We almost certainly live in a static universe.

[SelfSim]

I don't doubt the existence of cosmological redshift, I just assume it's related to tired light/inelastic scattering because there are numerous types of scattering that are *known and demonstrated* to have a tangible effect on photon momentum in the lab, and there are *hypothetical* ones being introduced on a regular basis, including the one which I cited in the OP of this very thread!



[QUOTE="Michael]

Once again you are employing word salad by suggesting EM fields playing a role in shaping a cosmological model.

Once again you are ignoring the definition of the term "Electric Universe" theory!

Then the definition is word salad too or, at best, the basis of an elaborate science fiction story.

It's totally ludicrous to ignore the massive Birkeland currents that wire the universe together too, but you do it anyway.

EU 'theorists', like Donald Scott, don't even understand what a Birkeland current is in the first place, (as was effectively demonstrated in his paper on Birkeland current fields), so why not ignore the whole concept?

The only individuals that I have ever gone out of my way to "personally attack" as you put it are two (potentially three) specific individuals who have a *proven track record* of making *willfully* false claims about EU/PC theory and or me personally.

Am I one of those individuals because I see my name turning up at TBolts all the time, (courtesy of you)?!

Then apparently he is able to take up his concerns here if he feels compelled to do so.

Done!

 

[lesliedellow]

Birkeland predicted the existence of that plasma, including the direction it's travel, and the existence of the high speed strahl. What do you say about that?

I say plasmas have been known about since 1879, when they were discovered by one William Crookes.

It's plasma traveling through space, with a high speed "strahl" which carries the overall current.

Plasma is just another name for an ionised gas, and there is no current until the solar wind hits the Earth's magnetic field.

You will if you get struck by lightning!

The net transfer of charge (which is the electric current) is caused by the presence of an electric field strong enough to temporariy strip electrons from the nucleus of atoms.

I'm not opposed to non-zero EM fields being added to a GR formula because EM fields can be shown to have a direct physical effect on plasma

Now all you have got to do is explain how those electro magnetic fields, or more accurately, electric fields, are generated and maintained. The magnetic component only arises once an electric field has got the current flowing. Not that such minor details have ever been known to bother EUers.

 

[Michael]

Then the definition is word salad too or, at best, the basis of an elaborate science fiction story.

The term certainly means many things to many different individuals, but the variety in definitions within the EU/PC community tends to merge at the level of cosmology theory. They all stem from Alfven's basic cosmology models, and his application of circuit theory to events in spacetime.

EU 'theorists', like Donald Scott, don't even understand what a Birkeland current is in the first place, (as was effectively demonstrated in his paper on Birkeland current fields), so why not ignore the whole concept?

From a conceptual standpoint, I believe that Dr. Scott would have been better served by naming his model the "Scott current" model of current carrying filaments in plasma rather than trying to give credit where he felt it was due in terms of Kristian Birkeland. Then again, Scott's model of current threads is a purely empirical model of current flows and it can be tested in the lab and should be tested in the lab, as is the case with *all* EU/PC beliefs.

Am I one of those individuals because I see my name turning up at TBolts all the time, (courtesy of you)?!

Not to my knowledge. Can you cite a post from Thunderbolts (or anywhere else) which you believe was a "personal attack" in any way?

We may disagree on concepts, but I don't really have a problem with you personally, or your debate style for the most part. In fact I've enjoyed most of our conversations even if I didn't agree with you, which I assume is right around 100 percent of the time.

Done!

I'll be happy to discuss any post on any forum which you believe was a personal attack leveled at you or your handle. You'll have to cite a specific post and paragraph/sentence if you believe that I've been unfair to you personally in any way.

 

[Michael]

I say plasmas have been known about since 1879, when they were discovered by one .

Ya, using (drum roll please) electric fields and electrical current to create plasma. Suddenly you get into space however and you *assume* it works differently in space than here on Earth.

Plasma is just another name for an ionised gas,

True, but it has very different properties than a gas or a liquid or a solid with respect to EM fields. Adding an EM component into a GR formula is therefore acceptable, logical and probably *necessary* at some points. It's hard to explain solar wind based on nothing but gravity.

and there is no current until the solar wind hits the Earth's magnetic field.

That's just an opinion you hold which happens to be *false* in Birkeland's model, and in space as demonstrated by the existence of Strahl electrons traveling at much higher speeds than solar wind.

The net transfer of charge (which is the electric current) is caused by the presence of an electric field strong enough to temporariy strip electrons from the nucleus of atoms.

And that's exactly what happens in the solar corona, and coronal loops.

Now all you have got to do is explain how those electro magnetic fields, or more accurately, electric fields, are generated and maintained.

I don't really have a serious problem with the mainstream explanations as to how they are created in the sun. I'd say it all starts and ends with fusion.

The magnetic component only arises once an electric field has got the current flowing. Not that such minor details have ever been known to bother EUers.

You have that backwards. The EU community is well aware of the fact the mainstream leaves out the electric fields and currents in space when they describe Birkeland currents as "magnetic slinkys" and "Steve", and they describe million degree plasma as "hot gas".

 

[morse86]

How many of you here have independently confirmed and verified the results of this experiment??

How many of you are believing purely by faith????

What rubbish.

 

[lesliedellow]

Ya, using (drum roll please) electric fields and electrical current to create plasma. Suddenly you get into space however and you *assume* it works differently in space than here on Earth.

In the "lab" electric fields can be produced artificially. Now all you have got to do is how they arise in space.

That's just an opinion you hold which happens to be *false* in Birkeland's model, and in space as demonstrated by the existence of Strahl electrons traveling at much higher speeds than solar wind.

Strahl electrons are only part of in the high speed component of the solar wind.

I don't really have a serious problem with the mainstream explanations as to how they are created in the sun. I'd say it all starts and ends with fusion.

Electric fields in the Sun are of no relevance to currents which are supposed to flow outside of the Sun.

You have that backwards. The EU community is well aware of the fact the mainstream leaves out the electric fields and currents in space when they describe Birkeland currents as "magnetic slinkys" and "Steve", and they describe million degree plasma as "hot gas".

Hot air. I ask again, how are the electric fields in interstellar space supposed to be created and maintained?

 

[sjastro]

You have a really bad habit of walking into the middle of a conversation, without bothering to read it, and then making a bunch of assertions about my position that are simply not true. You also have a bad habit of attacking *people* rather than sticking to the topic. The only "deception" going on here is your assertion that I suggested that *only* motion was involved in keeping the universe "static", or that *no* external influences would be required. In fact I even pointed out that Birkeland's cathode sun theory probably would produce charge repulsion between stars.

FYI, what I was pointing out to Leslie is that it wouldn't take a *huge* amount of external force to keep objects in motion, or to produce a static universe because superclusters are also in motion in EU/PC theory. Period.



Yawn. More personal attacks. Do you even know what a legitimate scientific conversation looks like without all the personal insults? Static universe theory predates me, and it will be around long after I'm dead too.



Horsepucky. Even the mainstream *assumes* that galaxies are moving around inside of a supercluster arrangement of galaxies which orbit around a common center of mass for the supercluster. They may not treat *superclusters* as moving objects, but they certainly treat galaxies as moving objects.

NOVA Online | Runaway Universe | Galaxies, Clusters, and Superclusters



Whatever the "net effect" of that Doppler shift might be at cosmological scales, it's *tiny* compared to the net effect of the 'space expansion" claims about redshift.



It's blindingly obvious that *every* galaxy is in orbit around some center of mass somewhere. The Doppler shift associated with that movement simply isn't worried about at cosmological scales because it's insignificant compared to the tired light/space expansion/cosmological redshift factor.

I don't think you even understand *mainstream* theory properly! Oy Vey. To save us both some time, I'm just going to skip the redundant and irrelevant nonsense.



So which is it? Do galaxies orbit a center of mass and have a Doppler shift component or not?!? You can't even make up your mind, and you're certainly contradicting yourself.



There you go again, blatantly cheating in debate by playing the liar, liar, pants on fire game. Sheesh. The only straight out lie is your claim that galaxies are not in motion. Even the fact that we believe that our galaxy will eventually merge with Andromeda is evidence that galaxies move, and they have a Doppler shift component in their redshift/blueshift.

About (and not necessarily) the only things in LCDM that don't have an intrinsic Doppler shift/physical movement component associated with them are distant *superclusters*. Those tend to be treated as "GR islands" unto themselves, and any redshift associated with them is attributed to "space expansion" rather than movement of objects, but only because the cosmological redshift component is much more significant than any movements associated with such distant galaxies.

Either you don't understand mainstream theory properly, or you didn't explain it properly.



No. Let me remind you that the electrical component is *intrinsic* to EU/PC theory, and your whining is a result of you stepping into the middle of an ongoing conversation I've had with Leslie over the *amount* of the electrical component, not *if* it's applicable in EU/PC theory! Sheesh.



It might, particularly if a "theory of everything" can be shown to exist which ties gravity back to EM fields. It might still have an effect, albeit a *tiny* effect compared to gravity. For the sake of my conversation with Leslie however I *assumed* that only gravity and momentum were involved, and that *no* EM influences were necessary to explain events in planetary orbits, or even galaxy orbits inside their superclusters.



Funny how I used that to my advantage in my conversation with Leslie too.



What!?!?! Holy Cow. You really do cheat at debate every single time. You can't stick to the topic and you're always attacking my character. Knock it off.

You created your own strawman and then you called me a "liar" with it. That's just pitiful.



You apparently just are not paying attention to the prior conversations I've been having with Leslie. Unlike you, Leslie seems to be fine with galaxy movement and momentum holding superclusters together and the only debate we're really having is about supercluster movements. That's the only thing in debate between Leslie and myself, even if you personally have some problem with galaxy movements and momentum. I'm going to assume that even you actually accept that galaxies rotate around a center of mass that is associated with the supercluster, and you just oversimplified the explanation somewhere along the way.



More loaded language aimed at the individual. How sad for you.



No, that's just a false statement about my beliefs, and you apparently should keep your day job because you stink at mind reading. The only place where processes in a lab trump *supernatural claims* as to *cause*, is when one cause/effect process in the lab can be demonstrated in the lab, whereas the supernatural claim is a dud in the lab.

I don't doubt the existence of cosmological redshift, I just assume it's related to tired light/inelastic scattering because there are numerous types of scattering that are *known and demonstrated* to have a tangible effect on photon momentum in the lab, and there are *hypothetical* ones being introduced on a regular basis, including the one which I cited in the OP of this very thread!



In an ideal scenario, they both have equal value in terms of "science", but the working solar model also allowed Birkeland to make a *host of different* predictions which a simple measurement might not. For instance, with his "working lab model", in addition to his predictions about planetary aurora, Birkeland correctly predicted a *hot corona*, electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, polar jets, cathode rays/electron beams coming from the sun, both types of charged particles coming from the sun in high speed solar wind, etc. A simple in situ measurement of the Earth's aurora wouldn't necessarily allow for someone to make all those other successful predictions about solar physics. From the standpoint of making *predictions*, the working model is *way better* than a simple in situ measurement.



Electrons streaming away from the surface are what heat up the overall corona. Individuals coronal loops might be described as "Birkeland currents/magnetic ropes", and the current inside those loops heats them up to *millions* of degrees.



The only thing that is "sheer stupidity" is your assertion that there is no evidence of field aligned currents in the solar atmosphere. Every single coronal loop contains *massive* amounts of current which heat up the loops to *millions* of degrees! How can you miss all that "evidence" that's staring you in face in every SDO high energy image of the sun?

FYI, Birkeland *predicted* and even *simulated* the existence of coronal loops in the solar atmosphere as a result of his experiments.



Once again you are ignoring the definition of the term "Electric Universe" theory!



The Debye length argument is one of those BS EU/PC hater claims. What's the Debye length of a cathode ray from Birkeland's cathode sun experiment going to be when you scale it up to solar system proportions? That is simply the lamest argument in the solar system.



Is that a mainstream *estimated* number or something which they actually measured in space somewhere? Let me guess.......



It's totally ludicrous to ignore the massive Birkeland currents that wire the universe together too, but you do it anyway. Even the mainstream acknowledges (based on observation) that the universe is "threaded" and has massive "dark matter' threads where galaxies and superclusters seem to be concentrated. Those are simply Birkeland currents, and the currents running through them should not be ignored as the mainstream does.



You're the one being "dishonest" in this thread by continuing to attack the *messenger* rather than the message itself. That's the "dishonest" behavior in this thread. Look yourself in the mirror if you wish to get rid of "dishonesty" in this conversation.

Right or wrong, all EU/PC ideas work in the lab, and I believe in them, even if their wrong. Being proven to be wrong doesn't even make me "dishonest", it would just make me wrong.

Stop interjecting personal attacks into a discussion about *science*. It's unethical behavior on your part.



The only individuals that I have ever gone out of my way to "personally attack" as you put it are two (potentially three) specific individuals who have a *proven track record* of making *willfully* false claims about EU/PC theory and or me personally. I've simply pointed out their direct lies too. Whatever goes on at Thunderbolts in terms of personal attacks *pales* in comparison to the BS that comes out of EU/PC hater's mouths at ISF on a daily basis.

If you'd like me to come back to ISF and tell him the same thing to his face, just petition for my reinstatement and I'll be happy to point out his false statement on ISF too.



Then apparently he is able to take up his concerns here if he feels compelled to do so.



Which blog entry might that be? How did I "edit it"? I cut up everyone's posts into manageable units, typically based on a specific idea or paragraph content just to respond on a point by point basis. I'm not trying to be unethical in that case, I'm just trying to respond thoroughly to each argument that is being made.



Without any specific example to work with, I have no way to know that in your case. You'll have to be more specific about what you think I "edited" and how that was "unethical' in some way.



What does that conversation have to do with 'Christianity'?

I have a *much* better idea. I have more than enough courage to come back over to the lion's den at ISF where all the trash talking about EU/PC theory is taking place on a daily basis, and I will be very happy to repeat whatever I may have said at Thunderbots right to his face if you get me reinstated. Then we can take the gloves off for real and deal with the problem right where it starts. You can all engage in your personal attack nonsense too because the forum is skewed in your favor.

Whatever I may have stated about anyone at Thunderbolts has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of "Christianity". I have also made personal agreements with the moderators at this forum which I must abide by, and which I have agreed to abide by, so I seriously doubt that this specific forum would be the proper forum for that particular conversation.

Go petition to get me reinstated at ISF and I promise to repeat anything that I may have said at Thunderbolts right to the individual's face and we can air all the dirty laundry in the offending forum.

I'd be willing to petition for the reinstatement of that same individual at Thunderbolts too, but I have no control over the choices of the moderators at Thunderbolts, and he will probably have to behave much better at Thunderbolts. You'd have a home field advantage at ISF.

Point No(1)

It’s a sad state of affairs Michael you have to drag a third party into the discussion.
I came into this thread in post no. 32.
Show me in any of your discussions with Leslie prior to post #32 that EM was used as an explanation for the prevention of gravitational collapse.
You changed the goalposts as a response to my post #32.
I rest my case.
End of argument

Point No(2)

I see you are up to your old tricks again of taking me out of context by suggesting I think galaxies in clusters do not undergo rotation.
I thought I made it clear to you in my very first post in this thread, galaxies in clusters do not follow the non chaotic, near concentric planetary orbits in our solar system that you seem to think.
That is not the same as suggesting galaxies do not undergo rotation, they could be in open parabolic or hyperbolic orbits.
Likewise I made it clear that galaxies on a cosmological scale do not undergo rotation.
In this case the cosmological scale is for distances greater than 100 Mpc where the Universe becomes homogenous and isotropic which incidentally is a very strong case against a Static universe.
If you thank that all galaxies must orbit around a common centre then show me the peer reviewed discovery paper of a galaxy at a distance greater than 100 Mpc that does so.
I rest my case.

Similarly for Birkeland currents, since you are so absolutely certain of their existence in the interplanetary medium and heat up the Sun’s corona show me the peer reviewed discovery paper.
I rest my case.
End of argument.

Point No.(3)

On the subject of personal attacks, your dishonesty and general confusion is based on the contents of your posts.
You may have noticed I gave specific examples for each case, if I didn’t it would constitute a personal attack.
The problem I have on occasions is whether you are lying or just hopelessly confused, the truth is probably somewhere in between.
One only needs to look at your shining examples on that other forum of what does constitute a real personal attack.
As far as your Bonobo ape chest thumping defiance of wanting petitions for reinstatement at ISF you are not fooling anyone.
If you posted the same gutter level personal attacks here you would have another issue with the moderators as you had involving that certain astrophysicist.
While you made "personal arrangements" (= a suspension?) with the moderators with regards to that astrophysicist, it certainly doesn’t stop you trying to destroy his professional reputation on that other site.

As far your hatchet job on my post here is the link.
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/#comments
Posted by sjastro 17th June 2016 (second post on this date)

To conclude here is a piece of irony.

The Debye length for the intergalactic medium is around 10^5 metres, not much beyond this value the electromagnetic force drops to zero.
Is that a mainstream *estimated* number or something which they actually measured in space somewhere? Let me guess.......

Here it is.
Debye length - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Embarrassing isn’t Michael, it comes from your own fringe science which agrees with the mainstream value.
As far your word salad comment about the wanting to know what the Debye length of a cathode ray is, try asking the Plasma cosmologists, I’m sure they will be performing the same face palms as I did.

 

[Michael]

Point No(1)

It’s a sad state of affairs Michael you have to drag a third party into the discussion.

I didn't "drag" Leslie into anything, we've been discussing this topic for awhile now and you butted in half way through it apparently.

I came into this thread in post no. 32.

You not only came late into our discussion in *this* thread, you apparently missed the whole first part of our conversation on this topic of a static universe, motion of superclusters, and a non-zero constant which first began in this thread:

The great void in the heart of the 'dark energy' hypothesis.

You'll notice in post nine of that thread that I stated the following:

All you *might* need is a *tiny* bit of additional 'repulsion' to make sure that the whole thing stays in organized motion.

From post 11 of that same thread:

You'd really only need some amount of energy to keep the motions going over time, otherwise friction might play a role. The amount of 'friction' going on in our own solar system however is *minuscule* compared the the kinetic energy of the objects in motion. All we need is some current and some influence from magnetic and electric fields, and the arrangement of a *moving* but stable galaxy or universe is something which can be sustained indefinitely.

I wasn't claiming in either thread that no amount of EM influence would be required, I simply suggested that it didn't have to be a particularly large influence compared to gravity and momentum of superclusters.

Show me in any of your discussions with Leslie prior to post #32 that EM was used as an explanation for the prevention of gravitational collapse.

I just did. Our conversation on this topic didn't even begin in this thread. You walked into the middle of an ongoing conversation between us that actually began *long before this thread*. You made a lot of unfounded assertions about my beliefs too in this thread and then you blamed me for changing my position which I never did.

You changed the goalposts as a response to my post #32.
I rest my case.
End of argument

No goal posts were ever changed as you can see from my citations to the first part of my conversation with Leslie on this topic. I rest my case. You just "butted in" and made a bunch of assumptions about my beliefs and built your own strawman to burn.

Point No(2)

I see you are up to your old tricks again of taking me out of context by suggesting I think galaxies in clusters do not undergo rotation.

Actually by the time I got to the end of the post I *assumed* that you just botched the explanation about galaxy movements something terrible and I assumed that you actually realized that galaxies rotate around the center of mass of something.

I thought I made it clear to you in my very first post in this thread, galaxies in clusters do not follow the non chaotic, near concentric planetary orbits in our solar system that you seem to think.

I never claimed that they were in concentric planetary orbits. You made that up. You're burning your own strawmen again I see. How can you even question *my* integrity and then turn right around and stuff words in my mouth which I never uttered? Really?

That is not the same as suggesting galaxies do not undergo rotation, they could be in open parabolic or hyperbolic orbits.

So what? Everything is moving in space, including superclusters, and that was my whole point. I didn't say anything about clusters or superclusters being in my concentric planetary orbits. I just said that the were in *motion* and therefore Doppler shift is applicable.

Likewise I made it clear that galaxies on a cosmological scale do not undergo rotation.

Ya, I saw you added cosmological scales in there but they too *do* undergo rotation just like our local cluster undergoes rotation, but the figure is *minuscule* compared to the cosmological figure. You're wrong to claim that they don't undergo rotation however, no matter what the distance.

In this case the cosmological scale is for distances greater than 100 Mpc where the Universe becomes homogenous and isotropic which incidentally is a very strong case against a Static universe.

No it's not a "very strong case against static universe". You made that up too.

If you thank that all galaxies must orbit around a common centre then show me the peer reviewed discovery paper of a galaxy at a distance greater than 100 Mpc that does so.

If I thought that, or claimed that, I might bother to try looking for a paper for you, but alas you seem to be making stuff up as you go about my beliefs which simply are not true in the first place. I simply said that all superclusters are also in motion. Period.

I rest my case.

You're batting 0. Every time you've rested your case you've been wrong.

Similarly for Birkeland currents, since you are so absolutely certain of their existence in the interplanetary medium and heat up the Sun’s corona show me the peer reviewed discovery paper.
I rest my case.
End of argument.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents In The Solar Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun

You're still batting 0. End of argument.

Point No.(3)

On the subject of personal attacks, your dishonesty and general confusion is based on the contents of your posts.

You have no right to question my honesty. It's not even a valid way to debate *any* topic in fact. It's all you an apparently do however, because you seem to it rather often.

You may have noticed I gave specific examples for each case, if I didn’t it would constitute a personal attack.

Since you were wrong on every point, you're also wrong about the fact that it *was* a personal attack, and you continue that nonsense too.

The problem I have on occasions is whether you are lying or just hopelessly confused, the truth is probably somewhere in between.

The later option is within your right to question. The first claim is not unless you're professing to be a mind reader, in which case you're a sucky mind reader.

One only needs to look at your shining examples on that other forum of what does constitute a real personal attack.

Like I already admitted, there are a couple of individuals that I have a "beef" with, specifically because they willfully misrepresented my statements and/or EU theory even when shown that they were wrong.

As far as your Bonobo ape chest thumping defiance of wanting petitions for reinstatement at ISF you are not fooling anyone.

You're not fooling anyone either. You can't handle me at ISF. The first thing I'd do is ask for Clinger's missing *rate* of reconnection formula. His supposedly "freshman" homework assignment is six years overdue now.

If you posted the same gutter level personal attacks here you would have another issue with the moderators as you had involving that certain astrophysicist.

Which is exactly why I didn't. I leveled my criticisms at the individual in question on the specific forum, in front of the specific scientific community which he most frequently publicly attacks and intentionally misrepresents. If he was willfully misrepresenting Christianity and the CF forum, I'd consider responding to his posts here instead of there.

While you made "personal arrangements" (= a suspension?) with the moderators with regards to that astrophysicist, it certainly doesn’t stop you trying to destroy his professional reputation on that other site.

The destruction of his reputation is the direct result of the fact that he continues to willfully and blatantly *misrepresent* EU/PC solar theory to this day. I have nothing to do with him destroying his own reputation by giving false information. I'm just pointing out his blatantly false statements at Thunderbolts in case anyone is interested in the actual neutrino predictions of EU/PC solar theory.

As far your hatchet job on my post here is the link.
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/#comments
Posted by sjastro 17th June 2016 (second post on this date)

What "hatchet" job? All I see is you attacking my character in that thread too while ironically trying to justify that "no neutrino" nonsense which appears on that blog entry! Wow! Hypocrisy at it's finest.

To conclude here is a piece of irony.

Here it is.
Debye length - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Embarrassing isn’t Michael, it comes from your own fringe science which agrees with the mainstream value.

Why wouldn't it be the same?

As far your word salad comment about the wanting to know what the Debye length of a cathode ray is, try asking the Plasma cosmologists, I’m sure they will be performing the same face palms as I did.

I'm sure they wouldn't try to use your bogus argument against Birkeland's solar model, or Birkeland currents in space in the first place.

 

[Michael]

In the "lab" electric fields can be produced artificially. Now all you have got to do is how they arise in space.

I just did. The moment that we add sustained fusion to a solar object we generate charged particle motion and EM fields. An EM generator is born.

Electric fields in the Sun are of no relevance to currents which are supposed to flow outside of the Sun.

Says who? That's certainly not true according to Birkeland. He specifically described a "transmutation of elements" that supposedly took place inside the sun, and which generated the flow of current from the sun, and into space. That appears to be *exactly* how it works too.

Hot air. I ask again, how are the electric fields in interstellar space supposed to be created and maintained?

They're created and maintained by all the solar generators in the galaxy and the universe. They're all ultimately wired together in interwoven circuits in Alfven's model. Aflven's model even included induction because every sun was treated at as a "homopolar generator".

Even a rotating 'neutron star' would generate electric fields.

 

[SelfSim]

The term certainly means many things to many different individuals, but the variety in definitions within the EU/PC community tends to merge at the level of cosmology theory. They all stem from Alfven's basic cosmology models, and his application of circuit theory to events in spacetime.

I'm convinced you don't have a clue as to what 'Circuit Theory' is.

From a conceptual standpoint, I believe that Dr. Scott would have been better served by naming his model the "Scott current" model of current carrying filaments in plasma rather than trying to give credit where he felt it was due in terms of Kristian Birkeland. Then again, Scott's model of current threads is a purely empirical model of current flows and it can be tested in the lab and should be tested in the lab, as is the case with *all* EU/PC beliefs.

What a load of gobbledegook. Scott outright plagiarised Lundquist's solution for a static force-free magnetic field considered in cylindrical co-ordinates without even mentioning Lundquist. Scott's 'model' is physically flawed because he misinterpreted the Lundquist model he plagiarised. Scott is clueless about the fundamental Physics behind Birkeland currents. End of Story.

Not to my knowledge. Can you cite a post from Thunderbolts (or anywhere else) which you believe was a "personal attack" in any way?

Are you kidding? I don't have to .. as you, yourself, just admitted to conducting 'personal attacks' at cult headquarters (TBolts):

The only individuals that I have ever gone out of my way to "personally attack" as you put it are two (potentially three) specific individuals who have a *proven track record* of making *willfully* false claims about EU/PC theory and or me personally.

.. aka .. you know exactly what 'sjastro' (and I) are talking about ... and you just admitted to doing exactly what we are talking about!

We may disagree on concepts, but I don't really have a problem with you personally, or your debate style for the most part. In fact I've enjoyed most of our conversations even if I didn't agree with you, which I assume is right around 100 percent of the time.

What another crock!:

The whole thing is pure arrogance on a stick, and woe to anyone who dares to point out the *numerous* flaws in their methodology. They use any excuse to launch themselves into a personal attack tirade rather than to deal with the criticisms. Selfsim's entire approach in terms of debating this topic at CF was to attack the individual, and the amusing part is that it completely blew up in his face.

I am yet to see anyone 'enjoy' what they erroneously peceive as 'arrogance on a stick' and 'personal attack tirade(s)'!
I'll just ignore the lie that anything 'blew up' in my face (for the time being). Needless to say that is your perception (alone) .. it is not by any means agreed by anyone beyond your own deluded perceptions (and personal opinion)!

I'll be happy to discuss any post on any forum which you believe was a personal attack leveled at you or your handle ...

Your entire commentary in the LIGO thread, immediately following my clearly (and admitted) typographical error, was a personal attack on me, the author, for a typographical error! If you'd bothered to step beyond the cheap-shot of highlighting a typographical error, you may have been able to see that the coin tossing analogy, was a genuine (and accurate) attempt at trying to get you to see that you were/still continue to be in error over your interpretation of the LIGO sigma figure. Your subsequent attack was your attempted smoke-screen to avoid confronting the argument/issue made obvious by said analogy.

You come across as being sooo inauthentic and insincere as you go forward continuing to effectively claim 'victory' (ie: 'blew up in his face') and by continuing to chant, (at TBolts), that all you want is for 'mainstreamers' to stick to the argument, that its become completely nauseous! Yes I find it quite nauseous engaging with you, (and hence my typical weeks-long absences following our various past conversations, which I'm quite happy to continue, also).

The above example also demonstrates you have no desire to confront the mainstream argument, even when its put right in front of your (self-induced, self smoke-screened) nose!

 

[sjastro]

I didn't "drag" Leslie into anything, we've been discussing this topic for awhile now and you butted in half way through it apparently.



You not only came late into our discussion in *this* thread, you apparently missed the whole first part of our conversation on this topic of a static universe, motion of superclusters, and a non-zero constant which first began in this thread:

The great void in the heart of the 'dark energy' hypothesis.

You'll notice in post nine of that thread that I stated the following:



From post 11 of that same thread:



I wasn't claiming in either thread that no amount of EM influence would be required, I simply suggested that it didn't have to be a particularly large influence compared to gravity and momentum of superclusters.



I just did. Our conversation on this topic didn't even begin in this thread. You walked into the middle of an ongoing conversation between us that actually began *long before this thread*. You made a lot of unfounded assertions about my beliefs too in this thread and then you blamed me for changing my position which I never did.



No goal posts were ever changed as you can see from my citations to the first part of my conversation with Leslie on this topic. I rest my case. You just "butted in" and made a bunch of assumptions about my beliefs and built your own strawman to burn.



Actually by the time I got to the end of the post I *assumed* that you just botched the explanation about galaxy movements something terrible and I assumed that you actually realized that galaxies rotate around the center of mass of something.



I never claimed that they were in concentric planetary orbits. You made that up. You're burning your own strawmen again I see. How can you even question *my* integrity and then turn right around and stuff words in my mouth which I never uttered? Really?



So what? Everything is moving in space, including superclusters, and that was my whole point. I didn't say anything about clusters or superclusters being in my concentric planetary orbits. I just said that the were in *motion* and therefore Doppler shift is applicable.



Ya, I saw you added cosmological scales in there but they too *do* undergo rotation just like our local cluster undergoes rotation, but the figure is *minuscule* compared to the cosmological figure. You're wrong to claim that they don't undergo rotation however, no matter what the distance.



No it's not a "very strong case against static universe". You made that up too.



If I thought that, or claimed that, I might bother to try looking for a paper for you, but alas you seem to be making stuff up as you go about my beliefs which simply are not true in the first place. I simply said that all superclusters are also in motion. Period.



You're batting 0. Every time you've rested your case you've been wrong.



http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents In The Solar Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun

You're still batting 0. End of argument.



You have no right to question my honesty. It's not even a valid way to debate *any* topic in fact. It's all you an apparently do however, because you seem to it rather often.



Since you were wrong on every point, you're also wrong about the fact that it *was* a personal attack, and you continue that nonsense too.



The later option is within your right to question. The first claim is not unless you're professing to be a mind reader, in which case you're a sucky mind reader.



Like I already admitted, there are a couple of individuals that I have a "beef" with, specifically because they willfully misrepresented my statements and/or EU theory even when shown that they were wrong.



You're not fooling anyone either. You can't handle me at ISF. The first thing I'd do is ask for Clinger's missing *rate* of reconnection formula. His supposedly "freshman" homework assignment is six years overdue now.



Which is exactly why I didn't. I leveled my criticisms at the individual in question on the specific forum, in front of the specific scientific community which he most frequently publicly attacks and intentionally misrepresents. If he was willfully misrepresenting Christianity and the CF forum, I'd consider responding to his posts here instead of there.



The destruction of his reputation is the direct result of the fact that he continues to willfully and blatantly *misrepresent* EU/PC solar theory to this day. I have nothing to do with him destroying his own reputation by giving false information. I'm just pointing out his blatantly false statements at Thunderbolts in case anyone is interested in the actual neutrino predictions of EU/PC solar theory.



What "hatchet" job? All I see is you attacking my character in that thread too while ironically trying to justify that "no neutrino" nonsense which appears on that blog entry! Wow! Hypocrisy at it's finest.



Why wouldn't it be the same?



I'm sure they wouldn't try to use your bogus argument against Birkeland's solar model, or Birkeland currents in space in the first place.

You are becoming more and more irrational by the post.

The two items which make or break you which makes everything else in your long winded and spiteful response irrelevant was my request for the discovery papers that galaxies beyond 100 Mpc rotate around a center of mass and Birkeland currents.

If you think that all galaxies must orbit around a common centre then show me the peer reviewed discovery paper of a galaxy at a distance greater than 100 Mpc that does so.

If I thought that, or claimed that, I might bother to try looking for a paper for you, but alas you seem to be making stuff up as you go about my beliefs which simply are not true in the first place. I simply said that all superclusters are also in motion. Period.

In your previous response this is what you stated.

“It's blindingly obvious that *every* galaxy is in orbit around some center of mass somewhere.”

You can’t take a trick, you either suffer from memory loss, are plain stupid, or have well and truly been caught out lying again.
The memory loss must explain why you “forgot” to include “electrostatic repulsion” in the first 32 posts.
What an absolute joke.

So you have bombed on the first request.
What about the second request.

Similarly for Birkeland currents, since you are so absolutely certain of their existence in the interplanetary medium and heat up the Sun’s corona show me the peer reviewed discovery paper.
I rest my case.
End of argument.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents In The Solar Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun

Is this some sort of a joke?
The first link is a theoretical treatise not a discovery paper.
What is data, the equipment used, the authors, the journal the discovery was published in etc, like the GW discovery paper.

The second link doesn’t even relate to Birkeland currents but your favourite subject of magnetic reconnection.

This discussion is over.
You are clearly a troll as many Science forums have recognized over the years by expelling you.

 

[Michael]

I'm convinced you don't have a clue as to what 'Circuit Theory' is.

We're even then because I'm absolutely convinced that your entire industry has no idea how to apply circuit theory to astrophysics. They almost *never* even try in fact. Instead of calling a "Birkeland current" by its proper scientific name, they call it "Steve", or a "magnetic slinky". Talk about not having a clue.

What a load of gobbledegook. Scott outright plagiarised Lundquist's solution for a static force-free magnetic field considered in cylindrical co-ordinates without even mentioning Lundquist.

Let me remind you that LIGO repeated Joseph Weber's claims about discovering noise from gravitational waves, including his "trust me I'm an expert on gravitational waves, and these X number of signals are absolutely not just environmental noise" nonsense in the 1970's too and LIGO never mentioned Joseph Weber either. What makes you think that Scott even read, let alone "plagiarized" anyone? Evidence please?

And to think that you guys whine about *me* for pointing out the blatant and obvious errors of so called "professionals" who willfully misrepresent EU theory on their public blogs? What nerve you have.

Scott's 'model' is physically flawed because he misinterpreted the Lundquist model he plagiarised.

Besides the blatant personal attack game against Scott and everyone associated with EU/PC theory, do you actually have any evidence that A) Scott actually plagiarized anything from anyone's paper, or B) have any explanation as to how he managed to "misrepresent" the material at the same time as he "ripped it off"? Your argument is self conflicted from the start.

Scott is clueless about the fundamental Physics behind Birkeland currents. End of Story.

Your entire industry is clueless about the fundamental physics behind plasma physics in general, and Birkeland currents specifically as my conversations at ISF so clearly revealed. Six years later, and I'm *still* waiting for that missing non- zero rate or "reconnection" formula in that vacuum contraption from your entire hater posse at ISF! Your industry erroneously calls million degree plasma a "hot gas". You guys call Birkeland currents a "magnetic slinky" and irrational terms like "Steve". Give me a break! What gives you guys the right to criticize anyone in the EU/PC community when you're still using "pseudoscience" to describe high energy electrical discharges in plasma double layers? You guys don't even seem to know that plasma is not optional in the process known as "magnetic reconnection for crying out loud!

Are you kidding? I don't have to .. as you, yourself, just admitted to conducting 'personal attacks' at cult headquarters (TBolts):.. aka .. you know exactly what 'sjastro' (and I) are talking about ... and you just admitted to doing exactly what we are talking about!

I freely admit that I have publicly busted the chops, and pointed out the blatantly false statements of two so called "professionals' who have *willfully* (over a period of many years!) and blatantly misrepresented EU solar theories on their public blogs. That's two out of a total of something like 8000 professionals in your industry? That sounds like a very small percentage to me. I don't regret pointing out their blatantly false statements and I don't regret anything I've said about them at Thunderbolts. Everyone there has been a victim of their willfully dishonest behaviors for *years*. Whatever "personal attack sins" I may have committed *in total* at Thunderbolts, they *pale* in comparison to all the personal attacks that you folks hurl at TBOLTS on a *daily* basis at ISF. Give it a rest. I may not be innocent, but I'm not even in your league!

What another crock!:
I am yet to see anyone 'enjoy' what they erroneously peceive as 'arrogance on a stick' and 'personal attack tirade(s)'!
I'll just ignore the lie that anything 'blew up' in my face (for the time being). Needless to say that is your perception (alone) .. it is not by any means agreed by anyone beyond your own deluded perceptions (and personal opinion)!

In your own math homework assignment, which you created and had *tons* of time to think about, you A) didn't simplify your formula which I had to point out, *and* B) you had a typo in your formula which I also had to point out. You also *forced* me to use your coin flip analogy to point out the methodology flaws in the LIGOS methods and I did so *perfectly*. I even did it using LIGO's patented cherry picking routine from the raw data set just like they did. You had "no comment" at that point, so that whole line of questioning *absolutely* and positively blew up in your face.

Your entire commentary in the LIGO thread, immediately following my clearly (and admitted) typographical error, was a personal attack on me,

You started that whole personal attack campaign ithe moment that you tried to assign me a math homework assignment and you harassed me into using your coin flip analogy to point out LIGO methodology problems. When I handed you the *blatant* methodology problems in the context of your requested (actually demanded) coin flip analogy, you wouldn't touch the requested analogy with a 10 foot pole! I'd definitely say that analogy blew up in your face just like the homework assignment.

the author, for a typographical error!

I simply pointed out the irony of you failing your own "math test" and the irony of the personal attack campaign blowing up in your face. It was pretty entertaining.

If you'd bothered to step beyond the cheap-shot of highlighting a typographical error,

FYI, you were the one that wouldn't let it go, not me.

you may have been able to see that the coin tossing analogy, was a genuine (and accurate) attempt at trying to get you to see that you were/still continue to be in error over your interpretation of the LIGO sigma figure. Your subsequent attack was your attempted smoke-screen to avoid confronting the argument/issue made obvious by said analogy.

What are you even talking about? I could see that your coin flip analogy request had merit. I didn't "avoid" your coin flip analogy at all. In fact I handed it to you on a silver platter, just as you requested, and you ignored it! You didn't even comment on the cherry picking that I did, or the fact that the "cherry picked data" didn't tell me anything useful at all about "aliens", or the "cause" of the four consecutive tails. You ignored every LIGO analogy that I made in that coin flip presentation.

You come across as being sooo inauthentic and insincere....

These are examples of more of your personal attacks. I never once asked you in this thread how I "come across", nor is this thread about how I "come across" to you two. You're going out of your way again to take the conversation *off topic*, and onto the individual. How obvious can you be about avoiding the *topic* of this thread, and *all* threads in fact?

as you go forward continuing to effectively claim 'victory' (ie: 'blew up in his face') and by continuing to chant, (at TBolts), that all you want is for 'mainstreamers' to stick to the argument, that its become completely nauseous! Yes I find it quite nauseous engaging with you, (and hence my typical weeks-long absences following our various past conversations, which I'm quite happy to continue, also).

So take up that coin flip analogy in that LIGO thread and explain how LIGO didn't commit the same exact sins that I did in that analogy?

The above example also demonstrates you have no desire to confront the mainstream argument, even when its put right in front of your (self-induced, self smoke-screened) nose!

You guys never actually stick to the topic. It's always about moving the conversation off topic, and onto the individual, just like you attacked Scott again. It's not just me that you victimize that way, it's the *entire EU/PC community*. It's not just you personally that does the trash talking either, it's the whole hater posse at ISF.

 

[Michael]

You are becoming more and more irrational by the post.

Right. You step into the middle of an ongoing conversation I'm having with Leslie about momentum, you make tons of "assumptions" about my beliefs, you stick words in my mouth which are not true, and you call me 'irrational'? Oy Vey!

The two items which make or break you which makes everything else in your long winded and spiteful response irrelevant was my request for the discovery papers that galaxies beyond 100 Mpc rotate around a center of mass and Birkeland currents.

Do you *actually* dispute the fact that they rotate around a center of mass associate with this supercluster, yes or no? Is it just the Birkeland current claim you wish to really see evidence of?

The Eerie Alignment of Ancient Giant Galaxies

In your previous response this is what you stated.

“It's blindingly obvious that *every* galaxy is in orbit around some center of mass somewhere.”

Are you actually denying that galaxies rotate around a center of mass associated with their cluster/supercluster, yes or no?

You can’t take a trick, you either suffer from memory loss, are plain stupid, or have well and truly been caught out lying again.

Oh for crying out loud! You *avoid* half my post, fixate on one sentence and you call me a "liar" or stupid in every post. What an ethical debate tactic you engage yourself in. I have to believe you *know* that galaxies are moving around a center of mass in every supercluster. If not, say so.

The memory loss must explain why you “forgot” to include “electrostatic repulsion” in the first 32 posts.

No, I just didn't feel like I needed to repeat myself to Leslie, and I had no idea that you personally would step into the middle of our conversation and try to stick words in my mouth so that you could unethically engage yourself in *another* personal attack campaign. It's as simple as that. I even cited the previous conversation we had on this topic prior to the start of this thread. You must have "forgot" that I posted it for you, along with the relevant statement I made earlier.

What an absolute joke.

The absolute joke is your personal attack style which *avoids the topic* at all costs. You're clearly running scared if you won't stick to the topic.

So you have bombed on the first request.

You've bombed on dark matter to the tune of *billions* of tax dollars. So what if I don't meet your personal expectations? You seem to be changing your requests as you go.

What about the second request.

Is this some sort of a joke?
The first link is a theoretical treatise not a discovery paper.

It's certainly not a joke, and it's a published paper for which you have no rebuttal whatsoever apparently.

What is data, the equipment used, the authors, the journal the discovery was published in etc, like the GW discovery paper.

Oh, would you like to talk about actual *working* lab models? Have you read any of Birkeland's work? Yes? No?

The second link doesn’t even relate to Birkeland currents but your favourite subject of magnetic reconnection.

That's the mainstream's pseudoscientific term for field aligned currents and/or electrical discharges in plasma". The helix shape of the filament is a dead give away that this is a field aligned current, but alas the mainstream is still dabbling in the black arts of "pseudoscience" according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory. Anything they don't understand is "magnetic reconnection" and you folks at ISF don't even know that the process *requires* plasma! Holy smokes!

This discussion is over.
You are clearly a troll as many Science forums have recognized over the years by expelling you.

You have personally added nothing at all of any scientific substance or value to this thread or any thread that you've been involved in that I can recall in fact. It's all be a gigantic personal attack campaign with you. How sad that you folks cannot handle an honest scientific debate so you must stoop to such low ball tactics and pitiful witch trials.

You can't "expel" empirical physical alternatives to your metaphysical "dogma" forever. Empirical physics is destined to replace LCDM sooner or later. It's just a matter of time. Ban me all you like from wherever you possibly can, but it won't change a thing in terms of the end results. I'm just one lowly messenger among many messengers of empirical physics to come.

From a scientific perspective, our conversation never started. It was always a personal attack campaign with you because you have nothing of scientific substance to say about the *topic* of this thread. Who do you think you're fooling? Run and hide all you wish, but your behaviors speak for themselves and I see right through your nonsense.

 

[lesliedellow]

R
From a scientific perspective, our conversation never started. It was always a personal attack campaign with you because you have nothing of scientific substance to say about the *topic* of this thread. Who do you think you're fooling? Run and hide all you wish, but your behaviors speak for themselves and I see right through your nonsense.

His final comment was originally considerably less polite than that, but he clearly thought better of it. I can't say I would have blamed him if he had left the original comment in place.

 

[SelfSim]

We're even then because I'm absolutely convinced that your entire industry has no idea how to apply circuit theory to astrophysics.

And yet physicists were responsible for the development of the theoretical framework which they then passed onto engineers as 'Circuit Theory'.

It doesn't really matter what you've convinced yourself about any of this. I'm speaking facts above and not personal opinions, but you don't seem to recognize the difference.

.. What makes you think that Scott even read, let alone "plagiarized" anyone? Evidence please?

Scott authored and published(?) the paper: Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents, (referred by you, and reviewed by me in the CFs thread linked to in my last post), in July 2013. There was no mention of Lundquist's work in that paper. Nonetheless, Lundquist's work constituted about 80% of Scott's so-called 'paper.'
Then, 2 years later, in Progress in Physics, Vol 11 2015, Scott again published his so-called 'work' entitled: "Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model", whereupon he clearly decided to come clean and acknowledge Lundquist's work:

Consistent with this, the major goals of this paper are:

1. To present a simple, but complete derivation of Lundquist’s equations that describe the magnetic field structure of a field-aligned current.

He then formally acknowledged Lundquist's references in the 'Acknowledgements' section at the end:

1. Lundquist S. Magneto-hydrostatic fields. Arch. Fys., 1950, v. 2, 361.
   
   
2. Lundquist S. On the stability of magneto-hydrostatic fields. Phys. Rev., 1951, v. 83 (2), 307–311. Available online: http://link.aps.org/doi /10.1103/PhysRev.83.307.

Note Lundquist produced this work some 63 years before Scott decided to plagiarise it and make it his 'own'. The impression created by Scott in the first paper, by a lie of omission, was that he was he was the author of the theoretical model for BCs ... when clearly, by his own later admission, he was not!

We call this being 'a crook' in my neighbourhood ...

I don't have time to comment on the rest of your tripe .. I may (or may not) bother later ...

 

[Michael]

And yet physicists were responsible for the development of the theoretical framework which they then passed onto engineers as 'Circuit Theory'.

I wasn't complaining about empirical physicists in general, I was specifically complaining about *astrophysicists*. I was complaining about their utter lack of an understanding as to how to begin to apply circuit theory to events in space. I wasn't complaining about "any old physicists". Your response to my criticism of astrophysicists was a complete dodge.

It doesn't really matter what you've convinced yourself about any of this. I'm speaking facts above and not personal opinions, but you don't seem to recognize the difference.

I certainly recognize and fully appreciate the difference between *applied empirical physics* and the unfalsifiable metaphysical dogma that is being taught to unsuspecting astronomy students today. When you folks can correctly identify a Birkeland current when you see one instead of calling it "Steve", or calling it a "magnetic slinky", wake me up. As it stands you're at least 100 years behind Birkeland and his team in recognizing field aligned currents in plasma when you see them, and 30 years behind the times in modeling plasma behaviors inside of double layers. In fact you're still using "pseudoscience" to attempt to describe high energy discharges inside of exploding double layers 30 years *after* Alfven's double layer paper which made the whole "reconnection" theory mathematically irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments.

Scott authored and published(?) the paper: Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents, (referred by you, and reviewed by me in the CFs thread linked to in my last post), in July 2013. There was no mention of Lundquist's work in that paper.

Published? Really? That's news to me. When? Where? Which publication? Citation please. AFAIK, that particular version was simply a 'work in progress', a "prepublished" version of a developing paper which Scott was still working on. AFAIK Scott simply presented that prepublished version to the EU/PC community for some public scrutiny and some feedback while he was still working on improving the paper for later publication.

Nonetheless, Lundquist's work constituted about 80% of Scott's so-called 'paper.'
Then, 2 years later, in Progress in Physics, Vol 11 2015, Scott again published his so-called 'work' entitled: "Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model", whereupon he clearly decided to come clean and acknowledge Lundquist's work:He then formally acknowledged Lundquist's references in the 'Acknowledgements' section at the end:
Note Lundquist produced this work some 63 years before Scott decided to plagiarise it and make it his 'own'. The impression created by Scott in the first paper, by a lie of omission, was that he was he was the author of the theoretical model for BCs ... when clearly, by his own later admission, he was not!

Wait a minute! Let me get this straight, just so that I'm sure that I correctly understand the full nature of your personal attack on Scott. You're accusing Scott of plagiary without so much as a single citation to a *specific paragraph* from Lundquist's work which you claim Scott somehow "stole" from Lundquist. You're furthermore accusing Scott of "plagiary" in a (I believe) *non published* preprint which was simply intended to solicit feedback from the EU/PC community? Really? What absolute *gall*! Man, that's just a purely unethical personal attack without a *shred* of credibility unless you can show me where Scott's 'preprint' was published. Citation?

We call this being 'a crook' in my neighbourhood ...

Considering the fact that the *published and peer reviewed version* included proper citations to Lundquist's work, I'd call the first unpublished version a "work in progress" that was wasn't fully documented at the time, and which was improved accordingly over time until it reached the point of publication. The *published* paper *did* include a proper reference.

I don't have time to comment on the rest of your tripe .. I may (or may not) bother later ...

Come on. We both know you're never going to deal with my coin flip analogy because it reveals the ridiculous nature of LIGO's claim, and now we know that LIGO was experiencing and observing all sorts of correlated noise at the same 6.9ms delay time, before, during and after the supposed "gravitational wave" event. Their methodology was even *worse* than I ever imagined.

The current LIGO scenario is just another Joseph Weber routine. It's deja-vu all over again. In spite of their boastful claims in 2010, with over a year and half of data to work with, we still haven't seen anything from LIGO that even *remotely* resembles anything like "multimessenger astronomy". If LIGO can't deliver on their promise to produce multimessenger astronomy, LIGO's claims will fall apart sooner or later just like Joseph Weber's claims about 311 gravitational waves that he claimed to have observed fell apart eventually.

Since I'm a mere amateur, you guys can ignore my PDF and my criticisms of LIGO's methodology all you want, but that Danish team of professional scientists sunk LIGO's battleship. That correlated noise problem is a *huge* problem and you can't just ignore it. That correlated noise completely rips apart LIGO's assertion that blip transients cannot be correlated. LIGO has no legitimate, logical, or quantified "scientific" way to distinguish between ordinary blip transients and gravitational waves in their pitiful methodology.

 

[lesliedellow]

I wasn't complaining about empirical physicists in general, I was specifically complaining about *astrophysicists*. I was complaining about their utter lack of an understanding as to how to begin to apply circuit theory to events in spac

Of course they don't. I may have covered it as a 15 year old schoolboy, but these astrophysicists with PhD after their names? Well, I mean, there's not a chance they know anything about what makes an electric current flow.

They have a better idea than you, and that's for sure.

 

[Michael]

Of course they don't. I may have covered it as a 15 year old schoolboy, but these astrophysicists, with PhD after their names? Well, I mean, there's not a chance they know anything about what makes an electric current flow.

They have a better idea than you, and that's for sure.

Their so called "better" idea was referred to by Alfven as "pseudoscience" seven times in his keynote speech at the conference where he first presented his double layer paper which made all that pseudoscience irrelevant and obsolete.

Worse still the EU hater posse seems to erroneously believe that plasma is *optional* in the "magnetic reconnection" process. I've waited for six years for them (collectively) to produce a formula to express a non-zero *rate* of reconnection in Clinger's vacuum contraption. They still can't explain the heat source of the corona, 100 years *after* Birkeland built them a working model in his lab and described it to them.

I don't believe the EU hater posse in particular even has a clue about plasma physics, or someone at ISF would have clued in their attack dog when he was erroneously running around claiming that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma. That nonsense and that missing math formula has gone on for *years*, not just days or weeks.

You seem to think that they have some special knowledge about plasma, but they erroneously call million degree plasma a "hot gas", they ignore Alfven's double layer paper and circuit theories, they erroneously call an *obvious* Birkeland current "Steve", or a "magnetic slinky". What exactly do they even know about their *own* theories when 95 percent of it is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance and the other 5 percent is mostly pseudoscience?

If my experiences at ISF are any indication at all of the average knowledge of plasma physics among the mainstream, they're utterly clueless IMO.

Electrical discharges are *common*, even *typical* in plasma. Magnetic reconnection is *not* a plasma optional process. Circuit theory *can* mathematically explain the explosive nature of solar flares and it can explain the aurora and all the things the mainstream tries to explain today with "pseudoscience" according to the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory.

I'd have to assume from their erroneous claims at ISF that most of what they "know" is related to "dark" stuff which utterly fails to obey their predictions.

 

[lesliedellow]

Their so called "better" idea was referred to by Alfven as "pseudoscience" seven times in his keynote speech at the conference where he first presented his double layer paper which made all that pseudoscience irrelevant and obsolete.

Myself, I side with the geocentrists. I am arrogant enough to think that I know better than every astronomer who has ever walked the Earth since the seventeenth century.

 

[sjastro]

Since I have been accused by the resident troll of not contributing to science in this thread what better way of rectifying this problem by giving the mathematical outline as to why Einstein needed to incorporate a cosmological constant into a Static Universe model.

It requires some preliminary work on the use of metrics and Einstein’s field equations before going on to the main issue.
This will kept to the most basic level and as maths friendly as possible.

Firstly the concept of a metric.
You have heard of the saying the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
This is only true in flat space and can be mathematically expressed using Pythagoras theorem for a right angle triangle. C²=A²+B².
In this case C is the distance, A and B being the horizontal and vertical distances respectively.
In x-y coordinates with segments dx and dy the equation is ds²=dx²+dy².

ds²=dx²+dy² is known as a metric.
In 3D the metric is ds²=dx²+dy²+dz²

On the surface of a sphere, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line but an arc.
In this case the metric is ds²=r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ) where r is the radius of the sphere, θ, Φ are the latitudinal and longitudinal angles respectively.

These metrics are spatial metrics, however since relativity uses spacetime there is an extra time term c²dt² where c is the speed of light.
The metrics for space time are the difference between the time term and the spatial terms.
Hence in 2D spherical spacetime the metric becomes ds²=c²dt²-r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ).

Now let’s look at the Einstein field equations.
They look like this

Rₐₑ - (1/2)gₐₑR + Λgₐₑ = -(8πG/c^4)Tₐₑ

This equation tells us of the relationship between gravity and spacetime.
When gravity is absent (no mass) spacetime is flat otherwise gravity curves spacetime.
The right hand term indicates the presence of matter.

The metrics are the solutions to the field equations.
Mathematically the field equations are virtually impossible to solve directly.
Mathematicians and physicists have constructed metrics using “educated guesses” which are plugged into the field equations.
If the metric is an exact solution, the field equations breakdown into simpler equations that can be directly solved.

One form of “educated guess” is to construct a metric based on spherical symmetry.
This is based on a simple observation that objects fall radially in a gravitational field.

One such metric has the form.
ds²=(1+f)c²dt²-dr²/(1+f)-r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ) where f is a general function.

When f=2MG/c²r this leads to the Schwarzschild metric which has led to the concepts of gravitational bending of light, gravitational time dilation and blacks holes.
It also explains the irregularities in the orbit of Mercury.

There are another set of solutions of the form f=nₐr ͣ .
One particular function of interest is f=nr² as this can be used to a model a Static Universe.

In order to model a Static Universe one needs to look at the Universe in its formative stages where there no structures such as galaxies or stars but only dust particles.
This dust has a uniform density of ρ and exerts a uniform pressure p.

The metric is ds²=(1+ nr²)c²dt²-dr²/(1+ nr²)-r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ).

When this metric was formulated the Einstein field equations at the time were of the form.

Rₐₑ - (1/2)gₐₑR = -(8πG/c^4)Tₐₑ
There was no Λ term required at this time.

When the metric is plugged into the left hand side of the field equations and the density and pressure terms into the right hand side, the field equations were reduced to a simpler set of equations which led to the following astonishing result p =-ρc².

The equation tells us that p is a negative value.
Negative pressure results in the dust particles collapsing preventing the formation of stars and galaxies.

In order to prevent this Einstein introduced a repulsive Λ term known as the cosmological constant into the metric which took on the form.

ds²=(1+ Λr²/3)c²dt²-dr²/(1+ Λr²/3)-r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ).
The field equations were modified to include the Λ term.

Ironically when the Universe was found to expand, the metrics for the inertia expanding Big Bang and Steady State models no longer required the Λ term which Einstein referred to as his greatest blunder.

Like a revolving door when expansion was found to accelerate, the Λ term reappeared again this time in the form of dark energy.