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

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
The problem is that this thread *is* about galaxy rotation patterns and you won't deal with those patterns, particularly the counter rotation patterns.
I made a specific point about dark matter and CMB anisotropy. You've responded with multiple screeds of text that do everything but address that point.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I made a specific point about dark matter and CMB anisotropy. You've responded with multiple screeds of text that do everything but address that point.

I've addressed your question a couple of times now. You simply refuse to accept the fact that the LCDM model is composed of 95+ percent metaphysical constructs and the model has been continuously modified to "fit" whatever data set they want! They've continuously updated the model so it's absolutely no surprise that it fits certain data sets. The problem however is that it *still* has no useful predictive value as it relates to galaxy rotation patterns. It doesn't predict counter rotation. It doesn't predict satellite galaxies being aligned along the plane either.

On the other hand, the Birkeland current model is a straight forward prediction set that comes directly out of Maxwell's equations. That model "better" describes galaxy rotation patterns, including counter rotation. Why do you keep failing to address that point?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Since the now infamous bullet cluster study, there have been numerous problems demonstrated in the baryonic mass estimation techniques which were used in that 2006 paper based upon luminosity. It's therefore not a shocking surprise that the gravitational lensing mass estimates didn't agree with the flawed mass estimation technique based on luminosity.

Unfortunately no attempt has ever been made by the mainstream to *minimize* the need for exotic matter based strictly on galaxy rotation predictions. Why? Because they can't change the percentages of exotic matter in the LCDM without upsetting the entire apple cart on the CMB claims.

That's the *only* reason they agree. They agree because they *have* to agree. :)

Dark matter is a hypothetical entity. It makes no predictions related to counter rotation of galaxies. It's physical descriptions change from paper to paper, and it *still* makes no predictions about counter rotation.

Worse still, It's not even compatible with the standard model of particle physics. It's also stuck inside of a cosmology model that violates the conservation of energy laws on a cosmic scale.

MOND theory doesn't address or predict counter rotation observations either. It requires a modification to Newtonian equations, which then must be married to a GR based cosmology model?

Neither of those two options is particularly compelling with respect to working well with other branches of science.

The Birkeland current galaxy rotation model is fully compatible with the standard model of particle physics. That's certainly a more attractive option in terms of working well with other branches of science.

More importantly, it makes incredibly unique, and highly unusual 'counter rotation' predictions compared to either the MOND model or the dark matter model. This offer us an opportunity to "test" all three models and potentially falsify the Birkeland current model.

All the galaxy rotation models are potentially capable of explaining the rotation *speeds alone* of any given galaxy. MOND theory doesn't explain the bullet cluster paper, but many flaws in the baryonic mass estimation techniques make that a moot point IMO. Only one of the three models can and does explain counter rotation features as well, including even potentially complex counter rotation processes.

Most importantly, the Birkeland current model is based *exclusively* upon Maxwell's equations and the physical principles described in and by those equations. It "better" explains the whole range of galaxy rotation patterns, including counter rotation patterns.

Neither of the other two galaxy rotation models predicts counter rotation, so the only logical choice of a clear winner is the model that is compatible with the standard model of particle physics, based entirely upon Maxwell's equations, and which naturally predicts galaxy counter rotation.

We even have observations of complex counter rotation occurring at the poles of Jupiter, so the Birkeland current model is scale-able to many orders of magnitude.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Scott’s mathematical nonsense I highlighted last year only scratches the surface.
Apart from failing to eliminate the Bz(0) term, the issue is why he used Maxwell’s equation
∇ X B = μj with Lundquist’s original equations to obtain the equations
jz (r) = (αBz (0)/µ)J0(αr) and jθ (r) = (αBz (0))/µ)J1(αr) in the first place.

Not only does it contradict the j = 0 condition but also the parallel condition j = αB or in the case of the component condition jₙ(r) = αBₙ(r) where α is a constant.
Scott’s component equations for jz(r) and jθ(r) are clearly not the equations for a force free field as the Bessel functions J0(αr) and J1(αr) are not constant.

Scott’s reasoning was since Maxwell’s equation is ∇ X B = μj and the equation for a force free field is ∇ X B = αB then μj = αB leading to the nonsensical equations for jz(r) and jθ(r) and the subsequent mathematical mess.
Not only did Scott make a blunder, but from a physics perspective it is nonsense as the Maxwell and force free equations represents very different physical systems.
In a force free field the condition j X B = 0 applies where j = 0 or j and B are parallel.

In the Maxwell equation this can never be the case.
∇ X B = μj
(∇ X B) X B = μ(j X B).
(∇ X B) X B ≠ 0 since ∇ X B is not parallel to B hence j X B ≠ 0.

In other words the current density j in the Maxwell equation bears no resemblance to j for the force free field.

As for the grandiose claim that Scott’s model is the greatest thing since sliced bread in addressing the counter rotation of gas and stars in galaxies let’s play the devils advocate in assuming the paper is mathematically coherent.
What the model tells you is the counter rotation is an intrinsic property of a galaxy rather than caused by a chance event such as the result of galaxy mergers as suggested by mainstream.
The idea that mainstream fails to “predict” counter rotating galaxies is nonsensical as it would require the galaxy mergers which is purely random to be predictable.

The obvious question that arises if counter rotation is an intrinsic property than why do the vast percentage of galaxies where the rotation curves have been measured do not display this effect?
Given that Scott cannot explain this but simply assumes the effect is an anomaly is further evidence along with the mathematical nonsense his theory is a total failure.

It’s no coincidence that Scott’s paper would wind up in a predatory journal; a reputable journal would have spotted the algebraic error, the incorrect physics assumptions, and not published it.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I've addressed your question a couple of times now. You simply refuse to accept the fact that the LCDM model is composed of 95+ percent metaphysical constructs and the model has been continuously modified to "fit" whatever data set they want! They've continuously updated the model so it's absolutely no surprise that it fits certain data sets.
It was a simple question; still unanswered...

I'm not going to waste time with those intimations of fraud & conspiracy.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
It was a simple question; still unanswered...

I'm not going to waste time with those intimations of fraud & conspiracy.
Michael continually throws stones at consistent mainstream models and yet he has demonstrated nothing more than arm-waving in support of his favoured, yet demonstrably, gobbledygook 'alternatives' (such as Scott's model).

Scott's so called 'Birkeland Current' based model is fundamentally flawed by bad math and inconsistently (mis)applied physics principles.

Michael's argument boils down to the inane: 'Mainstream must be wrong .. therefore the ill considered alternative I threw at it, must be right'.

I agree that there should be not much more to say about his favoured ideas from that point onwards. Unfortunately, I think we all know that we're going to see inumerable pages more from him on it.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Scott’s mathematical nonsense I highlighted last year only scratches the surface.
Apart from failing to eliminate the Bz(0) term, the issue is why he used Maxwell’s equation
∇ X B = μj with Lundquist’s original equations to obtain the equations
jz (r) = (αBz (0)/µ)J0(αr) and jθ (r) = (αBz (0))/µ)J1(αr) in the first place.

Not only does it contradict the j = 0 condition but also the parallel condition j = αB or in the case of the component condition jₙ(r) = αBₙ(r) where α is a constant.
Scott’s component equations for jz(r) and jθ(r) are clearly not the equations for a force free field as the Bessel functions J0(αr) and J1(αr) are not constant.

Scott’s reasoning was since Maxwell’s equation is ∇ X B = μj and the equation for a force free field is ∇ X B = αB then μj = αB leading to the nonsensical equations for jz(r) and jθ(r) and the subsequent mathematical mess.
Not only did Scott make a blunder, but from a physics perspective it is nonsense as the Maxwell and force free equations represents very different physical systems.
In a force free field the condition j X B = 0 applies where j = 0 or j and B are parallel.

In the Maxwell equation this can never be the case.
∇ X B = μj
(∇ X B) X B = μ(j X B).
(∇ X B) X B ≠ 0 since ∇ X B is not parallel to B hence j X B ≠ 0.

In other words the current density j in the Maxwell equation bears no resemblance to j for the force free field.

As for the grandiose claim that Scott’s model is the greatest thing since sliced bread in addressing the counter rotation of gas and stars in galaxies let’s play the devils advocate in assuming the paper is mathematically coherent.
What the model tells you is the counter rotation is an intrinsic property of a galaxy rather than caused by a chance event such as the result of galaxy mergers as suggested by mainstream.
The idea that mainstream fails to “predict” counter rotating galaxies is nonsensical as it would require the galaxy mergers which is purely random to be predictable.

The obvious question that arises if counter rotation is an intrinsic property than why do the vast percentage of galaxies where the rotation curves have been measured do not display this effect?
Given that Scott cannot explain this but simply assumes the effect is an anomaly is further evidence along with the mathematical nonsense his theory is a total failure.

It’s no coincidence that Scott’s paper would wind up in a predatory journal; a reputable journal would have spotted the algebraic error, the incorrect physics assumptions, and not published it.
The depth of Scott's mistakes in both math and Physics just go on and on, eh?
Not only are they deeply flawed, but they unfortunately dupe others who are unfamiliar with how math models are conceived from first principles.

These papers have been around for what .. 5 to 10 years now? And he has never bothered to address any of these glaring faults.

All I can conclude from this is either Scott is genuinely unaware of these faults or; he is way out of his depth of understanding about the physics principles underpinning Maxwell's equations to the extent he couldn't even see the faults when presented or; he is so biased about 'EU' rubbish that he is totally blind to seeing them or; he does understand them, and is simply being duplicitous?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
At least another of Michael's 'heroes', Eric Lerner appeared .. himself .. last year(?) .. at Physicsforums, to defend his latest static universe material.

We took him on there .. whereupon, he appears to have retreated and hopefully, has gone back to take a closer look at his demonstrably flawed claims .. but at least he had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to rigorous scruntiny. He was treated with a mixture of both respect and disrespect, but the arguments which eventually penetrated, were those presented by treating him with respect.

Scott, on the other hand, has never appeared beyond the cloister of EU HQ, Thunderbolts!
Pathetic, really .. its very easy to lose respect when a proponent seeking a public profile completely avoids his audience.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
It was a simple question; still unanswered...

I'm not going to waste time with those intimations of fraud & conspiracy.

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

I've answered your question several times now. As the link above demonstrates, there were and still are, *many* flaws in the baryonic mass estimation techniques of galaxies based on luminosity that have already been identified since that now infamous bullet cluster study. That bullet cluster baryonic mass estimate has been falsified a number of different times and in a number of different ways.

Nothing has been done however to include these more recent (than 2006) revelations about mass estimation problems in the mainstream mass estimation techniques based on luminosity, and no attempt has ever been made to reduce the amount of exotic matter being used to to explain galaxy rotation patterns because the moment they do so, the CMB "postdictions" go flying out the window. The numbers only match because if they don't keep them the same, the model bites the CMB dust. That's the only reason they still match.

The LCDM model of cosmology fails another important test

You also keep skipping over the fact that when we try to compare two different speed of expansion estimation techniques that are used in the LCDM model, they don't match! The difference is far greater than the error bars of both methods. Why then fixate on one "fit" while ignoring all the observations that don't fit the model?

Care to explain why some galaxies of various types, including mature disk galaxies show evidence of counter rotation?


Go to the 20-24 minute mark and listen to Merrifield try to explain why a collision won't explain galaxy rotation in some cases, and pay attention to what he comes up with as a supposed "solution". "Later in it's life" he adds what amounts to a "Birkeland current" flowing constantly into the galaxy! He also carefully explains why it would be very easy to miss this type of counter rotation, and even still we find evidence of counter rotation in many different types of galaxies.

If you listen on in the video, you'll see that Merrifield also describes a separation of mass, in the different disks, and Scott explains how that is also a direct prediction of a Birkeland current model.

Galaxies have now been found which show *no* sign of "dark matter", and satellite galaxy rotation patterns don't match up with DM rotation predictions either. You're fixated on one issue that has a *very obvious* explanation, and you keep ignoring the answer that I gave you. You're also ignoring my question about counter rotation, and ignoring all the other estimates of the LCDM model that come up with conflicting results, or are conflicted by the observational data.

Simply by varying the amount of current that is flowing through various galaxies and cutting the current off completely in some cases, one can explain a whole host of rotation patterns, including complex counter rotation patterns, and even a few rotation patterns that match the baryonic mass estimates too. No dark matter is necessary or warranted.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The depth of Scott's mistakes in both math and Physics just go on and on, eh?
Not only are they deeply flawed, but they unfortunately dupe others who are unfamiliar with how math models are conceived from first principles.

These papers have been around for what .. 5 to 10 years now? And he has never bothered to address any of these glaring faults.

All I can conclude from this is either Scott is genuinely unaware of these faults or; he is way out of his depth of understanding about the physics principles underpinning Maxwell's equations to the extent he couldn't even see the faults when presented or; he is so biased about 'EU' rubbish that he is totally blind to seeing them or; he does understand them, and is simply being duplicitous?
What is even more flawed to the point of hypocrisy is dark matter which Scott quotes as an “invisible entity” is substituted with another invisible entity which violates the laws of physics which he calls Birkeland currents.

It’s no coincidence that Birkeland currents are only found where external magnetic fields are present such as the Earth’s magnetosphere due to the interaction with the solar wind.
Beyond the magnetosphere surprise surprise there is no Birkeland current.

How a Birkeland current exists in the near vacuum of space at cosmological scales to form galaxies which provide the external magnetic field in the first place for Birkeland currents to exist ends up being a circular argument.
 
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
What is even more flawed to the point of hypocrisy is dark matter which Scott quotes as an “invisible entity” is substituted with another invisible entity which violates the laws of physics which he calls Birkeland currents.

It’s no coincidence that Birkeland currents are only found where external magnetic fields are present such as the Earth’s magnetosphere due to the interaction with the solar wind.
Beyond the magnetosphere surprise surprise there is no Birkeland current.

How a Birkeland current exists in the near vacuum of space at cosmological scales to form galaxies which provide the external magnetic field in the first place for Birkeland currents to exist ends up being a circular argument.
Yes .. and that's the broader 'EU' rubbish I was referencing earlier.

Two invisible EU entities maketh mythical galactic scale Birekland Currents, eh?

I agree.

The reasoning for this entire thread is thus based on myth, superstition, physically and mathematically flawed pseduoscientific Scott papers.

Its a complete disgrace! :eek: :)

PS: Oops I missed out the circular argument flawed logic ...
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I'm not going to waste time with those intimations of fraud & conspiracy.

FYI, here's what you *won't* ever see from the mainstream. You won't ever see the mainstream go to all the trouble that Scott did and actually see them *publish a paper* that refutes Dr. Scott's model in a formal and published rebuttal. What you'll get instead are a bunch of handwaves on various unpublished websites, typically trying to smear Scott's character, or handwaving at some minor issue because his model is simplified in some way. Yawn. Admittedly Scott's galaxy rotation paper has only been out for less than two years, but they won't actually publish a rebuttal *ever*. If they really believe Scott is wrong in some way, let's see them demonstrate their case in a *published* paper the way it's supposed to work.

The other thing that you'll never see the mainstream do is present a *working model* of any of their solar or cosmological claims.


Since we both know you'll never see a working mainstream model, that's what one actually looks like. It's pretty easy to see how a a sustained current is capable of flowing through a near vacuum when you see it actually work in the lab. Apparently they don't comprehend how that sustained current flow is even possible, presumably because they've become completely detached from *successful* laboratory experimentation.

In theory Scott's Birkeland current model can also be verified and/or falsified in the lab, and even the Marklund convection concept could be tested in the lab. The best you'll ever get from the mainstream is a mathematical model that has *nothing* to do with a lab experiment. You'll never see a mathematical model that is conceived from first principles of a *real* (documented in the lab) physical process. At most you'll get "simworld" mathematical models that apparently say nothing useful about galaxy rotations that cannot already be explained by ordinary current through plasma.

Messier 82 (The Cigar Galaxy)

Unlike dark matter, Birkeland currents flowing into a galaxy are not 'invisible'. Hubble has even imaged just such a process of a current coming down into a galaxy. Notice that the bulk of the new star formation is occurring in the center of the incoming current just where you'd expect since that's where most of the mass if flowing through the current.

Face it, dark matter theory is inept at making any useful predictions, and certainly doesn't predict anything about counter rotation, or stellar formation, or ionization state separation, or anything of the sort.

If anyone thinks Scott's model is wrong, let's see them publish a rebuttal paper to demonstrate it rather than just handwave at it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
There are at least three important and incredibly unique predictions of Scott's Birkeland current galaxy rotation model which have already been verified by observation.

1. Counter rotation. We've only been looking for counter rotating galaxies for the past couple of decades, it's challenging work, but already we've found numerous examples of counter rotation in virtually every type of galaxy. Neither DM or MOND predicts this.

2. Marklund convection. Merrifield has already verified that the outer disk of at least one galaxy contains more hydrogen than the inside disk. Scott discusses that issue in his video and explains why it's an important test of the BK model.

3. Galaxy collisions are not "random" or directed exclusively by gravity. Messier 82 (The Cigar Galaxy) Observable Birkeland currents direct the merger process. Stellar production is directed by current density, with the center of the current carrying the bulk of the mass.

These are all very important, and already verified predictions of a Birkeland current galaxy rotation model which have already been verified by observation.

Logically speaking, the existence of galaxies which require no dark matter can "probably" be used to eliminate MOND theory. If at least some galaxies follow an ordinary Newtonian rotation pattern, then modifying Newtons formulas probably isn't advisable or warranted.

This leaves us with two remaining galaxy rotation models.

One of them predicts all three of the above mentioned observations. It's fully consistent with the standard model of particle physics, and first principles that are derived directly from Maxwell's equations.

The other galaxy rotation model is directly at odds with the standard particle physics model. It does not attempt to explain any of the three previously mentioned phenomenon in space which we have already observed. It's simworld computer models of satellite galaxies are directly at odds with the observation of satellite galaxies aligned along the disk. It not only failed it's own 'internal' predictive "test", it fails to predict at least three other known observations of galaxies.

Which of these two models then is the most "predicatively useful" in terms of describing the universe that we live in?

This isn't even a contest anymore.

MOND theory is marginalized/falsified by observations of at least some galaxies following a Newtonian rotation pattern. DM theory has no predictive value whatsoever. In fact, the DM computer models are directly at odd with observations of satellite galaxies aligned along the disk of various galaxies.

The Birkeland current model is *far* superior to current models, it's completely consistent with particle physics, and it's already been verified in at least three different ways, none of which are predictions of mainstream models.

From the perspective of science, and particularly empirical (in the lab) science, it's simply no contest. Even if we base the comparison on predictive value as it relates to galaxy observation, it's also no comparison at all. In terms of consistency with ordinary particle physics and plasma physics, it's also no contest. There's no criteria by which any other model is superior to the Birkeland current galaxy rotation model.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Messier 82 (The Cigar Galaxy)

Unlike dark matter, Birkeland currents flowing into a galaxy are not 'invisible'. Hubble has even imaged just such a process of a current coming down into a galaxy. Notice that the bulk of the new star formation is occurring in the center of the incoming current just where you'd expect since that's where most of the mass if flowing through the current.
Anyone who claims to see a Birkeland current in M82 (Messier 82) can probably see the face of Elvis Presley in tea leaves and is a classic case of pareidolia in action.

The spectroscopic data speaks for itself.
If the red in the image is a Birkeland current then it flows through the disk of the galaxy and has a continuous spectrum due to synchrotron radiation.
Instead the spectra shows organic molecules such as CO indicating dust and the 21-cm line for neutral hydrogen atoms.
Furthermore the galaxy is inclined to our line of sight and the spectral lines for the red region above the disk is Doppler shifted to the blue and below it shifted to the red.
1964ApJ...140..942B Page 942
This indicates the dust and hydrogen gas are being ejected out of the disk which is opposite to the flow of a Birkeland current.
The phenomena is caused by M82 being a starburst galaxy.

Rather than supporting Birkeland currents M82 completely contradicts it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The depth of Scott's mistakes in both math and Physics just go on and on, eh?
Not only are they deeply flawed, but they unfortunately dupe others who are unfamiliar with how math models are conceived from first principles.

These papers have been around for what .. 5 to 10 years now? And he has never bothered to address any of these glaring faults.

All I can conclude from this is either Scott is genuinely unaware of these faults or; he is way out of his depth of understanding about the physics principles underpinning Maxwell's equations to the extent he couldn't even see the faults when presented or; he is so biased about 'EU' rubbish that he is totally blind to seeing them or; he does understand them, and is simply being duplicitous?
Here is some more mathematical nonsense from Scott, this time from his 2015 paper.

Scott said:
It follows directly from (4) and (11) that, if there is no time-varying electric field present, then (11) is equivalent to
(∇ X B) X B = 0 (12)
which is identical to (1) with ∇p = 0. This is the basic defining property of a force-free, field-aligned current.
Here:
Equation(1) is (∇ X B) X B = µ₀∇p
Equation (4) is Maxwell’s equation ∇X B = μ(j + ε∂E/∂t)
Equation (11) is q(v X B) = j X B

The issue is with equation (12)
(∇ X B) X B = 0 cannot be correct.

If two vectors A and B are pointing in the same direction then their cross product
A X B = 0 since the vectors are parallel.
The cross product of a vector with itself B X B = 0.
∇ X B is the rotation of a the vector B through some angle θ.
Since ∇ X B points in a different direction to B then:
(∇ X B) X B ≠ 0 for all vectors B.

It would not surprise me if Scott has been rejected by a number of more reputable journals providing similar feedback for Scott’s mathematical errors.
 
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
Anyone who claims to see a Birkeland current in M82 (Messier 82) can probably see the face of Elvis Presley in tea leaves and is a classic case of pareidolia in action.

The spectroscopic data speaks for itself.
If the red in the image is a Birkeland current then it flows through the disk of the galaxy and has a continuous spectrum due to synchrotron radiation.
Instead the spectra shows organic molecules such as CO indicating dust and the 21-cm line for neutral hydrogen atoms.
Furthermore the galaxy is inclined to our line of sight and the spectral lines for the red region above the disk is Doppler shifted to the blue and below it shifted to the red.
1964ApJ...140..942B Page 942
This indicates the dust and hydrogen gas are being ejected out of the disk which is opposite to the flow of a Birkeland current.
The phenomena is caused by M82 being a starburst galaxy.

Rather than supporting Birkeland currents M82 completely contradicts it.
Ahh .. but you must be talking about a real Birkeland Current ... and not a Scott/Michael Magic Birkeland Current .. (an SMMBC)? :p :)
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Here is some more mathematical nonsense from Scott, this time from his 2015 paper.


Here:
Equation(1) is (∇ X B) X B = µ₀∇p
Equation (4) is Maxwell’s equation ∇X B = μ(j + ε∂E/∂t)
Equation (11) is q(v X B) = j X B

The issue is with equation (12)
(∇ X B) X B = 0 cannot be correct.

If two vectors A and B are pointing in the same direction then their cross product
A X B = 0 since the vectors are parallel.
The cross product of a vector with itself B X B = 0.
∇ X B is the rotation of a the vector B through some angle θ.
Since ∇ X B points in a different direction to B then:
(∇ X B) X B ≠ 0 for all vectors B.

It would not surprise me if Scott has been rejected by a number of more reputable journals providing similar feedback for Scott’s mathematical errors.
For someone who appears to have made a living out of writing Electrical Engineering textbooks its appalling that he's made these kinds of (obviously unchecked by him) modelling errors!

Every single time we drill into any of this dude's papers, his credibility just keeps sinking to new lows!

He just appears to be attempting to baffle readers not familiar with the fundamentals of vector calculus and the physical models behind Maxwell's equations, whilst bumbling forward creating nothing more than total junk physics .. (Which is perhaps arguable as being the only material suitable for Thunderdolts 'consumers')!?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Herschel Reveals Giant Galaxy-Packed Filament | Astronomy | Sci-News.com

A team of astronomers using ESA’s Herschel Space Observatory has discovered a giant, galaxy-packed filament ablaze with billions of new stars.

The intergalactic filament connects two clusters of galaxies that, along with a third cluster, will smash together and give rise to one of the largest galaxy superclusters in the Universe. This structure is the first of its kind spied in a critical era of cosmic buildup when colossal collections of galaxies called superclusters began to take shape.

Containing hundreds of galaxies, the filament spans 8 million light-years and links two of the three clusters that make up a supercluster known as RCS2319. This emerging supercluster is an exceptionally rare, distant object whose light has taken more than seven billion years to reach us.

The evidence of Birkeland currents in space is overwhelming. They scale up and down the size spectrum and they link objects in space. They even wire entire galaxy *clusters* together. We can see the tell tale signs of dense mass flowing through the core of the filaments in the form of current and causing the stars to form and light up. Birkeland currents are fully capable of supporting a bidirectional flow of electrical current.

This is an area of laboratory research that deserves additional funding rather than blowing another 10 million dollars on yet another dark matter snipe hunt. How many *billions* of dollars worth of "tests" has the DM hypothesis failed to date? Why not try a different kind of laboratory test based on Maxwell's equations and standard particle physics?
 
Last edited:
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
Space 'Slinky' Confirms Theory with a Twist

WASHINGTON, D.C.-Astronomers have discovered a giant magnetic field that is coiled like a snake around a rod-shaped gas cloud in the constellation Orion.

Timothy Robishaw, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, involved in the discovery, described the structure as a "giant, magnetic Slinky wrapped around a long, finger-like interstellar cloud."

Astronomers call that wound-up shape "helical."

The discovery, presented here this week at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, was made in the Orion Molecular Cloud, a known stellar nursery in the constellation Orion. It supports a previous theory about how magnetic fields interact with interstellar gas clouds.

Birkeland current - Wikipedia

600px-Magnetic_rope.svg.png


That "helical" shape of the magnetic field is a direct result of the Birkeland current that sustains it. Here again we see observational evidence that the Birkeland current is directly related to a "stellar nursery" where new stars are forming due to the mass movements through the filament.

By they way, plasma in space is dusty. It's never fully ionized. Rather in includes all sorts of solids liquids and gases that are not ionized, but could contain static electricity and even act a bit like a plasma with respect to being influenced by EM fields.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0