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 » Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:30 pm

mharratsc wrote:[...]

Of course, I have no quantitative data regarding any of this,
Unless - and until - anyone else does, then that's the end of that, right?

As all readers of this thread know by now (I hope!), Peratt has not published any results from simulations based on his code, incorporating Marklund convection, pinches, intragalactic current & plasma filaments, and our heliosphere; nor has anyone else (if you, dear reader, have information to the contrary, please provide it).
Aristarchus wrote:[...]
I may have missed it, but there's nothing in your post, Aristarchus, on primary sources for the Milky Way rotation curve (estimated - including uncertainties/error bars - and modelled), "speed discrepancies", citations re "texts claim the CDM to start at around 30kpc", etc.

If so - and I'd be happy if you could point to parts of your post that do contain such primary sources - then what relevance does your post have to seb's recent posts (the ones I've been responding to)?

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 01, 2011 3:27 pm

Ms. Nereid said:
Unless - and until - anyone else does, then that's the end of that, right?

Why no ma'am... not at all!

That stars would be spherical just like geodes in the Earth, or 'blueberries' on Mars points to a frugal nature of the Universe, and it makes uncommonly good sense as a base concept from my perspective.

Beneficially, there have been enough discoveries from the world of plasma physics to logically justify further pursuit of knowledge in the matter. Much more so than 'invisible dynamos' that we cannot replicate, or 'non-baryonic matter' which we cannot find a single particle of... the list goes on in that regard.

'New physics' are not needed at every scale, nor in every phenomenon (much to the chagrin of physicists who want to discover such.)

Just because you don't have a formula or figures for an idea doesn't banish it from the lexicon of the human race, and 'common sense' will not so easily be beaten out of the whole of our species, either... no matter how hard you try! ;)
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

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 01, 2011 4:24 pm

Nereid wrote:
seb wrote:That graph on Wikipedia's page about the galactic halo (also used on some other pages) has quite small error bars around the 4kpc region, with a big difference in speed between expected and observed. Texts claim the CDM to start at around 30kpc, yet the numbers show a speed discrepancy from around 1kpc.
Please, let's look at the primary sources by all means; but let's agree that, when it comes to checking things out properly, Wikipedia is an unreliable - and hence unacceptable - source, shall we?
If you wish. Within its editorial limitations I don't see a lot of reason to reject Wikipedia as an acceptable source of mainstream information at the level we are discussing. Of the topics in which I am knowledgeable I find Wikipedia's errors to be those of omission rather than unreliable with the facts that it does print. I cite it on the assumption that other topics are afflicted in the same way. :)
Obviously the net force has to be the full 3.2e20N, because you need to apply a centripetal acceleration to the entire contents of the heliosphere (which as I said above I am approximating that as being the sun in terms of mass and centre). For that you need the entire 1e16A flowing through the sun, but it only needs to act on a small amount such that that amount is forced to orbit the galaxy at the observed speeds. Because the centripetal acceleration is so small compared to the self-gravity of the sun, the bulk of it could follow gravitationally.
Switching from "the Sun" to the solar system barycentre makes it more accurate; the entire solar system can be modelled as a ~1.00x sol point mass (0 < x < ~5?) at the barycentre.
Since all of my other numbers are to only 2 significant figures I think that assuming the Sun's centre is good enough. ;) Any offset between the Sun's centre and the barycentre would just give a tiny wobble to the Sun's path around the galaxy. How do we know that the galactic core isn't contributing a bigger wobble by its own movements? :)
...
I don't follow this; let's if it's relevant in any case ...
You still need the full 1e16A, however. And this, of course, to repeat myself, is only a very simplistic calculation using little more than the Lorentz force and not directly derived from any models of Peratt, Scott, Thornhill, et al., but is it not surprising how well the numbers add up? ;)
OK, time to consider what the Lorentz force is acting on.

In Peratt's model, there is a pair of field aligned (Birkeland) currents, in the form of plasma filaments. In the paper, the forces are given in analytic form, together with a description of the appropriate regime in which the approximation is valid; as I read it, your application is way way beyond the relevant bounds - the Sun is not, for example, a thin plasma filament!

In his simulations, as described in his book, the complex behaviour of the plasmas is reproduced by making some simplifying assumptions; the plasma is assumed to be comprised of (charged) 'particles', for example, which interact with, and produce, magnetic and electric fields - again, the kind of thing you're describing is similar to Peratt's simulations in hardly any way at all.
I know. I said as much not so long ago. :P

I think you're reading too much into my calculations. They were not supposed to reflect Peratt's model, they were supposed to show the "bottom line"/worst-case of how much current in what field would be needed to move the Sun on its orbit around the galactic core. If the most simple of calculations showed EM as being too puny then it would be harder for more sophisticated plasma models to conjure up the necessary higher forces. As it happens, the simple calculations show very plausible amounts of electricity being capable of doing the job. That's not to say that it is a simple electrical current doing the job, it's just to say that more complex models have plenty of room to manoeuvre.
So perhaps you could describe, in some more detail, what the players in your model are? What is the current, for example, and what is the Lorentz force acting on?
The force acts on the charged particles in the current flowing in the interstellar circuit (and by implication, those in the Sun which are also part of the circuit).
At least some, if not most, models of electric stars have current flowing into both poles, i.e. in opposite directions, and then out of the equator. The calculations I've done above assume a net current in one direction (with the solar wind probably being just a leakage current), and so whether they apply and what modifications are needed would depend a lot on what is going on in the interstellar medium.
Indeed ... and you also need to get the direction right too! The rotation axis of the Sun does not have any particularly nice angle to the direction to the galaxy centre, or to the solar system barycentre's estimated direction of motion with respect to the nearby stars, or ...
The direction does need to be right, yes. However, there's at least a couple of orders of magnitude of room to play with in the parameters. In reality the interstellar currents are unlikely to all be parallel, and the interstellar magnetic fields will not all be aligned. On top of that, changes of orientation in the magnetic field within the heliosphere is a local effect produced by the complex current flow in the plasma pinch of the Sun, and as such can deflect the current itself (causing the Sun to be tilted relative to the field outside of the heliosphere), but because it is internally generated it will exert a suitable reaction force. The Sun's net movement around the galaxy (in this simple model) should therefore be according to the direction of the current flowing in and out of its heliosphere, not necessarily its own poles. It would be an interesting test if we could measure the axial orientation of stars w.r.t. the magnetic fields within their heliospheres and the motion of the stars w.r.t. the magnetic fields outside their heliospheres. Is there a correlation?

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 » Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:50 pm

Nereid wrote:I may have missed it, but there's nothing in your post, Aristarchus, on primary sources for the Milky Way rotation curve (estimated - including uncertainties/error bars - and modelled), "speed discrepancies", citations re "texts claim the CDM to start at around 30kpc", etc.
If so - and I'd be happy if you could point to parts of your post that do contain such primary sources - then what relevance does your post have to seb's recent posts (the ones I've been responding to)?
I’m not interested in what makes you happy, nor do I indulge in pseudo-graciousness to denote that "I'm not such a bad guy, can't we all get along." It's not my cup of tea. Nor do I engage in insults, but speak bluntly as to get to the point. I responded to something that you had placed in one of your previous posts on this thread that was entirely erroneous, and my response is actually quite closer to the topic heading of this thread then the tangents that you have taken not just on this thread, but others throughout this forum. Go back and read the first posting on this topic and acquaint yourself once again with the context of the thread.

If you don't want certain aspects or quotes from your posts challenged, place a little star next to them, so that it is clear when you're expressing something that you do not consider worthy of your fellow TB forum members to debate. Or just mark these particular remarks from you as deadwood. You're very good at relying on authority to express your ideas on this forum, and you also carry on this tendency of establishing your assumed authority as another vehicle to distract and not respond to specifics or challenges to your allegations and assertions.

In addition, I've on several occasions these past two weeks had to supply information that you requested from other TB forum members that you could have very well and easily accessed yourself. Thus, you're either being very disingenuous when exclaiming "thanks" to others when they respond to your requests by listing research that is a five - ten minute search on the Internet or online database – so, at the very worst; you're being condescending and/or flippant. Either way, I am not fooled.

In addition, I don't really see where you cannot multitask and pick back up with the discussion with seb. The odd thing is, you'll probably succeed in applying your authority on this forum from those that fear upsetting your sentiments, as it will be a reaction by those that are alarmed about upsetting you because it might be a cause or prelude to how this forum is perceived by others, As for me, I'll ignore your directives and place my trust in the following quote:

"A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for others." ~ Marquis de Sade
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 » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:41 am

seb wrote:
Nereid wrote:Please, let's look at the primary sources by all means; but let's agree that, when it comes to checking things out properly, Wikipedia is an unreliable - and hence unacceptable - source, shall we?
If you wish. Within its editorial limitations I don't see a lot of reason to reject Wikipedia as an acceptable source of mainstream information at the level we are discussing. Of the topics in which I am knowledgeable I find Wikipedia's errors to be those of omission rather than unreliable with the facts that it does print. I cite it on the assumption that other topics are afflicted in the same way. :)
Myself, I have found Wikipedia to be intensely frustrating. Some articles are extremely good, some extremely bad (and most in between). There are two particularly bad aspects: what's on a particular page can change, and the change can turn an otherwise OK article into something quite unacceptable; the 'errors of omission' you mention.

In this particular case, my personal opinion is that the WP page is very unsatisfactory.
I know. I said as much not so long ago. :P

I think you're reading too much into my calculations. They were not supposed to reflect Peratt's model, they were supposed to show the "bottom line"/worst-case of how much current in what field would be needed to move the Sun on its orbit around the galactic core. If the most simple of calculations showed EM as being too puny then it would be harder for more sophisticated plasma models to conjure up the necessary higher forces.
Given the nature of these sorts of forces, I think such a conclusion (or assumption) would likely be quite unjustified! After all, isn't this just the sort of thing many TB members point to, re Scott's Electric Sun?
As it happens, the simple calculations show very plausible amounts of electricity being capable of doing the job. That's not to say that it is a simple electrical current doing the job, it's just to say that more complex models have plenty of room to manoeuvre.
[...]
The force acts on the charged particles in the current flowing in the interstellar circuit (and by implication, those in the Sun which are also part of the circuit).
I still don't see how you arrived at that conclusion.

