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

sjastro · Apr 16, 2019

Michael said:
HubbleSite: News - Faint Glow Within Galaxy Clusters Illuminates Dark Matter

A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies | RealClearScience

A recent 2018 Hubble study verifies an earlier study from 2014 that suggests that astronomers have been grossly underestimating the number of stars *between* galaxies in a cluster, and it shows that "dark matter" traces to the locations of the ordinary matter that is known to be present.

There's really no mystery as to why we haven't identified all the ordinary matter that is present in space. Our technology is still very limited, and we're therefore forced to make a whole host of assumptions that have since been shown to be false.

Astronomers find their missing baryons....again...and again...and again....

There's been a consistent trend of locating significant amounts of new ordinary matter since that now infamous bullet cluster study in 2006. In 2019 we now know that there was virtually no "assumption" that was made in the luminosity based baryonic mass estimates of galaxies that was even close to correct in 2006. The stellar underestimates alone were staggering, and were off by 2 to 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. The two different halos found around our own galaxy since 2006 contain more mass than all the stars combined.

There's plenty of evidence to show that are mass estimation techniques based on luminosity were never particularly accurate, and there better and purely empirical way to explain galaxy rotation curves that have nothing to do with inventing new forms of matter.

What has any of this got to do with Scott's model?
This false dichotomy is a total capitulation and doesn't make right the gross mathematical and physics errors, and the lack of physical evidence supporting the model.

Smithi · Apr 18, 2019

Oh dear! Not Scott's nonsense again. He's probably a nice chap, but is completely clueless. He really should stick to re-wiring houses, or whatever he used to do.

Michael · Apr 18, 2019

Smithi said:
Oh dear! Not Scott's nonsense again. He's probably a nice chap, but is completely clueless. He really should stick to re-wiring houses, or whatever he used to do.

Again? Have you and I ever even discussed Scott's work? Funny how a "clueless" electrical engineer can explain galaxy counter rotation, and plasma separation processes in counter rotating galaxies whereas the dark matter model doesn't explain any of that.

SelfSim · Apr 18, 2019

Michael said:
Again? Have you and I ever even discussed Scott's work? Funny how a "clueless" electrical engineer can explain galaxy counter rotation, and plasma separation processes in counter rotating galaxies where as the dark matter model doesn't explain any of that.

'Smithi' is correct ... regardless of interactions with yourself. (Or more likely, because of few interactions with yourself). For instance, you and I have discussed Scott's models ad nauseum and yet I still concur that Scott is clueless especially when it comes to describing Birkeland currents because of his flawed application of physical models and invalid substitutions in the math descriptions of them.

Smithi · Apr 19, 2019

Michael said:
a "clueless" electrical engineer"

That much you got right! Is this idiot still claiming M2-9 is a z-pinch? Or that the solar wind is accelerated by an electric field? Lol. I am well aware of Scott's nonsense. He is clueless in both plasma physics and astrophysics. And maths, judging by what sjastro pointed out.

Smithi · Apr 20, 2019

Michael said:
The constant personal attacks directed at Scott and everyone involved in PC/EU theory simply demonstrates desperation IMO. You'll have to explain any supposed math error in your own words because previous claims which were alleged by others turned out to be their own errors.

That would appear to be a lie, Michael. I do not see any refutation of sjastro's analysis. And maths certainly isn't your forte, from what I've seen over the years. Perhaps you can come to an agreement with sjastro, along the lines that both arguments will be presented on a different physics forum (or Quora, or PSE), and the loser never posts here again? Without putting words in his mouth, I've a feeling sjastro would agree to that. What about you, Michael? Are you confident enough in this clueless ex-EE, and his paper in a predatory, crank journal, to agree to something like that?
A guy who thinks M2-9 is a z-pinch? Did he even look at the Doppler for those lobes? And that an electric field accelerates the fast solar wind? Despite the fact that such a field would accelerate + and - charges in opposite directions, contrary to what is observed in the solar wind? And that fusion occurs in the chromosphere, despite the horrendous consequences of such a thing for life on Earth? That an invisible, undetectable current is flowing in, against the outgoing solar wind and IMF, to power the Sun? My guess is that you would run a mile from such an offer.

Oh, and EU is not a 'theory'. It is pure pseudoscience. No valid science, no valid mechanisms, no evidence. And PC bit the dust decades ago. Nobody of any note bothers with that stuff any more.

sjastro · Apr 20, 2019

Smithi said:
That would appear to be a lie, Michael. I do not see any refutation of sjastro's analysis. And maths certainly isn't your forte, from what I've seen over the years. Perhaps you can come to an agreement with sjastro, along the lines that both arguments will be presented on a different physics forum (or Quora, or PSE), and the loser never posts here again? Without putting words in his mouth, I've a feeling sjastro would agree to that. What about you, Michael? Are you confident enough in this clueless ex-EE, and his paper in a predatory, crank journal, to agree to something like that?
A guy who thinks M2-9 is a z-pinch? Did he even look at the Doppler for those lobes? And that an electric field accelerates the fast solar wind? Despite the fact that such a field would accelerate + and - charges in opposite directions, contrary to what is observed in the solar wind? And that fusion occurs in the chromosphere, despite the horrendous consequences of such a thing for life on Earth? That an invisible, undetectable current is flowing in, against the outgoing solar wind and IMF, to power the Sun? My guess is that you would run a mile from such an offer.

Oh, and EU is not a 'theory'. It is pure pseudoscience. No valid science, no valid mechanisms, no evidence. And PC bit the dust decades ago. Nobody of any note bothers with that stuff any more.

Rather than having one of Scott's mathematically ignorant minions presenting his case, the idea was floated that Scott should defend his own model.
In fairness to Scott he should have the best representation.
As you can appreciate Michael follows a well known formula, use an irrelevant scripted response, engage in strawman attacks, take any an opposing POV out of context to the point of outright lying, ignore the facts when presented and continue the peddling the same line as if the facts were non existent.
Unfortunately his behaviour isn't going to change on a different site and the likely outcome for a debate particularly on a physics forum is Michael being banned.
Then we will get the usual playing the victim role or Galileo complex.

An example of one of his scripted responses which you have been a recipient of, is the "show me the maths error" routine.
It was this bluff about Scott's model that was called by me that led to the subsequent threads and has resulted in Michael already running a mile by refusing to address the maths issues and engaging in strawman responses.

SelfSim · Apr 20, 2019

sjastro said:
... In fairness to Scott he should have the best representation.

Scott has, for many years, published these papers containing the same flawed descriptions (and operations).
He has engaged publically with other scientists such Bridgman (etc) on his similarly flawed-in-principle 'Electric Sun' model, (for eg).
He has failed in adequately answering such challenges and yet he has continued to deceive his readers by producing even more of these flawed models.

I would argue thus that he has already produced his best representation (IMO).

sjastro said:
.. An example of one of his scripted responses which you have been a recipient of, is the "show me the maths error" routine.
It was this bluff about Scott's model that was called by me that led to the subsequent threads and has resulted in Michael already running a mile by refusing to address the maths issues and engaging in strawman responses.

Let's also not forget Michael's legendary CFs math blunder of proving 1=0.5 in the context of LIGO's noise calculations (gravitational wave detections).

Smithi · Apr 21, 2019

sjastro said:
Unfortunately his behaviour isn't going to change on a different site and the likely outcome for a debate particularly on a physics forum is Michael being banned.
Then we will get the usual playing the victim role or Galileo complex.

Agreed re Michael likely getting banned! However, he need not even be part of the discussion. Somebody else could simply post in a relevant forum, with a link to Scott's woo, and suggest he made an error with the maths. The ATM section of Cosmoquest, or even the Q and A section would be suitable. I know for a fact that it is likely to be seen by at least one qualified plasma astrophysicist. And a number of other people who would be capable of finding an error if there is one. And Michael is already banned from there!

SelfSim · Apr 21, 2019

Smithi said:
Agreed re Michael likely getting banned! However, he need not even be part of the discussion. Somebody else could simply post in a relevant forum, with a link to Scott's woo, and suggest he made an error with the maths. The ATM section of Cosmoquest, or even the Q and A section would be suitable. I know for a fact that it is likely to be seen by at least one qualified plasma astrophysicist. And a number of other people who would be capable of finding an error if there is one. And Michael is already banned from there!

I've been a member at CQ (Cosmoquest) for some time and am now occasional poster there. I can assure those unfamiliar with CQ practices that they aren't particularly receptive to EU discussions even when raised from a mainstream perspective. Pseudoscience in Q&A is verboten and anyone raising a thread in the ATM section is expected to defend it. (Ie: the ATM section is intended as a trap for acolytes/cranks).

I'm also aware that the plasma physicist I think you are alluding to, is already well and truly over Scott .. He's debunked Scott many times now (including also at the International Skeptics/JREF Science forum) and appears to dissuade giving EU any airtime whatsoever anymore (and rightly so).

Nice try .. but ... (I recommend 'containment').
(Over to sjastro ... )

sjastro · Apr 21, 2019

Smithi said:
Agreed re Michael likely getting banned! However, he need not even be part of the discussion. Somebody else could simply post in a relevant forum, with a link to Scott's woo, and suggest he made an error with the maths. The ATM section of Cosmoquest, or even the Q and A section would be suitable. I know for a fact that it is likely to be seen by at least one qualified plasma astrophysicist. And a number of other people who would be capable of finding an error if there is one. And Michael is already banned from there!

You wouldn’t happen to be “JonesDave” who posts regularly at Phys.Org and has used the original refutation link on a few occasions when EU nutters try to derail topics such Dark Matter and Black Holes by bringing up Scott’s model?
It was “JonesDave” who challenged the nutters in putting Scott’s model and the refutation link side by side on any given physics forum for debate.
Not surprisingly the nutters chickened out…………

I have no issues regarding individuals using the original link and this thread to debunk Scott’s model on other sites.

On the subject of Scott’s errors here is another one from the 2018 paper.

Scott said:
Bz(r) = Bz(0)J0(αr) (1)

Bθ(r) = Bz(0)J1(αr) (2)

jz(r) = (α/μ)Bz(0)J0(αr) (3)

jθ(r) = (a/μ)Bz(0)J1(αr) (4)

Comparing expressions (1) and (3) shows that magnitudes Bz and jz have the same shape except for a diﬀerence in scale (size). The same is true for Bθ and jθ as seen in expressions (2) and (4). In general, both B and j take on parallel, concentric spiral shapes.

Equations (1) and (2) are the Lundquist equations.
Equation (3) and (4) are Scott’s equations.

Scott claims since (1) and (2) are equations for a force free field where B and j are parallel, and (3) and (4) are scaled versions of (1) and (2) respectively of scale factor (α/μ), then his equations imply B and j are also parallel.
While on the surface this appears be a logical mathematical argument there is one fatal flaw.
As any physicist would know a scale factor is calculated from a ratio which is dimensionless.
If (α/μ) is dimensionless then the equation B = (μ/α)j used in the (incorrect) algebraic substitution in (1) and (2) to obtain (3) and (4), then (μ/α) is also dimensionless.
This implies that B and j have the same dimensions and that the magnetic field and current density are one in the same thing which of course is pure nonsense.
The facts are (μ/α) is not dimensionless as μ and α are in different units.
This nonsense is the consequence of Scott making a simple algebraic error.

Michael · Apr 22, 2019

Smithi said:
That would appear to be a lie, Michael. I do not see any refutation of sjastro's analysis.

You evidently arrived late in the conversation.

And maths certainly isn't your forte, from what I've seen over the years.

Yawn. Character assignation and personal attacks just smack of desperation.

Perhaps you can come to an agreement with sjastro, along the lines that both arguments will be presented on a different physics forum (or Quora, or PSE), and the loser never posts here again?

Er, why would I do that in the first place? Sorry, but I've seen various individuals twist my own words like a pretzel simply to suit themselves and I've seen them do it to Scott, and to Peratt, and even misuse Alfven's mathematical MHD theory to model a concept that he personally called 'pseudoscience". Math can be misused in any number of different ways.

And that an electric field accelerates the fast solar wind?

You can in fact see Birkeland's model do exactly that. He even correctly predicted that the sun emitted both types of charged particles in an outbound direction. Scott's preferred model is an anode model of course, but I prefer Birkeland's cathode solar model.

Despite the fact that such a field would accelerate + and - charges in opposite directions, contrary to what is observed in the solar wind?

Actually we do observe some inbound particle flow too in the form of cosmic rays which are overwhelmingly positively charged compared to the surface of Birkeland's cathode sun.

And that fusion occurs in the chromosphere,

We occasionally do observe gamma rays during solar flares which are consistent with fusion in the solar atmosphere in electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.

despite the horrendous consequences of such a thing for life on Earth?

Pretty much all EU/PC solar models would predict that the bulk of the fusion of the sun occurs under the surface of the photosphere. Birkeland's cathode model predicts fusion throughout the sun. I've never preferred an anode model myself, but even an anode model could be modified as necessary just like any other EU solar model.

That an invisible, undetectable current is flowing in, against the outgoing solar wind and IMF, to power the Sun? My guess is that you would run a mile from such an offer.

Meh. I'm not into an anode solar model if that's what you mean. I happen to know that cosmic rays are not "invisible" or "undetectable". I also note that "strahl" electrons coming from the sun are simply the faster speed electrons in Birkeland's original cathode model of the sun. That's why I personally prefer a cathode model over an anode one. Either an anode or a cathode model however is better than a model based on 'magnetic reconnection". Even an anode model has no problem creating a hot corona around the sphere in SAFIRE experiments.

Oh, and EU is not a 'theory'.

Well, it's not really "a" (as in single) theory because not everyone is not required to think exactly alike in the EU/PC community. There really is only one mathematically modeled "cosmology" model (vs. multiple solar models) written by Hannes Alfven and Anthony Peratt.

It is pure pseudoscience.

The current alternative to EU/PC theory is composed of 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, none of which works in the lab. Pseudoscience is exactly what Alfven called "magnetic reconnection" theory by the way, "pseudoscience' that makes up most of the remaining 5 percent of the LCDM model. I'd say you're projecting at this point.

No valid science,

That's lab tested "valid" science.

no valid mechanisms,

It has EM field mechanisms, heavy on the electric field mechanism. Those work in the lab by the way.

no evidence.

Except those powerful electric currents flowing over 150,000 light years.

And PC bit the dust decades ago. Nobody of any note bothers with that stuff any more.

I don't know how you personally/arbitrarily draw distinctions between EU and PC theory, and frankly I don't care what you think. Until you can reproduce a working corona and planetary aurora based on "magnetic reconnection" I won't bother taking the mainstream models seriously either.

SelfSim · Apr 22, 2019

Michael said:
Smithi said:

I am well aware of Scott's nonsense. He is clueless in both plasmaI physics and astrophysics. And maths, judging by what sjastro pointed out.

Michael said:

... You'll have to explain any supposed math error in your own words because previous claims which were alleged by others turned out to be their own errors.

Smithi said:

That would appear to be a lie, Michael. I do not see any refutation of sjastro's analysis.

Click to expand...

You evidently arrived late in the conversation

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well Smithi only implied what appeared to him to be a lie .. but I'll make the call that Michael's above response makes Michael's above statement a slam-dunk, outright lie!

Sjastro's post #45 .. right here was not 'incorrect', or any error on his part, in the slightest!
As stated (correctly) by sjastro:

sjastro said:
It seems Scott is the one that doesn’t understand Beltrami vector fields because every time he refers to the Maxwell equation as necessary condition for a force free field the Beltrami vector field doesn’t apply.
The problem is Scott’s paper shows j and B are not collinear.
I suggest you look at both equations (13) and (14) in Scott’s paper which highlights the issue.

Scott made an outright error that was not refuted by anyone .. including Michael!

Why do you do this Michael? Its dishonest and extremely defamatory for us CF members!

Smithi · Apr 22, 2019

Michael said:
You evidently arrived late in the conversation.

And you apparently missed this;

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

Smithi · Apr 22, 2019

Michael said:
Pretty much all EU/PC solar models would predict that the bulk of the fusion of the sun occurs under the surface of the photosphere. Birkeland's cathode model predicts fusion throughout the sun. I've never preferred an anode model myself, but even an anode model could be modified as necessary just like any other EU solar model.

Birkeland didn't have a solar model. And Scott, being clueless, puts the fusion in the chromosphere.

Smithi · Apr 22, 2019

Michael said:
Meh. I'm not into an anode solar model if that's what you mean. I happen to know that cosmic rays are not "invisible" or "undetectable". I also note that "strahl" electrons coming from the sun are simply the faster speed electrons in Birkeland's original cathode model of the sun. That's why I personally prefer a cathode model over an anode one. Either an anode or a cathode model however is better than a model based on 'magnetic reconnection". Even an anode model has no problem creating a hot corona around the sphere in SAFIRE experiments.

I couldn't care less what 'model' you favour. They are all easily debunked, unscientific gibberish. And you'll find that the strahl electrons are accompanied by ions, otherwise we would have a giant, Debye length defying current. We don't. Ergo, your lack of knowledge of the solar wind is no reason for anyone to take any notice of anything you say on the subject.

Smithi · Apr 22, 2019

Michael said:
That's lab tested "valid" science.

Which totally fails to match observation. Therefore it is pointless.

Smithi · Apr 22, 2019

Michael said:
The current alternative to EU/PC theory is composed of 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, none of which works in the lab. Pseudoscience is exactly what Alfven called "magnetic reconnection" theory by the way, "pseudoscience' that makes up most of the remaining 5 percent of the LCDM model. I'd say you're projecting at this point.

There is no EU theory. It doesn't exist. And PC is shown easily to be wrong. Peratt's 'model' is debunked, and he gave up on it decades ago.

Smithi · Apr 22, 2019

Michael said:
It has EM field mechanisms, heavy on the electric field mechanism. Those work in the lab by the way.

Really? Show me where they are written up, and how they match observation.

Smithi · Apr 22, 2019

Michael said:
We occasionally do observe gamma rays during solar flares which are consistent with fusion in the solar atmosphere in electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.

Lol. The neutrino detection rate is massively higher than can be accounted for by fusion in the chromosphere. And, as I said, only an idiot (i.e. Scott) would suggest such a thing. Purely because he hasn't a clue about any relevant science, and doesn't realise the amount of Gamma that would produce, and its implications.

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

Newbie

Active Member

Contributor

A non "-ist"

Active Member

Active Member

Newbie

A non "-ist"

Active Member

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Contributor

A non "-ist"

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads