[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

No. This is an expected feature of plasma cosmology. Those who have absorbed the PC literature are well aware of the intergalactic nature of these fields, as described by Alfven, Peratt.

To my knowledge, (which may be incomplete), there is no evidence of such fields. A quote from the paper …

Intergalactic magnetic fields (IGMF) had not been measured until now, despite their importance for gamma-ray and cosmic-ray astronomy and their likely connection to the primordial fields that could have seeded the stronger magnetic fields observed in galaxies, Sun, and Earth. This is because IGMF are too small for conventional astronomical probes, such as Zeeman splitting or Faraday rotation.

Unlike the fields in galaxies, which are believed to have been amplified by the dynamo action of the large-scale convective motions of gas, the fields in voids remain low, close to their primordial values modified only by the relatively small contribution of the fields leaking out of galaxies (Kronberg 1994; Grasso & Rubinstein 2001; Widrow 2002; Kulsrud & Zweibel 2008).

The observational and theoretical upper bounds on IGMF constrain their magnitudes to be below 10∧−9 G (Barrow, Ferreira & Silk 1997), whereas any value above ∼10∧−30 G is sufficient to explain the ∼ μG Galactic magnetic fields generation by the dynamo mechanism (Davis, Lilley & T ̈ornkvist 1999).

One can detect such extremely weak fields using high-energy gamma rays (Aharonian, Coppi & Volk 1994; Plaga 1995).

What may also challenge a mainstream "gas" model is that the galaxies align their rotation and essentially form knots on Intergalactic birkeland currents. This can be found from the anisotrophy link you mentioned. The galactic rotation anisotropies are expected features of this model. Again this is well know to PCers and the majority of the audience at TB.

Once again, if there is no evidence of Intergalactic birkeland currents, then presumably, there will be no knots and hence no basis for assumptions on the cause of axis alignment ?

Again Alfven and Peratt have described their models. The "cause and effect" mixup is that with the PC hypothesis, galaxies are fed current from outside and are not "powered by" the hypothesised black hole.

Mainstream, it appears, still hasn't concluded cause and effect. Interaction, it seems. But once again .. external magnetic fields in the orders of nanoTeslas is the closest I've seen to what PC/EU guys are talking about …

Notably this behaviour can be both computer modeled, and experimented with in the lab. You have no doubt seen the image of a z-pinch i posted.

Once again, where is the evidence of these in Intergalactic space ? Eg: where are the measurements of intergalactic synchrotron radiation ? What are the magnitudes of these measurements ?

No game play, the models and cause and effect are clearly different.
1) Gravity dominated galaxy formation models have do not make predictions of galaxy alignment
2) PC it is a clear lab demonstrated feature

But no evidence of Intergalactic currents of strengths greater than nanoTesla magnitudes ?

nice pictures

Yep. That's all, though.

The audience at TB is well aware of the PC models and so would understand many of these existing dichotomies, i accept IIS-ers may not be, thus causing some uncomfort to you and those who are only familiar with neutral "gas" style models.

The issue isn't discomfort. The concern is that so many believe in that which seems to have no measured foundations in space. And then a concern about those who keep re-assuring these folk that there is.

The two models are different, and testable predictions exist between them. These observations come as no "surprise" to the existing bank of PC literature.

One of these models has no evidence at its foundations, in intergalactic space .. and its not the mainstream model.

Why don't Perratt, Alven et al sort all this out and publish in mainstream AstroPhysics publications ? Even if they get knocked back, they could publish the reasons for the knockbacks and at least gain some sympathy and hence, some respect for at least having had a go at it ! .. You know … like you … for venturing forth into this realm, yet again !

Cheers