Galaxy rotation: Birkeland current theory vs dark matter

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Three key observations all support Birkeland Currents

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:41 am

celeste wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
MOND theory is marginalized/falsified by observations of at least some galaxies following a Newtonian rotation pattern. DM theory has no predictive value whatsoever.
Do any galaxies follow a Newtonian rotation pattern? I still haven’t seen one.
https://earthsky.org/space/galaxies-lac ... er-df2-udg

Supposedly they've found at least two galaxies now that seem to follow Newtonian rotation patterns without any need of dark matter.

One can envision a scenario in Scott's model where no current flows through some structures in space and they remain "cut off' from significant amounts of current. Such galaxies would follow a Newtonian rotation pattern. Such observations however tend to blow big holes in the MOND model because all galaxies should follow a non-Newtonian rotation pattern.

I certainly agree with you that gravity by itself cannot and does not adequately explain observations in space, and Scott's model explains why that's the case.

Thanks for the references. I'll check them out as I get time today.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Galaxy rotation: Birkeland current theory vs dark matter

Unread post by webolife » Tue Apr 30, 2019 12:23 pm

Galaxy rotation has been "anomalous" for several decades, this is not really anything new. What I think readers here need to understand is that measures/data of galactic rotation are another product of assumptions about the meaning of redshift. What astronomers have observed since the 80s is a "flat" redshift gradient as you observe the light from galactic matter at increasing distances from the core. The relative redshift should decrease steadily as it's observed on the side of the galaxy turning away from us, in accordance with both NM and the premise of Doppler/recessional redshift; likewise the relative blueshift should decrease in the same manner on the side of the galaxy turning toward us. But what is seen is that this relative spectral redshift gradient is mostly "flat", ie. it changes little with increased radius. It is quite possible that NM is intact, but that the redshift is being misinterpreted, as in other cases that have been well documented and explained by the late Halton Arp, et. al. Perhaps the general "ionization" of stars more distant from the "home" galactic core increases in a way hitherto unexplored?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

celeste
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Galaxy rotation: Birkeland current theory vs dark matter

Unread post by celeste » Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:12 pm

webolife wrote:Galaxy rotation has been "anomalous" for several decades, this is not really anything new. What I think readers here need to understand is that measures/data of galactic rotation are another product of assumptions about the meaning of redshift. What astronomers have observed since the 80s is a "flat" redshift gradient as you observe the light from galactic matter at increasing distances from the core. The relative redshift should decrease steadily as it's observed on the side of the galaxy turning away from us, in accordance with both NM and the premise of Doppler/recessional redshift; likewise the relative blueshift should decrease in the same manner on the side of the galaxy turning toward us. But what is seen is that this relative spectral redshift gradient is mostly "flat", ie. it changes little with increased radius. It is quite possible that NM is intact, but that the redshift is being misinterpreted, as in other cases that have been well documented and explained by the late Halton Arp, et. al. Perhaps the general "ionization" of stars more distant from the "home" galactic core increases in a way hitherto unexplored?
Yet that still leaves us with a problem, doesn’t it? While you are absolutely right that there must be an additional source of redshift, other than Doppler redshift, if we merely add a radially symmetric source of redshift, we still are stuck. The way Don modeled galactic rotation, was To match it to the relative redshifts we see on one side of a galaxy, compared to the other. In other words, besides any “intrinsic” redshift a galaxy may show, we still need the Doppler redshifts of one side of the galaxy compared to the other. If you merely add extra redshift (or blueshift), to both sides of an edge on galaxy, it won’t explain rotation.

The only way to explain rotation we see, using Don’s model, is to say the Doppler redshift variation we see across a galaxy, is a reflection of the absolute rotation rate of the galaxy. Then any intrinsic redshift, must appear on top of that, and across the galaxy as a whole. Then that forces us to address next, why the arms don’t wind up. Since any differential rotation of a galaxy (even as Don models), still leaves us with the problem of why spiral arms don’t wind up over time.

The solution, is merely to put these ideas together: Galaxies rotate as Don modeled, but the spiral arm structure we see is not a reflection of that rotation. Current must flow along the arms, as Wal Thornhill stressed early on.
So maybe the gas, dust, and or stars, follow a rotation curve as Don modeled, but the current is out radially across the galaxy.

To avoid confusion, just pair it to what we see on the solar system scale. Comets may orbit the sun in an elliptical orbit, but the cometary tail streams outward radially from the sun. In other words, the most important lesson, is that we must divorce the orbital path of stars around the galaxy, from the shape of this discharge path (spiral arms).

Am I helping here: Don’s model, just like the mainstream’s does show faster rotation for stars near galactic center. Only in Don’s model, rotation falls of more slowly as we move outward from galactic center. Therefore we don’t need dark matter. Good, so far. But any rotation, other than total solid body rotation (as if the galaxy turned like a solid disk), will still leave us with the question of why arms don’t either wind up, or unwind, over time. So, the arm shape, can’t be linked to rotation, even in Don’s model. We really have to stress the idea that current flow is along the arms, while the path of stars must be more azimuthal around galactic center. Did that help, or make it worse?

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Galaxy rotation: Birkeland current theory vs dark matter

Unread post by Aardwolf » Wed May 01, 2019 3:26 am

celeste wrote:Good, so far. But any rotation, other than total solid body rotation (as if the galaxy turned like a solid disk), will still leave us with the question of why arms don’t either wind up, or unwind, over time.
Because the arms of a galaxy are not rotating around the centre, they are expanding outward. Once you consider this as a theory all the problems associated with galaxy rotation anomalies go away together with the need for any dark matter.

For some reason because science has observed our solar system rotating around a central point, we've tried to shoe horn that theory onto galaxies as a whole, which was a completely unnecessary, and foolish endeavour. There is no scientific basis to expect whole galaxies to rotate, it was assumed to be that way and just stuck.

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Galaxy rotation: Birkeland current theory vs dark matter

Unread post by seasmith » Wed May 01, 2019 7:47 am

Aardwolf wrote:
celeste wrote:Good, so far. But any rotation, other than total solid body rotation (as if the galaxy turned like a solid disk), will still leave us with the question of why arms don’t either wind up, or unwind, over time.
Because the arms of a galaxy are not rotating around the centre, they are expanding outward. Once you consider this as a theory all the problems associated with galaxy rotation anomalies go away together with the need for any dark matter.

For some reason because science has observed our solar system rotating around a central point, we've tried to shoe horn that theory onto galaxies as a whole, which was a completely unnecessary, and foolish endeavour. There is no scientific basis to expect whole galaxies to rotate, it was assumed to be that way and just stuck.
2X

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Galaxy rotation: Birkeland current theory vs dark matter

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed May 01, 2019 7:51 am

Aardwolf wrote:
celeste wrote:Good, so far. But any rotation, other than total solid body rotation (as if the galaxy turned like a solid disk), will still leave us with the question of why arms don’t either wind up, or unwind, over time.
Because the arms of a galaxy are not rotating around the centre, they are expanding outward. Once you consider this as a theory all the problems associated with galaxy rotation anomalies go away together with the need for any dark matter.

For some reason because science has observed our solar system rotating around a central point, we've tried to shoe horn that theory onto galaxies as a whole, which was a completely unnecessary, and foolish endeavour. There is no scientific basis to expect whole galaxies to rotate, it was assumed to be that way and just stuck.
The basic problem is that astronomers have always tried to explain the behaviors of mostly plasma structures like galaxies and clusters using gravity alone. That's not even a rational assumption IMO. That concept seemed to make sense 90 years ago when we thought that the vacuum of space was empty. but now we know it's filled with plasma. Scott's galaxy rotation model demonstrates the EM components are *critical* in terms of understanding the overall rotation patterns of such objects, including counter rotation patterns.

We shouldn't fall into the same trap as the mainstream however. To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the mainstream, everything has to be explained by gravity alone. We shouldn't assume that Birkeland currents can be applied to all objects in space either. Some objects may act more like homopolar generators rather than plasma pinch type events.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Galaxy rotation: Birkeland current theory vs dark matter

Unread post by webolife » Wed May 01, 2019 10:14 am

Interesting observations about the possibility that galaxies don't rotate as supposed. Fred Hoyle (in Frontiers of Astronomy) had an interesting graphic based on the observation of young hot stars in spiral galaxies. It showed concentric rings about the core spaced interestingly on harmonic radii, and persuasively independent of the spiral arms. This seems to support the conclusion that while the galactic core may rotate as it ejects stellar material, the arms may actually be simply expanding outward.
Also not often mentioned (about the standard model) is the very specific/peculiar distribution of dark matter that must be invoked to produce the rotational effect they propose.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests