A Lack of Physics Knowledge Makes EU Arguments Less Credible

[Bob_Ham]

I have only just recently joined this forum, but I have a really important suggestion:

When arguing against conventional physics, please understand what conventional physics actually says first. When you don't understand this and attack it anyway, it turns into a strawman argument and makes you and EU look ridiculous, so people new to EU will immediately discount it as ridiculous. It seems like a large number of people in this forum fundamentally do not understand basic Newtonian gravity or electromagnetism.

For a group that is so interested in learning about the universe, these topics should be relatively easy to learn in a short period of time, but learning from EU sites is not the right way to learn what conventional physics says. Be open-minded and actually learn this basic physics from legitimate conventional science sources! Deciding that we know the answers before even considering all of the possibilities is religion!

If you're reading this and thinking that you're not one of the ones who misunderstands these topics, then get that idea out of your head, because you probably are one of the ones who misunderstands them. People who are ignorant of things don't know they are; that's why it's called ignorance!

[Michael Mozina]

I have only just recently joined this forum, but I have a really important suggestion:

When arguing against conventional physics, please understand what conventional physics actually says first. When you don't understand this and attack it anyway, it turns into a strawman argument and makes you and EU look ridiculous, so people new to EU will immediately discount it as ridiculous. It seems like a large number of people in this forum fundamentally do not understand basic Newtonian gravity or electromagnetism.

A "large number"? How about including some citations to actual specific posts please?

Be open-minded and actually learn this basic physics from legitimate conventional science sources!

That's fine and all, but when those "sources" are using 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance in their own cosmology theories, and they've struck out repeatedly in the lab to the tune of *billions* of dollars on the topic of "dark matter", it's a little hard to believe they're actually "legitimate" science sources to start with.

Deciding that we know the answers before even considering all of the possibilities is religion!

Tell that to the LCDM folks who hold "blind faith" in four different supernatural constructs in their cosmology theories and who don't even understand the basics about EU/PC theory before writing it off. In our community, we at least take the time to not only understand our own theories *without* introducing placeholder terms for human ignorance, we also take the time to understand various alternatives like LCDM. LCDM proponents however seem utterly clueless about even the simplest and most basic aspects of EU solar theory, starting with it's neutrino predictions and solar wind predictions.

If you're reading this and thinking that you're not one of the ones who misunderstands these topics, then get that idea out of your head, because you probably are one of the ones who misunderstands them. People who are ignorant of things don't know they are; that's why it's called ignorance!

If you have specific objections to specific claims that have been made on this forum which you believe are incorrect, why aren't you directing your criticisms at those specific claims, individuals and statement rather than making wholesale blanket assumptions and assertions about an entire community that you don't even know yet?

For example, here's a very specific example of the mainstream's complete ignorance of EU theory and their gross incompetence in action from a so called "professional" astrophysicist:

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

WTF? No EU/PC solar model predicts that our sun should produce no neutrinos. Talk about ignorance and professional incompetence on a stick! I personally think you're barking up the wrong tree. It's not that we're (as a community) ignorant of the mainstream's belief systems, we simply choose a different belief system. The reverse isn't true however. The mainstream doesn't even begin to understand EU/PC theory, and what they think they understand is pure BS. They don't even correctly understand the most *basic* aspects of EU/PC theory and they appear to be grossly incompetent. Their rejection of EU theory has far more to do with their own ignorance of EU theory, and their own professional incompetence rather than anything related to the theories themselves.

[Bob_Ham]

That's fine and all, but when those "sources" are using 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance in their own cosmology theories, and they've struck out repeatedly in the lab to the tune of *billions* of dollars on the topic of "dark matter", it's a little hard to believe they're actually "legitimate" science sources to start with.

Ok, then how does EU solve the dark matter problem?

No EU/PC solar model predicts that our sun should produce no neutrinos.

How does EU predict solar neutrinos?

[Michael Mozina]

Ok, then how does EU solve the dark matter problem?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

It's most likely made of ordinary plasma and gas, specifically all the plasma they missed when they grossly underestimated stellar populations of galaxies, as well as those plasma and gas halos (plural) that have been found in the past 5 years.

How does EU predict solar neutrinos?

Hannes Alfven essentially used the same solar model as the mainstream in terms of it's fusion core, so it *necessarily* predicts the same exact number of neutrinos as the mainstream solar model.

Kristian Birkeland also predicted that a cathode sun is powered internally by what he called a "transmutation of elements", so it too would *necessarily* predict the same exact number of neutrinos as the mainstream model.

Ralph Juergen's anode solar model was specifically intended to predict a more *flexible* number of solar neutrinos because his model was originally "created/proposed" during the "neutrino deficit" days of solar physics before we had any evidence that neutrinos could/might "change flavors". His model can predict almost any number of neutrinos (greater than 1/3 the observed number) depending on how much energy is generated in fusion locally, and how much heat energy comes from external currents. Juergen's model was originally "designed" to produce about 1/3 of the standard number of neutrinos via fusion near the photosphere so that it would match the number of electron neutrinos which we could measure at that time. His anode model has since been updated to expect/predict the correct number of total neutrinos compared to observation. Juergen's model has also been used to predict a "variable" amount of neutrinos over time due to changes in the activity levels around sunspots.

None of the EU/PC solar models "predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos". If you disagree, please quote someone from the EU/PC community rather than some clueless novice. Koberlein's lack of knowledge about EU/PC theory *basics* makes all his arguments and statements less credible.

[Bob_Ham]

It's most likely made of ordinary plasma and gas, specifically all the plasma they missed when the underestimated stellar populations of galaxies, as well as those plasma and gas halos (plural) that have been found in the past 5 years.

Have you modeled this to see if it works?

Hannes Alfven essentially used the same solar model as the mainstream in terms of it's fusion core, so it *necessarily* predicts the same exact number of neutrinos as the mainstream solar model.

Well, of course using the conventional model would give the conventional result. We can always get the conventional answer to any physics problem if we use conventional physics. I’m asking you how we can get the conventional answers using EU, which is supposed to be different from conventional physics.

Kristian Birkeland also predicted that a cathode sun is powered internally by what he called a "transmutation of elements", so it too would *necessarily* predict the same exact number of neutrinos as the mainstream model.

Why does it necessarily predict the exact same number? You didn’t explain that.

Ralph Juergen's anode solar model was specifically intended to predict a more *flexible* number of solar neutrinos because his model was originally "created/proposed" during the "neutrino deficit" days of solar physics before we had any evidence that neutrinos could/might "change flavors".

Please explain how this model works.

If you disagree, please quote someone from the EU/PC community rather than some clueless novice.

I didn’t quote him. You did.

[Michael Mozina]

It's most likely made of ordinary plasma and gas, specifically all the plasma they missed when the underestimated stellar populations of galaxies, as well as those plasma and gas halos (plural) that have been found in the past 5 years.

Have you modeled this to see if it works?

Why would I? I never proposed the existence of exotic matter to start with. I've cited at least 1/2 dozen significant flaws in that 2006 lensing paper that were never corrected by the mainstream, and they've spent billions of dollars looking for exotic matter in the lab yet they have *zero* evidence to support it. There's simply no evidence to support exotic forms of matter, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the mainstream is inept at correctly estimating the mass of even our own galaxy, let alone *distant* galaxies.

Well, of course using the conventional model would give the conventional result. We can always get the conventional answer to any physics problem if we use conventional physics. I’m asking you how we can get the conventional answers using EU, which is supposed to be different from conventional physics.

Alfven's "electric sun" model was based on what you're calling conventional physics as it relates to all activity inside the photosphere. Alfven's electric sun model therefore *could not* predict the sun to produce no neutrinos. Period. That solar model is one "electric universe" solar model.

Why does it necessarily predict the exact same number? You didn’t explain that.

All the energy is produced locally in his model. He predated any knowledge of either fission or fusion, but he did use the term "transmutation of elements" since that was the"best" term they had at the time. It's still a *fully internally* powered solar model, presumably based on fusion as the power source. His "electric universe" solar model could never predict "no neutrinos". It's not any more flexible than Alfven's model in that sense. FYI, I support Birkeland's model rather than Juergen's model because it works in the lab:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Please explain how this model works.

Juergen's model is based on an *anode* surface rather than a cathode surface. It's at least partially powered by external currents that flow into it. The inward flow of electrons ends up producing "plasma pinches" in the solar atmosphere and photosphere which generate fusion activity. Again, it's impossible for his model to predict "no neutrinos", just fewer neutrinos than the other two models if you were so inclined.

I didn’t quote him. You did.

Fair enough. While your criticisms may have merit around here in a few instances, they also have merit as it relates to the mainstream and their current beliefs. I think most of their problem is that they either don't understand EU/PC alternatives at all, or what they think they understand is utterly FUBAR to begin with. In short, even if our community is occasionally guilty of your criticism, it's a human flaw that isn't limited to our community.

[Bob_Ham]

Why would I? I never proposed the existence of exotic matter to start with.

I didn't ask you to model "exotic matter." I asked you to model what you were proposing, which is non-exotic matter that isn't accounted for. In science, when one proposes a new idea, the next step is to model it to see if it even works. Modeling this will lead to knowing what density of matter is required in what areas to account for the observations, among other things. If that density is unrealistic, for example, then the model is wrong, whereas it could be shown to be reasonable if it yielded realistic values.

Alfven's "electric sun" model was based on what you're calling conventional physics as it relates to all activity inside the photosphere.

Ok, so it's not an EU-specific model. In other words, nuclear fusion is a perfectly valid thing in EU? Not everyone would agree with that though.

It's still a *fully internally* powered solar model, presumably based on fusion as the power source.

Ok, so this is also just nuclear fusion then? Suddenly, EU isn't sounding so original.

Juergen's model is based on an *anode* surface rather than a cathode surface. It's at least partially powered by external currents that flow into it. The inward flow of electrons ends up producing "plasma pinches" in the solar atmosphere and photosphere which generate fusion activity.

So all of the fusion happens at the surface in this model? Where do these currents come from? Why is there such a regular, consistent source of incoming current? How do these inflowing electrons produce "plasma pinches"? In other words, how many electrons are needed, at what speeds must they travel, conditions are necessary at the surface, etc.?

[Michael Mozina]

I didn't ask you to model "exotic matter." I asked you to model what you were proposing, which is non-exotic matter that isn't accounted for.

I have no need to "model" it because I can cite numerous published papers which demonstrate that there was never any real basis for the existence of exotic matter from the realm of cosmology or particle physics. I don't have to model anything because I'm not trying to demonstrate the existence of anything unusual. If you wish to model it yourself, you're welcome to do that, but since I'm not proposing anything other than inserting plasma and gas, I have nothing more to demonstrate. Simply replacing "dark matter" with ordinary plasma and gas will explain any lensing or rotation observations we might come across, and work just as well as exotic matter to explain those observations.

In science, when one proposes a new idea, the next step is to model it to see if it even works.

But I didn't propose a "new" idea in the first place.

Modeling this will lead to knowing what density of matter is required in what areas to account for the observations, among other things. If that density is unrealistic, for example, then the model is wrong, whereas it could be shown to be reasonable if it yielded realistic values.

Considering the fact that we've found more mass in the form of plasma and gas around our own galaxy in just the last five years than all the mass of the stars combined, how would we even know what's a 'realistic' density and what's not? Compared to what? *Mainstream estimates*? Please. I've handed you at least 6 different serious flaws in their mass calculation methodology so I have no confidence in any of their 'density" proclamations either. In fact they underestimated the brightness of galaxies because they underestimated the amount of scattering taking place.

Ok, so it's not an EU-specific model. In other words, nuclear fusion is a perfectly valid thing in EU?

It's an EU-specific model from the surface of the photosphere outward, but not from the surface of the photosphere inward. Sure fusion is "allowed" in EU/PC theory. Whether is 'popular' or not probably depends on whom you ask. How many different variations of inflation or exotic matter are there to choose from?

Not everyone would agree with that though.

Does *everyone* agree on every part of LCDM or any other cosmology theory for that matter?

Ok, so this is also just nuclear fusion then? Suddenly, EU isn't sounding so original.

Birkelands "transmutation of elements" cathode solar model is at least 100 years old, so ya, I guess it's not all that "original' in terms of *this particular* generation. Mainstream theory doesn't "own" fusion, in fact Birkeland *predicted* it 100 years ago.

So all of the fusion happens at the surface in this model?

It happens 'near' (not necessarily at) the surface. A lot of the fusion would have to occur under the photosphere in any model.

Where do these currents come from?

The currents presumably come from the universe itself. Aflven proposed the existence of a matter/antimatter "ambiplasma" which would probably have to be the ultimate power source, along with induction.

Why is there such a regular, consistent source of incoming current?

It isn't consistent, hence the sun's cycles, and variation in sunspot activity over time along with the variation in neutrino output over time.

How do these inflowing electrons produce "plasma pinches"?

http://www.sandia.gov/z-machine/

Presumably the same way we produce them in the lab.

In other words, how many electrons are needed, at what speeds must they travel, conditions are necessary at the surface, etc.?

Beats me. It's not my preferred EU/PC solar model.

FYI, I'm either at or above my preferred daily posting limit, so I'll likely respond to any additional questions you have tomorrow. Someone else might beat me to it.

[Bob_Ham]

Simply replacing "dark matter" with ordinary plasma and gas will explain any lensing or rotation observations we might come across, and work just as well as exotic matter to explain those observations.

You believe this, but you haven't actually tested it. You have faith that a large amount of ordinary plasma and gas exists in certain regions of galaxies and is invisible to us. This is the conclusion scientists would have stuck with too, if they hadn't tested it.

... how would we even know what's a 'realistic' density and what's not? Compared to what?

Well, for one, if the densities were high enough for nuclear fusion to take place, then we would see a lot of radiation from those regions that we're not seeing. The fact that you don't even ask questions like this (or even know what questions to ask) is very telling.

The currents presumably come from the universe itself.

This is not a possible source. The interstellar medium and intergalactic medium don't have enough material to continually power stars like you're suggesting (I show this below).

It isn't consistent, hence the sun's cycles, and variation in sunspot activity over time along with the variation in neutrino output over time.

The neutrino flux and overall energy output of the Sun are both very consistent. Any fluctuations are a tiny percentage of this. The Sun puts out about 4x1033 ergs of energy per second. Let's make the ridiculously unreasonable assumption that the fluctuations are 50%, just to favor your idea (it is way less than this in reality). That still leaves us with 2x1033 ergs/s on the lower end. Even if the output stayed this low for an entire decade, the total energy output would still be more than 6x1041 ergs. Where is all of this energy coming from external to the Sun??

And EU models need to explain how external feeding can lead to such a consistent solar energy output over billions of years, not just 10 years. Seeing as the source is just "the universe itself," according to you, this external feeding would run out almost immediately (let me know if you need me to do this calculation for you too), and the Sun wouldn't be shining anymore, so this idea just doesn't pan out.

Beats me.

If you can't even answer simple questions about a model, then you shouldn't be putting it forward as a possible explanation.

[Michael Mozina]

You believe this, but you haven't actually tested it. You have faith that a large amount of ordinary plasma and gas exists in certain regions of galaxies and is invisible to us. This is the conclusion scientists would have stuck with too, if they hadn't tested it.

In just the past five years, long after that 2006 lensing paper came out, they have found *more* mass *concentrated inside large halos* which surround our galaxy, than all the mass in all the stars, just like mainstream dark matter models predict. They contain more mass in those two halos than all the mass of the stars combined just as mainstream dark matter models require. How can you even question whether more mass might still remain 'invisible' to us?

When and where did they test ordinary plasma and gas as the source of that DM halo? They did of course build models of where they believed the additional mass must be located, and guess what? It's located *right* where we found those additional halos of gas and plasma over the past five years! That is all *in addition* to all the stellar mass estimate problems in that 2006 lensing study.

Well, for one, if the densities were high enough for nuclear fusion to take place, then we would see a lot of radiation from those regions that we're not seeing.

Fusion? Fusion is not going to occur in a diffuse hot plasma halo, or in a diffuse cooler hydrogen gas halo either. That could only take place inside of stars, not inside of a diffuse, spread out halo. Admittedly they're constantly finding additional satellite galaxies around our galaxy all the time, but these are made of complete stars, not the kinds of halos described in those papers I cited. Its also true that those lensing studies *massively* underestimated the number of entire stars in various galaxies, and the number of stars *between* galaxies so it's not like *all* the missing mass has to be concentrated in the gas or plasma halos.

Where's the paper that "tested" this "fusion" concern of yours?

The fact that you don't even ask questions like this (or even know what questions to ask) is very telling.

Why would I even ask silly questions? It's somehow "telling" to you that I can ignore highly *unlikely* scenarios? Where did you or anyone calculate and test this fusion problem for us?

This is not a possible source. The interstellar medium and intergalactic medium don't have enough material to continually power stars like you're suggesting (I show this below).

There's not much to comment on without a citation to anything. Up until just five years ago the mainstream had found less than 50 percent of the mass of our *own* galaxy. How do you know they've even found it all yet?

You seem to be under a serious misconception here, which could be my fault. Juergens model can include fusion in the core. It wouldn't be necessary for *all* of the power in Juergens anode solar model to come from an external source. The anode model just *allows* for some energy to come from a source which is external to the sun, and *allows* for such energy to come into the sun. It doesn't however *require* that *all* of the energy has to come from outside of the sun. It's probably the most "flexible" of the models in that respect.

Futhermore, an 'ambiplasma' source of such current flow wouldn't even have to be located inside of our *visible* universe to start with. It could simply flow through the various Birkeland currents until it gets to our little visible sliver of the universe. In theory smaller stars could be net consumers of energy, whereas larger stars could be net producers of energy too. Lots of different configurations and possibilities exist in terms of energy sources in Juergens model.

I'll admit that I'm personally inclined to believe that at least *most* of the power is generated locally inside the sun, but that may not be the "consensus" of the whole EU/PC community. I've never conducted a poll.

You can't however *assume* that *all* the power comes from an external source in any EU/PC solar model, and in fact they're all capable of generating their own fusion processes inside the sun itself. Juergens model is simply more "flexible" than the other two models.

The neutrino flux and overall energy output of the Sun are both very consistent. Any fluctuations are a tiny percentage of this. The Sun puts out about 4x1033 ergs of energy per second. Let's make the ridiculously unreasonable assumption that the fluctuations are 50%, just to favor your idea (it is way less than this in reality). That still leaves us with 2x1033 ergs/s on the lower end. Even if the output stayed this low for an entire decade, the total energy output would still be more than 6x1041 ergs. Where is all of this energy coming from external to the Sun??

Any current flow is presumably concentrated primarily around the poles and heliospheric current sheet.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Heliosph ... rent_sheet

Again however, we can't simply assume that all the power must come into the sun from an external source.

And EU models need to explain how external feeding can lead to such a consistent solar energy output over billions of years, not just 10 years. Seeing as the source is just "the universe itself," according to you, this external feeding would run out almost immediately (let me know if you need me to do this calculation for you too), and the Sun wouldn't be shining anymore, so this idea just doesn't pan out.

I think we're rehashing the same basic communication problem here. The "easy" way to address you concerns would be to "assume" that most of the power in an anode model also comes from the core, and the external input is relatively small.

If you can't even answer simple questions about a model, then you shouldn't be putting it forward as a possible explanation.

I'm pretty sure I've answered them for you.

I want to stress again that I personally prefer a Birkeland *cathode* solar model over a Juergens anode solar model. I'm simply explaining that there are three major EU/PC solar models, and actually there are subsets of those models too. Not a single one of them however predicts "no" neutrinos.

The other important point I was trying to make here is that we cannot write off EU/PC cosmology theory based on objections to a *single* solar model which may (or may not) apply to EU/PC theory. There are several solar models to choose from in EU/PC theory, including the standard solar model which is the solar model that Alfven preferred.

[Webbman]

we are here because physics has lost its #%?$ mind. Why are you here?

[BeAChooser]

Ok, then how does EU solve the dark matter problem?

Dark matter problem? As evidenced by what observations?

[BeAChooser]

If you can't even answer simple questions about a model, then you shouldn't be putting it forward as a possible explanation.

Ok, Bob, if you believe that, then here's a simple question for you …

Look at this image of the Veil Nebula:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nebula.jpg

In the upper right corridor you can see a pair of helically wound filaments. Such filaments and interaction are a fundamental part of the EU/Plasma Cosmology that you seem to be dismissing out of hand.   

The mainstream astrophysics community is unable to offer a convincing explanation for the helical winding of these filaments. If disagree, then go ahead, explain to us how that helical structure results from shock, winds and/or turbulence, as the mainstream theorists claim? I just don’t buy that explanation, Bob. It's just handwaving. I’ve not seen one model producing such helical winding in cases like this. So I don’t think you can offer a believable explanation ... whereas I can. I clearly see the interaction of two current carrying Birkeland filaments in that image.  To me, that image alone is proof that the EU theorists are right and not the gnome-loving proponents of dark matter and gravity only cosmology.

Here’s another image showing helically wound pairs of filaments (click to expand and look near the center of the image):

http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/imag ... ky_Way.jpg

Again, what caused that phenomena, Bob, if not the interaction of Birkeland currents?

Here’s yet another image from the Herschel database:
 
http://inspirehep.net/record/1255052/files/fig8.png
 
Along the bottom is a helically wound pair of filaments (clear as day). Again, the mainstream community offers nothing but handwaving about “gas” (which this material is not) and “shock” to explain them. They have no “models” that produce such helical windings in situations like this. Their explanation is just handwaving so they can ignore them.

Here’s still another Herschel image:

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hir ... orninf.png
 
Click on it, and look closely, and you can clearly seehelically wound Birkeland filaments. At least the source of that image (http://phys.org/news/2013-11-stars-born ... weigh.html ) is honest enough to admit that “Despite the fact that we do not really understand how filaments are formed[,] their importance in the star forming process is apparent as we observe most of the embryonic stars to be located on such structures.” In contrast, I would note that EU/PC theorists have explained how filaments form, why they twist and how they WILL form stars along them given enough time and material. And much of that theory has been demonstrated in the lab.

Here’s another Herschel image:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-con ... ament1.jpg

That’s filament G64 in one of the Milky Way’s arms. Philippe André, Principal Investigator for the Herschel Gould Belt Survey wrote: “The greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds and their intimate connection with star formation.” Now why would that be a surprise, given that plasma/EU cosmologists had been predicting ubiquitous filaments for DECADES? Why would that be a surprise if the mainstream has the models that you seem to think they do, Bob? The reality is that they don’t. All they have, when it comes to actual observations of filaments and an explanation for them, is surprised handwaving.

Here, look at this image:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0808/ng ... ck_big.jpg
 
View the expanded image and notice all the filaments that seem to be in wound pairs, twisted about each other in a beautiful dance. Do you really want to sit there and try to claim that's just due to gas, shock, wind and *turbulence*?  This is an observation that plasma cosmology PREDICTED, Bob, and I though predictions count for something in science.


And then there is the matter of the Z-pinch ...

Look at this image:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/4796 ... 0-1200.jpg

Mainstream astrophysicists claim that's the remnant of an exploding star.  But what an odd configuration for something that should be spherical.
 
Here's another ...
 
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hir ... seesap.jpg
 
I really like this image (of Hen 3-1475).   Notice what appear to be helically wound filaments at both ends of the object.  Mainstream astrophysicists call this (http://phys.org/news/2012-10-hubble-pla ... ebula.html ) a “mysterious object” and a “planetary nebula in the making”, claiming there are jets emanating from both pole of an aged central star which is soon to explode.   But those jets instead could be pair of wound filaments leading into a z-pinch, as EU theorizes. That seems just as reasonable to me, Bob.

Here’s another observation by the Hubble:
 
http://scitechdaily.com/images/Hubble-V ... ebulae.jpg
 
What makes this object particular interesting is that the article that contains this picture (http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-fin ... milky-way/ ) says that Hubble observations indicate that bipolar planetary nebulae located near the central bulge of our Milky Way, like this one, “appear to be strangely aligned in the sky.”  Now why would the axis of old stars that are about to explode (the mainstream theory) be influenced by their location in the Milky Way?  Mainstream astrophysicists don't have an answer to that question. Do you Bob?  In EU/plasma cosmology, however, this alignment isn’t a problem because the orientation of the stars is governed by the orientation of the filaments and near the central bulge, plasma cosmology says the filaments will be aligned similarly.  
 
Are you starting to get the picture Bob? Since modern day astronomers have been taught (indoctrinated) in sterile university environments controlled by It’s All Gravity believers, they’ve likely never even heard of Birkeland currents, Bennet pinches, and the theories of Plasma Cosmologists like Hannes Alfven.  So it’s no wonder they don’t understand how filaments are formed (they think it’s by gravity or *wind*). Nor do they see their importance in forming stars.  It’s no wonder they are just now even getting around to even taking a close look at filaments.  It’s no wonder they publish garbage like this, http://herschel.esac.esa.int/SFaxz2014/ ... HacarA.pdf , which doesn’t even contain the words plasma or Birkeland even once.  It’s no wonder they miss the significance of multiple what they call “subcritical” filaments making up what they call “critical” filaments (i.e., the ones that form stars).  It’s no wonder they miss the significance of polarization vectors along the filaments that are perpendicular to filaments:

http://inspirehep.net/record/1273530/fi ... e_fig3.png

If they had a proper education, they would understand that indicates electric currents are traveling down the filaments and producing magnetic fields.   But they don’t, so it’s no wonder they miss the significance of the helical structure in those filaments (even though it’s been staring them in the face for 30 years). They miss all that because their *education* has ONLY the words “gas” and “gravity” bouncing around in their Big Bang brainwashed skulls.  That and the phrases “dark matter” and “black holes”. Just saying …

[kell1990]

There can be no reply. The entire facade of "dark matter" and "dark energy" can be easily explained by plasma.

[neilwilkes]

Kristian Birkeland actually predicted this whole "Dark Matter" fiasco when he stated that "It does not seem unreasonable to think that the greater part of the material masses in the Universe is found not in the solar systems or nebulae but in Empty Space" - the only inconvenient part for mainstream here is that he stated this was plasma in dark mode, not "dark matter".
Dark Matter & Dart Energy are fallacies built upon misconception & poor assumptions, not reality, and no amount of wishful thinking or stupendous amounts of money wasted searching for these will change that. You may as well look for Unicorns.
Redshift is not recessional doppler effect - Halton Arp has proved this.