Galaxy rotation patterns are better explained by Birkeland currents than by dark matter.

[Michael]

Measurement of the Electric Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet

Universe's highest electric current found

We already have strong observational evidence that powerful electric currents traverse almost unimaginable distances of spactime. We also have mathematical models that describe the physical formations observed in currents in plasma, specifically field aligned "Birkeland currents":

http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF
http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF

One of the most important and unique predictions of a Birkeland current galaxy rotation model is the prediction that electrical currents move plasma in different directions at different radii from the center of the galaxy. Some plasma current can be moving in one direction (clockwise), and other currents (further from the radii) moving in the opposite direction (counter clockwise), and it's fully capable of easily transporting a bi-directional flow of current.

What we should "predict" that we should find in a Birkeland current driven galaxy rotation model are instances of counter rotational movements in at least some galaxies. Likewise we would expect that at least some few galaxies wouldn't necessarily have much current flowing through each and every galaxy, in which case gravity alone should suffice to explain the rotation patterns of galaxies without strong external currents present. In both instance, both predictions have been observed.

Counter-Rotation in Disk Galaxies

We certainly do observe galaxies that display counter rotational elements in them as predicted by Birkeland currents. We also observe at least some galaxies which seem to be well explained by gravity alone.

Unusual Galaxies Defy Dark Matter Theory – W. M. Keck Observatory

Considering the far greater range of "predictions" made by a Birkeland current driven galaxy rotation model, compared to a dark matter model, the Birkeland current rotation model seems far more robust. It not only explains why some galaxies rotate faster in some instances, it also explains the existence of counter rotation rings in some galaxies as well.

We also have additional evidence of field aligned currents over a billion of light years long:

Why do galaxies align?

Everywhere we look, galaxies trace out the paths of these filaments. But it turns out galaxies don’t just illuminate the cosmic web — they’re also shaped by it.

From the planetary scale, to the galactic scale to the billion light year scale we see evidence of currents in space. The Birkeland current model of galaxy rotation is *far* better than the dark matter model at explaining various galaxy rotation patterns and in terms of explaining why galaxies are formed by and shaped by the filaments of spacetime.

 

[Michael]

By the way, the Birkeland current model, not only applies to galactic scales, it also applies to the electrical connections that have been observed between the sun and the various planets, and even predicting/dictating the counter rotational elements of the wind patterns in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter near it's poles.

'Magnetic ropes' connect Earth to Sun
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun
Atmosphere of Venus Has Strange Magnetic 'Ropes'

Here's how Hannes Alfven described a "magnetic rope" from his book Cosmic Plasma:

However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities.

He's basically describing a field aligned current, AKA a Birkeland current, albeit a massive one with a lot of power.

Jupiter Polar Winds Movie | Solar System Exploration: NASA Science

Not only is Dr. Scott's Birkeland current galaxy rotation model better at predicting the movement patterns of galaxies, it's better at predicting the observed field aligned electrical connections which have been observed between the sun and the various planets, as well as the counter rotating wind observations which we observe on Jupiter and on Earth during aurora. It's also better at predicting those billion year long alignment of galaxies. Birkeland currents literally have *useful* predictive value at every scale imaginable.

Meanwhile, dark matter predicts none of the these things, which is yet another reason that dark matter models are far less useful as a scientific explanation for complex rotation patterns of plasma galaxies.

It's hard to imagine a better reason to ditch dark matter theory in favor of EU/PC Birkeland current models. There's nothing to be lost by ditching a theory that's not only less predicatively useful, and requires the nearly complete abandonment of the standard model of particle physics. On the other hand, there's everything to be gained by embracing a galaxy rotation model that has a better predictive track record, and is completely compatible with standard particle physics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

By the way, the Birkeland current model, not only applies to galactic scales, it also applies to the electrical connections that have been observed between the sun and the various planets, and even predicting/dictating the counter rotational elements of the wind patterns in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter near it's poles.

'Magnetic ropes' connect Earth to Sun
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun
Atmosphere of Venus Has Strange Magnetic 'Ropes'

Here's how Hannes Alfven described a "magnetic rope" from his book Cosmic Plasma:



He's basically describing a field aligned current, AKA a Birkeland current, albeit a massive one with a lot of power.

Jupiter Polar Winds Movie | Solar System Exploration: NASA Science

Not only is Dr. Scott's Birkeland current galaxy rotation model better at predicting the movement patterns of galaxies, it's better at predicting the observed field aligned electrical connections which have been observed between the sun and the various planets, as well as the counter rotating wind observations which we observe on Jupiter and on Earth during aurora. It's also better at predicting those billion year long alignment of galaxies. Birkeland currents literally have *useful* predictive value at every scale imaginable.

Meanwhile, dark matter predicts none of the these things, which is yet another reason that dark matter models are far less useful as a scientific explanation for complex rotation patterns of plasma galaxies.

It's hard to imagine a better reason to ditch dark matter theory in favor of EU/PC Birkeland current models. There's nothing to be lost by ditching a theory that's not only less predicatively useful, and requires the nearly complete abandonment of the standard model of particle physics. On the other hand, there's everything to be gained by embracing a galaxy rotation model that has a better predictive track record, and is completely compatible with standard particle physics.

How do EU/PC Birkeland current models account for the main evidence for dark matter, the CMB anisotropy?

 

[Michael]

How do EU/PC Birkeland current models account for the main evidence for dark matter, the CMB anisotropy?

The various CMB claims of BB theory don't even apply to static universe models, not that the CMB estimates of the speed of expansion are actually consistent with the SN1A results.

The only way to interpret the CMB as evidence of expansion (and evidence of dark matter) is to *assume* that it's an expansion related observation. If the microwave background is simply another (mostly) stellar produced background wavelength like every other background in space, it's significance is actually quite minimal.

 

[SelfSim]

...
http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF
http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF

What we should "predict" ...

... is that because both of these papers contain models that have been demonstrated as being completely wrong (here), that all of what you say in your OP is therefore, complete and utter bunkum!

Read this ... and learn:

The bottom line is that equations (3) and (4) or the “correct” versions do not exist as there is no PDE to generate solutions.
Since these equations form the basis of Scott’s paper in the form of equation (9), the paper overall is comprehensively wrong.
Scott is basically treating the magnetic field and current density as identical parameters which is nonsense.

Then there are various non mathematical blunders such as associating Birkeland currents with field aligned currents in force free magnetic fields.
The presence of Birkeland currents does not imply the magnetic field is force free as the Earth’s own non force free magnetic field illustrates.

The publication medium of 'Progress in Physics', has been classified as a being a Predatory Journal!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The various CMB claims of BB theory don't even apply to static universe models, not that the CMB estimates of the speed of expansion are actually consistent with the SN1A results.

The only way to interpret the CMB as evidence of expansion (and evidence of dark matter) is to *assume* that it's an expansion related observation. If the microwave background is simply another (mostly) stellar produced background wavelength like every other background in space, it's significance is actually quite minimal.

OK; so are you suggesting that the striking agreement between the observed CMB anisotropy curve and simulated LCDM model CMB anisotropy curves for a universe including dark matter as opposed to one without dark matter, is just an amazing coincidence?

 

[Michael]

OK; so are you suggesting that the striking agreement between the observed CMB anisotropy curve and simulated LCDM model CMB anisotropy curves for a universe including dark matter as opposed to one without dark matter, is just an amazing coincidence?

It's certainly *not* a "coincidence". In fact they're specifically using the CMB data to *calculate/fix* the specific DM percentage as well as dark energy and baryonic percentages required to get a proper fit to the data sets of interest. Multiple galaxies however have been found that don't appear to contain any dark matter, but LCDM proponents stick to the CMB derived percentages for dark matter, lest their entire mathematical model fall apart. It's a fixed noose around the neck of the model which precludes the mainstream from addressing any of the already identified problems in their bayronic mass estimation techniques based upon luminosity.

Thus far the only (mathematical) objection I've heard to Scott's model is the fact that his original Birkeland current paper *assumes* the presence of current (J cannot be 0) and *presumes* a non-changing E field (dE/dt is set to 0) for simplification purposes only. The individual in question essentially objected to Scott's use of a somewhat oversimplified mathematical model. He never attempted to explain how it had any significant effect on the overall results of Scott's model. I didn't find it to be a valid objection.

DM can't even touch the counter rotation observations of various galaxies, but a Birkeland current model explains that counter rotation pattern quite nicely, in fact it predicts it. FYI, Peratt's cosmology model also assumes that galaxies are "wired" together in large BC's as well. Scott simply shows how those Birkeland currents can be used to predict the rotation patterns of different types of galaxies, including counter rotation elements. That last issue alone makes Scott's Birkeland current model far superior to DM models and far superior to MOND models as well.

 

[Michael]

IMO it's well worth watching Dr. Scott present his Birkeland current model, and how the model applies specifically to counter rotation observations of planets and some galaxies. That counter rotation prediction is a *highly* specific and unique prediction of a Birkeland current model that isn't specifically predicted by dark matter or MOND theories. It's the perfect way to "test" the model, and we already know that the model does pass that counter rotation test. That really does make a Birkeland current explanation for galaxy rotation *far* superior to either other model, and it's also compatible with the standard model of particle physics, unlike the dark matter. It's no contest IMO.

When you add that evidence to the evidence of galaxy alignments along the filaments that stretch across a billion light years, and the evidence of massive currents in space, it's really not even a contest anymore.

The evidence that we live inside of an electric universe is overwhelming.

 

[SelfSim]

Ho hum ... straight back to your old deceptive ways again .....

... Thus far the only (mathematical) objection I've heard to Scott's model is the fact that his original Birkeland current paper *assumes* the presence of current (J cannot be 0) and *presumes* a non-changing E field (dE/dt is set to 0) for simplification purposes only. The individual in question essentially objected to Scott's use of a somewhat oversimplified mathematical model. He never attempted to explain how it had any significant effect on the overall results of Scott's model. I didn't find it to be a valid objection.

Re: above emboldened text - Is that so is it?
As already explained to you in post #17:

The correctness or otherwise of the papers doesn't even hinge on whether Scott has made a "logical assumption" or not.
As I have have already explained he made an algebraic substitution to the left hand side of equations (1) and (2) while ignoring the right hand side Bz(0) term.
This is a very basic maths error and the resultant equations (3) and (4) are nonsensical.
They cannot even pass as an empirical relationship because it contradicts the j=0 condition for force free fields.

The facts are Scott's maths is wrong, get over it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's certainly *not* a "coincidence". In fact they're specifically using the CMB data to *calculate/fix* the specific DM percentage as well as dark energy and baryonic percentages required to get a proper fit to the data sets of interest.

Well of course they're going to use the real CMB data to get the real DM percentage. But the CMB curve agrees with the LCDM with DM simulation predictions, and if that's not a coincidence (as you say), then it's clearly strong evidence for LCDM with DM. How the DM is distributed with respect to galaxies is details.

 

[Michael]

Well of course they're going to use the real CMB data to get the real DM percentage. But the CMB curve agrees with the LCDM with DM simulation predictions,and if that's not a coincidence (as you say), then it's clearly strong evidence for LCDM with DM. How the DM is distributed with respect to galaxies is details.

Real? Only observed photons at various wavelengths are "real". The rest is "interpretation".

The LCDM DM simulation predictions are *all* related to an assumption of a "bang". They don't come from completely different fields of research as you seem to imagine. The estimated figures also include more than 95 percent metaphysical "fudge factors" to achieve a fit to the data. If they don't work right the first time, they simply liberally add more of another metaphysical item, like "dark energy" which is exactly what they did as a result of SN1A data.

When they *actually try* to use two different sets of data to estimate something, like the rate of expansion from the CMB and from SN1A data, they don't produce the same numbers. In fact they end up with two different figures that are outside of the error ranges of each other.

Have Dark Forces Been Messing With the Cosmos?

Now they have no idea how to fix the problem yet. Maybe they will try turning dark energy into an increasing variable, and abandoning the whole concept of a cosmological "constant" (and GR), or they might try introducing a *new fudge factor* to deal with it. Who knows? What we do know is that different methods don't produce the same results.

 

[Michael]

FYI those LCDM DM computer simulations don't predict counter rotation patterns in galaxies. For that matter, neither does MOND theory. That counter rotation prediction of BC theory is a very unique and highly testable prediction from Birkeland current theory, and it passed that test. That's a big deal.

 

[Michael]

Oh, and there's lots of other problems with those LCDM DM computer models that you mentioned:

https://physicsworld.com/a/satellite-galaxies-of-centaurus-a-defy-dark-matter-model/

Most of the small satellite galaxies orbiting the large galaxy Centaurus A rotate in the same direction in a well-defined plane. This coordinated motion is contrary to predictions made by the cold dark matter (CDM) model of structure formation in the universe.

It's interesting to me that you would put so much stock in mainstream computer models when so many recent observations blow those models right out of the water.

Biggest Thing in Universe Found—Defies Scientific Theory

Mature Galaxies in Young Universe At Odds with Theory

Those computer models are literally falling apart at the seams. Virtually every new observation is at odds with such models.

 

[Michael]

By the way, there's one other key and unique prediction that Scott discusses in the longer video that's worth mentioning. He talks about elemental separation based on ionization potential, leaving iron in the inner rings/tubes and hydrogen in the outer rings. Such a separation process might be "interpreted" by the mainstream as "older" (more metal rich) stars being concentrated near the core, and 'younger' (more hydrogen rich) stars being concentrated in outer areas. Of course the current conditions might vary from galaxy to galaxy, but a few galaxies should probably show that pattern of mass/ionization potential separation too if Scott's model is correct.

 

[Michael]

If you watch Scott's 2017 EU conference presentation, at about the 20 minute mark he plays a video of Merrifield (mainstream expert on spectroscopy) explaining the counter rotation of NGC 4550.

The thing that I found really amusing is watching Merrrifield explain the fact that a galaxy collision wouldn't work to explain the counter rotation, it would destroy the disc structure of the galaxy entirely. His "solution" therefore was to use "hot gas" (plasma) coming down into the galaxy in a prearranged spiral pattern at the exact locations necessary to make that happen. In essence he was describing a Birkeland current that is flowing into the galaxy to feed the counter rotation. Very amusing IMO. It was also amusing watching an obvious expert on spectroscopy openly admit that finding counter rotation in galaxies is very difficult and challenging and candidly discuss how easy it would be to miss the evidence entirely. He then turns right around and dismissively claimed that they've only seen a handful so far, as though counter rotation patterns are unimportant, after just pointing out how easy they'd be to miss.

 

[Michael]

Ya know.....

The more I think about this galaxy counter rotation issue, the more I'm convinced that it's going to revolutionize astronomy. Neither MOND theory, or dark matter theory make any predictions about counter rotation. That's such a unique and highly specific prediction prediction of the Birkeland current model that it's hard to ignore or brush off. We even already have confirmation that such processes do occur in at least some galaxies, and we're still just getting started. Merrifield gave a great explanation about how easy they'd be to overlook right now, but at least we know what to look for with ever more sensitive equipment.

Scott's Birkeland current model already enjoys empirical support at the planetary scale, including the observation of complex counter rotation patterns on the pole of Jupiter. The Birkeland current model also enjoys support at the galactic scale in some galaxies already, and the rings are likely to be complex in terms of their structures in some instances, particularly in dense current flow scenarios. There should even be multiple rings at various radii in some instances.

It terms about making successful predictions of counter rotation features, MOND theory can't touch that. Dark matter theory can't touch that either.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Lol, none of that handwaving and distraction answers the question I asked of how EU models account for the striking similarity of the CMB anisotropy curve with LCDM + DM simulation predictions .

 

[Michael]

Lol, none of that handwaving and distraction answers the question I asked of how EU models account for the striking similarity of the CMB anisotropy curve with LCDM + DM simulation predictions .

I did explain it. They found exactly what they wanted to find in the CMB because they have been consistently postdicting a fit to their model, sometimes modifying it by 70 percent in a single modification (dark energy). They've gotten good at curve fitting things in their model. When 95+ percent of a model is based on metaphysics, it can be made to be "strikingly similar" to just about anything. Look at string theory. It can be modified to fit just about anything too.

You do realize that Eddington was a whole lot closer to the correct background temperature of space than early BB proponents, right? He calculated the correct temperature of space to within 1/2 of one degree of the actual number based on ordinary scattering/absorption of starlight in a static universe. Early big bang proponents were off by more than a whole order of magnitude. They've been consistently playing catch up, and modifying their model to fit a postdicted observation because the expansion model doesn't really have a lot of predictive usefulness, certainly not in the lab with respect to DM.

If you simply modify your model to make it fit, mostly by inserting metaphysical (untestable) claims into the model, you can make your model do anything.

The CMB is just another ordinary wavelength in EU/PC theory with a mostly stellar origin with a whole lot of scattering/absorption along the way. If you compare the raw CMB images, including the cold spots of the CMB, they trace to ordinary stellar/galaxy arrangements, or absence of stellar/galaxy arrangements. The first obvious stellar arrangements relate to our own home galaxy which are the most prominent features of any background image of the universe, including the microwave wavelengths.

I would account for their success at getting something close to a match by the fact they've been postdicting fits to known data sets for 80+ years.

The fallout however is that the BB model keeps being contradicted by laws of physics, massive quasars and mature galaxies in the early universe, and even tension between it's own internal calculations of expansion rates related to the CMB and those based on SN1A data. Even with 95 percent 'fudge factor', they've still got a 9 percent difference, and the difference between them is many times larger than the error bars of both methods

The bottom line however as it relates to galaxy rotation models is that neither the MOND model or the DM model make any "prediction' about counter rotation of galaxies. On the other hand, Birkeland current models make such predictions, and such predictions have already been verified. How do you explain that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I did explain it. They found exactly what they wanted to find in the CMB because they have been consistently postdicting a fit to their model, sometimes modifying it by 70 percent in a single modification (dark energy). They've gotten good at curve fitting things in their model. When 95+ percent of a model is based on metaphysics, it can be made to be "strikingly similar" to just about anything. Look at string theory. It can be modified to fit just about anything too.

You do realize that Eddington was a whole lot closer to the correct background temperature of space than early BB proponents, right? He calculated the correct temperature of space to within 1/2 of one degree of the actual number based on ordinary scattering/absorption of starlight in a static universe. Early big bang proponents were off by more than a whole order of magnitude. They've been consistently playing catch up, and modifying their model to fit a postdicted observation because the expansion model doesn't really have a lot of predictive usefulness, certainly not in the lab with respect to DM.

If you simply modify your model to make it fit, mostly by inserting metaphysical (untestable) claims into the model, you can make your model do anything.

The CMB is just another ordinary wavelength in EU/PC theory with a mostly stellar origin with a whole lot of scattering/absorption along the way. If you compare the raw CMB images, including the cold spots of the CMB, they trace to ordinary stellar/galaxy arrangements, or absence of stellar/galaxy arrangements. The first obvious stellar arrangements relate to our own home galaxy which are the most prominent features of any background image of the universe, including the microwave wavelengths.

I would account for their success at getting something close to a match by the fact they've been postdicting fits to known data sets for 80+ years.

The fallout however is that the BB model keeps being contradicted by laws of physics, massive quasars and mature galaxies in the early universe, and even tension between it's own internal calculations of expansion rates related to the CMB and those based on SN1A data. Even with 95 percent 'fudge factor', they've still got a 9 percent difference, and the difference between them is many times larger than the error bars of both methods

The bottom line however as it relates to galaxy rotation models is that neither the MOND model or the DM model make any "prediction' about counter rotation of galaxies. On the other hand, Birkeland current models make such predictions, and such predictions have already been verified. How do you explain that?

You're still avoiding the point - which wasn't about dark energy, galaxy rotations, or the temperature of space. The assertion that they've fudged the figures to fit isn't sustainable - the CMB data is in the public domain and the LCDM simulation model predates the CMB anisotropy observations.

 

[Michael]

You're still avoiding the point - which wasn't about dark energy, galaxy rotations,

The problem is that this thread *is* about galaxy rotation patterns and you won't deal with those patterns, particularly the counter rotation patterns.

or the temperature of space.

The CMB is all about the "temperature of space", which Eddington correctly estimated *without* a bang of any sort. The prediction of a CMB is therefore not unique to the LCDM model.

The assertion that they've fudged the figures to fit isn't sustainable -

Sure it is. The assertion that they didn't fudge the numbers isn't sustainable since more than 95 percent of the LCDM model is based upon metaphysical "fudge factors" which have no support from empirical physical experiments with actual control mechanisms. WMAP was preceded by COBE and the various numbers have been "fudged" from day one. Dark matter theory didn't start out as being *exclusively* related to exotic forms of matter, but to get a fit to the CMB data, it's been modified to be *exclusively* related to exotic matter. Look at the whole dark energy claim as well. It was a pure fudge factor designed to fit SN1A data because the old expansion model failed that test. The LCDM is has been postdicted from day one, and often the changes require metaphysical modifications.

the CMB data is in the public domain

True. The raw images are in the public domain and they make it very obvious that the original source of microwaves are suns (as is true of almost all wavelengths), just like the suns in our own galaxy which overwhelm the raw CMB images. Do you really expect me to believe that only our own galaxy contributes to the CMB?

and the LCDM simulation model predates the CMB anisotropy observations.

Not exactly. The simulation models are based upon all sorts of modifications that took place over the years. The original BB model predicted isotropic layouts of matter. Once the small variation were seen by COBE, the model was again modified to account for anisotropy. You act as though the BB model hasn't been modified continuously since it's creation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You also act like a model that is based upon 95 percent metaphysics can't be modified to fit just about anything.

The interesting prediction about the LCDM model is that it *does not* predict counter rotation in galaxies, whereas Birkeland current models do predict counter rotation in galaxies, and indeed we do see counter rotation in some galaxies. The other problem with the LCDM galaxy rotation model is the way it predicts the movement of satellite galaxies which are also at odds with actual observations.

Satellite Galaxies Live In A Single Plane, Defying Dark Matter Predictions

Moreover, while the naive expectation is that these dwarf galaxies will also exhibit random motions, what we observe shows significant evidence that these satellites live in a single plane, and are co-rotating with the main galaxy itself. This was found first for the Milky Way and Andromeda, and new research indicates this is true for Centaurus A as well, with 14 of the 16 discovered satellite galaxies appearing to co-rotate along with the central galaxy.

You're ignoring all of the failed predictions of the LCDM model and fixating on a single aspect of the LCDM model and trying to elevate it to a level of status that it simply doesn't deserve. Even when using 95 percent metaphysical fudge factors, the the LCDM model does not produce reliable predictions related to galaxy rotation patterns and satellite galaxy rotation patterns.

On the other hand, the Birkeland current model makes *very unique* predictions about galaxy rotation patterns, which all stem directly from Maxwell's equations, and which *do* produce useful and now confirmed predictions about galaxy rotation patterns.