JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
Nereid
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Nereid » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:16 am

(Highlight added):
Siggy_G wrote:Magnetic fields, and the electric currents that cause them, will affect objects of mass as well. To which degree, would depend on the strength of the magnetic field of the objects, the external magnetic field they're influenced by and the objects' inertial mass. If a bar magnet A is placed on a low-friction surface, and you approach it with another bar magnet B, bar magnet A will be partly or fully pushed or repelled by bar magnet B. Of course, these magnets have a fairly strong magnetic field compared to their mass (and compared to stars' mass/magnetism ratio). If the following (astro)physcisists find it plausible that a magnetic field can affect the stars (and their magnetosphere), especially in the outer region of a galactic disc where gravity declines, then, well, doesn't that explicitelly say that magnetic fields can affect stars dynamically?

Magnetic fields and the outer rotation curve of M3
This conclusion seems very reasonable, as magnetic fields are amplified and act “in situ”, and therefore they become increasingly important at the rim, where gravity becomes weaker. The best-fit model of the magnetic fields requires a field strength slowly decreasing with radius. This slow decrease is compatible with present values of the strength derived from observations of the polarized synchrotron emission of the disc, but clearly we need measurements of Faraday rotation of extragalactic sources at this large radii to confirm that the magnetic field is present up to this distance and to trace unambiguously the regular component. Hence, future experiments such as LOFAR1 and SKA2 (Beck 2009), will be extremely important, allowing a detailed explorations on the galactic edge as well as in the intergalactic medium. This work was partially supported by projects
You might want to read the paper again, Siggy_G; among other things, the rotation curves the authors use are C09 and C10:
Ruiz-Granados and Rubiño-Martín wrote:They consist on a set of 98 and 29 measurements of the circular velocity (and their associated error bars) respectively, which were obtained with the high-resolution observations performed with the Synthesis Telescope and the 26-m antenna at the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory (C09) and with the wide-field and high-resolution HI mosaic survey done with the help of the Westerbork Synthesis Radiotelescope and the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT) (Braun et al. 2009).
For those who don't quite know what this means: these rotation curves are not, pace Siggy_G, stellar rotation curves.

There's more.

As I understand it, in Electric Universe theory, the MHD convention of infinite conductivity is explicitly verboten; yet here's what the authors write, concerning their modelling of the influence of the magnetic field "on the gas distribution" (!): "We assume standard MHD conditions i.e. infinite conductivity."

There's more, but that will do for now.

Dotini
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:44 am
Location: Seattle

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Dotini » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:59 am

I have a small bone to pick with this website: http://www.plasma-universe.com/99.999%25_plasma

That website appears to have has got the mass of the Sun wrong. They say "The Sun's mass makes up over 99.998% of the Solar System[1]". However, the reference doesn't state this. It states that everything else other than the Sun represents a fraction of 0.0015 (not a percentage), and hence the Sun is 99.85%.

Is there a problem with my arithmetic here?

Grateful for help and guidance,
Dotini

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by nick c » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:25 pm

hi Dotini,
Very good.
Your arithmetic seems to me to be correct.
.0015 = 15/10,000 = .15%..... 100% - .15% = 99.85%

So, according to the footnoted source the Sun's mass would translate to 99.85% of the solar system not the 99.998% as stated in the linked webpage.

It probably should be corrected for the sake of precision. However, for all practical purposes it does not make a whole lot of difference.
Perhaps you should make an edit or just contact Ian Tresman by email or pm (he is a member of this forum). You can log in by emailing Ian Tresman:
To acquire an account,
please send a short message
in an email to me, Ian Tresman, to:
wiki2007[at]plasma-universe.com
(Substituting [at] for an @ )

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Special:Userlogin
Nick

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Siggy_G » Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:58 am

Nereid wrote:For those who don't quite know what this means: these rotation curves are not, pace Siggy_G, stellar rotation curves.
The paper discussed new high resolution data indicating that the rotation curve of M31 (Andromeda galaxy) shows a rise in the outer part. They are describing rotation curves of spirals for distances higher than r > 10 kpc (or 25 kpc for M31) "to illustrate the effects of the magnetic field".

