So, obviously you were not able to find any article by mainstream scientists anywhere directly challenging the work of Anthony Peratt back in the 80s. I predicted that would be the case. Which leaves you nothing but handwaving as your response. And misinformation. As I will now demonstrate.
Peratt published his papers in the peer reviewed, IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, which is not just an “engineering” journal. Notice the word “science”? And it’s quite respected. It’s been around of a long time, and its aim and scope its stated as “all aspects of the theory and application of plasma science.” Again, notice the word science, newbie? And note that they themselves state that includes, among other areas, magnetohydrodynamics, basic plasma phenomena, electron/ion/plasma sources, space plasmas, intense electron/ion beams, plasma chemistry, plasma heating, plasma for controlled fusion research, and plasma waves and instabilities. All of those are topics I believe relevant to understanding what we see going on out there in the universe … one would think. One would also think that ANYONE with an interest in plasma (and that SHOULD certainly include astrophysicists given that they themselves describe the universe as 99.99 percent plasma) would read every issue of such an important journal. But you’re claiming they didn’t? How odd!
I suppose it is possible that the gravity-only, gnome loving astrophysics community might have DELIBERATELY chosen not to read the Transactions or Peratt’s papers (i.e., put on blinders in order to prevent internal dissonance), but there’s no way they didn’t hear about Peratt’s work and see his articles, especially given the fact they were discussed and referenced in Eric Lerner’s book, which they clearly did read and discuss. So I’m sorry, mcfc16. but your handwaving that nobody knew about Peratt’s work is nothing less than a transparent and quite desperate lie. But if that’s all you got …
And as for your implication that Peratt didn’t know what he was talking about, he was a plasma physicist who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the Applied Theoretical Physics Division at the time … not some hodunk university professor needing to please some gnome believing tenure committee. He used their best particle in cell simulation codes to model the interaction of large current carrying plasma filaments using well known laws of physics, and he obtained results that passed peer review and that showed electric currents, electromagnetic physics, and their influence on plasmas could not only explain the rotation curves found in spiral galaxies without invoking ANY dark matter, but also explain the initial formation and evolution of galaxies from interacting plasma filaments. That mainstream astrophysicists took no interest in such work defies rationality … defies believability. That they then didn’t even respond to Peratt’s papers defies good scientific method. It suggests they deliberately ignored it.
Keep in mind, folks, that Peratt’s papers were published at a time when most in the gnome believing mainstream astrophysics community were denying that the universe was filled with plasma filaments AND denying that electric currents (much less HUGE electric currents) existed in intergalactic space, even though it was OBVIOUS to anyone outside the gnome believing community that both might be true. And years of telescopic observations have now proven without a doubt that both assertions were true … yet Peratt's work is still being ignored.
In fact, it was recently discovered by the mainstream that there are huge, rotating plasma filaments stretching between galaxies. I discussed that in this thread: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... ?f=3&t=522 , predicting at the time this announcement was made that it would be quietly swept under the rug by the mainstream with no further rational explaination (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =522#p5263) … and I was right. In fact, the only article I was able to later find on this (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =522#p7962 ) noted that their models predicted ZERO rotation of filaments. So they introduced a new gnome (“special” dark matter … dark matter vortices) to explain it. And of course the article didn’t even mention plasma or electromagnetism. The mainstream community is just deaf, dumb and clueless, with an imagination run wild.
But I tell you what. Since you failed my first challenge so miserably, let’s see if you can find an article where the mainstream RATIONALLY explains the rotating filaments between galaxies without resorting to yet another gnome. Bet you fail this challenge, too.
LOL! That’s all you got, newbie? You only proved I was right about Peratt’s work being totally ignored. Vallee apparently ignored it too. And that quote doesn’t provide one detail as to why Peratt was wrong or who said the other researchers were wrong. What they proposed and what Peratt proposed could be apples and oranges for all we know. So go ahead … explain the details so that we know what they said pertains to Peratt’s work as well. Don’t think you can wave your hand and make this challenge go away.mcfc16 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:47 pm Others, with a bit more of a clue, tried to explain rotation curves using EM in more relevant journals, where they did get noticed. And debunked. Battaner & Florido, ring a bell. Let me have a butcher's........ Ah, yes;
Cosmic magnetic fields – as observed in the Universe, in galactic dynamos, and in the Milky WayEarly claims were made by Nelson (1988), Battaner et al. (1992), Battaner (1993), and Binney (1992) that there exists a very strong magnetic field which could speed up the interstellar gas (but not the stars), to the point of reproducing the flat curve of rotational velocity against galactic radius. These claims were investigated and found unsupportable.
Vallee, J. P. (2004)
New Astronomy Reviews.
So, Peratt's explanation failed.
And while you delve into that, let me point out there’s a more recent article by Battaner and Florido that for some reason Vallee didn’t cite (sort of like he forgot to mention Peratt, eh?). Here it is (https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0010475.pdf ) published in 2000. It starts by saying “We review the topic of rotation curves of spiral galaxies emphasizing the standard interpretation as evidence for the existence of dark matter halos.”
Let examine their “review”. First, in section 2.3, they mention the work of Bosma and Caringnan who found “a trend for the gas distribution to have the same shape as DM distribution”, saying “this correlation between gas and DM is puzzling and if real, has no easy explanation in the light of present CDM models. Not only is there a general trend, but several individual features found in the rotation curve seems to correspond to features in gas circular velocity.” I mention this because by gas they actually mean *plasma*.
This is a significant oversight as the behavior of gas and plasma are very different in the presence of electromagnetism. In fact, oddly enough, the paper doesn’t even mention the word plasma at all, which makes me suspect they don’t understand the significance. The section goes on to say “This fact has inspired a theory … snip … identifying the dark matter with an as yet undetected dark gas. The magnetic hypothesis would provide another explanation, as the rotation curve is due in part to magnetic fields, which are generated by gas”. The first theory is nothing more than a gnome while the latter is plasma physics and electromagnetism, which Peratt needed only simulate in existing codes to obtain a match to observations.
Now Section 4.4 is titled “the magnetic hypothesis” and it states “the rotation curve of spiral galaxies may be explained by the action of magnetic fields in the disk. If this hypothesis is correct, the cosmological implications would be very important.” Later, in asking whether magnetic fields are important, the authors conclude “The figures in the above tables are worrying. It can be concluded that
interpreting rotation curves, while ignoring the influence of magnetic fields may be completely unrealistic. It is therefore remarkable that a fact that may be so far-reaching concerning our cosmological beliefs has been object to such scarce attention. “
Yes, folks, that fact has indeed been ignored by the mainstream, but for other reasons than what mcfc16 is now trying to suggest. The paper goes on to say “The magnetic hypothesis takes this fact into consideration and tries to determine whether magnetic fields alone, without requiring any dark matter, and without modifying our physical laws, are able to explain the observed flat and fast rotation curves.” Good question, but mind you, these DM doubting Thomases were only going to get the right answer if they included the right physical laws. And unfortunately they didn't.
The authors admit right away that “Observations are probably still too scarce to reveal the magnitude and distribution of extragalactic magnetic fields.” This is very important because later the authors use extragalactic fields in one of his arguments against dynamos. The paper does say that “Typical values of intergalactic magnetic field strengths are in the range 1-3 μG” which are larger than previously thought, then goes on to note even stronger observed magnetic fields. Inner disk fields of 10 μG have been measured, they say. They “assume that magnetic fields vanish, or have very small strengths in the large-scale voids”, “but are much higher in the filaments of matter (∼100 Mpc long, ∼10 Mpc thick) characterizing the large scale structure. “ That is a very important statement, but why that is seems to have eluded the authors.
The article then goes on to look at various “magnetic models” with no DM. The more complicated 2-D one confirms that “moderate magnetic field strengths can have a decisive influence on the rotation curve” and the resulting flaring, densities and velocities are all in agreement with observations. Hmmmm. You don’t suppose. The authors then mention Persic and Saluki, and I have to wonder if they might be the source of your quote, mcfc16. They apparently considered the magnetic hypothesis as “neither necessary nor sufficient”. Battaner and Florido respond to that by saying “Setting aside the question of how a theory can be “not necessary”, they argued that galaxy pairs need dark matter, but we have seen that galaxy pairs admit other interpretations, in particular that of common halos.” They also observe that S ́anchez-Salcedo (1996) “considered the possibility that a relation found by Bosma (1978, 1981, 1993) between HI and dark matter density could be explained under the magnetic hypothesis. On qualitative grounds this would be reasonable, because the higher the gas density, the higher the magnetic strength that could be amplified.”
But then, after all that, they get into discussing “mechanisms producing magnetic fields in the outermost disk” and here they make the fatal mistake of dismissing the dynamo theory on the basis of a comparison between the strength of current magnetic fields in galaxies compared to the field strength of a primordial frozen-in magnetic field. They say that using classic dynamo theory, “the field is amplified e-times in each rotation. Suppose that the galaxy has rotated about 20 times since its birth. Then, the field has been amplified by a factor of about e20 ≃ 5 × 108. Therefore, the initial strength would have been about 10−15G” and this they say contradicts measured μG fields for quasars and newborn galaxies. They state “if new-born galaxies were so highly magnetized, the αΩ dynamo would have amplified these initial fields to a present value of about 500 G, in astonishing disagreement with observations. Even if, before reaching this value, some saturation mechanism had appeared, the classical dynamo is incompatible with pregalactic μG-strengths. Therefore, the topic is now free for speculation and the search for alternative scenarios.”
An obvious problem with this conclusion is that it’s based on ASSUMING (incorrectly, if plasma cosmologists and Peratt’s modeling are right) that spiral magnetic fields only come from amplification of some primordial *frozen-in* seed field … and the mainstream’s assumption about the meaning of redshift. If those are wrong, then dynamos cannot be ignored as the source of rotation curves. Given the fact that their paper ... and I suspect all the other papers they cite … don’t mention the word plasma, and don’t address the fact that electric currents flow through filaments, cause filaments to interact, and produce magnetic fields in the process, I don’t think it’s safe to say anyone mentioned debunked anything, mcfc16.
In fact, I think they and the mainstream citing their work clearly have blinders on and no real understanding of plasma and electromagnetic effects. That conclusion is further supported by what the authors state later in the paper in the section “Large scale structure and magnetic fields.” In that, they simply ignore the fact that filaments are carrying current, that current carrying filaments produce magnetic fields, that the filaments have been observed to be rotating, and are helically wound to boot … just like plasma cosmologists predicted. Plus, observations show that some of their predictions (remember, this was written in 2005) about cosmic filaments are clearly totally wrong. Perhaps that’s because they assume they derive from “preexisting magnetic fields” “create[d] at Inflation, as predicted and explained in the superstring theory”. In other words, they use two still unproven gnomes to explain a third unproven gnome. One can only laugh!
In the end, the authors say “we can summarize the present crossroads of the problem of rotation curves of spiral galaxies by emphasizing that, if we accept the hypothesis of common virialized halos, with no substructure, for all types of clustered visible galaxies, then there are only two alternatives”. One alternative is to say that “hierarchical CDM models are wrong, for instance, DM is baryonic … snip … , in which case we would need a theory of galaxy formation.” “Or they are basically valid, in which case, another explanation of the rotation curve is needed. … snip … Given the success of current theoretical CDM hierarchical models in other related topics, we favour this latter possibility.” In other words, DM doesn't explain the rotation curves.
So it looks to me like Battaner and Florido haven’t been debunked at all, but are fighting back, yet still missing the obvious. They are trying to pacify the CDM/Big Bang/DM believers, while still insisting that rotation curves of spiral galaxies … the primary evidence cited by DM advocates for DM … are NOT due to DM but to some other explanation. In fact, their conclusion is to first offer an origin story based on the CDM scenario that completely ignore magnetic fields, relying on mysterious dark matter and gravity alone to make any sense of things, then outline an “another alternative history” ... a “magnetic interpretation of the rotation curve” … which depends on frozen-in, primordial magnetic fields, and redshift being ONLY due to Doppler effects. But these assumptions are still highly debatable. You'll find lots of debate about that on this forum. In contrast, the results of Peratt’s simulations follow solely from well understood and proven physics used by nuclear weapon makers (in other words, well verified codes). In that sense, Peratt's results aren’t debatable ... which may be why the mainstream has never tried to debate them even once that I can find.
Finally, one of the most ironic statements in the 2005 Battaner and Florido paper is found in the conclusion when they say “we are beginning to understand galaxy formation.” JWST results and the mainstream’s reaction to them seem to dispute that. LOL!
Don’t be obtuse. I mean everywhere. Everywhere you look, from that thunderstorm outside your window to as far as our telescopes can see, we see plasma filaments. Isn’t that the very definition of ubiquitous?
If that was a prediction by gnomers, how come gnome believers on forums such as JREF were still denying the existence of filaments in space two decades ago? No, LCDM is an hoc construct cobbled together using a half dozen or more unproven gnomes … which you folks LAUGHABLY say you simulate. Hate to tell you, but all that your so-called models have are imaginary knobs you can turn to get any picture that fits what you see. But the people building those models don’t haven’t a clue what the knobs really are in terms of real physics because 70 years after the invention of those knobs you still can’t prove those gnomes actually exist. And you’ve spent billions of dollars pursuing them. And now that the waste of that is becoming obvious to more and more of the public, you now want to rewrite history and claim that LCDMer’s predicted the filamentary nature of the universe. No, the ones who predicted it were plasma cosmologists and that’s because filamentation is inherent to the way plasma behaves.
I know you don’t want to address it, but what you label “word salad” is a clear statement of the situation. You folks most certainly have wasted tens of billions of dollars on nothing more than imaginary nonsense. There is nothing to show for all that money, other than a fairytale that you’ve got a pyramid of people promoting … a fairytale that doesn’t have one speck of real value to the real world. Not a thing you folks have imagined and spent all that money on is going to benefit a single person on earth today or tomorrow, other than the people in that pyramid that are now totally dependent on the continued existence of that fairytale to fund their relatively luxurious lives far into the future. So people like the folks on this forum and scientists like Peratt, Lerner and Talbot are an existential threat to your financial plenty. Hence, you’re here to defend it any way you can.
No facts? Hate to tell, cupcake, but anyone can use the browser and find hundreds of threads I’ve started noting your sides failures and the facts that prove that. And I’m not the only one identifying them. Ian w or Higgsy or whoever you are, you using the same tactic your side has been employing for 40 years as you’ve kept the scam going. Don’t think for a moment that it’s going to work here.
As I already said, you didn’t prove a thing. You only proved I was right about Peratt’s work being totally ignored. You provided not one detail as to why Peratt was wrong. You threw out a quote that had absolutely no details in it … and from what I can gather, had nothing to do with what Peratt modeled . Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. It just shows I was totally right about you.mcfc16 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:47 pmAlready done. Not to Peratt, as his nonsense would never have been seen in the journal he published in. As he well knew. But to similar.So now it's put or shut up time, mcfc16 ... newbie of the forum. You say that Peratt was proven wrong. Well then it should be easy to cite the publications that challenged the work of Anthony Peratt and showed that.
It isn’t and you’d know that if you spent even one moment perusing my many posts on this forum. |n fact, I’ve already given you another challenge above. Let’s see if you run from that one as well. I predict you do.