The Lorentz force - which is what you're using, isn't it? also called the Laplace force - applies to currents; specifically, to the matter which is (or comprises) that current. If so, then what is the current, if not a plasma filament?

Alternatively, in its usual form, the Lorentz force acts on a point charge, which has a velocity, in an electric and a magnetic field. So, to do your back-of-the-envelope calculation, you need to plug in estimated values for all these, right?

In the case of charged particles in the Sun, the magnetic field is rather different from the nT you assumed, isn't it?
The direction does need to be right, yes. However, there's at least a couple of orders of magnitude of room to play with in the parameters. In reality the interstellar currents are unlikely to all be parallel, and the interstellar magnetic fields will not all be aligned. On top of that, changes of orientation in the magnetic field within the heliosphere is a local effect produced by the complex current flow in the plasma pinch of the Sun, and as such can deflect the current itself (causing the Sun to be tilted relative to the field outside of the heliosphere), but because it is internally generated it will exert a suitable reaction force. The Sun's net movement around the galaxy (in this simple model) should therefore be according to the direction of the current flowing in and out of its heliosphere, not necessarily its own poles. It would be an interesting test if we could measure the axial orientation of stars w.r.t. the magnetic fields within their heliospheres and the motion of the stars w.r.t. the magnetic fields outside their heliospheres. Is there a correlation?
In the absence of any quantitative models, no conclusions can be drawn, can they?

In any case, the observations are that the stars in spiral galaxies seem to in near-circular orbits around the centres of those galaxies, in a plane (to a first approximation). Any model which seeks to account for this by Lorentz forces, interstellar (intra-galactic?) currents, and large-scale magnetic fields needs to produce outputs that are consistent with those observations, right?

Aristarchus, may I conclude that you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion, in this thread, on Peratt's model, simulations, and the astronomical observations they should be consistent with?

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.

I'm sure you can appreciate some of the implications of these, with respect to EU theories.

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 » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:12 am

Nereid wrote:Aristarchus, may I conclude that you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion, in this thread, on Peratt's model, simulations, and the astronomical observations they should be consistent with?

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.

I'm sure you can appreciate some of the implications of these, with respect to EU theories.
Still giving directives and assuming an air of authority to deflect from any responses to your positing, aye? Ergo, since you're claiming that I am adding nothing substantive to the conversation in my responding to what you have added to the discussion, one can only wonder at the relevance you give your own postings. :roll: Ho hum.

I daresay I posted something pertaining more to the topic than you. Here, let me assist you. This is what was posted at the introduction of this topic - highlighted emphasis mine:
mharratsc quoting what Tim Thompson wrote:"As far as I am concerned, any paper published on this topic in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science should be ignored. They are not serious papers, for 2 reasons:
They are deliberately published in a venue where they are guaranteed to never be seen or read by anyone who actually does research in galaxy formation or any other field of astrophysics or cosmology.
They are deliberately published in a venue where they are guaranteed to receive sub standard peer review. IEEE Transactions is a journal on industrial plasma science and the peer reviewers are all experts in that field, but have zero knowledge or experience in topics relative to the astrophysics of galaxies.
The point is that Peratt does not want his papers to be considered seriously, which is why he deliberately publishes them where they will not be seen by the community of relevant astrophysicists.

Where you publish is as important as what you publish. That's a fact of life in the real world, whether anyone particularly likes it or not. Professional scientists rarely have a lot of time to explore journals outside their field, and generally hand pick the few in their field that they will pay attention to, time being highly limited. IEEE Transactions is where the plasma cosmology people publish because they know they will not have to defend their work from any criticism. This makes it look like they have lots of papers that nobody has ever refuted, and that becomes a clarion call to the fans of PC. If their papers are so bad, why has nobody ever "refuted" them? Well, the answer is that nobody has ever read them, at least nobody involved seriously in the galaxy business, and that is exactly what Peratt and others intend.
...
Now, reading my previous response to you on this topic, I offered the following:
Aristarchus response to Nereid wrote:In addition, I've on several occasions these past two weeks had to supply information that you requested from other TB forum members that you could have very well and easily accessed yourself. Thus, you're either being very disingenuous when exclaiming "thanks" to others when they respond to your requests by listing research that is a five - ten minute search on the Internet or online database– so, at the very worst; you're being condescending and/or flippant. Either way, I am not fooled.
Thus, it follows that the ridiculous claim about where Peratt chooses to publish doesn't really hold much water. The entry in Wikipedia under plasma cosmology proves that it is a topic for the IEEE publications, and the entry is legitimate because plasma cosmology was accepted as an official study in physics by The American Institute of Physics. I stand by my response and position in my previous response to you, because when placing the assertion by Tim Thompson back to back with my previous response to you, there is more of a correlation to the topic on part, as it was introduced.

Yep. I'm on topic.
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 » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:18 am

Aristarchus wrote:
Nereid wrote:Aristarchus, may I conclude that you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion, in this thread, on Peratt's model, simulations, and the astronomical observations they should be consistent with?

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.

I'm sure you can appreciate some of the implications of these, with respect to EU theories.
[material unrelated to the content of Peratt's model and simulations skipped]

Thus, it follows that the ridiculous claim about where Peratt chooses to publish doesn't really hold much water.
A point which is, as no doubt you are fully aware, quite irrelevant to the content of Peratt's model and simulations.
Yep. I'm on topic.
Nope, you're not.

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

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

Unread post by mharratsc » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:23 am

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... :\
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 » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:46 am

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.

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 » Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:57 pm

Nereid wrote:A point which is, as no doubt you are fully aware, quite irrelevant to the content of Peratt's model and simulations.
Careful, Nereid. Remember, I advised you that you do appear to have your work cut out for you on this board. You don't want to blow your 3 - 6 posts a day on having the last word. So much obfuscation to pursue, so little time.

Moving on with the topic of this thread. Let's take another gander at what Tim Thompson was quoted as stating, and this time we'll flip-flop that highlighted emphasis - mine:
"As far as I am concerned, any paper published on this topic in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science should be ignored. They are not serious papers, for 2 reasons:
They are deliberately published in a venue where they are guaranteed to never be seen or read by anyone who actually does research in galaxy formation or any other field of astrophysics or cosmology.
They are deliberately published in a venue where they are guaranteed to receive sub standard peer review. IEEE Transactions is a journal on industrial plasma science and the peer reviewers are all experts in that field, but have zero knowledge or experience in topics relative to the astrophysics of galaxies.
The point is that Peratt does not want his papers to be considered seriously, which is why he deliberately publishes them where they will not be seen by the community of relevant astrophysicists.


Where you publish is as important as what you publish. That's a fact of life in the real world, whether anyone particularly likes it or not. Professional scientists rarely have a lot of time to explore journals outside their field, and generally hand pick the few in their field that they will pay attention to, time being highly limited. IEEE Transactions is where the plasma cosmology people publish because they know they will not have to defend their work from any criticism. This makes it look like they have lots of papers that nobody has ever refuted, and that becomes a clarion call to the fans of PC. If their papers are so bad, why has nobody ever "refuted" them? Well, the answer is that nobody has ever read them, at least nobody involved seriously in the galaxy business, and that is exactly what Peratt and others intend.
Now, let's follow the bouncing ball and take a look at the sponsors The 37th IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science

One of the sponsors is - The European Physical Journal
The European Physical Journal came into being in January 1998 when EDP Sciences and Springer merged their traditional journals Journal de Physique and Zeitschrift für Physik into this single European platform of publication.Then, in January 1999, Il Nuovo Cimento - published by the Società Italiana di Fisica - also joined the merger.
And guess what? Physics of the Plasma Universe by Anthony Peratt is published by, yep, Springer.

Furthermore, the paper by Peratt (viz), Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, A. L. Peratt, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 3-11 (1995) (576KB) is a journal that falls under Springer.

Here's another:

Orientation of Intense Z-Pinch Instabilities from an Intense Aurora as Recorded in Prehistory. A. L. Peratt, , D. A. Scott, and M. A. van der Sluijs. Bulletin of The American Physical Society, 46th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Savannah, Georgia, 2004.

But wait - there's more:

Galactic Neutral Hydrogen Emission Profile Structure, G. L. Verschuur and A. L. Peratt, Astron. J. 118, pp.1252-1267, 1999 (672K).

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, APSS 242, 1997 (3.3MB)

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 (2.1MB)

Then, outside of Peratt we have:

Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 000–000 (0000) Printed 1 February 2008 (MN LATEX style file v1.4)
An electrically powered binary star?


Kinwah Wu1,2, Mark Cropper2, Gavin Ramsay2 and Kazuhiro Sekiguchi3
1Research Centre for Theoretical Astrophysics, School of Physics A28, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
2Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6NT
3National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 650 Nth A’ohoku Place, Hilo, HI 96720, USA

and -

Phys Rev Lett. 2001 Jul 23;87(4):045003. Epub 2001 Jul 9.

Direct observation of localized parallel electric fields in a space plasma.
Ergun RE, Su YJ, Andersson L, Carlson CW, McFadden JP, Mozer FS, Newman DL, Goldman MV, Strangeway RJ.

The Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA.


Well, you get the idea. Some people try too hard. They should just let it come naturally.
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

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

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

Unread post by seb » Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:57 pm

Nereid wrote:
seb wrote:[...] The force acts on the charged particles in the current flowing in the interstellar circuit (and by implication, those in the Sun which are also part of the circuit).
I still don't see how you arrived at that conclusion.

The Lorentz force - which is what you're using, isn't it? also called the Laplace force - applies to currents; specifically, to the matter which is (or comprises) that current. If so, then what is the current, if not a plasma filament?

Alternatively, in its usual form, the Lorentz force acts on a point charge, which has a velocity, in an electric and a magnetic field. So, to do your back-of-the-envelope calculation, you need to plug in estimated values for all these, right?
Some are estimates, such as the strength of the magnetic field, but the others are taken from the textbooks. ;) The idea was to find out what size current you need to create the centripetal force, and that current is quite moderate in the scheme of things.
In the case of charged particles in the Sun, the magnetic field is rather different from the nT you assumed, isn't it?
Yes, but that doesn't matter as I'll explain below.
In the absence of any quantitative models, no conclusions can be drawn, can they?
Some conclusions can be drawn because observations set certain constraints that need to be met. For example, if the Sun is orbiting the galactic centre at a given speed then it must be subjected to a certain centripetal acceleration. If the solar system remains held together and it remains at the centre of the heliosphere then that centripetal acceleration is acting on the heliosphere as a whole; the heliosphere behaves rather like an elastic solid in that respect.

In any case, the heliosphere appears to be pretty much self-contained - its external influence is in the form of gravity and (as reckoned here) electrical currents. We can consider the orbit of the heliosphere as being that due to the alignment of the interstellar current and interstellar magnetic field, and the heliosphere properties. The heliosphere does not, AFAIK, appear to have an accelerating spin or non-orbital acceleration. Thus any forces on the bodies within the heliosphere, such as the Sun, can only be felt outside the heliosphere if there is an external force to react against it. Now, a torque applied to the Sun would need to be immense to rotate the Sun with any appreciable acceleration; the reaction force at the edge of the heliosphere would be tiny. And that is assuming that the reaction force does not appear on some other entity nearer the Sun such as a counteracting magnetic field. Therefore we can have quite powerful fields, forces, and complex motion in and around the Sun without the interstellar current or the path of the heliosphere being particularly bothered by it. The size of the Sun is so small compared to the size of the interstellar current feeding it that the fluctuations near the Sun are probably less significant (in terms of its galactic orbit) than the tortuous path followed by lightning to get from the cloud to the ground.
In any case, the observations are that the stars in spiral galaxies seem to in near-circular orbits around the centres of those galaxies, in a plane (to a first approximation). Any model which seeks to account for this by Lorentz forces, interstellar (intra-galactic?) currents, and large-scale magnetic fields needs to produce outputs that are consistent with those observations, right?
Yes, as would any theory. Gravitational theories seem to expect ellipses as a natural consequence of orbits. Electricity is quite happy producing circular orbits. Regardless of whether the orbit is due to gravity or electricity, I don't see any physics argument (either qualitative or quantitative) which justifies ruling out electricity as the main cause.

Sometimes you seem to be arguing that if a theory is not quantified then the theory can not be quantified. It's only a matter of time, and the numbers pertaining to the cause of an effect have to first be observed before you can quantify a prediction of the effect itself. After all, when mainstream theories give predictions that fall flat in the face of observation the plea is always that they were working with assumed parameters, and once they know what the answer is supposed to be then they can get the prediction right in hindsight. Why can't non-mainstream theories be afforded the same leniency? :) Finding the correct principle is most important; the quantities will follow.

The founding principles of plasma (or electrical) cosmology are from about the mid-60s, as I understand, so it has been going for only about 50 years. Only a small number of people have worked on it, and it has never had much funding. When you put this into the context that the entire global scientific establishment took over 200 years to get from Newton's principle of gravity to explaining the orbit of Mercury, is it reasonable to expect the PC/EU theories to be extensively documented, quantified, tested, and have all of the answers already?

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 » Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:44 pm

Aristarchus wrote:
Nereid wrote:A point which is, as no doubt you are fully aware, quite irrelevant to the content of Peratt's model and simulations.
Careful, Nereid. Remember, I advised you that you do appear to have your work cut out for you on this board. You don't want to blow your 3 - 6 posts a day on having the last word. So much obfuscation to pursue, so little time.

Moving on with the topic of this thread. Let's take another gander at what Tim Thompson was quoted as stating, and this time we'll flip-flop that highlighted emphasis - mine:
"As far as I am concerned, any paper published on this topic in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science should be ignored. They are not serious papers, for 2 reasons:
They are deliberately published in a venue where they are guaranteed to never be seen or read by anyone who actually does research in galaxy formation or any other field of astrophysics or cosmology.
They are deliberately published in a venue where they are guaranteed to receive sub standard peer review. IEEE Transactions is a journal on industrial plasma science and the peer reviewers are all experts in that field, but have zero knowledge or experience in topics relative to the astrophysics of galaxies.
The point is that Peratt does not want his papers to be considered seriously, which is why he deliberately publishes them where they will not be seen by the community of relevant astrophysicists.


Where you publish is as important as what you publish. That's a fact of life in the real world, whether anyone particularly likes it or not. Professional scientists rarely have a lot of time to explore journals outside their field, and generally hand pick the few in their field that they will pay attention to, time being highly limited. IEEE Transactions is where the plasma cosmology people publish because they know they will not have to defend their work from any criticism. This makes it look like they have lots of papers that nobody has ever refuted, and that becomes a clarion call to the fans of PC. If their papers are so bad, why has nobody ever "refuted" them? Well, the answer is that nobody has ever read them, at least nobody involved seriously in the galaxy business, and that is exactly what Peratt and others intend.
Now, let's follow the bouncing ball and take a look at the sponsors The 37th IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science

One of the sponsors is - The European Physical Journal
The European Physical Journal came into being in January 1998 when EDP Sciences and Springer merged their traditional journals Journal de Physique and Zeitschrift für Physik into this single European platform of publication.Then, in January 1999, Il Nuovo Cimento - published by the Società Italiana di Fisica - also joined the merger.
And guess what? Physics of the Plasma Universe by Anthony Peratt is published by, yep, Springer.

Furthermore, the paper by Peratt (viz), Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, A. L. Peratt, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 3-11 (1995) (576KB) is a journal that falls under Springer.

Here's another:

Orientation of Intense Z-Pinch Instabilities from an Intense Aurora as Recorded in Prehistory. A. L. Peratt, , D. A. Scott, and M. A. van der Sluijs. Bulletin of The American Physical Society, 46th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Savannah, Georgia, 2004.

But wait - there's more:

Galactic Neutral Hydrogen Emission Profile Structure, G. L. Verschuur and A. L. Peratt, Astron. J. 118, pp.1252-1267, 1999 (672K).

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, APSS 242, 1997 (3.3MB)

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 (2.1MB)

Then, outside of Peratt we have:

Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 000–000 (0000) Printed 1 February 2008 (MN LATEX style file v1.4)
An electrically powered binary star?


Kinwah Wu1,2, Mark Cropper2, Gavin Ramsay2 and Kazuhiro Sekiguchi3
1Research Centre for Theoretical Astrophysics, School of Physics A28, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
2Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6NT
3National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 650 Nth A’ohoku Place, Hilo, HI 96720, USA

and -

Phys Rev Lett. 2001 Jul 23;87(4):045003. Epub 2001 Jul 9.

Direct observation of localized parallel electric fields in a space plasma.
Ergun RE, Su YJ, Andersson L, Carlson CW, McFadden JP, Mozer FS, Newman DL, Goldman MV, Strangeway RJ.

The Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA.


Well, you get the idea. Some people try too hard. They should just let it come naturally.

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"...

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 » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:19 am

seb wrote:Some are estimates, such as the strength of the magnetic field, but the others are taken from the textbooks. ;) The idea was to find out what size current you need to create the centripetal force, and that current is quite moderate in the scheme of things.
Minor nitpick: your calculation aimed at estimating the magnitude of a current for which the (maximum) Lorentz would have a magnitude {insert number of N here} if the magnitude of the magnetic field strength were ~nT.
Some conclusions can be drawn because observations set certain constraints that need to be met. For example, if the Sun is orbiting the galactic centre at a given speed then it must be subjected to a certain centripetal acceleration. If the solar system remains held together and it remains at the centre of the heliosphere then that centripetal acceleration is acting on the heliosphere as a whole; the heliosphere behaves rather like an elastic solid in that respect.
(highlight added).
As far as I know, the heliosphere is more like the point at which a pair of (closing) scissors meet; the matter of which it's composed is constantly changing. In this respect you need to be extremely cautious in how you apply the analogy. In any case, it's not spherical in shape is it? and the solar system isn't at its centre (however defined), is it?
In any case, the heliosphere appears to be pretty much self-contained - its external influence is in the form of gravity and (as reckoned here) electrical currents.
In situ observations of the heliosphere as a whole are rather limited, and those of the heliosheath and heliopause extremely few; however, as I understand it, the external influence on it is basically the pressure of the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM).
We can consider the orbit of the heliosphere as being that due to the alignment of the interstellar current and interstellar magnetic field, and the heliosphere properties. The heliosphere does not, AFAIK, appear to have an accelerating spin or non-orbital acceleration. Thus any forces on the bodies within the heliosphere, such as the Sun, can only be felt outside the heliosphere if there is an external force to react against it. Now, a torque applied to the Sun would need to be immense to rotate the Sun with any appreciable acceleration; the reaction force at the edge of the heliosphere would be tiny. And that is assuming that the reaction force does not appear on some other entity nearer the Sun such as a counteracting magnetic field. Therefore we can have quite powerful fields, forces, and complex motion in and around the Sun without the interstellar current or the path of the heliosphere being particularly bothered by it. The size of the Sun is so small compared to the size of the interstellar current feeding it that the fluctuations near the Sun are probably less significant (in terms of its galactic orbit) than the tortuous path followed by lightning to get from the cloud to the ground.
Here's an example of where your model (if I can call your analogy that) may not work; also, aren't there many more factors to consider, with respect to the behaviour of the heliosphere, than just any currents in the surrounding ISM?

In any case, for your model to work, in terms of a Lorentz force, don't you need to assume the heliosphere is a point charge? After all, whatever it is, the heliosphere isn't a current, is it?
Yes, as would any theory. Gravitational theories seem to expect ellipses as a natural consequence of orbits. Electricity is quite happy producing circular orbits.
Huh? I don't understand this at all; can you explain please? For example, what does "gravitational theories seem to expect ellipses as a natural consequence of orbits" mean, as applied to disk galaxies?
Regardless of whether the orbit is due to gravity or electricity, I don't see any physics argument (either qualitative or quantitative) which justifies ruling out electricity as the main cause.
If by "electricity" you mean something like "a current in the ISM", and by "the main cause" you mean something like "of the inferred motions of stars in disk galaxies", then it can certainly be ruled out quantitatively! Why? Because there is no quantitative physics argument ... all you've done so far (caveat: as I understand it) is calculate magnitude of the Lorentz on a current of 10^16 A (did I get the number right?) in a magnetic field of strength ~nT, right?
Sometimes you seem to be arguing that if a theory is not quantified then the theory can not be quantified.
If I have given that impression, then let me lay it to rest right now: if something - to which we might want to attach the label "physics" - is to be called a theory, then it must be quantitative; conversely, if something isn't quantitative, then it isn't a theory (in physics).
The founding principles of plasma (or electrical) cosmology are from about the mid-60s, as I understand, so it has been going for only about 50 years. Only a small number of people have worked on it, and it has never had much funding. When you put this into the context that the entire global scientific establishment took over 200 years to get from Newton's principle of gravity to explaining the orbit of Mercury, is it reasonable to expect the PC/EU theories to be extensively documented, quantified, tested, and have all of the answers already?
Peratt's model, and simulations, were first published in 1986. Since then, as far as I can tell, there's been no new work done on it/them (Peratt's subsequent publications contain nothing new, in terms of model development, new lab-based experiments, or new simulations, for example). Yet the model is relatively simple, and the computer code likewise (and it's freely available). As far as I can tell, from my research into EU/PC, this model (and simulations) is the only quantitative piece of EU/PC work/model/theory/whatever, at least for stars, galaxies, etc. Don't you think it kinda strange?

Aristarchus , Dave, shame on you! Who cares what Thompson thinks of IEEE publications! :roll:

Whatever happened to examining, and discussing, Peratt's model (and simulations) on their own, scientific, merits? Don't you have anything to say about the fact that the values of the parameters he used rely upon the Hubble redshift-distance relationship? Or is your entire point one of argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority)?

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

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

Unread post by seb » Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:14 am

Nereid wrote:
seb wrote:Some are estimates, such as the strength of the magnetic field, but the others are taken from the textbooks. ;) The idea was to find out what size current you need to create the centripetal force, and that current is quite moderate in the scheme of things.
Minor nitpick: your calculation aimed at estimating the magnitude of a current for which the (maximum) Lorentz would have a magnitude {insert number of N here} if the magnitude of the magnetic field strength were ~nT.
It's not really a nitpick; that was the gist of the maths. ;) If you want sources, try:

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Gal ... tic_fields

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/Reb ... berg.shtml

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08567.html

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... c_voyager/

If you prefer to use the lowest estimate then let's say 0.1nT. It doesn't make much odds to the plausibility of the size of the current. :)
Some conclusions can be drawn because observations set certain constraints that need to be met. For example, if the Sun is orbiting the galactic centre at a given speed then it must be subjected to a certain centripetal acceleration. If the solar system remains held together and it remains at the centre of the heliosphere then that centripetal acceleration is acting on the heliosphere as a whole; the heliosphere behaves rather like an elastic solid in that respect.
(highlight added).
As far as I know, the heliosphere is more like the point at which a pair of (closing) scissors meet; the matter of which it's composed is constantly changing. In this respect you need to be extremely cautious in how you apply the analogy. In any case, it's not spherical in shape is it? and the solar system isn't at its centre (however defined), is it?
Well, perhaps not once you get into the heliosheath, but that is a very tenuous part of the heliosphere and whether its distortion would affect the model is left as an exercise for the reader. ;) The solar system is not at the centre relative to the perimeter, but it is close to the centre of mass.
In any case, the heliosphere appears to be pretty much self-contained - its external influence is in the form of gravity and (as reckoned here) electrical currents.
In situ observations of the heliosphere as a whole are rather limited, and those of the heliosheath and heliopause extremely few; however, as I understand it, the external influence on it is basically the pressure of the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM).
We can consider the orbit of the heliosphere as being that due to the alignment of the interstellar current and interstellar magnetic field, and the heliosphere properties. The heliosphere does not, AFAIK, appear to have an accelerating spin or non-orbital acceleration. Thus any forces on the bodies within the heliosphere, such as the Sun, can only be felt outside the heliosphere if there is an external force to react against it. Now, a torque applied to the Sun would need to be immense to rotate the Sun with any appreciable acceleration; the reaction force at the edge of the heliosphere would be tiny. And that is assuming that the reaction force does not appear on some other entity nearer the Sun such as a counteracting magnetic field. Therefore we can have quite powerful fields, forces, and complex motion in and around the Sun without the interstellar current or the path of the heliosphere being particularly bothered by it. The size of the Sun is so small compared to the size of the interstellar current feeding it that the fluctuations near the Sun are probably less significant (in terms of its galactic orbit) than the tortuous path followed by lightning to get from the cloud to the ground.
Here's an example of where your model (if I can call your analogy that) may not work; also, aren't there many more factors to consider, with respect to the behaviour of the heliosphere, than just any currents in the surrounding ISM?

In any case, for your model to work, in terms of a Lorentz force, don't you need to assume the heliosphere is a point charge? After all, whatever it is, the heliosphere isn't a current, is it?
The heliosphere can be thought of (in this "model") as a lumped load through which the current flows.
Yes, as would any theory. Gravitational theories seem to expect ellipses as a natural consequence of orbits. Electricity is quite happy producing circular orbits.
Huh? I don't understand this at all; can you explain please? For example, what does "gravitational theories seem to expect ellipses as a natural consequence of orbits" mean, as applied to disk galaxies?
As applied to any system there is never perfection, and gravity has no means of counteracting external influences, so it has to form elliptical orbits. Some may be quite circular, but to remain nearly circular for a long period of time is difficult to achieve.
Regardless of whether the orbit is due to gravity or electricity, I don't see any physics argument (either qualitative or quantitative) which justifies ruling out electricity as the main cause.
If by "electricity" you mean something like "a current in the ISM", and by "the main cause" you mean something like "of the inferred motions of stars in disk galaxies", then it can certainly be ruled out quantitatively! Why? Because there is no quantitative physics argument ... all you've done so far (caveat: as I understand it) is calculate magnitude of the Lorentz on a current of 10^16 A (did I get the number right?) in a magnetic field of strength ~nT, right?
Sometimes you seem to be arguing that if a theory is not quantified then the theory can not be quantified.
If I have given that impression, then let me lay it to rest right now: if something - to which we might want to attach the label "physics" - is to be called a theory, then it must be quantitative; conversely, if something isn't quantitative, then it isn't a theory (in physics).
I didn't call it a physics theory; you did. ;) Physics may insist that a theory be quantitative, but it's not a requirement of science in general. If quantification is most important then does a theory consisting of a mathematical model of how pink pixies control the universe trump Galileo's principle of all objects falling with equal accelerations but without the maths to explain it? And if not, then why is quantification so vital when an idea is in its infancy?
The founding principles of plasma (or electrical) cosmology are from about the mid-60s, as I understand, so it has been going for only about 50 years. Only a small number of people have worked on it, and it has never had much funding. When you put this into the context that the entire global scientific establishment took over 200 years to get from Newton's principle of gravity to explaining the orbit of Mercury, is it reasonable to expect the PC/EU theories to be extensively documented, quantified, tested, and have all of the answers already?
Peratt's model, and simulations, were first published in 1986. Since then, as far as I can tell, there's been no new work done on it/them (Peratt's subsequent publications contain nothing new, in terms of model development, new lab-based experiments, or new simulations, for example). Yet the model is relatively simple, and the computer code likewise (and it's freely available). As far as I can tell, from my research into EU/PC, this model (and simulations) is the only quantitative piece of EU/PC work/model/theory/whatever, at least for stars, galaxies, etc. Don't you think it kinda strange?
Yes, I think it's strange, but probably for different reasons than you. :lol:

The problem with quantifying the electrical models is not because the maths and quantities are not there, but because there are too many of them. Which do you choose? What part of plasma physics, electrical engineering, and all of the domains of physics concerned with electrons, protons, and charge are NOT sufficiently quantified or mathematically modelled to justify excluding them on the basis of not being proper theories or acceptable to physics? It seems to me that it is not unacceptable to physics, it's only unacceptable to astrophysics.

Gravity theory has an easy life. The equations are simple and few compared to anything electrical; it is easy to formulate, easy to test. Electrical theories are much harder to formulate because there is insufficient astronomical knowledge about which formulae apply, when they apply, and what numbers are to be plugged into them.

You can refuse to accept a specific astronomical model based on its choice of formulae; you can argue against conclusions based on the choice of numerical input; but it does not follow that no electrical model can be found. :P

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 03, 2011 9:03 am

I think we've gone about as far as we can, in this thread (which is supposed, I thought, to be about Peratt's model and simulations).
seb wrote:The heliosphere can be thought of (in this "model") as a lumped load through which the current flows.
A lumped load whose parameter values (to borrow Peratt's words) are both unknown and unknowable?

How, in principle, would you (or anyone) go about trying to estimate those values?
I didn't call it a physics theory; you did. ;)
My bad. :oops:
Physics may insist that a theory be quantitative, but it's not a requirement of science in general.
What branch(es) of science do you consider to be central here, if not physics?
The problem with quantifying the electrical models is not because the maths and quantities are not there, but because there are too many of them. Which do you choose? What part of plasma physics, electrical engineering, and all of the domains of physics concerned with electrons, protons, and charge are NOT sufficiently quantified or mathematically modelled to justify excluding them on the basis of not being proper theories or acceptable to physics? It seems to me that it is not unacceptable to physics, it's only unacceptable to astrophysics.
And yet, no one seems to be even trying; is there no prospect of these ideas ever becoming testable, quantitatively?
You can refuse to accept a specific astronomical model based on its choice of formulae; you can argue against conclusions based on the choice of numerical input; but it does not follow that no electrical model can be found. :P
Of course not ... just that no one has found/built/developed/whatever any such model (yet). :P

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests