dark matter solution

[james weninger]

After reading the A&A article, "On The Global Electrostatic Charge of Stars":
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... =AST&high=
I realized we could apply the same theory of charge segregation at the stellar level to the galactic level, and explain all of our dark matter observations. That is,if the gravitational forces in a star can segregate charge, why can't the gravity in a galaxy segregate charge in that plasma.

1. Will protons segregated from electrons keep falling gravitationally towards GC,or will they reach a state where electrical repulsion balances gravity. You have just solved the cuspy halo problem (why dark matter does not form black holes).
2. If protons are attracted to galactic center,but repel each other,what is their most stable configuration? You have just answered why dark matter forms a halo(if it accreted in a disk originally,or if it was filaments from the poles)
3. What light is absorbed or emitted by protons segregated from electrons? You have just answered why dark matter is dark.
4. Notice an average star like our sun will exert an electrical force on a proton 1/2 it's gravitational force. You now understand why recent "observations" of MACHO's suggest they may average 1/2 solar mass.
5. The rotation curves in this model match observations even betterthan in the dark matter model

In short, dark matter is just visible matter where protons and electrons are segregated to where interactions are minimized

[mharratsc]

I see what you're saying. I confess, I've never heard anyone state things in that form of comparison before (being of course, that most of the Big Thinkers here just say that 'Dark-anything' is preposterous!)

I think that the way you stated your comparison might actually have an impact on some mainstreamers and their counter-arguments to valid physical models vs their imaginings. If you could point out how physical observations were misinterpreted as you stated above, that might actually sway some of the less entrenched members to maybe take a better look at EU thinking. Who knows?

I would be interested to see what other people's thoughts are on the matter. I don't represent the EU as a spokesperson, but maybe if we got some interest in this comparison and fleshed out the details... it might actually make a good blog post somewhere!

[solrey]

It's not gravity that "segregates charge", it's the electric field between charge sheath layers, i.e.Double Layers, and the associated Marklund convection, as well as the Critical Ionization Velocity, that produces and maintains charge separation.

In the paper that James linked, it says this in the abstract:

The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity and compensates for a half of the gravity, when it acts on an electron or proton, respectively.

They only think gravity is causing charge separation because, imho, they're ignoring a lot of known cause and effect in plasma physics, even though they at least acknowledge the significance of electrostatic fields.

Remember, Dark Matter was invented to explain why the "flat" rotation curves of spiral galaxies did not match gravity only models. Anthony Peratt's simulations produced nearly identical rotation curves, primarily based on the Carlqvist relation, Biot-Savart forces and the Lorentz force.
The relative percentages of the different galaxy types (elliptical, irregular and spiral) is accurately represented in those simulations as well.

The only, I repeat, the only reason that Dark Matter/Energy is even a concept, is due to the Electro-magnetic and Electro-static forces being ignored in the gravity only model. "Dark Matter Halo's" are simply regions where the electromagnetic force is stronger, such as the Galactic Center where it's been discovered that the magnetic field is at least an order of magnitude stronger than previously thought. Gravity is nothing to a charged particle subject to EM and ES forces, which are ubiquitous in the universe. For example, gravity does not cause solar protons to rain down on Earth, instead they are deflected by the electro-static field between the charge sheath layers at the magnetopause. Gravity acts primarily on neutral's, but ions will even drag neutrals along (ion drag) in defiance of gravity.

Anyways, that's solrey's "unofficial" explanation.

[nick c]

Anyways, that's solrey's "unofficial" explanation.

Darn! you beat me to it.
I do follow James' line of reasoning here. Thornhill proposed that gravitational attraction in a star causes heavier protons to move toward the center where electrostatic repulsion prevents collapse and the lighter electrons to move outward. James is asking why cannot this be taking place at galactic scales as well? The answer may be that it does to some extent. However taking this further and using it to explain DM is comparing apples to oranges.
As a student of the subject it would appear to me to be self evident that EU theory requires that the galactic center be charged, else where would the galactic magnetic field and birkeland currents come from?
The question of whether or not this can be used to explain DM is (imhop) a moot point.
DM is an ad hoc addition to gravity only cosmology in order to explain anomalous observations of the motion and rotation of galaxies. It just is not necessary in the EU model, the motion and rotations of galaxies is explained without DM. Put another way, DM is a conceptual device used by mainstream cosmologists to enable them to keep the "gravity only" paradigm alive.
While it is true that much of the material in the universe is plasma in the dark mode it is not to be equated with DM, which needs to be placed at specific locations to enable the gravity only model to explain the motion, rotation, and structure of galaxies.
Keeping in mind that we are dealing with charged objects contained within plasmaspheres which in turn are contained within larger plasmaspheres and so on, the EU proposes that electrical forces overwhelm gravitational forces at galactic scales, so there is no need for DM.

Nick

[james weninger]

solrey,
There are a couple of points on which you are wrong.(didn't mean that to sound harsh) First, the galactic halo is not a place where electromagnetic fields are stronger. As a matter of fact it is the lack of E-M activity compared to apparent gravity that made the mainstreamposit dark matter in the halo. Also,the GC is not part of the halo. Most important,however, you are wrong that gravity does'nt matter when E-M forces are present. The whole point of the journal article was that gravity(while dwarfed by magnetic forces)is strong enough to order a neutral(overall) plasma into a plasma with a strong electric field. Jim

[solrey]

Nice addition's and clarifications there Nick.

No worries James. Thanks for pointing out the location of the "halo". I think many of us are here because we have a desire for continued learning. I'm totally OK with being told I'm wrong. That's how one gets really good at all kinds of stuff, by sweating the details and building from solid foundations.

I did get confused between the recently discovered "haze" around the GC, which they posit is due to a concentration of DM btw, and the "halo" that surrounds the galaxy. Plus, there have been more than a few papers recently on all kinds of DM distribution scenario's. It's like, what's the DM dujour again?

Regarding the "haze" at the GC:

He and his colleagues figured that the microwaves were synchrotron emission: photons emitted by electrons accelerated by the galaxy's magnetic field. But the energy spectrum of the electrons was not readily accounted for by conventional sources in the inner galaxy—for instance, electrons originating from supernovae explosions. So, a popular model for dark matter, in which the dark particles would annihilate each other on contact in a burst of observable particles, including electrons, seemed instead to fit the bill.

Regardless, the same explanation of EM/ES applies to both situations. The presence of the "halo" around the galaxy would be explained by a corresponding double layer, the "haze" in the center would be explained by the spaghetti bowl of Birkeland currents and strong EM/ES fields around a plasma "pinch", all of which are known to produce synchrotron radiation. Ignoring that leads to goofy postulates of DM annihilation.
The rotation curves, and so much more, is fully explained by Peratt's simulations. New observations have only verified how robust those models are.
The reason for DM was to explain "missing" mass because they ignore EM/ES. That's the main point.
I agree that a strong gravitational field will attract charged particles when EM/ES forces are weak, but I believe that gravity is overwhelmed locally by the EM/ES forces that exist in a star, or GC, where Marklund convection makes more sense, imo. Does gravity assist this process? Probably, but I'm sure it's not the only force at work here. If the EU position of star formation in a pinch zone is correct (I'm sure it is), then it all begins with EM/ES in the first place, and when those forces weaken, gravity helps to hold the system together by moderating instabilities and perturbations, kind of like a flywheel. Not until that point would gravity have anything of import to do with particle/charge separation.
Like Alfven said, gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems. I take that in the context of which forces dominate, not that the "lights are out" so to speak, just dimmer.

[jjohnson]

An interesting aspect of the paper is its date - 2001 - and how little follow-up there has been to it (that I've seen, of course; I can't read too widely due to both time and cost constraints).

Another interesting aspect is what a static model this presents, only briefly acknowledging that stars are not ideal unmoving spheres of gas or plasma, whichever he is thinking about within the star. Neslusan notes that a star has a global electrostatic field , and that perfect charge neutrality does not exist at all points (the usual case with plasmas, although the net overall charge of a plasma tends toward neutrality in terms of total particle count). The whole case of charge segregation's being due to gravity seems to ignore the electrodynamic fields which are set up by electric currents in the sun, all over the surface layers of the Sun, and extending out of the sun and up into the corona and via the solar wind out as far as the heliosheath out past Pluto's orbit.

