Dark Matter

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL, you guys can't even keep your stories straight. It was Riberra who said the Earth is a cathode. And no, you would be wrong too. You don't know what something being a cathode implies. It seems that Michael is the only one who understands that the solar wind is neutral. Though it still would be a mistake to call ions and electrons both flowing outwards a "current". A current implies flow in one direction. The net flow of electricity is zero. A better term should be used. than "current".

The earth is less positively charged than the sun, so can act as a cathode, but it is not the cathode that connects the sun to the galaxy, that is the heliopuse. I think you misunderstood just what he said.

Oh it is neutral, neutral in that it does not possess an abundance of negative or positive charge. But neutral does not mean without electric current, as currents in plasma exist froma flow of both negative and poitive charge in one direction, which was pointed out to you and that you continually ignore.

Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma."

"Electric currents cause many effects, notably heating, but also induce magnetic fields, which are widely used for motors, inductors and generators."

Exactly what we observe in the solar system and the gaseous halos surrounding the galaxy, 1 million K heat you have no source for.

"A flow of positive charges gives the same electric current, and has the same effect in a circuit, as an equal flow of negative charges in the opposite direction. Since current can be the flow of either positive or negative charges, or both, a convention for the direction of current which is independent of the type of charge carriers is needed. The direction of conventional current is arbitrarily defined to be the same as the direction of the flow of positive charges. In metals, which make up the wires and other conductors in most electrical circuits, the positive charges are immobile, and the charge carriers are electrons. Because the electrons carry negative charge, their motion in a metal conductor is in the direction opposite to that of conventional current."


There is no difference in positive or negative charges, it is the same electric current. Which is why a convention for electric current direction is needed independent of the type of charge carriers.


"When analyzing electrical circuits, the actual direction of current through a specific circuit element is usually unknown. Consequently, each circuit element is assigned a current variable with an arbitrarily chosen reference direction. This is usually indicated on the circuit diagram with an arrow next to the current variable. When the circuit is solved, the circuit element currents may have positive or negative values. A negative value means that the actual direction of current through that circuit element is opposite that of the chosen reference direction. In electronic circuits, the reference current directions are often chosen so that all currents are toward ground. This often corresponds to conventional current direction, because in many circuits the power supply voltage is positive with respect to ground."


Only you have this misguided belief that because both positive and negative charges are moving together, there can be no electric current.


"Direct current (DC) is the unidirectional flow of electric charge. Direct current is produced by sources such as batteries, thermocouples, solar cells, and commutator-type electric machines of the dynamo type. Direct current may flow in a conductor such as a wire, but can also flow through semiconductors, insulators, or even through a vacuum as in electron or ion beams. The electric charge flows in a constant direction, distinguishing it from alternating current (AC). A term formerly used for direct current was galvanic current."


Now pay attention SZ, your scientists are fixing to tell you something very important, something your astronomers neglect to inform you of.


"Natural observable examples of electrical current include lightning, static electricity, and the solar wind, the source of the polar auroras."


"Plasma is the state of matter where some of the electrons in a gas are stripped or "ionized" from their molecules or atoms. A plasma can be formed by high temperature, or by application of a high electric or alternating magnetic field as noted above. Due to their lower mass, the electrons in a plasma accelerate more quickly in response to an electric field than the heavier positive ions, and hence carry the bulk of the current."


And hence the fast and slow solar winds.




This comment by you deserves further attention.

Though it still would be a mistake to call ions and electrons both flowing outwards a "current". A current implies flow in one direction. The net flow of electricity is zero. A better term should be used. than "current".

Just what do you think the solar wind is doing? Flowing inward and outward? It IS flowing in one direction, outwards towards the heliopause, your exact requirement for an electric current. Which as we know is a flow of charge, both negative and positive in a plasma. Which you were informed that is exactly what the solar wind was, an electric current.


"Natural observable examples of electrical current include lightning, static electricity, and the solar wind, the source of the polar auroras."




You just totally contradicted yourself saying current implies flow in one direction, which is exactly what the solar wind does, flows outward in ONE DIRECTION.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is quite apparent.

Solar wind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the late 1990s the Ultraviolet Coronal Spectrometer (UVCS) instrument on board the SOHO spacecraft observed the acceleration region of the fast solar wind emanating from the poles of the Sun, and found that the wind accelerates much faster than can be accounted for by thermodynamic expansion alone. Parker's model predicted that the wind should make the transition to supersonic flow at an altitude of about 4 solar radii from the photosphere; but the transition (or "sonic point") now appears to be much lower, perhaps only 1 solar radius above the photosphere, suggesting that some additional mechanism accelerates the solar wind away from the Sun. The acceleration of the fast wind is still not understood and cannot be fully explained by Parker's theory. The gravitational and electromagnetic explanation for this acceleration is, however, detailed in an earlier paper by 1970 Nobel laureate for Physics, Hannes Alfvén."



"While early models of the solar wind used primarily thermal energy to accelerate the material, by the 1960s it was clear that thermal acceleration alone cannot account for the high speed of solar wind. An additional unknown acceleration mechanism is required, and likely relates to magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere."



Yes, the answer is there for those that choose to open their eyes.

http://ia700302.us.archive.org/14/i...rkivForMatematikAstronomiOchFysik28a61942.pdf

 

[Michael]

The Themis observations of flux ropes conducting all that energy between the sun and the Earth, along with those observations of electron beams coming from the sun is *absolutely excellent* evidence that the solar wind isn't "neutral". It's a current carrying environment, and the high speed movement of charged particles is a current carrying *manifestation* in the first place.

As long as the mainstream ignores the E field and fixates exclusively in on the B field, it will forever be stuck in the *dark ages* of physics. It's getting old and boring at this point. SDO *killed* their convection "predictions" dead, yet they *refuse* to abide by the results of *any* of their so called precious "tests" when they work against them.

Birkeland was *at least* 100 years of ahead of the mainstream in terms of solar physics, and plasma physics, and at the rate they are going, maybe even 200.

IMO it's *embarrassing* that they continue to peddle what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" after those SDO and IRIS images.

 

[Loudmouth]

The interesting part of the 'dark matter' debate is that nothing much is likely to change until LHC starts back up in 2015'sh. Even then, there's no guarantee that they will find anything beyond the standard model, let alone anything that "fits the bill' in terms of astronomy. Will any new, exotic, and 'long lived' particles be found in such experiments for instance?

Evidence for them has already been found in the Bullet Cluster. No faith needed. Whether that evidence pans out or not, time will tell, but to claim that scientists are depending on faith for conclusions on exotic dark matter are entirely false.

Notice how this post is in the correct thread?

 

[Michael]

Evidence for them has already been found in the Bullet Cluster.

The only thing you found evidence for in 2006 is evidence that your galaxy mass estimation techniques were pitifully flawed. We've seen study after study since then to confirm it too.

No faith needed.

Faith in exotic forms of matter are *definitely* needed. Everything found since 2006 was found in *plasma*!

Whether that evidence pans out or not, time will tell,

The fat lady already sung her song and went home already! They found out the botched the stellar mass estimates as well as the black hole estimates, and SUSY theory failed three straight lab tests in a row!

but to claim that scientists are depending on faith for conclusions on exotic dark matter are entirely false.

It's entirely true I'm afraid. LHC pretty much *crushed* your claims. LHC *found* the last particle of standard theory, and the standard particle physics theory is complete without any need for exotic forms of matter.

Worse yet, every *popular* exotic matter theory was already falsified, including in that electron roundness test.

Notice how this post is in the correct thread?

Ya. That's nice of you.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only thing you found evidence for in 2006 is evidence that your galaxy mass estimation techniques were pitifully flawed. We've seen study after study since then to confirm it too.

Nope, it was evidence for exotic dark matter, and the rest of the scientific community agrees. No faith needed.

 

[Michael]

Nope, it was evidence for exotic dark matter,

No, it wasn't evidence of exotic matter anymore than an unidentified flying object is *necessarily* from another planet. Your have *unidentified* mass, nothing more.

Since that time we found out that you totally *blew* the stellar mass estimates at least two different ways, and you botched the black hole mass estimates as well.

and the rest of the scientific community agrees.

Appeal to authority much?

No faith needed.

Since it was falsified at LHC, falsified a second time at LUX, and falsified yet again in the electron roundness experiments, it takes a lot *more than just faith*, it also requires a healthy dose of pure denial of the results to date.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it wasn't evidence of exotic matter

Yes, it was. No faith needed.

If exotic dark matter were based on faith, scientists wouldn't be pointing to the Bullet Cluster as evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

" However, we have very good evidence that the substantial majority of dark matter is something exotic, rather than ordinary matter that we can't see. This evidence comes from two independent sources -- the abundance of light elements from primordial nucleosynthesis, and temperature anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. "--Sean Carroll
Cosmology Primer: The Dark Universe

When I have Sean Carroll telling me that they have evidence for exotic dark matter, and a person with a website about mountains on the Sun telling me they don't, I am going to go with the guy that actually teaches about these things at a real university and does research in the field, not the guy who thinks there are mountains on the Sun and an obsession with Plasma Cosmology. But hey, I'm strange that way.

Even more, whether or not you agree that what they have is solid evidence, it still shoots a hole in your claims that they are using faith. Obviously, they are drawing conclusions from facts, not faith.

 

[Michael]

Yes, it was. No faith needed.

If exotic dark matter were based on faith, scientists wouldn't be pointing to the Bullet Cluster as evidence.

Your faith in exotic forms of matter isn't supported by that Bullet Cluster evidence, anymore than every UFO seen in the sky is *necessarily* built by intelligent beings on another planet. Your strong faith in exotic matter claims also flies in the face of *three straight lab falsifications* in just the past 18 months. Apparently faith *and* denial are required to prop up your claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your faith in exotic forms of matter . . .

I have evidence. No faith needed.

August 21, 2006 - Dark Matter Observed: Most Direct Measurement of Dark Matter Allows Study of its Nature - Press Release

 

[Michael]

When I have Sean Carroll telling me that they have evidence for exotic dark matter,

He didn't say *squat* about having evidence of exotic matter in *bullet cluster data* in that quote of yours! Bait and switch much?

....I am going to go with the guy that actually teaches about these things at a real university and does research in the field,

Pity that those three straight tests didn't find what you expert expected eh?

Even more, whether or not you agree that what they have is solid evidence, it still shoots a hole in your claims that they are using faith. Obviously, they are drawing conclusions from facts, not faith.

Sorry, but after LHC, LUX *and* those electron roundness experiments, you don't just need *faith*, you need a heaping does of pure denial as well.

Sure, it's all my imagination that your quoted individual didn't even mention your lensing study, and it's my fault LUX, LHC and the electron experiments all falsified your "mathematical predictions".

Sure, just blame me personally for all your own failures in the lab.....

 

[Loudmouth]

He didn't say *squat* about having evidence of exotic matter in *bullet cluster data* in that quote of yours! Bait and switch much?

Notice that scientists are basing their conclusions about exotic dark matter on observations, not faith.

 

[Michael]

I have evidence. No faith needed.

August 21, 2006 - Dark Matter Observed: Most Direct Measurement of Dark Matter Allows Study of its Nature - Press Release

How many different ways did it turn out that they botched the 'normal' mass estimates of galaxies in that study from 2006? Let's count:

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Edinburgh, East and Fife | Universe twice as bright as known
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Gigantic Black Holes Just Got Even Bigger | Ultramassive Black Holes | Space.com
NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

Every bit of the mass they've found since that flawed 2006 study has all been found in quite ordinary plasma, just like the 99+ of the rest of the known universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

How many different ways did it turn out that they botched the 'normal' mass estimates of galaxies in that study from 2006?

How many different ways can I show you that scientists are basing their conclusions of exotic dark matter on observations, not faith?

Whether they are correct or not is a different discussion. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Michael]

Notice that scientists are basing their conclusions about exotic dark matter on observations, not faith.

They are basing their conclusions on what amount to pure affirming the consequent fallacies, *not* actual observation. We observe that your nucleosythesis claims don't work right to produce the right numbers *without* magical forms of matter. In other words your theories *do not* match observation, hence they need for liberal quantities of magic matter elixir.

You can't empirically tie any of your claims to any temperature in any controlled test of concept in a lab, and Eddington came closer to the right number of the temperature of spacetime based on (drum roll please) nothing more than inelastic scattering in dust and plasma.

What you are *not* doing is allowing any of your mathematical models related to 'dark matter' to actually *falsify* your claims. If you did, your claim was falsified three times in three different ways in 18 months. So much for your useless theory in terms of predicting anything in the lab.

 

[Loudmouth]

They are basing their conclusions on what amount to pure affirming the consequent fallacies, *not* actual observation.

The Bullet Cluster is that observation.

 

[Riberra]

The Bullet Cluster is that observation.

[FONT=&quot]What happens when an observation falsify the mathematical calculations in the mainstream model... simply ignore the contradicting data about the observation is the modus operandi.

For the third time i point to that fact again...
______
The dark matter hypothesis for the bullet cluster is contradicted by the cold dark matter [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ΛCDM[/FONT][FONT=&quot] model.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mastropietro & Burkert (2008) have shown that an initial relative velocity of the two colliding clusters would need to be around 3000 km/s in order to explain the observed shock velocity, X-ray brightness ratio and morphology of the main and sub-cluster. However, Jounghun and Eiichiro (2010) have shown that such a high infall velocity is incompatible with the predictions of the cold dark matter [/FONT][FONT=&quot] model. The probability that such an event could occur is roughly one in 10 billion! The lower velocity simulations of, for example Milosavljevic et. al. (2007) and Springel& Farrar (2007), that could be compatible with [/FONT][FONT=&quot], do not reproduce the weak lensing data of the Bullet cluster. What this means is that it is pretty much impossible that the lensing effect seen in the Bullet cluster can be due to dark matter, based on the cold dark matter modelsJounghun and Eiichiro[/FONT]

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope, it was evidence for exotic dark matter, and the rest of the scientific community agrees. No faith needed.

Then why have they not updated the dark matter estimates needed?

Let's review what was found.

Plasma 1 / DM 0

Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky | Fox News

Plasma 2 / DM 0

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

Plasma 3 / DM 0

New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com

Plasma 4 / DM 0

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com

Dark Matter 0

Dark matter stays hidden as detector fails to see a single particle | Science | theguardian.com

Dark Matter 0

BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places

Now, if you add the electromagnetic force to the Bullet Cluster data, which is 10^39 powers stronger than the gravitational force, you won't need that Fairie Dust that keeps coming up zip, zilch, nada, nothing, zero.

But hey, don't worry, you found "the nothing"

A Neverending Story - Cosmologists Find The Nothing!!

 

[Michael]

Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky | Fox News

Oh, I had missed that one. Thanks!.

So let's take a trip down memory lane, and look at what we've learned over the past 8 years. They underestimated the brightness of galaxies and therefore they underestimated sizes of the largest stars. They also underestimated the number of smaller (our) sun sized stars by a whopping factor of 4, and apparently they underestimated the number of *even smaller* stars (than our own sun) by at least a factor of 5, and possibly up to a factor 20!

Ya, it's pretty much a given that they botched the stellar plasma estimates alright. It's therefore no *wonder* that they needed a bunch of exotic gap filler so that they could still pretend that their galaxy mass estimation models were perfect and flawless back in 2006.