Andromeda as 200km/s then the forces involved if it's 2.5 million light-years away (as per redshift) are quite different to if it is 250 thousand light-years away. Peratt's theory would match the forces given the standard interpretation of redshift. Is that what you mean?
Not necessarily the forces, but all the parameters in Table 1 (that table contains no parameter of the 'force' kind); the model requires that all the parameters in Table 1 have values consistent with those found in the literature (which values are all, as far as I can tell, derived using the Hubble relationship, or are independent of distance, there's no third kind).
Of course, the assumed masses and the distances over which the fields act would all be different too. A correct model needs to be consistent with observations, and if a certain interpretation (a constraint) is put on the observations then as long as those interpretations are consistent then the model should still (hopefully) fit. Whether Peratt's model is definitely consistent in that way I wouldn't like to say, but it looks to me like it should be; mainstream theories also appear to be consistent. Ideally we need to try reinterpreting/deriving the standard-model data in Table 1 assuming a different distance and then re-run Peratt's simulation at that different distance and see if they still match.
Took us a while, but now we're here; yes, that's right.
This is the problem with much of astronomy, IMHO - so many values are so interdependent that consistent models that match observations can be found, but for which there is little objective evidence for or against.
It should come as no surprise to you that astronomers do not (would not?) agree with you; in fact, many would argue that vast amounts of painstaking (Dave Smith might say pedantic) work has been done, over many decades, to make the conclusions sound, and the consistencies robust. There certainly were some nice surprises a century or so ago (e.g. the discovery that 'Cepheids' were not a homogeneous class of object), and may well be some more to come (e.g. a rather exotic form of matter is responsible for at least some of the diffuse interstellar bands).
Saying this another way, a typical response from an astronomer - stripped of whatever politenesses there may be - might be 'get thee to a library!'
Even if Peratt's model were at odds with the interpretation of observation it would not mean that his model is faulty; it could easily be the interpretation at fault.
Of course, that's always true.
However, for whatever reason, no one seems to have done any work on this model - supposedly one of only two (three?) quantitative results in the entirety of EU/PC theory - so all we can do is have these, ultimately fruitless, discussions, isn't it?
The same is true, of course, for standard models. Without wanting to go off-topic, the solar neutrino problem was "fixed" by interpreting the observations in light of neutrino oscillations, and then claiming that any model which does not match this "fixed" interpretation must be wrong even if it matches the raw observation.
You're right, it is off topic (and, IMHO, your description is almost solrey-like, in the amount of straw it contains).
Peratt's model assumes just two species - 'electrons' and 'ions'; the former are -ve, the latter +ve, they have the same absolute charge; a single ratio of their masses is assumed.
Stars cannot be either 'electrons' or 'ions'.
Estimates of the rotation curves of spirals, derived from observations, are essentially the same, whether it's neutral gas (hydrogen), ions (several species), or stars whose light is assumed to be the cause of what's observed.
Ergo, Peratt's model is either inconsistent with relevant observations, or is not applicable to them.
Given the "flat" shape of the rotation curve, Peratt's model is no less inconsistent or inapplicable than gravity.
I'm not sure, but this seems, to me, to be logically equivalent to saying 'that orange looks round, the Sun looks round, therefore my Sun-is-an-orange model is no less inconsistent or inapplicable than your Sun-is-a-ball-of-plasma one'.
Did I understand this right?
What shape of galaxy and what rotation curve would you expect Peratt's model to yield if stars were given a mix of lower charge/mass ratios?
Who can say? Unless and until the model is developed further, we'd be speculating.
I think the following words,
by Siggy_G, can be found rather widely (in one form or another): "[Peratt's model]
seems to explain galaxies’ rotation curves without the need for dark matter". One firm conclusion from taking a look at Peratt's model is that it does not explain the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, as derived from observations of the stars in those galaxies.