It is not so simple a case of gravity's influence being reduced by half by the presence of the electrostatic field on the heavier protons and the less massive electrons, thus collecting the former toward the stellar surface and the latter being repelled due to the electron's negative charge. Because there are complex electric fields and magnetic fields throughout the currents running through the complex, highly conductive plasma atmosphere of a star, it is difficult (for me) to imagine that the gravity field, although present, could have any more effect on charge separation and stratification around a stellar body (or a galaxy) then gravity would be able to have in separating out a suspension of very small particles in a jar of muddy water which is continuously being stirred.

The author is correct in that scientists considering models of the Sun or of stars in general should not forget the effect of electric fields and their invariable shadows, magnetic fields. Since the sun is not a static collection of pith balls, remembering that the movement of charged particles in these non-gravity fields is precisely what electricians call electrical currents, and that there are very large, powerful electrical currents in and around a star, that the electrodynamic forces can and routinely do cause charged particles to reach escape velocity. And that these events can eject massive amounts of matter (massive coronal ejections) at high velocity away from the vicinity of the star, despite its gravity.

Finally, the author demonstrates that the existence of the global charge field (electrical field) "..is necessary to avoid some serious physical problems." He then jumps into the relative partial hydrostatic pressures of electrons and ions at various distances from the center of the star, saying that this charge is what equalizes their partial pressures in a stellar plasma. If it were true that gravity would tend to cause a hydrostatic pressure within a plasma, this charge separation might result, but my understanding was that plasma behavior typically is controlled by its own internal electrodynamics, despite its presence in a stellar magnetic field. If you watch time lapse movies of solar activity at almost any wavelength, there is essentially nothing which appears to be governed by gravity fields as we observe their effects here on cool, condensed matter Earth. Inside the star it may be a different matter (but we can't observe that area too well, despite the claims of helioseismologists) and it may be cool enough to be a large hydrogen sphere in a liquid state there far under the chromosphere, attracted by gravity into a spherical shape and held there by surface tension, while most of the plasma activity takes place above the electro-cline separating plasma from globule.

Hey, we want lots of different ideas to assess, right? I'm glad to see this article and have put it into my collection.

[seasmith]

~
James wrote:

4. Notice an average star like our sun will exert an electrical force on a proton 1/2 it's gravitational force. You now understand why recent "observations" of MACHO's suggest they may average 1/2 solar mass.

Just throwing Mathis in to the mix-

There I showed that what we have always called the gravitational field at the macro-level is in fact a compound field that includes both gravity and the “charge” field. That is, it includes the field mediated by the messenger photon. Newton’s gravity equation can be expanded, with G as the transform between the two fields. Once we re-expand the equation, we find that “mass” is hiding two separable features, and that one of them goes to one field and one goes to the other. Specifically, if we write mass as density x volume, the volume goes to the gravitational field and the density goes to the charge field (or what I call the foundational E/M field). [ EM/ES ~]Gravity is no longer dependent on density; it is proportional to volume or radius, and nothing else. Density is important only in the E/M field. I will refer you to that paper for a full explanation of the new mechanics and the new equations.

http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html

What this means, specifically, is that if we give the infrared photon a z-spin as its outer spin, we can find a smaller photon whose outer spin is the y-spin. We can also find a larger photon with another axial or x-spin on top of the infrared’s z-spin. In this way, we find not only stacked spins, we find stacked levels. In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on. By this analysis, a2 has twice the spin radius of z1. In fact, each spin has twice the radius of the spin under it.

This explains many optical effects, including rainbows. Rainbows do not have a continuous spectrum, and neither do prisms. We see bands of certain colors. Photons only come in certain colors, and they do not come in the colors in between. In between colors have to be created by mixing photons

.

http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html

~ So, if if the gravity/volume field gives a 'shape' to the compound stellar structure,
then the EM/ES/density field might be said to perform the
transitions between the "segregations".

~

[StevenO]

~
James wrote:

4. Notice an average star like our sun will exert an electrical force on a proton 1/2 it's gravitational force. You now understand why recent "observations" of MACHO's suggest they may average 1/2 solar mass.

Just throwing Mathis in to the mix-

To throw a little more Mathis in the mix: according to Miles the charge (electrostatic) repulsion field of the sun is about 75% of the strenght of the gravitational attraction force of the sun at the solar surface. That does'nt seem to far off from this 1/2 number...

[mharratsc]

What strikes me as the biggest problem in the field, is that there are volumes of 'established physics' describing all of the phenomena that they are studying, and they are performing experiments only for the purpose of validating their theories, not for the concept of pure scientific discovery.

Even when the experiments validate EU theory, they do not see it that way. Any experimental or observational results that seem to validate their existing preconceptions is immediately absorbed into the mainstream communication infrastructure via popularist media channels, while experimental results that refute their presumptions get isolated, and put into this disjointed Purgatory with no connection to any other observations. They then say that the results were "odd/weird/stunning/confusing/unexpected" and further information will be forthcoming as they 'dig into it', but for some reason no further funding is pointed at follow-up. Anyone else's hypotheses regarding the subject, or interpretation of the data, is considered invalid because a 'formal investigation' is still pending.

It's a perfect intellectual fortress for their untenable theories. :\

[MGmirkin]

It's not gravity that "segregates charge", [...]

Well, the paper, which I've skimmed before, was intended to highlight the fact that stars can and most likely do have global electric fields (even in "standard model" theory), thus electromagnetic and electrostatic effects should not be completely ignored / neglected. So, it's at least a step in the right direction.

Granted, in the paper, it's assumed that gravity is the [or at least a] method for generating a global electrostatic field on stars. That is to say, in a gravitational field, protons (with greater mass) will feel a stronger gravitational pull than electrons (with lower mass). As such, they hypothesize that protons will have a harder time escaping the gravitational field and will tend to sink, whereas electrons will tend to find it easier to escape and will rise toward the surface setting up an internal electrostatic field between the core and the atmosphere of a star.

As I recall.

In fact, this is much the same as what Wal says when he talks about gravity as a cumulative electrostatic dipole force summed over the volume of a gravitating body. He talks of Earth and similar bodies as behaving like electrets.

(Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

(Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s

Gravitationally induced dipoles tend to separate charge.

Free electrons tend to drift toward the surface.

Planet acts like an electret.

If all subatomic particles are composed of a resonant system of positive and negative charges they are also subject to distortion in the radial electric field to form an electric dipole. Since the particles are free to rotate, their dipoles will line up and the weak dipole force of each particle will add up to produce the effect of gravity.

So, anyway, that particular effect seems to be accepted as self-evident in the EU model.

In a radial gravitational field, heavier particles (protons) will tend to sink toward the center of gravity, while lighter particles will tend to rise toward the surface. The net result being a radial electric field and alignment of atomic dipoles to said electric field.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

As a student of the subject it would appear to me to be self evident that EU theory requires that the galactic center be charged, else where would the galactic magnetic field and Birkeland currents come from?

But magnetic fields don't derive from electrostatic charges. They are a product of electric currents (net motions of like electric charges).

So the magnetic fields are certainly evidence of electric currents being present. Don't know whether it implies specifically an excess charge on the nucleus of the galaxy? Dunno.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[junglelord]

As a student of the subject it would appear to me to be self evident that EU theory requires that the galactic center be charged, else where would the galactic magnetic field and Birkeland currents come from?

But magnetic fields don't derive from electrostatic charges. They are a product of electric currents (net motions of like electric charges).

So the magnetic fields are certainly evidence of electric currents being present. Don't know whether it implies specifically an excess charge on the nucleus of the galaxy? Dunno.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

Electro"static" is a misnomer.
The division of charge is always via motion.
The resulting equalizing of charge, ie, lightning, also involves motion.
Magnetic fields due occur with charge seperation, although they teach "static" formulas, nature is always in motion and is never static, especially concerning charge seperation and equalization.