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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.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.
It was a simple question; still unanswered...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.
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).It was a simple question; still unanswered...
I'm not going to waste time with those intimations of fraud & conspiracy.
The depth of Scott's mistakes in both math and Physics just go on and on, eh?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.
It was a simple question; still unanswered...
I'm not going to waste time with those intimations of fraud & conspiracy.
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.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?
Yes .. and that's the broader 'EU' rubbish I was referencing earlier.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.
I'm not going to waste time with those intimations of fraud & conspiracy.
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.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.
Here is some more mathematical nonsense from Scott, this time from his 2015 paper.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: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.
Ahh .. but you must be talking about a real Birkeland Current ... and not a Scott/Michael Magic Birkeland Current .. (an SMMBC)?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.
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!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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?