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
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).

Any ordinary plasma ball will demonstrate the filamentary nature of current carrying plasma.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I don't know why you insist on engaging in personal attacks in every conversation.
It can only be 'personal' if the accusation is true ..

Michael said:
The fact you disagree with me doesn't automatically make my statements "lies".
True .. it takes the person making the claim to make it a 'lie', where it is true.

Michael said:
Yet we've engaged in other conversations since then, and I have addressed at least *some* of your misconceptions.
From my rather extensive conversations involving sjastro and yourself on this topic, I certainly, cannot corroborate that claim .. (even in the slightest).

Michael said:
Which *specific* page number, paragraph and formula in Scott's paper(s) does this supposed error occur in? Please be specific. I'm about to leave on a trip soon, so I'd rather not have to go hunt for it.
.. and the never-ending cycle begins .. yet again .. ho-hum ..
Michael said:
I'm just going to skip your other irrelevant strawman nonsense.
Its all relevant .. and its not nonsense. Only your claims and pirouettes are.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
It can only be 'personal' if the accusation is true ..

No, actually it can be a "personal attack" whether it's true or not. Either way it is *off topic*!

For goodness sake, all I asked for was the *specific paper*, the specific paragraph, and the *specific* formula where sjastro alleges that Scott made a math error. Is that really too much at ask for?

It's possible he posted it in a previous thread and I missed it, but I didn't see it, and I'd like a specific reference.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
No, actually it can be a "personal attack" whether it's true or not. Either way it is *off topic*!

For goodness sake, all I asked for was the *specific paper*, the specific paragraph, and the *specific* formula where sjastro alleges that Scott made a math error. Is that really too much at ask for?

It's possible he posted it in a previous thread and I missed it, but I didn't see it, and I'd like a specific reference.
What do you call his entire post#12 in this thread, then?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: sjastro
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Emphasis mine. What a huge hijack of the thread, and what an utterly useless personal attack. Six separate times in a single post you took the thread off the topic, and attacked me personally by either claiming that I intentionally lied (as though you're a mind reader), or you questioned my honesty. In the same post you also attacked my "comprehension" abilities, all the while *blatantly avoiding my simple request* to point out the *specific* paper you're referring to, the specific page number and the specific paragraph and specific formula where you allege that Scott supposedly made some math error. Oy Vey.

Do you have a specific formula to cite, yes or no?
As Selfsim mentioned in his response the information has been has always been available specifically point (4).
So you either didn't read the rebuttal or it was misunderstood to the the degree it didn't register.
Whatever the reason is, it is a crystal clear example of a falsehood when you have mentioned on numerous times in this thread of correcting my "misconceptions" of Scott's model when you are not even familiar with the flaws described of Scott's model.

Whenever you do bend the truth it is very much on topic as it devalues the educational value of the thread which should be a prime objective in a SF.
So when you come out with classics such as Space Slinkys being examples of Birkeland currents when the articles clearly describe them as gas you are going to be called out accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Michael said:
sjastro said:
Michael said:
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.
You have been caught out lying again.
You certainly did not address my rebuttal because I had written the final summary in that thread after you had already been suspended for your previous lies.
You were in no position to address all the issues!!!
Even if there was an ounce of truth it does not right the wrongs in Scott's model such as the algebraic errors and confirms you are either totally out of your depth or dishonest in suggesting it does.
I don't know why you insist on engaging in personal attacks in every conversation. It's utterly ridiculous. The fact you disagree with me doesn't automatically make my statements "lies". Sheesh.
So, Michael now needs to clear this up.
The evidenced fact is that he has not addressed 'the wrongs in Scott's model' .. and the only person who thinks he's been 'personally attacked' is Michael ... and that's because his above initial claim was in fact, false ... yet he then asserted it (above) as being true.

So .. for the sake of clearing this mess (of Michael's making) up, I'd like to know why Michael claimed it as being true .. and only Michael can do that .. (hopefully we can then get back on topic).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So, Michael now needs to clear this up.
The evidenced fact is that he has not addressed 'the wrongs in Scott's model' .. and the only person who thinks he's been 'personally attacked' is Michael ... and that's because his above initial claim was in fact, false ... yet he then asserted it (above) as being true.

So .. for the sake of clearing this mess (of Michael's making) up, I'd like to know why Michael claimed it as being true .. and only Michael can do that .. (hopefully we can then get back on topic).

Now that his confusion has been sorted out it is up to him to address the rebuttal.
There are no more excuses.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

Ah ha! I didn't respond to this, but it's not like you'd guess! In my actual experience I learned what really happens is (at first) unexpected: really wild outcomes.

What kind of experience? -- extensive experimenting with chaotic systems of bodies interacting under gravity even in just Newtonian gravity (which is plenty accurate enough at distances to get this above effect -- that in falling gas could be in the counter direction to the predominate direction.

This experimenting began kinda way back when I was a freshman in physics, and bought a very basic computer (an Apple II), and wrote a code to simulate orbits. I remained fascinated. Jump forward in time, past many simulations I'd watched from supercomputers, etc. and then imagine my excitement then many years ago to find out my modern computer, so vastly much more speedy than the one from the early 80s could quickly be put to work with an excellent gravitational interaction simulator where I could add a lot of bodies in any manner I wished and watch their N-body gravitational interactions!

Generally in many cases one will see chaotic seeming outcomes.

If you have a longer time scale or are willing to set up a system that isn't in equilibrium to begin with, that is, a typical real galaxy situation...

So, from a lot of just simulating (accurately enough), I find that it's quite easy for a mass to end up going in the opposite direction. It's just merely momentum transfer.

And I already know then, from experience, that of course some bodies/gas, etc., will inevitably end up going in the other direction, just as a normal thing.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
I was searching for a simulation that could help illustrate, but so far just found one simple simulation (but brief) showing how when there are more than 2 bodies interacting gravitationally, then a body can be flung in a new direction that is unlike the predominate old direction of the group of bodies before the momentum transfer. In short, you can have a net momentum in one direction, the total momentum of the bodies, and they can initially all be going in that direction, such as orbiting the galactic center in 1 direction, and then get the near approach involving more than 2 bodies and get 1 of the bodies flung off in a new direction. The net momentum of all the bodies is conserved. If 1 is flung in a near opposite direction, the remaining have more velocity in their original direction to conserve the momentum. Also, any star can be torn apart by a close interaction with a dense massive object (such as neutron star or black hole, of which any galaxy will have very many). So, you can easily get gas then moving in a new direction.

Example of a chaotic 3-body interaction:

 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I was searching for a simulation that could help illustrate, but so far just found one simple simulation (but brief) showing how when there are more than 2 bodies interacting gravitationally, then a body can be flung in a new direction that is unlike the predominate old direction of the group of bodies before the momentum transfer. In short, you can have a net momentum in one direction, the total momentum of the bodies, and they can initially all be going in that direction, such as orbiting the galactic center in 1 direction, and then get the near approach involving more than 2 bodies and get 1 of the bodies flung off in a new direction. The net momentum of all the bodies is conserved. If 1 is flung in a near opposite direction, the remaining have more velocity in their original direction to conserve the momentum. Also, any star can be torn apart by a close interaction with a dense massive object (such as neutron star or black hole, of which any galaxy will have very many). So, you can easily get gas then moving in a new direction.

Example of a chaotic 3-body interaction:


It's obviously possible to introduce a series of events and exotic material that might *also* explain counter-rotation patterns *and* the velocity patterns of galaxies, but Scott's model does away with the need to add either exotic matter, or unusual merger processes to explain counter-rotation patterns. Perhaps an "additional test" is that Scott's model doesn't preclude us from finding galaxies with very *complex* rotation patterns, with multiple rings moving in various directions. To put it another way, his model predicts that the counter-rotation patterns could be quite complex in some instances.

My primary point however is that both Scott and Peratt have suggested that galaxy rotation patterns are heavily influenced by EM fields, not *just* gravity. Furthermore the discovery of galaxies which do *not* required 'dark matter' to explain their movement patterns is consistent with a model that predicted variation in EM fields.

Another "odd" feature of galaxy rotation patterns is that they can be completely predicted by the amount of ordinary matter present:

Spinning galaxies question existence of dark matter | Cosmos

But in work just accepted by Physical Review Letters, a team of American astronomers found a striking correlation between the visible matter (the stars and dust in galaxies) and its rotation speed. That means they can predict the rotation of galaxies – without invoking the dark stuff at all.

“Nothing in the standard cosmological model predicts this and it is almost impossible to imagine how that model could be modified to explain it, without discarding the dark matter hypothesis completely,” said David Merritt, an astrophysicist at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York and who was not involved in the research.

There are a number of observations which aren't directly "predicted" by dark matter models, which might be better explained simply by adding EM field influences to the models.
 
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

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

Ok, ready for something new? :)

New research suggests about 10 billion years ago the Milky Way consumed a smaller galaxy, and the remnants of that cosmic lunch are still swirling around in the Milky Way’s belly.

The long-ago feast was discovered when researchers looked at data collected by the European Space Agency's Gaia space telescope, analyzing data on tens of thousands of stars within 33,000 light years of our own sun, reports Lisa Grossman at ScienceNews. What the data shows is that a group of about 30,000 of those stars aren’t rotating around the galactic center like they should. Instead, they appear to be moving the opposite way.
The Milky Way Ate One of Its Neighbors 10 Billion Years Ago | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Ok, ready for something new? :)

New research suggests about 10 billion years ago the Milky Way consumed a smaller galaxy, and the remnants of that cosmic lunch are still swirling around in the Milky Way’s belly.

The long-ago feast was discovered when researchers looked at data collected by the European Space Agency's Gaia space telescope, analyzing data on tens of thousands of stars within 33,000 light years of our own sun, reports Lisa Grossman at ScienceNews. What the data shows is that a group of about 30,000 of those stars aren’t rotating around the galactic center like they should. Instead, they appear to be moving the opposite way.
The Milky Way Ate One of Its Neighbors 10 Billion Years Ago | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

Thanks for the link. I suppose I'll need to read the paper I can't really tell from the article if the 30,000 stars in question form an actual concentric ring, or whether it's a "clump" of stars moving in the opposite direction. I would also point out that Scott's model would also tend to predict some amount of elemental separation between the various concentric rings. The fact they don't have the same metal content could interpreted as an example of Marklund convection in Scott's model.

I accept the fact that there could be various explanations for counter rotation patterns in various galaxies, but if we start finding *complex* rotation patterns in galaxy as well, I think that would tend to favor Scott's model over a 'merging' phenomenon. If such complex patterns are found, and they also exhibit properties consistent with Marklund convection, then I think it would definitely tilt the scales in Scott's favor.

I should also point out that Anthony Peratt has built computer models based on EM field influence to simulate various galaxy formation configurations which tend to emerge and their comparison to actual galaxies.

1995Ap&SS.227...97P Page 97
Galaxy formation | Plasma-Universe.com
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Scott's model is based on blunders in math and rubbish physics.

We are still awaiting your response on this matter .. So where is it?

Which specific issues are your waiting for a response to which I haven't already responded to?

As far as I can tell, sjastro's biggest 'beef' was that Scott simplified the formula a bit by *assuming* that J could not be zero (current must flow through the 'Birkeland current"), and the electric field can't be changing in his simplified model, but so what? Those are entirely reasonable "assumptions/mathematical simplifications" for the purpose of his papers.

Such an argument amounts to pointing out that "black hole" mathematics fail at r=0 and then handwaving that this is 'proof that black holes don't exist'.

Sorry, but those seem like a reasonable assumptions/limitations to me.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Which specific issues are your waiting for a response to which I haven't already responded to?

As far as I can tell, sjastro's biggest 'beef' was that Scott simplified the formula a bit by *assuming* that J could not be zero (current must flow through the 'Birkeland current"), and the electric field can't be changing in his simplified model, but so what? Those are entirely reasonable "assumptions/mathematical simplifications" for the purpose of his papers.

Such an argument amounts to pointing out that "black hole" mathematics fail at r=0 and then handwaving that this is 'proof that black holes don't exist'.

Sorry, but those seem like a reasonable assumptions/limitations to me.
Unbelievable.
Selfsim has made the same request as I have in the other thread!!
You are so confused by referring to an old thread which predates the rebuttal of Scott's model.
 
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
Unbelievable.
Selfsim has made the same request as I have in the other thread!!
You are so confused by referring to an old thread which predates the rebuttal of Scott's model.

Your assertions about Scott making mathematical errors are like redshift dejavu all over again. Scott *intentionally* simplified his model by limiting it to *current carrying scenarios* (j cannot be 0) and instances where the electric field is not changing! You're "misinterpreting" those *simplifications* as "math errors". Sheesh.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
If that's referring to Scott's electric current model: Its also wrong.

The mainstream's electrophobia is hurting not only solar physics research, but astronomy in general. The filamentary nature of space is *absolutely* caused by current that runs through the plasma of spacetime.
 
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

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
The mainstream's electrophobia is hurting not only solar physics research, but astronomy in general. The filamentary nature of space is *absolutely* caused by current that runs through the plasma of spacetime.
Rubbish .. Its demonstrable nonsense like what you and the buffoon, Scott, are trying to propagate, out of complete and utter ignorance of Physics, that's completely laughable.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.