However, you’re right; the authors have distinguished between the stellar disc and the “gaseous” (plasma) disc – the latter constituting 9% and 10% of the galactic mass respectively. One would think description of galactic spirals did include the stars that are within them, not merely the plasma.
Nereid wrote:As I understand it, in Electric Universe theory, the MHD convention of infinite conductivity is explicitly verboten; yet here's what the authors write, concerning their modelling of the influence of the magnetic field "on the gas distribution" (!): "We assume standard MHD conditions i.e. infinite conductivity."
Sure, I should have added that it's not a paper in line with Electric Universe theory per se (they include a dark matter halo as well for instance), but I found it curious that the authors have considered the effect of a magnetic field (for whatever reason and process the field is present) on the dynamics of the outer region of a galaxy. Somewhat disappointingly, but still interesting, they are describing the effect it would have on the plasma, which is less news for us.

User avatar
PersianPaladin
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by PersianPaladin » Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:25 am

Reality Check wrote: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.

[...]

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:
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!


I know Nereid is no longer around, but the JREF thread still is and as far as I'm aware - nobody in the EU has actually taken the time to thoroughly debunk these statements made by Reality Check.

Anybody now care to have a go at it? I have some thoughts that Perratt's model may in fact be flawed; but I am still strongly convinced that galactic rotation curves are the result of some type of charge-force dynamic in plasma. Just not the same Birkeland magnetic-interaction proposed by Perratt. I also think there is a lack of evidence that galaxies are powered by intergalactic filaments as the various large-scale and recent high-res radio telescopes would've detected them pinching down into the respective regions.

User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by starbiter » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:38 pm

PersianPaladin wrote:
Reality Check wrote: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.

[...]

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:
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!


I know Nereid is no longer around, but the JREF thread still is and as far as I'm aware - nobody in the EU has actually taken the time to thoroughly debunk these statements made by Reality Check.

Anybody now care to have a go at it? I have some thoughts that Perratt's model may in fact be flawed; but I am still strongly convinced that galactic rotation curves are the result of some type of charge-force dynamic in plasma. Just not the same Birkeland magnetic-interaction proposed by Perratt. I also think there is a lack of evidence that galaxies are powered by intergalactic filaments as the various large-scale and recent high-res radio telescopes would've detected them pinching down into the respective regions.

Hi Hoz,

How do You explain the image a little less than half way down the link below.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/alfven-tr ... ain-again/

And below.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/sciences- ... ing-point/

Are the stars forming galaxies? Or just filaments of stars.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by D_Archer » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:00 am

The Peratt simulation is born form first principle plasma dynamics it is just a simulation that helps to visualize/model how currents interact to form galaxies. The model and simulation is very simple but does require a lot of computing power, this because of the escalating chaos with plasma dynamics. The check and balance is from the repulsive force when filaments come closer, they never collide (an error by Reality Check), the spiral arms ARE formed by the current as the model shows (an error by Reality Check). Galactic jets do emit synchrotron radiation, there is no lack of data (an error by Reality Check). Studies of mass distribution are highly flawed, you cant use something that does not exist (gravitational lensing) to produce good data (an oversight by Reality Check).

Kind regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

User avatar
PersianPaladin
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by PersianPaladin » Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:04 am

If we want to progress, we should listen - even to people we don't like and who may have their own biases and agendas.

The problems with Perratt's simulations include accounting for the apparent mass differentials between spiral arms, the morphological profile of radio galaxies hosted in ellipticals, the problem of insufficient EMF (electromotive force) to actually act on the stars within the spiral arms, as well as the problem of the lack of evidence of Birkeland Currents powering galaxies due to the fact that high-res radio telescopes that came online in the last decade not detecting such entities.

I have potential solutions to this apparent problem that will move the EU forward in the right direction.

User avatar
PersianPaladin
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:38 am
Location: Turkey

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by PersianPaladin » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:31 am

starbiter wrote:

Hi Hoz,

How do You explain the image a little less than half way down the link below.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/alfven-tr ... ain-again/

And below.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/sciences- ... ing-point/

Are the stars forming galaxies? Or just filaments of stars.

michael

The filaments are evidence of star-formation but they are confined within interstellar clouds themselves. The filaments are not originated from outside the galaxy, and in fact - work from Hua-bai Li and others at the Max Planck Institut has suggested that the magnetic fields of the clouds are aligned with the galaxy. Thus, not from outside.

We're looking for intergalactic filaments at a detectable frequency pinching down to power galaxies and nothing has been detected from the instruments. Hence, the problem.

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by tholden » Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:37 pm

JREF may be the single most retarded forum I've ever seen so far, nothing even remotely resembling a redeeming feature.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests