• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
That would surely require a theoretical construct of a 'flux surface' though, no? .. (which is strictly verboten by order of 'the parent body'!)
... And yet somehow, Maxwell got away with using one .. which is apparently readily acceptable (with a blind eye) by the EU bretheren..(?)

The whole thing here is that, in Michael's case, any of his demands of 'disproof' always imply an unstated and usually concealed assumption, (either wittingly, unwittingly or half-witttingly), which commences with an 'If ..' (Eg: 'If the universe is filled with 99% plasma ..')
Michael's entire quest is one huge test of that hidden unevidenced physical assumption which apparently, can be pinned onto anything at will, which looks even vaguely related to it .. in this case poor old Boris Somov's textbook! (Ie: 'If the conductors are contained driven plasma ...').

I just wish the discussion was more focused on his quest for such a nonsensical Holy Grail .. rather than on the well defined (theoretically and practically evidenced) physical mechanism of reconnection?!
 
Upvote 0

Smithi

Active Member
Apr 18, 2019
289
202
64
Dorset
✟33,112.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
My (admittedly limited) understanding from what I've read on the subject, both in technical works, and from commenters on science forums, is that for induction you need a conductor (plasma) moving through a magnetic field. Given the induction equation from MHD, and the diffusion timescale, based on the magnetic Reynolds number, then induction is impossible on the timescales involved in MR. The field is frozen-in on those timescales.
Not to mention that the topology changes also cannot happen from induction that are seen in MR. It is a non-argument. Any claims that it needs a lab experiment to rule it out are a complete nonsense, as nobody is claiming that it is even possible, other than Michael, and he hasn't got much of an idea about the subject area.
 
Upvote 0

Smithi

Active Member
Apr 18, 2019
289
202
64
Dorset
✟33,112.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
I feel for Somov though .. can you imagine the pasting he's in for?
Next thing we know, he'll be tarrred with the same brush as every other scientist who's attempted to set Michael straight.

Yep, a PC/EU hater! Poor Michael doesn't realise that there is nothing to hate. Only to ridicule!
 
Upvote 0

Smithi

Active Member
Apr 18, 2019
289
202
64
Dorset
✟33,112.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced

Aha! I think I've figured out why Scott has only referenced a sci-news aggregate, when the paper was freely available - he knew he was lying, and had he referenced the paper, that would have been noticed by the authors within the citations to their paper. And they certainly would have had something to say about that. So, I would say that Scott is not only a liar, but that he is a coward. And a sneaky one at that.
Perhaps it's time to fire off another email, and point out the unscrupulous behaviour of Scott to the authors of the paper.

EDIT: I should credit SelfSim for first noticing this over at ISF;

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Electric Universe: has there ever been a scientific research program?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Hmm .. interesting! Thanks for the update on that!

I don't think I'd personally call him a 'liar' though ... Can one call someone who references a delusion and who appears to be desperately trying to support a 'faith' by using his own professional skills, a 'liar'? (I'm not sure .. maybe a 'fictionalist' perhaps?).
IMHO, Scott has certainly demonstrated apparent deviousness, by delaying references to Lundquist's math models in his various public versions of his paper (ie: 'professional plagiarism'). It can also be said however that he eventually corrected this oversight, in spite of his garnering significant misguided support from the cult followers by doing so (which is evidence of some semblance of a core of 'professional honesty'?).
 
Upvote 0

Smithi

Active Member
Apr 18, 2019
289
202
64
Dorset
✟33,112.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced

You may be right. However, the claim that;

It has been suggested [8] that galaxies form on and along cosmic Birkeland currents.

would certainly appear to be a lie. The article claims no such thing. Neither does the paper that it is reporting. If it was merely his interpretation of the paper, then he should have made that clear, and given his reasoning. He would never get away with such a thing in a proper journal.
And, again, why not reference the freely available paper? There is only one reason I can think of for not doing that. The lead author is named in the article. It took me all of a handful of seconds to locate the paper. What is Scott afraid of? If he was still associated with an employer, I would certainly be making them aware of his professional misconduct. We expect this sort of thing from Thornhill, but I thought Scott was merely deluded, and beyond that sort of thing. Apparently, he isn't.
As I said on ISF, this sort of thing points to the fundamental dishonesty of EU and its proponents. (That is basically a quote I nicked from Tim Thompson, that I have yet to relocate)
 
Upvote 0

Smithi

Active Member
Apr 18, 2019
289
202
64
Dorset
✟33,112.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Right, from Scott back to Michael;

Prof. Somov was good enough to copy me his correspondence with Michael. This consisted of two emails;



I'll upload the reply in pdf format (as it was sent to me by the good professor) below. The text is as follows;


The second email as I received it is split between Michael's questions and Somov's replies;



I received these on the 4th and 5th of May, but hadn't checked my inbox for a couple of days.

One wonders whether an apology might also be in order to W. D. Clinger, at ISF?
 

Attachments

  • regards-from-Somov2.pdf
    692.2 KB · Views: 31
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Great stuff!
Michael can now be declared as being completely and utterly outright WRONG about Somov's conductors being the 'ideal case' of solid wires. (He might also apologise to 'Reality Check' also .. like: 'as if').
That's only taken Michael ... what .. 9 years was it?

So we now see Michael going full animal, lashing out at everyone who dares to criticise his plasma beliefs.

One question though, why did he say Clinger's tutorials on the quadrupole model etc have web-disappeared (or was I mistaken)? As mentioned earlier in this thread here they are here.

Also I might add that, as the EU Solar model is as deeply flawed in terms of its Physics principle foundations (and corresponding observations) as has been shown (by independent sources) time and time again, then its 'predictions' can be said as being unbounded by fundamental physics and observational evidence. As far as I can see, that means all bets are off and one can therefore argue that it predicts whatever one wants to say it predicts .. eg: 'NO NEUTRINOS' is equally as valid as anything else one wishes to claim on its behalf!
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
There we go .. as predicted, this is what happens when someone doesn't understand the physics principles underpinning a flux surface (nor the logic of the math analysis which follows).

How on earth can such thinkers then be so adamant about the veracity of Maxwell's models?
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟346,939.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The term "utter stupidity" comes to mind.
Using Somov's diagram as a reference if you have two separate circuits with their straight line segments parallel to each other than according to Michael drawing a couple a lines to connect the segments will create a loop which is a necessary physical condition for a flux surface for induction.
Imagine that an induced magic current flowing along drawn lines.
Then there is the problem the magnetic field itself cannot pass through this magic loop because the magnetic circulation around the wires is in the same plane as the magic loop.
Since magic seems to be a prerequisite here I suppose we can have a magic magnetic field which bends perpendicularly through the magic loop to define the flux.
Then we need to find a way of changing the flux to induce a current which can be accomplished by a fairy waving a magic wand.

On top of this Michael has the absolute gall of lying to Somov by claiming he studied basic electrodynamics.
Michael said:
While I did not study plasma (MHD theory) in a formal educational setting, I did study basic electrodynamics.
Anyone who thinks drawing lines forms a flux surface must have enrolled in the Harry Potter version of electrodynamics.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... And yet more tripe offered as a supposed counter to 'NO NEUTRINOS':
.. Oh and apparently I've also demonstrated 'yet again that EU/PC haters have no ethics whatsoever' and I've also now apparently been grouped alongside 'a bunch of lying unethical hypocrites', (whomsoever they might be) .. as well!
I suppose this also explains Michael's crusade in propagating his junk rubbish idea about the solid, fusion dwelling solar surface.
So as I said about 'EU/PC Solar models', in post #208 (I'm rather chuffed that I got it right):
SelfSim said:
.. and one can therefore argue that it predicts whatever one wants to say it predicts ..
.. and, as suspected, the above Talbot/Thornbill statements are only '*their actual* beliefs' (Michael's words) .. So who cares about these dudes' 'actual beliefs'? I certainly don't .. does any actual real scientist?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Wow .. you did better at translating his gobbledygook model than I did!
How on earth can he equate (maybe) reading something on electrodynamics with actually 'studying' it in an implied 'formal educational setting' is about as inauthentic and devious as it gets .. and is simply beyond me that he would claim this in an introductory letter to a real academic, what's more ..
Shame on you Michael .. and you know why, too.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟346,939.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Evidently I made a terrible blunder.
Instead of a magic loop that I incorrectly said was coplanar with the magnetic field, Michael was referring to a magic square that is perpendicular.
Michael still needs to explain how drawing a square leads to an induced current around that square plus the fairy with the magic wand that changes the magnetic flux with time.

Perhaps the fairy has the answers along with why 1=0.5.
 
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0

Smithi

Active Member
Apr 18, 2019
289
202
64
Dorset
✟33,112.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Thought I'd leave this here. It is an email I sent to Mehmet Alpaslan, the lead author of the paper that Scott deviously, and indirectly, referenced in his 'paper'; ...
Hmm thanks for that .. 'Twill be interesting to see if Alpasian defends his actual work against the onslaught.

I simply viewed the attempt by Scott as him (as usual) imposing his own pareidolia over Alpasian's paper .. I guess I'm already becoming glazed over to Scott's deceptiveness and already making exceptions for him. Glad you drew it to our attention.

As for the excuse that Scott just happened to accidentally stumble across Lundquist's solution ... if that were so, then why hasn't he apologised for the act of publically circulating the original paper which completely ignored crediting Lundquist with the math description?
Its still plagiarism .. even if it was unwitting so he should issue a public apology. Just because the paper was issued on public websites (and not his chosen crank journal) is no excuse for committing the fraudulent act in the first place!

Apologising is a demonstration of commitment to professional ethics!

Oh .. and if Michael is so responsible as a moderator of his own Reddit thread, then he should delete the 'colourfully-languaged' intrusions about mis-spellings!
 
Upvote 0

Smithi

Active Member
Apr 18, 2019
289
202
64
Dorset
✟33,112.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
From Michael on Reddit;


These are the people Michael, the unqualified crank, is not impressed with;

Paul Bellan;

Caltech Applied Physics | Paul M. Bellan

Kirk T. McDonald;

Kirk T. McDonald | Dean of the Faculty

 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟346,939.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
From Michael on Reddit;



These are the people Michael, the unqualified crank, is not impressed with;

Paul Bellan;

Caltech Applied Physics | Paul M. Bellan

Kirk T. McDonald;

Kirk T. McDonald | Dean of the Faculty

One of the more ridiculous comments made by Michael is that an article needs to be published to have validity.
Evidently Michael doesn't understand the role of references which provides the opportunity for anyone to assess the validity.
After all it was your investigation in Scott's reference to the Alpaslan paper that exposed Scott engaging in academic fraud; well done.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟346,939.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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 which are the result of nuclear fusion.
In Scott’s model neutrinos are produced in the chromosphere and photosphere.
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 the Z pinch is not capable of sustaining 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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0