Rotation curves and galactic magnetic fields

[rcglinsk]

Hi all,

I wish I could find the original website I read this idea on, but I'll do my best to summarize. A charged particle in a magnetic field will travel along the course of a magnetic field line and will be accelerated to a certain velocity that depends on the strength of the magnetic field. When astronomers compile a rotation curve they look at the light emitted from each side of a galaxy and compare the red/blue shifting. Almost all of the light used in the analysis comes from interstellar dust (plasma, whatever).

The idea is that the dust becomes ionized and is accelerated by the magnetic field. I think this is actually a testable notion as there must be some galaxies in which both rotation curve and magnetic field strenght data is available. Since the magnetic field strength is the same throughout the disc of the galaxy, the speed of the dust should be the same throughout (as observed). And if the speed of the dust is what's expected from the observed magnetic field strength then I think we're talking real evidence.

What do y'all think?

[solrey]

That would be the Lorentz Force and Faraday induction, as in a homopolar motor, producing a rather "flat" rotation curve, as demonstrated in Wal Thornhill's Electric Galaxies article.

Comparison of rotational velocity with radius in a spiral galaxy versus a supercomputer simulation of the rotation of an equivalent mass object formed at the intersection of two interacting plasma filaments. No dark matter need be invented to reproduce the peculiar rotation curves of spiral galaxies because the electromagnetic forces acting on plasma are so much stronger than gravity. —Credit: A. Peratt.

Electromagnetic coupling of the galactic disc results in this type of rotation curve.
Yeah, we already have real evidence, it's just being ignored by the gatekeepers of mainstream science.

[rcglinsk]

Sweet. The next time someone says "Plasma Cosmology doesn't have any numbers behind it" point them here.

[viscount aero]

thing is, when they say "there is not sufficient evidence to support that..." they are the pot calling the kettle black.

So, then, there is sufficient evidence to support dark matter, to the extent that it regularly appears in texts and papers nearly as a matter of fact, but yet proven plasma experiments in a lab, which scale up and down, are not sufficient?!

LOL!!!!!!

[junglelord]

The use of the Lorentz equation to explain the Faraday Paradox has led to a debate in the literature as to whether or not a magnetic field rotates with a magnet. Since the force on charges expressed by the Lorentz equation depends upon the relative motion of the magnetic field to the conductor where the EMF is located it was speculated that in the case when the magnet rotates with the disk but a voltage still develops, that the magnetic field must therefore not rotate with the magnetic material as it turns with no relative motion with respect to the conductive disk.

However, careful thought showed if the magnetic field was assumed to rotate with the magnet and the magnet rotated with the disk that a current should still be produced, not by EMF in the disk (there is no relative motion between the disk and magnet) but in the external circuit linking the brushes[1] which is in fact in relative motion with respect to the rotating magnet. In fact it was shown that so long as a current loop was used to measure induced EMFs from the motion of the disk and magnet it is not possible to tell if the magnetic field does or does not rotate with the magnet.

Several experiments have been proposed using electrostatic measurements or electron beams to resolve the issue but apparently none has been successfully performed to date.

The aether is the magnetic field. It does not rotate with the magnet.

[james weninger]

I'm not sure we even know that galaxies rotate. Before you laugh,consider these facts: 1. An arguement was made that we don't see galaxies in many different stages of "wrapping". That is,spiral arms should wrap up over time (flat rotation curves or not), but we don't see galaxies in all different states of wrapping. 2. We have never seen a galaxy rotating from the top of it's disk. The sun for example,is thought to take 225 million years for one orbit. 360 degrees in 225 million years. In other words, even if a galaxy was spinning as fast as ours is, we would only observe an angular rotation of .00576arcsec in a year. Way too small to measure! 3. The only way we measure a galaxy's spin is edge on,seeing a red shift on one side,and a blue shift on the other. But this could be caused by magnetic field lines wrapping around the galaxy,not neccessarily motion of stars towards or away from us. As a matter of fact,if stars are charged,they should'nt travel along magnetic field lines,but spiral about them. 4. We can't even be sure of our sun's motion around our galaxy. Even if EU theory was totally wrong,and the sun's path was controlled by gravity alone,we would still have to consider that the sun's path is curved around some shorter orbit. If any of the theories of a companion star are correct, the sun's motion around it's companion may be a greater effect than the sun's motion around galactic center.

[junglelord]

I think its safe to say that everything is spinning, as above so below.
Thats my take on the universe.

[james weninger]

Junglelord, I agree with you that everything is spinning. I was just trying to point out that everthing we think we know scientifically about the magnitude and direction of galaxy spinning is based on pretty weak evidence. As a matter of fact, I believe there is more spinning going on than the mainstream thinks. The mainstream Idea has the earth going around the sun, and then jumps to the sun going around galactic center. I believe the earth orbits the sun,the sun spirals around local magnetic field lines in ~26,000yrs(a precessional cycle) as it revolves around the Pleiades in ~26million years(the Nemesis cycle),then possibly the Pleiades orbits Galactic Center taking our sun with it.

[junglelord]

Just to let you know I enjoyed contemplating a galaxy that did not spin.

[Aardwolf]

I don't think it's that absurd. It would certainly solve some problems.

Dark matter was invented to explain the rotation curve problem. It would be unnecessary in this scenario.

Maintaining the arms is explained by a density wave but to achieve this individual stars need to erroneously change velocity (as in a trafiic jam) yet remain unperturbed in their general orbit. Can gravity theory or EU account for this. Again it's unnecessary if it's not rotating. It just becomes a result of the nature of the star formation process.

To maintain these orbits there would need to be mutual instantaneous communication between all the stars accross thousands of light years. It's difficult enough explaining instantaneous communication accross solar orbits. Again it's unnecessary if there is no rotation although I wouldn't rule out local influence like paired stars etc.

However, I would suggest the centre would still be spinning but stars would be ejected in a catherine wheel fashion. Just freeze frame any catherine wheel video and the similarities are striking IMO.

Possibly we look for rotation because that is what we want to see because it dominates our solar system, but if rotation is the norm then surely that means the whole universe is rotating? Why should the "rule" stop at galaxies.

[Aardwolf]

Going on from that...

Accept for a moment that is how the galaxy is formed.

If we could then only see the local area of our galaxy accross say 10,000 ly then it would appear to us that the stars around us are all moving away from us and we are at the centre. Evertywhere would be expanding if you like. It would also appear that we are all moving in generally the same direction direction toward or away from something. Now imagine the universe is formed in the same manner. We can only see our part of the universe so our observation would show that all our neighbours are moving away from us and the further they are the faster they would be moving. It would also show that we are moving in a general direction (towards a great attractor or alternatively away from the centre of something).

It seems to me that galaxy/universe formation in this manner could explain the nature of what we observe in a much simpler manner than the many competing and contradictory theories around today with all the hidden dark stuff they need to work.