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
User avatar
Aristarchus
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

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

Unread post by Aristarchus » Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:04 pm

davesmith_au wrote:Shame on you Aristarchus, throwing such facts in the face of Nereid's obfuscation. Funny how when she wants to post huge diatribes of nonsense she can, but when challenged by a few facts out come a few short posts to conveniently take her to the "daily limit"...
I know Nereid's game. If we go back to the beginning of this thread, we'll see that Nereid wanted to disassociate herself from the Nereid connected with the BAUT and JREF forum. Okay. Fair enough. However, in attempting to dispel this association, Nereid of this forum boxed herself into a conundrum. Now, she had to present an argument that had to rely on smoke and mirrors in that her responses on the TB forum are different from that of Thompson's as presented as the premise in this topic.

Nereid than relies on her standard modus operandi of presenting premises posed from the view of the establishment science, as well as obfuscation techniques. See, any logic can be posed or imposed, if one accepts the premise, but she cannot justify the premise if one invalidates it as being outside the context of what is actually presented by the author, let alone its relation to the topic.

For example, regarding the book by Anthony Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, she stated the following in on this topic:
Nereid wrote:This sparked some discussion, which is really off-topic for that thread. Siggy_G recommended that discussion of Peratt's work on this topic be continued in a separate thread, and I think this established thread is appropriate.

Peratt's published papers relevant to "the rotation velocity curves of galaxies" are essentially only two, namely "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic JetsEvolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets" and "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies". Peratt myself cites one or both these in several subsequent papers - for example, "The role of particle beams and electrical currents in the plasma universe", a review paper - but as far as I know there is nothing new in any of them (of course these later papers by Peratt are interesting, and do contain new material, but not on "the rotation velocity curves of galaxies").

Peratt's book, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer 1991 (ISBN 978-0387975757), provides details of some of the key background to his two 1986 papers, including the PIC code.
Now, there's no real context for why this is relevant, or why it is somehow a consideration of anything that really matters at the time it was posted. It's just dropped into the discussion with the middle paragraph providing I believe three seperate links with no quotes or specifics from any of them - then it's unto to PIC code. Everything prior from fellow TB board members on this topic was really a general discussion of something appropriate for a topic placed under the heading "Net Talk."

But her sentences just hang there with some kind of tacit implication through an inferred authority, namely Nereid's, who appears to be able to cite papers from Peratt and Arp at the drop of the hat, except when she thinks she can test her fellow TB board members and request them to provide papers, articles, and texts from Arp, Peratt, etc, that she is just mystify to think they even exist. More importantly, Nereid at this point is now manuevering the discussion into her favorite technique - e.g., (viz)

Referring to a book by Peratt, which is 372 pages long, mind you, but what is presented in those 372 pages can now be excluded because Nereid wants the information contained within be placed in her proposed premise - without her offering any quotes to give the reader any context. Everyone is now supposed to grab their copy of Physics of the Plasma Universe and somehow comport with the absurd arrangement of trying to establishing something that doesn't really have a context. I feel like the character Robert played by Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces, when he returns home and spends one evening in the living room listening to the pedantic pandering of the high-brow set, and his response to it is certainly one I would like to deliver in these kinds of situations.

And yet, when one does supply research papers and books in response to Nereid's requests, one is either face with the sound of <crickets> - or receives the following response:
Nereid wrote:Thanks for these Aristarchus. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in either paper that differs from what's in Paper I or II (or Peratt's book).


That's it. Nereid can now control the dialogue without actually stating anything, except to divert the topic to adhering to what is offered as valid from the establishment science. BTW, what Nereid is responding to in the instance above was not anything directed towards her, but rather, I was supplying these links in response to what seb had stated:
seb wrote:The biggest question in my mind is why the galaxy forms a plane so thin relative to the distances between galaxies. What makes one form where it does and then you have to go millions of light years to the next one?


See? The topic might explore something beyond the control of Nereid. This must not happen for the self-designated schoolmarm, and when confronted, one is then reprimanded by her for not following her self-prescribed rules. I didn't mention Paper I & II. Nope. I was simply replying to seb without making any concrete assertion outside that I was seeking to lead up to further exploration and research of how the entire universe might revolve around another point of center, but without realizing the full scope of the universe, it might not prove condusive. I was never able to focus on this, which I hadn't even come to any conclusion about it, or even if it was plausible, or if it was placing seb's statement with proper understanding on my part. Nope. never went forward. Instead, Nereid then introduced her little caveat, and, so, by default, it had now become my argument as assumed under the tutelage of Nereid. This is a ruse used by interrogators, not in academic discourse.

Which makes the following comment from her an absolute hoot:
Nereid wrote:Aristarchus , Dave, shame on you! Who cares what Thompson thinks of IEEE publications!
There you go. The topic has been summarily dismissed by the schoolmarm. How dare I revert back to the topic at hand! Further along when the topic had been commandeered away from its original purpose - Nereid thought that this was just dandy - she was downright gleeful:
Nereid wrote:Now that discussion is worthy of a separate thread! :D
Worthy, mind you. ;) - as in (viz)

1. (postpositive; often foll by of or an infinitive) having sufficient merit or value (for something or someone specified); deserving
2. having worth, value, or merit

I can't for the life of me think how someone that started the topic would not be insulted when it is decided it can move unto another topic/thread when it has been established as "worthy." <sarcasm>

Make no mistake, Nereid is assuming the attitude of Thompson. Whereas, Thompson dismisses the IEEE to the inane extent of claiming that those that were trained through graduate level of a physics department at a major university and moved on to their own research may not have even heard of IEEE publications:
Thompson wrote: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).
But now read the following from Thompson:
Thompson wrote: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.
So, I demonstrate that this is not entirely the case for those researching plasma cosmology physics, as noted above in my previous post, but there's a military pincer like move going on here, because at one end you have the statements from Thompson that are obviously easy to dismiss on so many levels, but then comes a flanking move from the right that states another assumed premise, "yeah, but Peratt's paper doesn't deal with these specified issues, as they concern research based in the establishment science." We never end up discussing what it actually is as presented by Peratt. Nereid must at all cost make sure that the BAUT & JREF mentality litters this site to detract from any real exploration of the EU model and plasma cosmology.

Not only does one assume when a topic is "worthy," of moving on, but one also establishes 11-12 different topics on the "Nature" of astrophysics. Yep, the very "Nature" of it. That sure does sound important, aye?

It's no wonder that the most contrived arguments come from pseudo skeptics in the likes of the Amazing Randi magician and another one that indulges invectives to the point that one would think he suffers from Tourette syndrome, namely Penn Jillette. It's all smoke and mirrors by them - all smoke and mirrors.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison

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

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

Unread post by Nereid » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:10 am

Aristarchus wrote:I know Nereid's game. If we go back to the beginning of this thread, we'll see that Nereid wanted to disassociate herself from the Nereid connected with the BAUT and JREF forum. Okay. Fair enough. However, in attempting to dispel this association, Nereid of this forum boxed herself into a conundrum. Now, she had to present an argument that had to rely on smoke and mirrors in that her responses on the TB forum are different from that of Thompson's as presented as the premise in this topic.
I know Aristarchus' game. If we read this thread carefully, we'll see that Aristarchus strenuously avoids discussing - even mentioning - the actual scientific content of Peratt's two papers and his published book, and focusses instead on diversion, obfuscation, and posts "huge diatribes of nonsense" (to quote Dave).

Again, Aristarchus, what relevance does what Thompson thinks of IEEE publications have to the scientific merit of the content of Peratt's two papers and his published book?
Nereid than relies on her standard modus operandi of presenting premises posed from the view of the establishment science, as well as obfuscation techniques. See, any logic can be posed or imposed, if one accepts the premise, but she cannot justify the premise if one invalidates it as being outside the context of what is actually presented by the author, let alone its relation to the topic.
Which is, in plain English (I think), a long-winded way of saying "I, Aristarchus, will continue to obfuscate for all I'm worth"; anything to avoid addressing the actual scientific content of Peratt's two papers and his published book.
[huge diatribes of obfuscatory and diversion nonsense skipped]

And yet, when one does supply research papers and books in response to Nereid's requests, one is either face with the sound of <crickets> - or receives the following response:
Nereid wrote:Thanks for these Aristarchus. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in either paper that differs from what's in Paper I or II (or Peratt's book).
Thanks for the acknowledgement that you have not addressed the scientific content of Peratt's model or simulations. I especially liked how you conveniently didn't quote what I wrote next: "Specifically, the scaling from simulation/model/lab to cosmic dimensions is done using the Hubble redshift-distance relationship."
[further diatribes of obfuscatory and diversion nonsense skipped]

We never end up discussing what it actually is as presented by Peratt.
Talk about a hoot! :roll:
Nereid wrote:Quite right solrey, thanks for highlighting this.

While the actual analysis - published in the rest of Paper I - did not quite live up to the statement in the intro ("The only assumption made in the analysis in this paper-if it should be called an assumption-is that the basic properties of plasmas are the same everywhere, [...]"), Peratt is to be praised for his boldness.

A corollary of this sole assumption is that there is very little wiggle room; either the outputs of his simulation are fully consistent - quantitatively - with all relevant (quantitative) experimental and observational results, or they are not.

And if they are inconsistent with one, just/even one, such result, his entire model is falsified! :o
(source)
Nereid wrote:Continuing to look at the sources cited in Paper I's Table 1 (COMPARISON OF SIMULATION AND ESTIMATED GALAXY PARAMETERS).

The other source cited for "Total source energy, ergs" is "de Young and Axford (1967)". I cannot find this in the References section of the paper, but this may be it: "Stellar Collisions". Here's the abstract:
[...]
"Gisler and Miley (1979)" is a source cited for two entries in Table 1, Thermal plasma temperature, and Plasma density. As with de Young and Axford (1967), I cannot find this in the References section of the paper, but this may be it: "610 MHz observations of the Perseus Cluster of galaxies with the Westerbork synthesis radio telescope". Here's the abstract:
[...]
The only mention of plasma temperature and density in the whole paper is in a single paragraph, which I'll quote in full:
[...]
The quoted values are consistent with those in Peratt's Table 1.
(source)
Nereid wrote:I've started to track down the 15 objects in Fig. 13; they tell a fascinating tale!

First, the four in 13(a), "QSOs without an optically identifiable object between radio lobes"

Peratt was unlucky with the second one (3C427.1); an optically identifiable object between the radio lobes was found, in 1985; it has a redshift of 0.572. Two more were reported, in 1991, 3C69 and 3C86A (the former has a redshift of 0.458, the latter's is not determined yet). Three of the four are located in the Zone of Avoidance, a region of the sky ~<5 degrees from the galactic plane, where distant objects are often highly obscured in the optical waveband.

The remaining 11 (ten actually, I haven't tracked down "4C18" yet):

All are listed in several catalogues, and their classifications are all over the map! Of course, they are all 'radio sources', and as you'd expect from their morphology, FR II ones. Many are x-ray sources, and some gamma-ray too; several have been identified, and imaged, in the IR; and so on. Some are classified as galaxies, some QSOs, some as AGNs, some as Seyferts, ... This rather strongly makes the point I mentioned in an earlier post:
[...]
(source)
Nereid wrote: [...]The Fig. 14 objects (I've tracked down all but one, "3C298.2"; note that there are only 20 objects in Fig. 14, not 21).

Again, the classifications/use of terms is all over the map; a dozen or so are classified as galaxies, but there are several QSOs, and AGNs. All the objects are FR II (as you'd expect), but there are some other classifications too, such as BLRG (broad line region galaxy), and flat spectrum radio source. As with the objects in Fig. 13, several have been identified as x-ray sources, IR sources, even gamma-ray sources.

Even Peratt's use of the term 'QSO' is, apparently, a bit inconsistent; the text - which solrey quotes - seems somewhat at odds with the Figure captions (13: "Fifteen QSO's with and without and optically identifiable object between radio lobes"; 14: "Twenty-one QSO's having a galactic object situated midway between radio lobes").

But perhaps the most interesting is the range of reported redshifts; the Fig. 13 objects range in redshift from 0.188 to 1.184 (mean 0.622), for Fig. 14 0.0556 to 1.194 (mean 0.348). 3C295 may serve as a good example of how different, yet similar, these "midway between radio lobes" objects are (it was also observed by SDSS: SDSS J141120.53+521210.1). There are some 352 references to this object in the literature (according to NED); here is a note on it in a 1978 paper (Kristian et al. (1978)):
[...]
(source)

(there's more of course, a lot more, but this is more than enough to show that Aristarchus is being, um, what's the phrase? 'economical with the truth'?
Nereid must at all cost make sure that the BAUT & JREF mentality litters this site to detract from any real exploration of the EU model and plasma cosmology.
<sarc>
Got it; whatever you do, in exploring the EU model and plasma cosmology, do not, repeat DO NOT, actually read and try to understand papers written by Peratt.
</sarc>
It's all smoke and mirrors by them - all smoke and mirrors.
So, does Peratt assume/make use of/rely upon/etc the Hubble redshift-distance relationship for the values of the parameters in Table 1 (of Paper I)?

User avatar
Aristarchus
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

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

Unread post by Aristarchus » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:19 am

Nereid wrote:I know Aristarchus' game. If we read this thread carefully, we'll see that Aristarchus strenuously avoids discussing - even mentioning - the actual scientific content of Peratt's two papers and his published book, and focusses instead on diversion, obfuscation, and posts "huge diatribes of nonsense" (to quote Dave).
Ah, the indefatigable, Nereid. The more one expects it to change, the more she is determined to keep it the same. When I find, Nereid, that you have successfully articulated a thesis sentence or presented a premise in a coherent manner that demonstrates cohesion, then I will be able to meet you half way in your game playing. I have already stated to you in the past that you need to present separate topics in a more deliberate manner. I've already on several occasions had to respond for other posters about information you requested from them that would have been an easy search for you to do if you didn't spend most of your time being coy - most recently, the other catalogues published by Arp, which was followed with the sound of <crickets> from you.

As I stated before, and so have others, you're not here to engage in discovering or even challenge the EU or plasma cosmology research, but rather, supplant the BAUT forum's ridicule of the two former on this board. In short, I'm calling you out. And, in others words, it is one thing to challenge EU and plasma cosmology with materials and research from the establishment science, but it is quite another to seek to replace such a discussion with offering nothing more than fishing expeditions so that everything comports with acknowledging everything in reference to the consensus science. You're purposely engaging in a fallacy that the arguments are a side by side issue to everything based in the consensus science, thus, all the work the other posters do in presenting what is actually stated in the EU model and plasma cosmology provides another opportunity to distract from it.

For example, this little ditty:
Nereid wrote:Specifically:
* Peratt's model, and simulations, assume the Hubble redshift-distance relationship
* the 'rotation curve' of spiral galaxies, derived from that model and simulations, is not applicable to such curves derived from observations of stars.
You then throw up documents and/or research from the establishment science to support an already foregone conclusion in which you provide the context, and then request your fellow TB forum posters to perform wild goose chases to dig something up from Peratt that states otherwise or disproves your predetermined choice selected premise.

That's not the way it is done. You are supposed to provided an example, yourself, from Peratt's research that you have identified that supports the claims you have made against him - and this provides a context. You don't respond with, "but I didn't see anything in Peratt's 372 book mentioning this or that, or was different from his paper I & II ... hhmm - let's rub our chins and pretend we're being provocative."

You're supposed to quote a specific section/sections from his book, and then cite and provide a counter to it, and then the reader can decide if it is pertinent to the context of the topic. Any academic worth his/her salt would know that everything is not a matter of black and white, and a researcher, as I stated before, will cite a paper or research, but will also qualify that he/she doesn't sumbit to everything in the said cited materials of its research.

In addition, when you're placing parenthetical citations/documentations within a paragraph, could you please hit the enter button to provide a space so that it's not all bunched up - makes it so much easier for the reader.
Nereid wrote:(there's more of course, a lot more, but this is more than enough to show that Aristarchus is being, um, what's the phrase? 'economical with the truth'?
You couldn't even speak well in your own defense from your previous posting/response in that regards. For example:
Nereid wrote:I know Aristarchus' game. If we read this thread carefully, we'll see that Aristarchus strenuously avoids discussing - even mentioning - the actual scientific content of Peratt's two papers and his published book, and focusses instead on diversion, obfuscation, and posts "huge diatribes of nonsense" (to quote Dave).
The "to quote Dave" caveat is making it appear as if the "diversion, obfuscation, and posts "huge diatribes of nonsense," was something that wasn't directed towards you from "Dave." If you were honest, again, you would set the proper context and state it as follows:
instead on diversion, obfuscation, and posts "huge diatribes of nonsense" (to quote Dave regarding his accusations towards me).
And, if I do decide to indulge you and follow your directive pertaining to changing the course of the topic for your following proposal:
Nereid wrote:Specifically:
* Peratt's model, and simulations, assume the Hubble redshift-distance relationship
* the 'rotation curve' of spiral galaxies, derived from that model and simulations, is not applicable to such curves derived from observations of stars.
At what point will you jump from that topic and start stating, "I think I'll pick this new matter up on another thread, or, maybe, hhmm, start a new topic." Seriously, Nereid, I understand the whac-a-mole technique. I worked researching curricula vitae for one of the top law firms representing a major tobacco company, among doing the same for other top fortune companies represented by the firm. I know about those that slap everything on real thick plus the kitchen sink to up one's credentials and expertise, but once you've engaged in doing this kind of research, as I have, one develops an excellent balderdash detector.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison

flyingcloud
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

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

Unread post by flyingcloud » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:25 pm

quite right it is growing tiresome,

maybe someone should be assessed points
or suspended for not answering a direct question

are these people for real :shock:

seb
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:09 pm

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

Unread post by seb » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:28 pm

If nobody else is going to answer it... :roll:
Nereid wrote:So, does Peratt assume/make use of/rely upon/etc the Hubble redshift-distance relationship for the values of the parameters in Table 1 (of Paper I)?
You'd have to ask Peratt to be sure whether he did or not. On the other hand, we could equally ask how the standard estimates were arrived at without a plasma model. :twisted:

One question that springs to mind is that if the estimated values are derived from radio observations and redshift/distance relationships according to what the values would need to be given the observed values and distances, then would not a correct plasma model give similar answers to the estimates regardless of the distance?

In other words, let's assume that new standard estimates were made on the basis that Cygnus A is only half of the distance away. The numbers would obviously be different to those printed in table 1, but they should be consistent with the distance being halved. If only half the distance were used in the input to the plasma model, would it concur with the new estimates? It should if the model is correct; and if that were the case then the actual distance to Cygnus A is very relevant for whether the values in table 1 relate to the true values but completely irrelevant for testing the model against the standard estimates. ;) There is a circular argument involved in the comparison.

User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
Contact:

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

Unread post by davesmith_au » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:23 pm

Nereid, with regard to this:

Nereid wrote:
mharratsc wrote:Ms. Nereid said:
* the 'rotation curve' of spiral galaxies, derived from that model and simulations, is not applicable to such curves derived from observations of stars

This is very interesting! Do you feel you've discovered some hidden flaw in Dr. Peratt's work, Ms. Nereid? That would be quite a discovery, considering how long this paper has been available and all.

Could you summarize this discrepancy here? I must've missed it if you'd posted it elsewhere... :\
Last post for today (this is #6): I doubt it was at all hidden; I'd guess that pretty much any among the "standard astrophysics folk" (to quote TB forum member jacmac) would have picked that up, within minutes of reading Peratt's papers. In fact, you may like to think of the almost complete lack of references to Peratt's papers are being due - in part - to this rather crucial (and basic!) shortcoming.

I covered this 'shortcoming' earlier in this threadreference needed, if only briefly; in any case, I'll go over it in more detail for you, in some future posts.

A colleague asked privately, "What exactly is the ostensibly obvious flaw in Peratt's model of spiral galaxies?" to which, after a careful review of the entire thread, I'm at a loss to answer. As it's rather an important question, considering your "within minutes" statement, perhaps you could do us the favor of answering it in a simple, succinct manner, for the benefit of those who find your noise to signal ratio excessive.

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster

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

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

Unread post by Nereid » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:05 pm

mharratsc wrote:
Nereid wrote:* the 'rotation curve' of spiral galaxies, derived from that model and simulations, is not applicable to such curves derived from observations of stars
This is very interesting! Do you feel you've discovered some hidden flaw in Dr. Peratt's work, Ms. Nereid? That would be quite a discovery, considering how long this paper has been available and all.

Could you summarize this discrepancy here? I must've missed it if you'd posted it elsewhere... :\
There are at least hundreds of papers on this, if not thousands; here is one recent one ("Structure and dynamics of galaxies with a low surface brightness disc. I. The stellar and ionised-gas kinematics", Pizzella et al. (2008); link is to arXiv preprint abstract).

Well before 1986, you'll find relevant papers on this topic, authored by many names you'll instantly recognise - the Burbidges, and Sandage, for example. However, to focus on what was well-known in 1986, when Peratt published his two papers (and thus, assuming he was diligent in his literature search, as he prepared the papers for publication, he should have been well aware of), here is one example ("Velocity and velocity dispersion profiles in NGC 3115", Illingworth and Schechter (1982) - yes, that Schechter!), and another that illustrates what those who attended astronomy conventions/symposia/meetings at the time would have been well aware of, here ("Internal kinematics of spiral galaxies - Gas and stellar rotation curves and dispersion profiles", Fillmore et al. (1986)). One of the *observational* techniques used to estimate the velocity field (and hence rotation curve) as well as velocity dispersion of galaxies was published in 1977 ("Velocity dispersions for 13 galaxies"; the authors include both Sargent and Schechter!).

Now for something different: "Galaxy rotation curves: the effect of j x B force", Tsiklauri (not yet published, link is to the arXiv preprint abstract). Here's a curious sentence in this paper (which does not cite any work by Peratt): "It should be mentioned that the present work was complete when author became aware of a similar earlier work by Nelson (1988)." Maybe Tim Thompson was right; maybe Peratt, by publishing in an IEEE publication, was able to avoid referees questions about rotation curves derived from stars, but that also doomed his paper to obscurity?

Before you get too excited solrey (and others), and start allowing your imagination to vault to extreme conclusions (and before you start quote mining), please take time to read, and understand, this paper.

User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
Contact:

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

Unread post by davesmith_au » Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:40 pm

Nereid before you get carried away obfuscating, sidetracking and generally avoiding answering a direct question (put two different ways, in case you're having trouble understanding it) succinctly, perhaps you could ANSWER THE DARN QUESTION(S)! Is it really so hard to offer an original thought?

mharrastc wrote: This is very interesting! Do you feel you've discovered some hidden flaw in Dr. Peratt's work, Ms. Nereid? That would be quite a discovery, considering how long this paper has been available and all.

Could you summarize this discrepancy here? I must've missed it if you'd posted it elsewhere... :\
I wrote: "What exactly is the ostensibly obvious flaw in Peratt's model of spiral galaxies?"
Understand?
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster

User avatar
solrey
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

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

Unread post by solrey » Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:47 pm

Nereid wrote:
Before you get too excited solrey (and others), and start allowing your imagination to vault to extreme conclusions (and before you start quote mining), please take time to read, and understand, this paper.
You mean this one?
"Galaxy rotation curves: the effect of j x B force"

Perhaps static MHD used in that paper is a gross oversimplification but that's just the beginning.

Before you get too excited there Nereid... :roll:

The primary issue is that Tsiklauri fixed B0 = 6.8 microgauss for his equations. However, published over a year ago, the lower limit for the Milky Way central magnetic field based on more detailed data is now set at 50 microgauss. Guess he missed that one too...
It should be mentioned that the present work was complete when author became aware of a similar earlier work by Nelson (1988)
A lower limit of 50 microgauss for the magnetic field near the Galactic Centre
Finally, assuming equipartition, fields of only ~6 μG have been inferred from radio observations for 400 pc scales. Here we report a compilation of previous data that reveals a downward break in the region's non-thermal radio spectrum (attributable to a transition from bremsstrahlung to synchrotron cooling of the in situ cosmic-ray electron population). We show that the spectral break requires that the Galactic Centre field be at least ~50 μG on 400 pc scales, lest the synchrotron-emitting electrons produce too much γ-ray emission, given other existing constraints. Other considerations support a field of 100 μG, implying that over 10% of the Galaxy's magnetic energy is contained in only ≲0.05% of its volume.
At a glance, plugging that range of magnetic field strength and distribution from the new data into the equations should yield a better calculated fit to observed data, in spite of the oversimplified static MHD treatment. 8-)

As for your argument against Peratt's PIC simulations:

Peratt's rotation curves from Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 (Note Figure 11) and Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986 (Note Figure 14) fit the observed data for representative spirals in those references Nereid quoted, with many of them being within the same curve in the same 150 km/s range as the PIC simulations.

So again, where's the discrepancy that relegates Peratt's papers to the dustbin?

btw, I'll let ya'll know if Tsiklauri responds to my email informing him of the more recent galactic magnetic field data (in case the referee's don't catch that omission)... and Peratt's papers. ;)

cheers :P
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

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

Unread post by mharratsc » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:41 pm

Solrey quoted:
Other considerations support a field of 100 μG, implying that over 10% of the Galaxy's magnetic energy is contained in only ≲0.05% of its volume.
Would that be data that is indicative of the galactic core being a pinching plasmoid, Tim? Or does the standard model also propose a similar condition due to SMBH theory?
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

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

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

Unread post by Nereid » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:14 pm

davesmith_au wrote:Nereid before you get carried away obfuscating, sidetracking and generally avoiding answering a direct question (put two different ways, in case you're having trouble understanding it) succinctly, perhaps you could ANSWER THE DARN QUESTION(S)! Is it really so hard to offer an original thought?

mharrastc wrote: This is very interesting! Do you feel you've discovered some hidden flaw in Dr. Peratt's work, Ms. Nereid? That would be quite a discovery, considering how long this paper has been available and all.

Could you summarize this discrepancy here? I must've missed it if you'd posted it elsewhere... :\
I wrote: "What exactly is the ostensibly obvious flaw in Peratt's model of spiral galaxies?"
Understand?
Not really, Dave, no.

Peratt's model is based on the assumption that the Hubble redshift-distance relationship is a reliable way to estimate distances1.

IF you regard that relationship as unreliable - and, from my reading, it seems that it's a key part of EU theory - THEN Peratt's model2 needs to be re-done, using input values that do not rely upon this relationship. Whether the interesting correspondences Peratt reports would still be valid, in a re-done model, no one can say.

Peratt's simulated rotation curves were produced assuming gravity does not exist3; the only forces simulated were electromagnetic ones. Stars have vastly different charge/mass ratios than electrons or ions, yet the simulation did not assume/use particles with such a huge range of ratios.

IF stars have rotation curves that are similar to those of gas/ions, in spiral galaxies,
THEN the simulation's result would not be applicable to such galaxies (and curves). From observational astronomy, stars have essentially the same rotation curves as gas and ions. Of course, no one knows what the simulation results would be if it were to be tweaked, gravity added, etc, etc, etc.

Do either of these things make Peratt's model (and simulation) wrong?

Of course not; all they do is point to a need to do more work, before anything at all can be said about the quantitative match between theory and experiment (observation) ...

If you've read the JREF thread that is referenced in the first post of this thread, you'll know that JREF members pointed to many more 'flaws' than just these two; Mike observed that Siggy_G was having a hard time addressing them.

For example, here is (an extract of) the first post in that thread (interestingly, Reality Check is the name of a Thunderbolts forum member!):
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!
1 As I showed, this relationship is used to produce several of the values in Table 1. Also, the y-axes of the 'rotation curve' figures are independent of this relationship (as you yourself pointed out), but the x-axes are not (except for the ones marked 'arcmin', as Jim pointed out).
2 The simulation doesn't change; that's dimensionless.
3 Of course Peratt does not think gravity is irrelevant; however, it is not simulated (you can check this yourself, by reading the code published in the Appendix of his book).

seb
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:09 pm

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

Unread post by seb » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:10 pm

I won't argue too much about the specific details or choices that Peratt made in his models, since they are for him to defend. But I will comment on some of the arguments used against it. :)
Nereid wrote:Peratt's model is based on the assumption that the Hubble redshift-distance relationship is a reliable way to estimate distances1.

IF you regard that relationship as unreliable - and, from my reading, it seems that it's a key part of EU theory - THEN Peratt's model2 needs to be re-done, using input values that do not rely upon this relationship. Whether the interesting correspondences Peratt reports would still be valid, in a re-done model, no one can say.
This is a red herring because the actual distance is irrelevant to whether the model is correct or not.

Standard astronomy has observed certain phenomena (such as radiation, spectra, etc.) and interpreted those as being at a distance determined in accordance with the Hubble redshift-distance relationship. The calculations of field strengths, electron densities, and so on are made such that they are the values necessary to give those observations at those distances. If the relationship between radiation, spectra, etc. and the fields, densities, etc., are the same in both the standard model and in Peratt's model, which they should be if our understanding of the physics of electricity is correct, then both models should yield similar answers for the same distance. This means that it is irrelevant what distance you choose - if the plasma model were accepted as being correct and the interpreted distance was only 50 yards away, the standard model would also yield the same "right" answers as the plasma model.
Peratt's simulated rotation curves were produced assuming gravity does not exist3; the only forces simulated were electromagnetic ones. Stars have vastly different charge/mass ratios than electrons or ions, yet the simulation did not assume/use particles with such a huge range of ratios.
Nobody knows what the charge/mass ratios of stars are because nobody has measured them, AFAIK. Yes, it is an assumption that they're constant, but it is no less an assumption that they're not. Do gravitational theories assume that stars have the same gravity/mass ratio as electrons and ions? On what basis? Has the mass of a star ever been measured directly without the involvement of gravity?

It is insufficient to argue that plasma models are flawed for assuming a constant charge/mass ratio whereas gravity models are not flawed for assuming a constant gravity/mass ratio.
IF stars have rotation curves that are similar to those of gas/ions, in spiral galaxies,
THEN the simulation's result would not be applicable to such galaxies (and curves). From observational astronomy, stars have essentially the same rotation curves as gas and ions. Of course, no one knows what the simulation results would be if it were to be tweaked, gravity added, etc, etc, etc.
It depends on what basis the gas is moving. As long as the bulk of the mass is forcibly moved, the rest can happily follow gravitationally. There is no reason why the stars cannot be propelled electrically and loitering gas gravitate towards them.

If you stir sugary coffee and use a straw to drink from the middle, is the coffee you taste sweet? Why are the heavier sugar molecules not thrown to the outside of the cup, leaving the inner coffee sugar-free? At what rotational speed do you need for a centrifuge to separate out the molecules? I know it's not an exact analogy, but it demonstrates that a simple view of saying F=ma on independent particles does not always hold true if you do not account for (possibly non-obvious) bonding mechanisms that invalidate the assumption of independency.
Do either of these things make Peratt's model (and simulation) wrong?

Of course not; all they do is point to a need to do more work, before anything at all can be said about the quantitative match between theory and experiment (observation) ...
I agree with that, but I would also say that the same still applies to the orthodox theories that are in the privileged position of receiving all of the more work. ;)
[...]
Reality Check wrote:[...]
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.
If these claims are as fatal as Reality Check suggests then I would say that they are points for Peratt to answer. Has Peratt been directly questioned on them? And what was his response?
This invalidates the model completely and so we need not really continue. But there are other points that are also relevant.
I would object to that claim on the basis of it being unscientific. How sophisticated are SPLASH and TRISTRAN, and how sophisticated were his models? Computing power in the 1980s was quite poor compared to today. If a gravity-only model were made of similar simplicity, how well would it fare in matching observations? If such a simple gravity model were to contain mismatches comparable to those of Peratt's plasma model, would gravity be completely invalidated and physicists persue it no more? I think we know the answer to that. ;)

The point here is that if mismatches with observations are insufficient to invalidate gravity then they are also insufficient to invalidate plasma (or any other theory).
[...]

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.
If the orthodox gravity model is correct then should not gravitational waves be detectable? These have not been detected. ;) Consider any expected synchrotron radiation from the galactic currents to be a prediction of the theory, awaiting confirmation. If you don't find it, just spend more money looking deeper. :P
[..]
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!
For this point I would like to ask a question: imagine that a comet comes in the solar system on a collision course with the Sun. Why does it come towards the Sun? Why does it collide with the Sun? Is it influenced by the Sun's gravitational field prior to impact? Why are electrical entities presumed to act independently and not see each other until they collide?

It is the case that charge can be shielded, and in the case of plasma it often is, but it is rarely so well shielded on such scales that interaction is as mechanically dominated as the imagination would portray. How do we know that we do not observe filaments interacting when we are prone to interpret any evidence according to other ideas, and when our evidence is restricted by a belief that we do not need to look for it because it's not there to be found? Maybe there is a valid argument against plasma cosmology here, but I don't see one that has been impartially defined.

User avatar
solrey
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

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

Unread post by solrey » Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:10 am

Nereid wrote:
For example, here is (an extract of) the first post in that thread (interestingly, Reality Check is the name of a Thunderbolts forum member!):
Thank you for reminding me about Reality Check and their M.O. on this here Thunderbolts forum:
by solrey » Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:02 pm
sol88, this is the same Reality Check that posted the following on randi.org, on the same day and within hours of when they started this thread on Aug 11, 2009 1:54 pm ?
11th August 2009, 06:46 PM
I will start collecting the evidence against the electric comet idea in one post. This will be updated as we discuss the many problems with the EC idea.
How did you know Reality Check had an account on thunderbolts forum, Nereid? Their last post was Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:46 pm. You joined the forum more than a year after that. Did you happen to run across the "Electric Comet Numbers" thread, which hasn't been active for nearly 18 months since the last comment on Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:29 pm ? What good fortune for you to stumble across a comrade in arms on an old thread. Why is it that you seem to have an intimate familiarity with EU bashing threads and usernames on JREF forum yet claim to have never posted there? I mean I find it difficult to believe you would just follow an anti-EU thread somewhere without comment, given your apparent obsession with debunking EU/PC and all.

Of course that's all just circumstantial, but it begs the question:
So Nereid, what's your M.O. on Thunderbolts forum? :?

cheers
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla

flyingcloud
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

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

Unread post by flyingcloud » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:11 pm

bet it's opaque

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 10, 2011 10:36 am

seb wrote:This is a red herring because the actual distance is irrelevant to whether the model is correct or not.
Perhaps it's just one of those pesky pedantic things, seb, like the (apparent) fact that you and I seem to have used 'model' in different ways.

If you are referring to the linked systems of (theoretical) equations, and the simulations run based on a code which implements a restricted set of those linked equations, then I fully agree - actual distances are irrelevant (after all, Peratt went to some length to make his model - in this sense - dimensionless).

However, the key parts of his model - as presented in the two papers - are those where he explicitly links them to reality (or at least the reality of observational astronomy). In fact, he makes this very clear, early in Paper I:
Peratt wrote:The only assumption made in the analysis in this paper - if it should be called an assumption - is that the basic properties of plasmas are the same everywhere, from sub-millimeter dimensions to the Hubble distance (10^28 cm).
seb wrote:Standard astronomy has observed certain phenomena (such as radiation, spectra, etc.) and interpreted those as being at a distance determined in accordance with the Hubble redshift-distance relationship. The calculations of field strengths, electron densities, and so on are made such that they are the values necessary to give those observations at those distances. If the relationship between radiation, spectra, etc. and the fields, densities, etc., are the same in both the standard model and in Peratt's model, which they should be if our understanding of the physics of electricity is correct, then both models should yield similar answers for the same distance. This means that it is irrelevant what distance you choose - if the plasma model were accepted as being correct and the interpreted distance was only 50 yards away, the standard model would also yield the same "right" answers as the plasma model.
(highlight added)

First, as I'm sure you know full well, the various relationships 'scale' with distance in quite a number of different ways.

For example, an observed redshift, interpreted as line-of-sight motion, is independent of distance; surface brightness is also independent of distance; luminosity scales as the inverse square of distance; and so on.

Second, the relationships you list - and others central to Peratt's model - include far more than just "the physics of electricity" (I assume you mean the same as Peratt's "the basic properties of plasmas are the same everywhere", did you?).

Third, Section IV B ("Scaling Simulations to Galactic Dimensions") makes it crystal clear that model - as applied to the reality of observational astronomy, in the form of observable parameters - predicts different values for those parameters, depending on the distances assumed.
Nobody knows what the charge/mass ratios of stars are because nobody has measured them, AFAIK.
All that is necessary, in this regard, is that they are not anywhere close to those of electrons and ions ... and they are not (stars do not explode at relativistic speeds in tiny fractions of a second, which they would do if their charge/mass ratios were comparable to those of the electron, the proton (hydrogen ion), and helium ions).
It depends on what basis the gas is moving. As long as the bulk of the mass is forcibly moved, the rest can happily follow gravitationally. There is no reason why the stars cannot be propelled electrically and loitering gas gravitate towards them.
Good point.

I should have added that it is a pretty darn firm conclusion - from many decades of observational astronomy - that the total mass of gas plus plasma plus dust is quite small compared to the total mass of stars, in spiral galaxies, at least out to the 25th Bmag per arcsec^2 isophote.
solrey wrote:How did you know Reality Check had an account on thunderbolts forum, Nereid?
My goodness, and I thought my memory was fading!
In fact, Thunderbolts Forum member solrey concluded that JREF's Reality Check is Nereid (Reality Check later disavowed the link, in the same thread).
(source, dated 15 November, 2010)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests