I'd like to open with the self confessed "Crises in Cosmology" as put forward by consensus based on the standard model:

IN BRIEF

Astronomers have repeatedly calculated the rate of the universe’s expansion—the Hubble constant—with two different techniques. These measurements have produced a seemingly intractable conflict.
One method, which involves measuring supernovae and stars in the relatively recent universe, arrives at one value. The other strategy, which uses light left over from shortly after the big bang, finds another.
Experimental problems could cause the discrepancy, but no one is sure what those problems would be. Another possibility is that the conflict points to undiscovered phenomena — “new physics.”
End

Now I don't know about you, but I do not consider "new physics" any kind resolution, especially when considering that every explaination put forward by ^CDM thinking ultimately requires new physics to bail them out of the intractable logical conflicts.

But who bails the taxpayers out of being conned by "conflict of interests'?

Nevertheless ....

Back to the need to invent new physics with the launch of each new telescope. Why? Basically it's a collapse of predictive success of a standard model which MUST FIND SOMETHING. Something lined up with increasingly bonkers theoretical physics is not easy to find, especially when it's predicted by a mainstream to get them out of short term poo.That's much like economist's do when repeatedly suggesting a cut in interest rates to an alarmingly persistent structural debt/liquidity problem, and their attitude is just to let the next administration deal with the fall out.

What other options exist when the main bureaucrats, er, I mean scientists have spent obscene amounts over decades chasing the ghosts conjured by theoretical physics. When old ideas face death the model cas still be saved by: NEW PHYSICS!

How one bad assumption lead here.

I'd like to go back to where I think a part that fundamental flaw began corrupting their model, and like all posts in this series of which this is part 6, it emerges with an assumption.

When it was discovered that there was not nearly enough matter to hold together a galaxy without having stars fly out into the abyss, or that the galactic rotation curve revealed a mismatch in the expected rate of rotation of outer stars with the estimated gravity of galactic matter, we developed the seeds of another crises, similar to the dark energy inflation rate I opened with, but this time specifically around galactic rotation, where we invoked another dark unicorn, this one of course being dark matter.

You can get a gut feel for the nature of the problem when you look at the universes size and scale comparisons and discover that when a star like our sun is reduced to scale at the size of a grain of sand, the next star would be located well over two miles away. Now think about it. You don't need to do any calculations to realise that with gravity dropping off at the inverse square over distance, we are running into problems. Not just problems, we are not even in the ballpark.

Another explanation that better fit the data wasn't even considered. That was either too much of a threat to the established model, or another scientifically reckless assumption was made.

Instead of the logical question being asked:

"Is it in fact gravity that is driving this?"

A foolish path was set upon rather that does not even necessarily follow on logically in the way we understand reasoning. The conclusion was made in the beginning instead of following as a conclusion from all the evidence and observations. They started with the assumption it must be gravity so when the matter was found lacking, their unscientific assumptions meant that they were never doing science, and were locked in and doomed to begin an 85 year long fruitless quest for the mysterious invisible matter that must by their reasoning be there exerting its magical influence though the one tool in their tool box, namely gravity.

Now obviously this shy and elusive matter (which supposedly makes up the overwhelming MAJORITY of matter) still to this day remains invisible and utterly imperceptible to any mortal and all manner of science and particle detection.

I have already dealt with that fruitless search, what the history was, how we got into this mess (and more) for "Dark Matter". It was actually to become the first in my very first "Assumptions in science" post nearly 2 years ago, and started a whole new area of interest and focus for this site. But that was a while back. I feel the need to expand upon what is accounting for these "missing" forces and further scrutinise the reasoning behind them. I am even going to cite a few of the plentiful discoveries in the mainstream which refuse to accept it for primarily political reasons. I also hope to demonstrate that despite this refusal, they are unwittingly serving as an ironic partner in proving it.

Let me explain what I mean and also why the sources you encounter through links on this particular post, number 6 in the serious of which at least ten are planned, are mostly from consensus science dogmatic publications.

All the peer reviewed papers I use in my sources page in Cosmology and Astrophysics are in spite of, not as a result of the peer review process. By definition the peer review process set up to defend an establishment by giving favour and recognition to defenders and channelling scorn to its detractors. Nobody can seriously put forward that such a statement is without a ring of truth in their mind. If they do they most likely have a peer reviewed paper supporting the notion that a trace gas making up 0.0391% of the atmosphere drives climate rather than the sun and the global electric circuit together...

But on a more prosaic level I want to use this post to show how simple the solution would have been had they not started with the conclusion and allowed a scientifically rigorous endeavor to lead them to the truth.

In fact there were those who did follow such a path, but their findings were brushed aside by the defenders of the standard model of astrophysics , the LAMBDA-CDM model, and their careers suffered as a result. Now the establishment itself has been lead so far astray that even the findings of its own scientific publications which are proving those early pioneers correct, is not being understood or vindicating the work of those earlier mavericks.

PLASMA

Plasma is known as the fourth state of matter (solids, liquids and gasses being the first three) although in truth it should be known as the first since plasma actually makes up over 99% of matter in the universe. The influence of gravity as a very weak force compared to the electromagnetic force is well established (electromagnetism - the force we know best and the reason you don't pass directly through your chair when you sit down on it - is 10 to the 36th power stronger than Gravity. That means that it is a whopping

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger!

This fact has been well integrated into plasma physics, or more so with Plasma Cosmology.

Plasma cosmologists understand that magnetism is everywhere in space, and that only electric currents cause magnetic fields, even in the case of remnant magnetism in bar magnets, they originally need an electric current to form. Plasma only needs to be 1% ionized to conduct. It is not a perfect conductor but it's certainly an excellent conductor. Ionized plasma has the charged particles, the protons and electrons, separated from the atomic structure to some degree to facilitate the movement of charge (electric current). This ionized plasma in the form of Birkeland Current provides the facilitation of these currents over vast distances and even when they may be extremely weak in any one concentrated place. Once this happens then self contained plasma magnetic entities form (Plasmoids) and plasma self organising double layer's. Nobody disputes this, but not everyone assimilates it and applies it to astronomy. This is is due to the previous dispute that electric currents can flow through space, which is settled now and it can, so the implications of Birkeland Currents must now be reevaluated. Their influence over galactic scales is powerful compared to the weak force of gravity.

In fact we we even have evidence now that the electron count flowing in that plasma massively increases at the end of the solar system thanks to the voyager spacecraft.

As mentioned, stars are like grains of sand separated by kilometers of space. At galactic scales there is not even close to enough gravity for them to influence each other, especially with the inertia at cosmic speeds.

Gravity is an inverse square law thing, let's call it a force because that's what it is - so the strength of gravity depends on the SQUARE of range between two objects. If you double your distance from the center of the Earth - the force of gravity drops by a factor of two-squared… four times less strong. If you triple your distance, gravity drops by three squared… or nine times less strong.

This kind of law is very common in physics - it applies to the way light gets dimmer (an EM wave) the rate magnetism drops off, coulombs law and electrostatics and gravity.

Scrutiny of the reasoning behind Dark Matter.

1) Scientists in Spain published a study in 2010, titled "M31's Odd Rotation Curve, which is still referenced by Universe Today's website.

https://www.universetoday.com/75164/m31s-odd-rotation-curve/

Also note "Magnetic Fields and the Outer Rotation Curve of 31" inthe Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The conclusion was the galactic magnetic field explains the rotation curve. The paper implies they changed the model to use a specific value from M31 for their confirmation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47278178_Magnetic_fields_and_the_outer_rotation_curve_of_M31

The galactic magnetic field would cause a relatively flat curve in the disk, as observed.

Prior to this, M31 was expected to have its billions of stars follow orbits like our 8 planets around 1 star, our Sun.

That assumption was unjustified to say the least. A complex disk having multiple spiral arms is nothing like our solar system and the dynamics involved would obviously be very different.

Recent discoveries of galaxies "without dark matter" drive this point home. It cannot be understated how straightforward this problem is. Those galaxies are ROUND!

That being said, the failure of accretion models has caused recent attention on magnetic fields even for planet formation at solar system scales. But no mention of the charge movement needed to form them.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/simulation-reveals-how-magnetism-helps-form-planets-20210607/

A simple NASA experiment in the microgravity of the ISS demonstrates that the electric force plays a role even in simple orbital systems. Electrodynamics at galactic scales may mean gravity plays absolutely ZERO role in rotation.

1) A second solution using magnetic fields and a mathematical model.

The galactic rotation curve problem has at this point quite possibly been solved. Let's include the paper by Professor Donald Scott from the United States.

In outer space, the harsh radiation that is everywhere is known to ionizing. We cannot understand "gas" in space by gas laws or thinking in terms of noble gasses like here on earth. Plasma is self contained by its own magnetic fields, like with fusion research plasmas in a Tokomac or a Plasma Focus device, or a plasmoid (Plasma Magnetic entity).

In Scotts paper, the relative velocity of stars can be calculated given any two out of three variables and its been impressively tested on 100 years of archived data. The results are impressive. This is by using his mathematical model of a Birkeland Current.

(There is a video on it for those who prefer)

2) Another alternative to dark matter was found in 2015. An important conclusion after a study of IC342, a large obscured, nearby spiral galaxy: Excerpt from the study from Max-Planck Institute titled: "Twisted magnetic field in galaxy IC 342"

"Spiral arms can hardly be formed by gravitational forces alone",

continues Rainer Beck. "This new IC 342 image indicates that magnetic fields also play an important role in forming spiral arms."

There is of course only one possible way of producing magnetic fields outside of the remnant magnetism of solid iron, and that is obviously the movement of charged particles or what we would call current.

Elsewhere they refer to the currents known to flow through ionised plasma (which we have a decades long name for, Birkeland Current) as "magnetised gas". Other euphemisms used are such terms as " Radio Bridge" or "River of charged hydrogenation" or even "magnetic ropes". But why would serious professionals in any field of science choose to sound like bumbling oafs rather than use proper terms? I can think of two reasons. Either they they do not know the term, or a second, more terrifying prospect presents itself. They cannot admit the plasma cosmologists are right. If they did what would be next? The Electric Universe? The Thunderbolt's Project? Halton ARP was right? And Hannes Alfven?

Magnetized gas flows feed a young star cluster

by Max Planck Society

https://phys.org/news/2020-08-magnetized-gas-young-star-cluster.html

3) Zwicky used invalid galaxy velocities. All galaxies have their velocity measured by atoms in the line of sight. That can never be the galaxy's velocity. For example, M31 has a blue shift because there are calcium ions in the line of sight and their absorption line blue shift comes from the ions, not M31, moving toward Earth. Dark Matter is the excuse for wrong galactic rotation rates and Dark energy is the excuse for wrong Galactic velocities.

Now Dark matter is also the excuse for the mistake when atoms in

motion are assumed to be the galaxy's motion.

4) Filaments are explained as caused by dark matter. This ignores an important, well established behavior of ionised plasma in motion, where the magnetic field being generated maintains the filament. That well established behavior of filaments is why plasma has its name. It's also the basis of Birkeland Currents which are likely not much different in the Aurora of the earth, the galactic spiral arms or the cosmic web itself.

There is no "Dark Matter" There is only the unobserved magnetic field, likely present in all galaxies just like it is in M31.

Focus on nonexistent Dark matter may even be the reason for any missed magnetic field, or the missed importance of its implications.

5) The right or wrong number of satellite galaxies is based on unfounded assumptions, not dark matter, which is explicitly in the name of the cosmological model to freely excuse what is not yet understood.

6) Gravity doesnt form strings.As you probably know, dark matter is the sign they are stuck using gravity to explain the prevalence of magnetic fields, and also the spinning, twisting filament's needed at all scales accordingl to plasma cosmology.

Citation: Journal reference: Nature Astronomy, DOI: 10.1038/s41550-021-01380-6

Along with their associated magnetics fields, mainstream is begining to get to grips with the self contained plasma magnetic entities that form Birkeland currents in space via ionised plasma.

History

Winston Bostick 1956

Bostick caused a media storm in the 50's

Bostick was able to perfectly replicate the shape of spiral and other galaxies using the electrodynamics of ionised plasma and this was done scaled in lab conditions completely without any gravitational attraction needed at all.

Over the next thirty years, Bostick, a Professor of Physics at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey, investigated plasmoids further and found that "not only the morphology [shape] but the controlling dynamic elements, electric and magnetic fields, are the same in the laboratory as in the galactic phenomena".

Bostick's theory describes galaxies as analogous to series-wound homopolar generators (a kind of motor) that convert gravitational energy of rotation into increasing magnetic energy that causes galaxies to expand away from each other. Furthermore, Bostick suggested that such a model could produce a concentration of current perpendicular to the galactic disk that would be a cosmic-sized "plasma focus" – a device that produces high energy, relativistic (near the speed of light) particle beams, or jets.

Winston H. Bostick was born in 1916, and died January 19, 1991, at age 74.

More on Bosticks plasmoids:

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080124bostick.htm

Antony Peratt

Anthony Peratt also did some interesting plasma experiments and computer models in a simelar vain.

He worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory between 1972 and 1979, during which time he held the position of a Guest Physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics at Garching, near Munich, from 1975 to 1977. From 1981 to the present he has worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, serving in the Applied Theoretical Physics Division.

Peratt has two very relevant papers on the topic:

Here and here.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1970/alfven/speech/

Hannes Alven.

Alven was Noble Prize winner who was the first to come up with a workable model for the galactic circuit that allowed for the flow of charge (current) along strings of ionised plasma in a collapsing plasma cloud. The charge flowed along the spiral arms to a central plasmoid where it would be discharged just like a plasmoid does in a lab when scaled down and ejected outwards from the poles at the centre of the circuit where it would also create redshifted baby galaxies, or quasars which eventually become regular shifted accompanying galaxies.

Above is a 60 second overview of Alvens galactic circuit.

Above: The Ionised plasma filaments in space are self contained naturally twisting plasma magnetic entities.

Above: A two minute quick look at a lab scale plasmoid.

Please have a look at this post to read more about the plasmoid working with electrodynamic forces at the galactic centre, which completes the circuit, and not an isolated, gravity based black hole which just so happens to find itself there:

Updating the plasma cosmology galactic models.

Why is an establishment that refuses to acknowledge electrodynamics in space proving the Plasma Cosmologists right?

Because they do it without knowing it.

All of the below links are from traditionally more establishment ^-CDM friendly publications. These publications have a record of reception of the most outlandish dark matter, unicorns and fairies, wormhole, spacetime folding pixies dust science with no sign of the scepticism it so desperately begs for.

However, they will be sure to make light and pour scorn on proven physics grounded in Faraday's work and Maxwell's equations.

If you are wondering why so many real science stories are slipping through, it's not by a conscious shift in policy or mandate. To be perfectly frank they don't even necessarily know they are providing evidence for plasma cosmology because they don't understand plasma cosmology. So like children they claim plasma cosmology is "debunked" like good dogs barking for their biscuit, then immediately set about proving plasma cosmology correct!

1) The impossible case of all galaxies rotating at the same speed. Impossible if random gravity is driving rotation, but not if galaxies are all the electric motors from the same Birkeland current in the cosmic web!

Mainstream unknowingly corroborate Plasma Cosmology all the time:

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/03/all-galaxies-rotate-once-every-billion-years?fbclid=IwAR0ivbfdG4cZgoKksGaWfaBXVxznWX7dv_3_WgS2fPoFq-E8qmQMHdCyUgg

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmj7pw/theres-growing-evidence-that-the-universe-is-connected-by-giant-structures

https://futurism.com/the-byte/something-strange-synchronizing-distant-galaxies

2) Synchronized rotation? It may seem that "something strange and unseen" is causing all galaxies to not only rotate at the same speed as the above illustrated, if you subscribe to the gravity rotation model, but also in perfect synch. If you follow the electrodynamic models you will see this is explicitly predicted.

https://www.sciencealert.com/something-strange-is-causing-distant-galaxies-to-synchronise?fbclid=IwAR1y_aeZ0stfsN46Or9jAS79vo7M6UYCXO3fE51zdR3qmQFOvl6WPl3Tjw4

3) Acknowledging finally that stars are not formed in collapsing gravitational clouds, but instead along birkeland currents. Gravity does not form strings!

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Herschel/Herschel_views_deep-space_pearls_on_a_cosmic_string?fbclid=IwAR2HjmDiM-XLc3qeheDvkW8Cog4fPgBiUerxQ4G7Qi5k-0lYgJe8tOGSdEc