Is this a silly question?

[martinrlaw]

Astronomers say that they can measure the rotation speed of galaxies, if they can measure the speed of stars in the arms of a galaxy surely they know in which direction those stars are moving. The reason I ask this will become clear. In the standard model dust from the "Big Bang" is drawn ,via an accretion disk, towards a gravitational centre of mass forming stars, planetary systems and ultimately galaxies. The rotation is inward, towards the centre.

In contrast the "Electric Universe" say that the electric currents in the plasma which pervades the whole of space creates electro-magnetic plasma effects such as magnetic fields, Birkland current spirals, double layers, plasmoids and Z pinches. The theory seems to be, as I understand it, that a Z pinch forms in a Birkland current causing a plasmoid to form which spins outwards forming pairs of spiral arms, obviously the size and power of the Birkland current controls the size of the plasmoid and subsequent spiral arms which themselves are vast numbers of Birkland currents following similar parallel spiral paths away from the centre. These Birkland currents themselves form Z pinches and plasmoids and so on until a galaxy is formed. (It seems to me that plasmoids must form in pairs, giving rise to pairs of spiral arms)

The whole point of this is to demonstrate that in a gravity system stars will be moving towards the centre of the spiral while in the Electric Universe system the stars will be moving away from the centre of the spiral.

The question is can we use this very simple observation to disprove the gravity model and possibly to prove the EU model

martinrlaw

[Michael Mozina]

It's not a silly question, but depending on the role of current through the system, the answer may not allow you to differentiate between various models as easily as you might first presume. Current flowing through the process would undoubtedly lessen the need for A) exotic forms of matter, and B) matter of any type to explain rotation curves alone.

Lensing studies however would suggest that neither a MOND theory, nor a current driven process would exclusively explain the amount of lensing (and therefore mass) that they seem to observe in various galaxy cluster studies. Their models for "guestimating" the mass of galaxies have already been shown to be way off, not even in the ballpark. They've been grossly underestimating the number of entire stars in various galaxies, the number of stars between galaxies in the galaxy clusters, the amount of light every galaxy emits, the central mass of various galaxies, and in 2012 they found all their "missing baryons" in the form of million degree plasma that surrounds various galaxies. They've been finding mass hand over fist since that flawed 2006 lensing study that *assumed* all their now falsified galaxy mass estimates were "correct". Instead of being accurate in estimating the ordinary baryonic matter in various galaxies, they've been show to have underestimated the number of stars in various galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the type of star and the type of galaxy. You'll find links to various articles and papers here:

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

The basic mechanism in play in astrophysics today is pure denial. They're in pure denial of the mistakes they made in terms of ordinary baryonic mass estimates of galaxies in that flawed 2006 lensing study. They are in pure denial of all the falsified claims they've put to rest in real life "experiments" at LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc. They are basically intent on ignoring their own failures in terms of mass estimation techniques. That is really all dark matter claims amount to in 2015. It's the scientific equivalent of simply burying their collective heads in the sand while continuing to fund dark matter snipe hunt experiments, regardless of how many lab failures precede it.

The EU paradigm actually allows for current flow to play a major role in galaxy mass layouts (as you're assuming), but it also allows for current flow to play a lesser role to gravity, and there is ample evidence that ordinary baryons make up the bulk of their "missing mass" in their flawed galaxy mass estimates. EU theory however isn't a "one size fits all" approach in the final analysis. I wouldn't assume you could automatically rule out all EU models even if it does turn out that the mainstream botched the mass estimates something terrible (which they did), and gravity does play the larger role in galaxy mass layouts, with current making up only a minor part of that process.

The mainstream model does allow for massive objects to be flung away from the core mass object, so it's not exactly as simple as it sounds to differentiate between models based on a couple of star trajectories.

[martinrlaw]

Thank you for your reply, Modified Newtonian Dynamics were a clever if misdirected attempt to explain why the standard theory didn't work, note that the formulas used more closely resemble those of electro-magnetic theory than gravitational theory. I think that nature likes things simple. Missing baryons could just as easily be explained as massive streams of protons in Birkland Currents, however we're not talking about missing baryons but missing mass, mass which is not necessary in the EU theory.

Gravity is not the only thing to explain lensing effects, the plasma which pervades the universe can be considered to be an atmosphere of sorts which would be denser around galaxies. This extra density will alter the refractive index of the space around galaxies, I would imagine that plasma density declining in proportion to the square of the distance would behave just like a spherical lens.

martinrlaw

[celeste]

It's not a silly question, but depending on the role of current through the system, the answer may not allow you to differentiate between various models as easily as you might first presume.

Michael, Catch this before it disappears
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept ... ofue4.html
Specifically, 4.9, then 4.8, then 4.1
The mainstream does see counterrotation at the core of galaxies (4.9). This is consistent with a current filament running right down through the center of the galaxy. Just as Donald Scott showed that the counter rotation of material at the poles of gas giant planets was due to current flowing in through the poles, same logic applies here.
They see gas streaming along the bar of spiral galaxies (4.8). This is consistent with current flowing along the arms of galaxies. Again, if Donald Scott's model applies to arms, we should see material flowing along the arms, not at the center of the arms, but at some distance, where we should have an axial magnetic field.
They do see different rotation curves (4.1), depending on which tracer they use. That is important in the EU model.

Here is my point: There is enough raw data out there, to help us map out the current flow in galaxies. The problem is, we in EU, tend not to look at the raw data, but just that end result flat rotation curve that the mainstream shows us. The flat rotation curve you see in those diagrams, already has all the important details massaged out, or explained away. For example, in the gravity only model, it does not matter if you are looking at an ion or a cation. All this "ionized gas" should be flowing along in the same gravitational field, so they can just average it all out to get the "true" rotation. In EU we had better keep all this raw data separated.

Again, counter rotation at the core of galaxies, can be from current flow right down through the center of the galaxy. (not just from mergers). Material streaming along arms can come from currents along the arms (not just streaming "shocked" material). And the reason we see different motions for different charged species, may be because they actually are sorted into different regions and motions by Marklund convection. That final flat rotation curve, where all this has been averaged out, is not going to do us any good.

[Michael Mozina]

It's not a silly question, but depending on the role of current through the system, the answer may not allow you to differentiate between various models as easily as you might first presume.

Michael, Catch this before it disappears
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept ... ofue4.html
Specifically, 4.9, then 4.8, then 4.1
The mainstream does see counterrotation at the core of galaxies (4.9). This is consistent with a current filament running right down through the center of the galaxy. Just as Donald Scott showed that the counter rotation of material at the poles of gas giant planets was due to current flowing in through the poles, same logic applies here.

Thanks for the link.

[comingfrom]

In the Electric Universe, stars, and galaxies, form in the z pinches of big electric currents.
That's like living in the elbow of a zig, in the zig zag of a perpetual lightning bolt.

Now all the bodies in that galaxy, or star system, have momentum imparted to them by the electric field of the current, so they spin and rotate.
But they are suspended at a location in the current.

Now currents are not static things. They can go all over the place, flows changing the fields, and fields changing the flows.
But currents on galactic and interstellar scales are vast, and hence on such a different time scale to us, that the movements aren't going to be discernible.

If it were possible to time lapse a region of the Universe, we would see that the galaxies are bouncing around in relation to each other, and moving apart and coming together, and even sometimes, when currents merge, causing what we call colliding galaxies.
But just because Andromeda is heading towards the Milky Way now, doesn't mean they will collide.
The currents containing these galaxies will most likely change direction long before that happens.

`Paul