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

[flyingcloud]

was it not peer reviewed

[Nereid]

was it not peer reviewed

I guess the (IEEE?) peers who did the reviewing were OK with Peratt using the Hubble redshift-distance relationship as a reliable method for estimating distances (to quasars at least).

Presumably Arp was not one of those reviewers (nor was Goldminer ).

[flyingcloud]

so how do we relate

I mean you have spent a lot of energy here
don't seen many people convinced
we have bee tollerant of your overwhelmingly abundant contributions
yet we still haven't agreed upon any common ground
perhaps in a gesture of good nature
for it is rare to see a "motive" thread started autonomously
we should all participate in a commonalities type discussion
relationary, sorta thing
btw appreciate your input, big fan, gets me thinking,
it's tough being in discussions with people who all think alike

edited to add: sorry re: sp

[davesmith_au]

Nereid without obfuscating behind yet another side-track down "what-about" lane, why on Earth (or indeed anywhere else) would redshift need to come into play in a galaxy simulation? I mean, it's not as though the galaxy depends on its distance from Earth for its rotation rate (to any significant degree), and I doubt anyone modeling similar phenomena would need to plug in the "how far is it from Earth?" figure. I just don't get why you're continuing down this road. And since you're apt to ask everyone else for specifics, where in Peratt's published papers do you find him invoke the Hubble relationship as necessary for said simulation? A direct quote from the paper would suffice.

Cheers, Dave.

[flyingcloud]

hey, thanks Dave, sorry I can't represent the model sufficiently enough to compete with such cross examination

[davesmith_au]

Trouble is flyingcloud, I am noticing a disturbing trend. Every time I jump into a thread and pose a direct question to Nereid, she seems to leave that thread behind and go elsewhere. Just once, I'd like to see here answer a direct question with a direct answer, but I'm beginning to think that's an unlikely result. But we'll see.

Cheers, Dave.

[flyingcloud]

cheers as well my friend

I have noticed that as well
seems like a throw a grenade
and run tactic
I just get so frustrated
with the programmed
I was there once
thanks for having me

edited to add
she needs time to gather ammo
understood
just don't want to see her leave too soon

edited again to add
competition keeps us strong

[Nereid]

Trouble is flyingcloud, I am noticing a disturbing trend. Every time I jump into a thread and pose a direct question to Nereid, she seems to leave that thread behind and go elsewhere. Just once, I'd like to see here answer a direct question with a direct answer, but I'm beginning to think that's an unlikely result. But we'll see.

Cheers, Dave.

Just so that every reader knows; Dave, I just sent you a PM on this, asking for your advice.

[Nereid]

Nereid without obfuscating behind yet another side-track down "what-about" lane, why on Earth (or indeed anywhere else) would redshift need to come into play in a galaxy simulation?

I already answered this question, in this thread in fact.

At least I did so with respect to the galaxy simulation Peratt reports in his two 1986 papers and his book.

I mean, it's not as though the galaxy depends on its distance from Earth for its rotation rate (to any significant degree),

The galaxy might not, but as we see all galaxies from a distance (other than our own), to connect to the reality of what we observe, from here on Earth, something along those lines does need to be included.

And, as a matter of fact, Peratt agrees, and says so in his Paper I:

The remainder of this paper is concerned with what the signature of existence would be to an observer situated within a nonhomogeneous plasma universe consisting of galactic-sized Birkeland currents.

and I doubt anyone modeling similar phenomena would need to plug in the "how far is it from Earth?" figure. I just don't get why you're continuing down this road. And since you're apt to ask everyone else for specifics, where in Peratt's published papers do you find him invoke the Hubble relationship as necessary for said simulation? A direct quote from the paper would suffice.

See my post earlier in this thread (click on the link above).

[solrey]

Nereid said:
And, as a matter of fact, Peratt agrees, and says so in his Paper I:

The remainder of this paper is concerned with what the signature of existence would be to an observer situated within a nonhomogeneous plasma universe consisting of galactic-sized Birkeland currents.

Let's put that in context. From that same paper:

It is the purpose of this paper to extend the study of cosmic plasma to the case of galactic-dimensioned (50 kpc in width) Birkeland filaments by means of three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, and relativistic particle-in-cell simulations. Fig. 1 is a contrast-enhanced photograph of the Orion nebula but serves the purpose of representing the morphology to be expected by an observer situated within a much larger filamentary meta-galactic structure.
[..]
The only assumption made in the analysis in this paper-if it should be called an assumption-is that the basic properties of plasmas are the same everywhere, from sub-millimeter dimensions to the Hubble distance (1028cm)
[..]
The simulations used in this paper are scaled to Cygnus A...

Peratt is simply saying that the simulations assume plasmas behave the same at all measurable scales. He uses published size estimates of Cygnus A for scaling of the simulations.

The simulations do produce high redshift objects described here:

Fig. 13(a) illustrates double sources for which no central "object" of any kind is present, while Fig. 13(b)-(c) illustrates sources in which large-red-shift QSO's have formed at or near the geometric center between filaments. Fig. 14 shows the isophotes of double sources for which the central object is identified as galactic in nature; usually having a large red shift, and being elliptical or peculiar in morphology. This variety of source represents a later stage in temporal evolution and is accompanied by somewhat richer isophotal patterns because of the action of the inductive field in the confined plasma.

Peratt's simulations therefore are in support of Halton Arp's observations of high redshift QSO's embedded within low redshift galaxies.

Once again Nereid is setting up a deceptive strawman while ignoring the fact that the simulations, based on simple scaling factors, not only agree with observations in regards to visual structure, rotational and orbital velocities, they also agree with observed radiation signatures and Arp's observations regarding high-redshift QSO's as well.

cheers

[Nereid]

Peratt is simply saying that the simulations assume plasmas behave the same at all measurable scales. He uses published size estimates of Cygnus A for scaling of the simulations.

I'm not sure if you read my post on the sources Peratt used for his scaling laws, specifically, to anchor them, solrey, but in case you didn't, would you mind going back and having a look? It's on page 3 of this thread. Thanks.

The relevant part of the Paper I (relevant to sources, input parameters, etc) is "TABLE I COMPARISON OF SIMULATION AND ESTIMATED GALAXY PARAMETERS"

There are four columns: "Parameter", "Simulation derived value (Cygnus A)", "Estimate (object and model dependent", and "Author".

The parameter "Total source energy, ergs" is given as 6.30x1062 in the second column; 1064 and 1057-1061 (minimum) in the third column; and Sturrock and Barnes (1972) and de Young and Axford (1967) in the last.

The value of 1064 (ergs), in Sturrock and Barnes (1972), is derived from an estimate of the total luminosity of 3C 273; they write: "assuming the distance can be inferred from the redshift by the Hubble relation".

If any reader would like, we can go through all the sources Peratt uses, and make a list of those which incorporate the same assumption as Sturrock and Barnes (1972) do (or any other assumption that is inconsistent with Arp's views).

Now concerning Cygnus A: Back in the 1980s it was still possible to cleanly distinguish quasars from QSOs from Seyferts from FR I objects from ... Today such distinctions are difficult at best, and most - including Arp? - now think they are largely arbitrary. Today they are all called AGNs, active galactic nuclei (Bill Keel has an intro that's worth a read).

Pick almost any observational characteristic (or 'signature', to use Peratt's term), and you can compile a big catalogue of AGNs with those characteristics varying smoothly. Radio flux? AGNs range from among the 'brightest' in the sky to undetectable. Redshift? AGNs have redshifts ranging from essentially zero to >6. And so on.

What's the relevance to Cygnus A? Well, it's a classic AGN, almost the archetype FR II source. In terms of its 'radio morphology' there's little to distinguish it from any classical FR II quasar, e.g. 3C 47. And, as an AGN, it must either have the same, essentially indeterminate (indeterminable?), intrinsic redshift as any quasar, or there must be a way to cleanly distinguish Cygnus A as an AGN from those (quasar) AGNs which have intrinsic redshift ... and do so by observational signatures alone.

Now that discussion is worthy of a separate thread! However, the bottom line, for now, is that the values of at least some key parameters in Peratt's simulation - per his 1986 papers and book - are dependent on redshift being a sufficiently reliable indicator of distance.

(to be continued)

[Kapriel]

A few statements of fact:

Argument for the sake of argument is not progress.
All Nereid's posts are a variation of the above.
Most issues surrounding this particular poster are not about science, they are about character (hers).

Rhetorical question: what is being accomplished by having her as a guest here?

[jjohnson]

Kapriel,

What is being accomplished by having her as a guest here?

Your questions answers itself, does it not? She is a guest here, the same as you and I. Many of us have posted here for a while and are sort of members of the Forum family. She is a guest, and is acting politely, and although you may or may not like her straightforward questions and (apparently) standpoint coming from the standard models in science, there's nothing wrong with having different ideas. Perhaps having her as a guest may be viewed as an accomplishment in itself.

This kind of dialog is healthy and potentially may be illuminating on either side. I have nothing to lose by being asked hard questions, and everything to gain if a get a peek at answers. I am no great debater, and was not trained up in either astronomy or astrophysics or plasma physics, so hardly expect to "score points", but I can hope to project some of the interesting ideas and insights which I am finding plausible in the EU model, and maybe hone my limited skills a while longer.

The EU paradigm needs the kind of practice Nereid offers, because it isn't perfect and neither are we. (And she'd admit, I'd bet, neither is the Standard Model.) People work with the best that they've got. We do not know if Nereid is "out to get us", just as we don't know the converse, either. Let's present our side, and learn from her, and maybe vice versa. Science itself, like the Universe, is impartial in all this. The universe will kill you in a heartbeat if you screw up, or just have a bad day, and go right on turning over. Same with science. It is never finished, and will change and go on with or without you. People will continue to be curious and seek ways to best satisfy their curiosities, and if better ways are unearthed or contrived, they will eventually hold sway until yet better theories replace them. Sort of Darwinian, IMHO.

Better enjoy competing, and eschew complaining!
There's my six-bit word for today.

But basically, treating a guest right is just doing the right thing, like your momma taught you. Simple manners. Social norms. Treat your guests right. if they err badly, let the moderators decide what to do about the situation.

Nereid — please avoid asking for someone to "prove" their point or idea. Proofs are for mathematicians. Looking around us here, I'd say we obviously aren't those. "Substantiate" or "provide links showing..." might be a better word choice. —just sayin'

Thanks,

Jim

[flyingcloud]

hear hear,
I certainly appreciate the discourse
whether I agree or not is irrelivent

[Nereid]

Once again, another long and excellent post!

NGC 3646 in Leo, a large peculiar galaxy which has been reproduced in at least 2 different orientations, as if it had been "flipped" or rotated or something in its processing, is shown in Peratt's textbook in Figure 3.29, captioned "Optical photograph of NGC 3646. Note the well-defined diocotron instability in the spiral's arm." The Burbidges didn't seem to be sure if the wavy, kinked area was a part of an arm or a complete elliptical form not necessarily co-centered with the classic spiral centered portion of the galaxy, in a paper 3 decades earlier earlier, at [url]http:www.adsabs.edu/full/1961Apj...134...237B[/url]. Without going through the Hubble images and those of other agencies at other wavelengths, I can't honestly say I have observed anything that looks like diocotron instabilities in other galaxies than NGC 3646. I'll keep an eye out, and maybe browse around a bit.

Here is NGC 3646 from SDSS' CAS (false colours, only three - of five - broadband filters; I tried to post it as an image, but wasn't successful).

I couldn't find the source for Peratt's Figure 3.29 - so I don't know what the scale is, among other things - but it would seem that the SDSS image has a higher resolution. Can you still see the diocotron instability?

To the degree that large scale knots and kinks (in galaxies, nebulae, nova remnants and the like) reflect the lab scale electron beam patterns etched onto carbon witness plates or exciting a fluorescent screen(Peratt's figure 1.20), it may not be completely erroneous to posit that those instabilities seen in telescopes do seem to imitate the much scaled down plasma beams in the lab.

If it's safe to say that the distribution of stars in a spiral galaxy would not be expected to follow those of diocotron instabilities - after all, the galactic magnetic and electric fields are far too weak to have an observable effect on their motions - then here's an idea for testing hypotheses concerning the presence (or not) of shapes that resemble diocotron instabilities, in nearby spiral galaxies:

There are at least four publicly available datasets of observations of ~30 nearby galaxies, whose distances have been estimated by methods other than the Hubble redshift-distance relationship, SINGS, THINGS, HST Survey of the mid-UV Morphology of Nearby Galaxies, and GALEX Ultraviolet Atlas of Nearby Galaxies. There's also a UBVRI, Halpha, [SII], and [OIII] survey of M31 and M33, the two closest spirals, "A Survey of the Resolved Stellar Content of Nearby Galaxies Currently Forming Stars".

Images taken through some filters/in some wavebands will track the distribution of stars; the ones taken in Halpha, [SII], and [OIII] HII regions and plasmas with specific physical characteristics (e.g. density, temperature). The various IR images will track the distribution of dust at various temperatures, and radio images neutral hydrogen and CO molecules. (There's more, but that should give you an idea of what's possible).

If what looks like a dichotron instability in an [SII] image (where you'd expect any such to be prominent), say, also shows up in a 'dust' IR image and a 'star' broadband optical one, then you may conclude that it's unlikely to be a dichotron instability.

And so on.

This sort of study would have several benefits over scrolling through hundreds of SDSS images of spiral galaxies (say) looking for ones that had the right kind of shape. Among those benefits:
* controlled sample
* high-quality data freely available
* objective
* independently verifiable.