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

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,195
1,971
✟177,244.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I had a reply from Dr. Alpaslan;
...
Thanks again for taking the time to call out our suspicions about Scott's underhanded and sleezy tactics. Shame on him .. disgraceful 'professionalism'.

Obviously from Alpasian's above response, Alpasian was completely unaware that his work had been hijacked by the Scott/EU obsessions with non-existent, cosmic magic Birkeland Currents.

Furthermore, Alpasian also obviously views EU delusions with the disdain they deserve ie: no better than 'Daily Mail' level reporting!

Scott will now be known as a disgraced, but one-time semi-noted Electrical Engineer, who dabbled in topics beyond his field of expertise (with special 'thanks' to Michael for highlighting Scott's disgraces).
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,195
1,971
✟177,244.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I note that Michael has resumed his campaign in trying to destroy the professional reputation of Brian Koberlein this time at Reddits.

Not only is Michael using Reddits to engage in personal attacks against members in this forum to get around his current suspension, but he is now baiting members to confront Koberlein’s “dishonesty” in claiming that neutrinos do not exist in Scott’s and Thornhill’s models.
In other words Michael wants members here to carry on with his hatchet job on Koberlein which ultimately led to his suspension for one year.

My golf clubs emit neutrinos.
If anyone accepted this notion on the basis because I said so would be extremely naïve and gullible.
Yet Scott and Thornhill can make the same sweeping generalizations about their models producing neutrinos to the point of it being an afterthought.
I have yet to see anything where Scott and Thornhill explain how neutrinos are formed in their models or a whether the production rate compares to experimental values.
Since Scott and Thornhill only have to state their models produce neutrinos and nothing else indicates the very low standards these models are held to by their supporters.

The facts are that neither model can produce neutrinos.
In Scott’s model neutrinos are produced in the chromosphere and photosphere.
As anyone with even an elementary of knowledge nuclear physics understands nuclei must have a sufficiently high kinetic energy through high temperatures to overcome the Coulomb barrier for fusion to occur.
Using Michael’s “it can be reproduced in the laboratory” nonsense fails because plasma temperatures in Z pinch machines such as Tokamaks require plasma temperatures of up to 100 million K for fusion to occur.
These high temperatures are necessary as a Z pinch is not capable of producing densities that are found in the Sun’s core.
By comparison the highest temperatures in the chromosphere are around 20000K.
Where does Scott explain how Z pinch fusion can occur at such low temperatures and densities?

Then there are the other unfortunate side effects such as the Earth being burnt to a crisp and irradiated with gamma photons.

Thornhill’s model is even more ridiculous because he boldly declares anti matter doesn’t even exist and a neutrino is composed of an electron and positron which he considers is not an anti particle.
Thornhill has decided to make up his own particle which he has called a neutrino which bears absolutely no resemblance to its actual physical properties.

By having fusion at or near the surface results in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram being completely wrong given the maximum effective temperatures achieved in stars is around 30000K.

Scott’s and Thornhill’s models would predict temperatures in the range of tens of millions K.
Koberlein was spot on by claiming neither model produces neutrinos.
Also, I was just reading up on IanW's link, (on Alfven's photosphere initiated coronal double layer idea), here:

Electric fields in the solar atmosphere - A review
Authors: Foukal, P. & Hinata, S.
Journal: Solar Physics (ISSN 0038-0938), vol. 132, April 1991

If I'm reading this correctly, they say (at the bottom of page 319), that:
Foukai etal said:
The thickness of a (corona) single double layer is far too small to produce a thermal emission measure. Furthermore, any neutral atoms would have their electrons stripped from the nucleii by such an enormous electric field since the potential drop across an atom would be eEa~118V where a is the Bohr radius. This potential drop is much larger than the ionisation energy'.
There is more on the lack of observability aspect .. but I haven't consumed it just yet.
 
Upvote 0

Smithi

Active Member
Apr 18, 2019
289
202
62
Dorset
✟18,112.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Also, I was just reading up on IanW's link, (on Alfven's photosphere initiated coronal double layer idea), here:

Electric fields in the solar atmosphere - A review
Authors: Foukal, P. & Hinata, S.
Journal: Solar Physics (ISSN 0038-0938), vol. 132, April 1991

If I'm reading this correctly, they say (at the bottom of page 319), that:
There is more on the lack of observability aspect .. but I haven't consumed it just yet.

Yes, Tusenfem first brought up this paper at ISF. For example;

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)


Then there is the recent direct observation of reconnection in a solar flare;

Direct Observation of Two-step Magnetic Reconnection in a Solar Flare
Gou, T. et al. (2017)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa813d (free access)

Which is why nobody follows Alfven & Carlqvist's double layer model any more. It likely cannot happen in the first place, and direct observation confirms MR as the cause. To continue to believe in such a model is therefore nothing more than a faith-based belief, owing more to hero worship than to science.

EDIT:

I stumbled across another paper that also references Alfven & Carlqvist's model;

A SOLAR FLARE MODEL BASED ON MAGNETIC RECONNECTION BETWEEN CURRENT-CARRYING LOOPS
Melrose, D. B.
https://sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/local/melrose/flaremodel97.pdf

Most theories for the energy release in flares are based on reconnection and make no direct reference to the large-scale current. The only standard flare model that takes the current into account directly is that of Alfven & Carlqvist (1967), but this model is seriously flawed. A central assumption of the model is that magnetic energy is released as the current decays (due to a postulated formation of a double layer), but the timescale for a flare is much shorter than the time required (the Alfven propagation time) to affect the source of the current deep in the solar atmosphere. Hence, no significant decay of the current can occur during a flare.

It would appear that Melrose's model, above, is also flawed;

There have also been proposed several models for flares where magnetic reconnection is not assumed. One of them is found at the Alfvén’s current disruption model (Alfvén and Carlqvist, 1967). The other models are proposed by Akasofu (1984), Uchida and Shibata (1988), Melrose (1997), and so on. Many of these models assume energy release inside a flaring loop, thus they are not consistent with those observations provided by Yohkoh, such as loop-top hard X-ray source and plasmoid ejection above a soft X-ray loop.

Solar Flares: Magnetohydrodynamic Processes
Shibata, K. & Magara, T. (2011)
Solar Flares: Magnetohydrodynamic Processes (free access)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Not only is Michael using Reddits to engage in personal attacks against members in this forum to get around his current suspension, but he is now baiting members to confront Koberlein’s “dishonesty” in claiming that neutrinos do not exist in Scott’s and Thornhill’s models.
Baiting with his persistent lies about Koberlein’s article. This has been addressed before in this forum. The article is based on the freely available literature (a PDF) that explicitly says that Sun is not fusion powered and does not give any mechanism for the observed neutrinos being generated by the electric sun. A PDF that is endorsed by Thornhill, Scott and other EU writers.
Testing the Electric Universe
Stars are electrically charged masses formed within galactic plasmas. They are not heated by nuclear fusion within their core, but rather by a flow of plasma, similar to a florescent light.
...
Reference: A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe by Tom Findlay (PDF)
The PDF claim being addressed is that neutrinos do not exist in Tom Findlay's description of the "model".
Thornhill's "model" is delusions about neutrinos being created in physically impossible electrical discharges on the surface of he Sun. Scott's "model" is delusions about neutrinos from imagined plasma pinches.

The "models" are delusional because there are enormous, undetected temperatures needed (the photosphere is not millions of degrees hot!). Even worse is that fusion produces both neutrinos and gamma rays - those gamma rays not being detected places any fusion deep within the Sun. Modeling what happens to those gamma rays using actual physics suggests that the fusion has to happen at the core of the Sun.

The "models" are delusional because they are not scientific models - they are fantasies that make no real predictions.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,195
1,971
✟177,244.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
MichaelMozina said:
Smithi said:
I stumbled across another paper that also references Alfven & Carlqvist's model;

A SOLAR FLARE MODEL BASED ON MAGNETIC RECONNECTION BETWEEN CURRENT-CARRYING LOOPS
Melrose, D. B.
Melrose said:
Most theories for the energy release in flares are based on reconnection and make no direct reference to the large-scale current. The only standard flare model that takes the current into account directly is that of Alfven & Carlqvist (1967), but this model is seriously flawed. A central assumption of the model is that magnetic energy is released as the current decays (due to a postulated formation of a double layer), but the timescale for a flare is much shorter than the time required (the Alfven propagation time) to affect the source of the current deep in the solar atmosphere. Hence, no significant decay of the current can occur during a flare.
That is a completely irrational argument by the way. The shortness of the timescale *favors* electrical discharge theory. The timescale of energy release doesn't relate to the distance from the power source, it relates to the current in double layers, and the overall current in the magnetic rope. An electrical discharge caused by shorting two wires together in your house isn't limited by the distance between your house and the power plant.
What an inane, ridiculously stupid, unsupported, unituitive and completely unrelated comment (Mozina's) from a nobody who demonstrates complete ignorance of the reasoning for modelling electrical transmission through physical media!
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,195
1,971
✟177,244.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
...
The "models" are delusional because they are not scientific models - they are fantasies that make no real predictions.
Hi RC ..welcome to the 'split' conversation between Michael's Reddit rant and ours.
Michael owes you an explicit apology now as Smithi/IanW has finally gotten hold of Somov in so far as his declaration that his conductors in his now-famous diagram, were indeed, intended as being solid. Michael now acknowledges Somov's response, too ..
He owes ya one after all of his abuse over your attempts to tell him that (.. what for some 10 years now?)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Michael owes you an explicit apology now as Smithi/IanW has finally gotten hold of Somov in so far as his declaration that his conductors in his now-famous diagram, were indeed, intended as being solid. Michael now acknowledges Somov's response, too ..
He owes ya one after all of his abuse over your attempts to tell him that (.. what for some 10 years now?)
That is interesting. Michael denied the clear English in Somov's book for many years (a chapter with a title about magnetic reconnection in vacuum and he insisted it contained plasma). Michael denied the clear physics in Somov's book for many years (the utterly impossible physics of two equal parallel currents being plasma). Now he believes a response from Somov!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
I scroll back and I see Michael is persisting with other years old ignorance about MRx, e.g. the ignorance that induction and magnetic connection cannot be told apart experimentally. He was told maybe a decade ago that induction has different time scales than MRx. For example, solar flares cannot be caused by induction because their timescales are too short for induction but MRx fits.

He even quotes presumably Tim Thompson showing MRx cannot be induction:
Thompson: It most certainly is not. And to the surprise of no one, we have already been down this road. The key to understanding why it cannot be induction is that induction can change only the geometry of a magnetic field, but can never change its topology.
Tim Thompson was the one who cited the physics about induction/MRx timescales.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
A delusion that we must produce solar features in the lab: "You still can't produce a full sphere solar corona or a stable aurora based on MRX in lab, so how do you know that MRx is "more relevant" to solar physics?"

This is the solar corona which extends for millons of kilometers and is not based on MRx. The history of magnetic connection as he knows is that MRx is based on solar observations and so very relevant to solar physics. Astronomers noticed that solar flares involved magnetic fields with a neutral or null point in the 1950's. They saw that changing topology would release energy sat t a level consistent with the flares. That change in topology was labeled magnetic reconnection.

Aurora are not based on MRX.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
The really ignorant citation of
Chandra Shows Halo of Hot Gas Surrounding the Milky Way
Milky Way: Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home: Astronomers find missing mass in the hydrogen halo that surrounds our home galaxy
as papers supporting a "Move the plasma and the stars will move too" electric universe fantasy. That sounds like the EU delusion that basic plasma physics can be denied - see Debye length and interstellar plasmas have a Debye length of ~10 meters!

These are the discovery of a tiny part of the solution to the missing baryon problem (finally found in 2018)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
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
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
An obsession and maybe lie about the The Planeterrella - Polar Light Simulation video which has popped up many times over the years.
Dr Gabrielle Provan of the University of Leicester Physics & Astronomy department demonstrates how Aurora Borealis (or the Northern Lights) are created.
It is not a simulation of the Sun. It is a more advanced than Birkeland 100 year old experiment, demonstration of Aurora Borealis.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0

Smithi

Active Member
Apr 18, 2019
289
202
62
Dorset
✟18,112.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Just for a bit of clarity; Somov referred to the experiments of Anna G. Frank, in his emails to Michael. One of her papers that I managed to locate is;

Magnetic reconnection and current sheet formation in 3D magnetic configurations
Frank, A. G. (1998)
Magnetic reconnection and current sheet formation in 3D magnetic configurations - IOPscience

The paper is paywalled, but this is her Fig. 2;

Frank.jpg


As we can see, the plasma is contained in a vacuum tube, and the currents that create the magnetic fields are outside of that tube. There are no currents within the tube, other than the induced one, as explained by Somov in 1.1.4 of his book.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,921
3,982
✟277,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
While Michael continues with the foot in mouth classics such as attacking individuals who have user names as cowards while apparently unaware that over half his moderator associates refer to themselves as orrery, rings_of_saturn, sol1869, harry_VFX, and zyxzevn, here is more evidence that Scott’s Birkeland current/force free field nonsense is not supported by observation.

First of all some preliminaries;
The α term in the force free equation ∇ X B = αB defines the chirality of the magnetic field.
A magnetic field is chiral if its mirror image does not have the same configuration.
The magnetic force free field exists in the form of flux ropes which can have either a left or right hand twist.
Magnetic fields with a left hand twist have are sinistral chirality, right hand twist fields have a dextral chirality.

Magnetic helicity is a topological property for the twisting, writhing and linkage of magnetic fields but has a simple property for magnetic flux ropes; it has a negative value for left hand twisted ropes and a positive value for right hand twisted ropes.

One of the many flaws in Scott’s model is the examples given do not even pertain to force free fields.
Scott’s model can be tested by observing solar prominences and filaments in the Sun’s corona where the magnetic field is force free.
The prominences and filaments flow and are aligned in the magnetic flux ropes.

According to Scott’s model the solar prominence and filaments should show both sinistral and dextral chirality as a function of radius which would be consistent with “counter-rotating layers”.

This is what is found;
Observations made by TRACE.
Chae said:
A solar prominence has either dextral or sinistral chirality depending on its axial field direction. We determine the magnetic helicity sign of filaments using high-resolution observations performed by Transition Region And Coronal Explorer. At EUV wavelengths, filaments sometimes appear as mixtures of bright threads and dark threads. This characteristic has enabled us to discern overlying threads and underlying ones and to determine the sign of magnetic helicity based on the assumption that the helicity sign of two crossing thread segments is the same as that of the filament. Our results support the notion that dextral filaments have negative magnetic and that sinistral filaments have positive helicity.
The Magnetic Helicity Sign of Filament Chirality - IOPscience

A solar prominence and filament can either be dextral or sinistral but not both as the sign of the magnetic helicity doesn’t change.
Once again Scott’s model apart from being mathematically incoherent fails to be supported by observation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,195
1,971
✟177,244.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
No posts on the Reddit thread for 5 days, then some unpronounceable (& unintelligible) poster mentions that some of 'your' posts were reported (Mozina's?). He then questions ianw's continued participation in the thread and goes on to tell a sob story about being his banned at AskPhysics for his own attempts at explaining Maxwell's equations!?!
He then concludes that Reddit is a paradise for trolls(?)

Is all that EU 'logic' at play? (Must be because I can't see any logic whatsoever in any of that particular post). :confused: o_O
 
Upvote 0

Markstrimaran

Active Member
May 19, 2019
97
19
Midwest
✟17,499.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No posts on the Reddit thread for 5 days, then some unpronounceable (& unintelligible) poster mentions that some of 'your' posts were reported (Mozina's?). He then questions ianw's continued participation in the thread and goes on to tell a sob story about being his banned at AskPhysics for his own attempts at explaining Maxwell's equations!?!
He then concludes that Reddit is a paradise for trolls(?)

Is all that EU 'logic' at play? (Must be because I can't see any logic whatsoever in any of that particular post). :confused: o_O
Yes, Tusenfem first brought up this paper at ISF. For example;

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)


Then there is the recent direct observation of reconnection in a solar flare;

Direct Observation of Two-step Magnetic Reconnection in a Solar Flare
Gou, T. et al. (2017)
Direct Observation of Two-step Magnetic Reconnection in a Solar Flare - IOPscience (free access)

Which is why nobody follows Alfven & Carlqvist's double layer model any more. It likely cannot happen in the first place, and direct observation confirms MR as the cause. To continue to believe in such a model is therefore nothing more than a faith-based belief, owing more to hero worship than to science.

EDIT:

I stumbled across another paper that also references Alfven & Carlqvist's model;

A SOLAR FLARE MODEL BASED ON MAGNETIC RECONNECTION BETWEEN CURRENT-CARRYING LOOPS
Melrose, D. B.
https://sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/local/melrose/flaremodel97.pdf



It would appear that Melrose's model, above, is also flawed;



Solar Flares: Magnetohydrodynamic Processes
Shibata, K. & Magara, T. (2011)
Solar Flares: Magnetohydrodynamic Processes (free access)
Awsome thanks for posting, the formulas in the PDF.
 
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