More counter rotation evidence to support Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-supermassive-black-hole.html

Unexpectedly, they found two counter-rotating disks of gas. The inner disk spans 2-4 light-years and follows the rotation of the galaxy, whereas the outer disk (also known as the torus) spans 4-22 light-years and is rotating the opposite way.

"We did not expect to see this, because gas falling into a black hole would normally spin around it in only one direction," said Impellizzeri. "Something must have disturbed the flow, because it is impossible for a part of the disk to start rotating backward all on its own."

The counter rotation pattern that is predicted in Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model is pretty unique.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-supermassive-black-hole.html



The counter rotation pattern that is predicted in Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model is pretty unique.
While reading I was already thinking: "Why wouldn't accretion disk matter, which is just stars and gas falling towards the BH, be pulled in from some stars/gas that happen to go to one side instead of the other, even though there is a general rotational direction of the galaxy, since some stars/gas have been deflected towards the BH simply by random encounters with other stars."

In other words, shouldn't we expect accretion disks to be rotating in opposite directions (at least for a while) to begin with, just from ordinary chaotic gravitational interactions that deflects stars and gas at random, all the time, towards the BH?

So, it seemed pretty unremarkable then to me, but this part near the end of the article is useful to at least be aware of:

The astronomers think that the backward flow in NGC 1068 might be caused by gas clouds that fell out of the host galaxy, or by a small passing galaxy on a counter-rotating orbit captured in the disk.

At the moment, the outer disk appears to be in a stable orbit around the inner disk. "That will change when the outer disk begins to fall onto the inner disk, which may happen after a few orbits or a few hundred thousand years. The rotating streams of gas will collide and become unstable, and the disks will likely collapse in a luminous event as the molecular gas falls into the black hole. Unfortunately, we will not be there to witness the fireworks," said Gallimore.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I'm not addressing that. I'm addressing your qualification of an absolute. If a thing is unique it is unique. It is not very unique, or pretty unique, or somewhat unique. It is just unique. At the end of the day I don't really care what you try to do in regard to cosmology and the alleged plasma universe. I do care about educated persons messing up the English language. Please be more attentive.

Edit: corrected a heinous reversal of the phrase "it is", originally posted as "is it".

Oy Vey. :)
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
For the record:

I did *not* mean to imply that Scott's model is the *only* possible way to explain counter rotation patterns in and around galaxies, but it is a very specific prediction of his model, one which can be "tested".

In this case (and other cases as well), it does jive with observation.

'Dark matter' theory (alone) for instance, which his model is intended to replace in terms of galaxy rotation patterns, doesn't necessarily predict counter rotation in galaxies, or in and around the core of the galaxy.

Of course it's entirely possible to dream up various ways to add additional things to virtually any model that might explain the same observation, but the counter rotation predictions of Scott's model are testable prediction of his model. That's all I was trying to imply.

The "key difference" between Scott's mathematical model of counter rotation and a handwavy claim about gas from another galaxy, or from above the host galaxy, meandering into a counter rotation pattern is that Scott's model predicts the rings to be stable in their counter rotation patterns, whereas the option suggested in the article would be a time limited process and require that galaxy to be in a "special" time in it's lifetime. Unfortunately there's no way to "test" the two options in a human lifetime.

I would however note that counter rotation is *not* predicted by dark matter models alone, so it is a "unique" prediction in that sense in comparison to the alternative dark matter model that Scott's Birkeland current model is designed to replace. If we're apply an Occum's razor argument here, Scott's model predicts the counter rotation feature out of the box, whereas the mainstream model requires *both dark matter* and a very unusual encounter with another galaxy. There's no reason obvious reason why an encounter with another galaxy would leave a counter rotating ring in a galaxy, and no mathematical model was even offered to demonstrate that claim. From an Occum's razor perspective and from a mathematical explanation perspective, Scott's model wins hands down.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
The astronomers think that the backward flow in NGC 1068 might be caused by gas clouds that fell out of the host galaxy, or by a small passing galaxy on a counter-rotating orbit captured in the disk.

At the moment, the outer disk appears to be in a stable orbit around the inner disk. "That will change when the outer disk begins to fall onto the inner disk, which may happen after a few orbits or a few hundred thousand years. The rotating streams of gas will collide and become unstable, and the disks will likely collapse in a luminous event as the molecular gas falls into the black hole. Unfortunately, we will not be there to witness the fireworks," said Gallimore.

In dark matter theory presumably every galaxy is surrounded by a gigantic halo of dark matter that rotates with the galaxy, so the gravitational momentum in terms rotation doesn't really explain how or why a gas cloud might "fall out" of the host galaxy in a counter rotating pattern. The gas above and below equatorial plane should all be rotating in the same direction.

There is of course a possibility that a merger with counter rotating galaxy could occur, but it would have to be a very small galaxy in this case, and it would have to "drop in" at almost a perfect angle to create a counter rotating pattern in just one small region of the host galaxy. There's no mathematical model offered for that scenario either, so it's a bit of a handwavy argument.

It would also have to be a very 'special' time in the history of such a merger process, because it wouldn't be stable for long, and yet it must be old enough that it's become "quasi-stable" already.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For the record:

I did *not* mean to imply that Scott's model is the *only* possible way to explain counter rotation patterns in and around galaxies, but it is a very specific prediction of his model, one which can be "tested".

In this case (and other cases as well), it does jive with observation.

'Dark matter' theory (alone) for instance, which his model is intended to replace in terms of galaxy rotation patterns, doesn't necessarily predict counter rotation in galaxies, or in and around the core of the galaxy.

Of course it's entirely possible to dream up various ways to add additional things to virtually any model that might explain the same observation, but the counter rotation predictions of Scott's model are testable prediction of his model. That's all I was trying to imply.

The "key difference" between Scott's mathematical model of counter rotation and a handwavy claim about gas from another galaxy, or from above the host galaxy, meandering into a counter rotation pattern is that Scott's model predicts the rings to be stable in their counter rotation patterns, whereas the option suggested in the article would be a time limited process and require that galaxy to be in a "special" time in it's lifetime. Unfortunately there's no way to "test" the two options in a human lifetime.

I would however note that counter rotation is *not* predicted by dark matter models alone, so it is a "unique" prediction in that sense in comparison to the alternative dark matter model that Scott's Birkeland current model is designed to replace. If we're apply an Occum's razor argument here, Scott's model predicts the counter rotation feature out of the box, whereas the mainstream model requires *both dark matter* and a very unusual encounter with another galaxy. There's no reason obvious reason why an encounter with another galaxy would leave a counter rotating ring in a galaxy, and no mathematical model was even offered to demonstrate that claim. From an Occum's razor perspective and from a mathematical explanation perspective, Scott's model wins hands down.


Well you need unique predictions that cannot be accounted for by established theories. Meaning not just one, but any.

But it's just known that stars are deflected into random new directions by encounters, and that small galaxies are absorbed by larger ones also.

So, those are already known, and so it seems pretty clear there isn't a need for additional forces past gravity to help bring in matter towards the BH with angular momentum in the opposite direction to the spin of the galaxy. Such matter would of course orbit the BH in the opposite direction.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Well, in addition to explaining *stable* counter rotation patterns in galaxies (as opposed to temporary ones), a Birkeland current model explains the "galactic bridges" and their magnetic fields that connect galaxies.

Mapping the Magnetic Bridge Between Our Nearest Galactic Neighbours - Dunlap Institute

“In general, we don’t know how such vast magnetic fields are generated, nor how these large-scale magnetic fields affect galaxy formation and evolution,” says Kaczmarek. “The LMC and SMC are our nearest neighbours, so understanding how they evolve may help us understand how our Milky Way Galaxy will evolve."

They're essentially generated by current in EU/PC, and they effect galaxy formation by at least sometimes producing counter rotation patterns in various galaxies.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-supermassive-black-hole.html



The counter rotation pattern that is predicted in Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model is pretty unique.
Scott's model is so ridiculously wrong and is characterized by a monumental algebraic error any competent high school student would pick up immediately.
Furthermore it clearly is not supported by observation.
For those of you that have the patience or want to refresh your memories, here are Scott's 2015 and 2018 papers.

Here is the rebuttal of both papers
List of Issues

(1) Incorrect terminology in 2015 paper.

The heading of the paper implies a force free field is a condition for a Birkeland current.
While a force free field is a necessary condition for a field aligned current, the converse is not true as shown by the existence of Birkeland currents in the Earth’s magnetosphere which is not force free.

The term “force free field aligned current” makes no sense as a force free field is a property of the magnetic field where the magnetic pressure dominates while the plasma pressure is small and can be ignored.

(2) Observations contradict 2015 and 2018 papers.

In the 2015 paper the Birkeland current passing through the nebula M2-9 is contradicted by Doppler measurements of the Hα emission line indicating the Birkeland current is in fact gas ejected from the central star in both directions.

In the 2018 paper Marklund convection of the plasma filament would lead to the prediction that helium would reside in the outer layer due to its much higher first ionization potential than hydrogen, yet hydrogen is found to be predominate in the counter rotating gas.

(3) Derivation of μj = αB equation.

In Scott’s 2015 paper he derives the equation based on the similarities of Maxwell’s
4th equation ( X B) = uj and the force free equation ( X B) = αB.
This is incorrect as Maxwell’s 4th equation is based on Ampere’s circuital law where j and B are not parallel.
Maxwell’s 4th equation is a special case where the closed loop and magnetic field are in the same plane with the current density perpendicular to the magnetic field.
The equation μj = αB instead is based on the force free field condition j X B = 0.

(4) Algebraic substitution error of B = (μ/α)j into the Lundquist equations in 2015 and 2018 papers.

Scott has used the component substitutions Bz(r) = (μ/α)j(r) and Bz(θ) = (μ/α)j(θ) into the Lundquist equations;

Bz(r) = Bz(0)J0(αr) and Bθ(r) = Bz(0)J1(αr) to obtain Scott’s equations;
jz(r) = (α/μ)Bz(0)J0(αr) and jθ(r) = (α/μ)Bz(0)J1(αr) respectively.

Scott has failed to substitute the Bz(0) term which is the value of B in the z direction where r=0.
This is particularly obvious when comparing:
Bz(r) = Bz(0)J0(αr) with jz(r) = (α/μ)Bz(0)J0(αr)

Since the substitution applies over the range r ≥ 0, Bz(0) needs to be substituted as well.
This is a fundamental algebraic property.

The “obvious” substitution μj = αB in the force field equation to obtain solutions of the form
jz(r) = jz(0)J0(μr) and jθ(r) = jz(0)J1(μr) fails as the general equation
( X j) = μj implies the current density j is a field.

(5) Scott’s equations are erroneously considered to be scaled versions of Lundquist’s equations.

Scott claims that B and j are parallel in his model as his equations are scaled versions of the Lundquist equations.
In this case the scaling factor is (α/μ).
If this was correct then (α/μ) and (μ/α) must be dimensionless and the equation
B = (μ/α)j would imply the magnetic field and current density are equivalent dimensionally with the same units which is nonsensical.

(6) jθ(r) = (μ/α)Bz(0)J1(αr) is not consistent with a force free field.

Since B and j are in cylindrical coordinates which is orthogonal:
B = BrΡ + BθΦ + BzZ and j = jrΡ + jθΦ + jzZ
Ρ
, Φ and Z are the orthogonal unit vectors in cylindrical coordinates.
B = (μ/α)j → BrΡ + BθΦ + BzZ = (μ/α)(jrΡ + jθΦ + jzZ)
B and j are both parallel in the direction of Φ when applying the dot product.
(BrΡ + BθΦ + BzZ). Φ = [(μ/α)(jrΡ + jθΦ + jzZ)]. Φ

This reduces to Bθ = (μ/α)jθ or alternatively:
jθ = (α/μ)Bθ

There are no components which are parallel of the form jθ = (α/μ)Bz.
Since Scott’s equation jθ(r) = (μ/α)Bz(0)J1(αr) is of this form it cannot be consistent with a force free field as jθ(r) and Bz(0) are not parallel.

(7) j = 0 also applies for a force free field.
The force field condition j X B = 0 not only has the solution μj = αB but j = 0.

For Scott’s equations jz(r) and jθ(r) can never be zero as (α/μ) ≠ 0, Bz(0) ≠ 0 and the Bessell functions J0(αr) and J1(αr) are non zero.

The incorrect algebraic substitution in (4) has resulted in the contradictions in (5), (6) and (7).
Scott’s model is comprehensively wrong as his equations do not describe the force free model he has attempted to define.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
.. The counter rotation pattern that is predicted in Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model is pretty unique.
Scott was, and still is completely delusional about Birkeland Currents.

My commentary on his ludicrous paper started in this thread here.

Scott's work has been debunked all over the web (including at the International Skeptics forum, by a real plasma scientist). He is incapable of responding .. yet he continues sprouting his Physics trash at conspiratorial Electric Universe pow-wows, hoping to bolster his delusional ego by presenting in front of the gullible EU cultists.

But of course you already know this .. yet you keep restarting the same nonsense threads over and over ... I've lost track of how many times we've had it out on Scott.

Scott needs to go back to Math and Physics school and formally apologise for his unabashed plagiarism of Lundquist's solution.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: sjastro
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Scott was, and still is completely delusional about Birkeland Currents.

My commentary on his ludicrous paper started in this thread here.

Ya, that thread made it abundantly clear that you simply do not understand the whole concept of a force free field:

Force-free magnetic field - Wikipedia

c0af733b9d1219e6782421b882e68ccd.png
.
This equation implies that:
fa9f7794a39eb690e8bb7b5b3c93097e.png
. e.g. the current density is either zero or parallel to the magnetic field, and where
bccfc7022dfb945174d9bcebad2297bb.png
is a spatial-varying function to be determined. Combining this equation with Maxwell's equations:

For purposes of mathematical simplicity Scott just "assumes" that the E field isn't changing (dE/dt = 0), and current flows parallel to the magnetic field through the "Birkeland current". :) Your (and sjastro's) various objections to Scott's model are simply unwarranted.

There's simply no point in rehashing the same conversation since Justatruthseeker explained (both of) your various errors right here:

Scott's EU Birkeland Current Blunders

Force-Free Fields

If the magnetic field is not potential then the general solution is that the current must be parallel to the magnetic field. Thus,
fa9f7794a39eb690e8bb7b5b3c93097e.png
, => ( X B) = αB.

It couldn't be anymore obvious that you're both simply wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ya, that thread made it abundantly clear that you simply do not understand the whole concept of a force free field:

Force-free magnetic field - Wikipedia



For purposes of mathematical simplicity Scott just "assumes" that the E field isn't changing (dE/dt = 0), and current flows parallel to the magnetic field through the "Birkeland current". :) Your (and sjastro's) various objections to Scott's model are simply unwarranted.

There's simply no point in rehashing the same conversation since Justatruthseeker explained (both of) your various errors right here:

Scott's EU Birkeland Current Blunders

Force-Free Fields



It couldn't be anymore obvious that you're both simply wrong.
What a pathetic attempt of sweeping Scott's errors under the carpet.
If it so "obvious" then it should have been be a straight forward exercise for you to address and debunk the 7 points I made in rebutting Scott's model in my previous post.
Your refusal to do so is blindingly "obvious"; you don’t even have the vaguest comprehension of Scott’s model let alone the flaws in it, or the rebuttal of these flaws.
Your support of Scott’s model is based on blind faith and nothing more.

As an indication of how far you are out of your depth you are totally unaware of destroying Scott's model without any help on my part.
This is based on your bizarre idea that supermassive black holes are Alfven's homopolar generator.
In case you don't understand which is highly likely, a homopolar generator operates on the principle of electromagnetic induction where the current passes through the magnetic flux; in other words the current density and magnetic field cannot be parallel.
This contradicts Scott’s model which is supposed to be based on a force free field where the current density and magnetic field are parallel.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
What a pathetic attempt of sweeping Scott's errors under the carpet.
If it so "obvious" then it should have been be a straight forward exercise for you to address and debunk the 7 points I made in rebutting Scott's model in my previous post.

I've already addressed them in previous threads. Readers can go back and read those threads for themselves if they're interested.

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

That's an example of an error of yours which I've already corrected. You even acknowledged it here, well sort of.

Essentially Scott is simply "assuming" (for the sake of simplicity) that the E field isn't changing dE/dt = 0, and current must be flowing, otherwise it's not a Birkeland "current". That simplification is essentially what you're railing against.

Your refusal to do so is blindingly "obvious"; you don’t even have the vaguest comprehension of Scott’s model let alone the flaws in it, or the rebuttal of these flaws.
Your support of Scott’s model is based on blind faith and nothing more.

No, it's based on observational "evidence", specifically the existence of Birkeland currents in space which astronomers euphemistically refer to as a "space slinky". It's based on counter rotation observed in galaxies, and the fact his model can do away with exotic matter entirely. In short, it's empirically attractive.

As an indication of how far you are out of your depth you are totally unaware of destroying Scott's model without any help on my part.
This is based on your bizarre idea that supermassive black holes are Alfven's homopolar generator.
In case you don't understand which is highly likely, a homopolar generator operates on the principle of electromagnetic induction where the current passes through the magnetic flux; in other words the current density and magnetic field cannot be parallel.
This contradicts Scott’s model which is supposed to be based on a force free field where the current density and magnetic field are parallel.

I really don't think you grasp the whole concept of a "Birkeland current" to begin with:

Birkeland current - Wikipedia
800px-Magnetic_rope.svg.png


The field and the current wind around one another in 3D.

FYI, I'm getting ready to travel back east to visit my new grandson, so don't take it personally if I don't respond regularly for awhile. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I'm wondering if your specialty is magnetohydrodynamics? If so, it would be interesting to compare some things - specifically about gravity waves affect on photons (i.e. black holes and alleged pull of light).

Actually I'm a computer programmer by trade. I started studying MHD theory about 13 years ago when I started studying EU/PC theory, and I read the work of Hannes Alfven, including his first book. I found Somov's book, "Fundamentals Of Cosmic Electrodynamics", to be more thorough and better written however. Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" is a bit mind numbing, but(because) it's loaded with math. I certainly wouldn't call MHD theory my "specialty" however. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
Actually I'm a computer programmer by trade. I started studying MHD theory about 13 years ago when I started studying EU/PC theory, and I read the work of Hannes Alfven, including his first book. I found Somov's book, "Fundamentals Of Cosmic Electrodynamics", to be more thorough and better written however. Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" is a bit mind numbing, but(because) it's loaded with math. I certainly wouldn't call MHD theory my "specialty" however. :)

But you know the math to discuss it?

If so, that's good enough.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
.. I started studying MHD theory about 13 years ago
.. (in total isolation from any formally recognised academic institute which bases its training on the principles of Physics .. Where, had such formal training been undertaken, would normally produce other than a consistency of demonstrably flawed conclusions on the topic).

Michael said:
I found Somov's book,
.. (and then came away with the demonstrably flawed idea that plasma is a prerequisite for magnetic reconnection .. Which of course, stands as evidence of a lack of understanding of the principles of MHD).

Michael said:
Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" is a bit mind numbing, but(because) it's loaded with math.
.. its also been swept under the rug by Peratt himself .. who hasn't pursued the content for decades. (Peratt has also made it clear he has nothing to do with the Electric Universe, which he considers to be pseudoscience).
Michael said:
I certainly wouldn't call MHD theory my "specialty" however. :)
The word 'speciality' is usually used by others (ie: not the speaker) once the claimant has a successfully demonstrated an evidenced track record of topic mastery ...
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... I really don't think you grasp the whole concept of a "Birkeland current" to begin with:

Birkeland current - Wikipedia
800px-Magnetic_rope.svg.png


The field and the current wind around one another in 3D.
Thread Note:
Readers be warned - Michael continually misrepresents and misinterprets this diagram in order to benefit his physically invalid arguments. This has been brought to his attention countless times, by myriads of scientifically qualified posters across numerous web science forums.. (Yet he persists with his misrepresentations here at CFs).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
.. (in total isolation from any formally recognised academic institute which bases its training on the principles of Physics .. Where, had such formal training been undertaken, would normally produce other than a consistency of demonstrably flawed conclusions on the topic).

.. (and then came away with the demonstrably flawed idea that plasma is a prerequisite for magnetic reconnection .. Which of course, stands as evidence of a lack of understanding of the principles of MHD).

If you're talking that debate about Somov's one diagram, all that debate ultimately demonstrated is that Alfven is correct that the whole concept is redundant and made obsolete by his double layer paper. There's literally no physical difference between what Somov called "magnetic reconnection" in his one "vacuum" example and ordinary magnetic flux in that same vacuum. It's just a direct renaming of magnetic flux to "magnetic reconnection". In fact Somov directly avoiding answering my question to him about that issue, and the physical difference between them.

FYI, I'm still waiting to see that missing math formula to express a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" without plasma.

.. its also been swept under the rug by Peratt himself .. who hasn't pursued the content for decades. (Peratt has also made it clear he has nothing to do with the Electric Universe, which he considers to be pseudoscience).

Peratt added something like 50 pages and five more chapters to his 2nd edition book released in 2015. Peratt simply distances himself from Juergen's anode solar model, and Velikovski's ideas, as do I. Peratt certainly still embraces Plasma Cosmology to this day.

The word 'speciality' is usually used by others (ie: not the speaker) once the claimant has a successfully demonstrated an evidenced track record of topic mastery ...

I certainly don't profess to "master" MHD theory.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.