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

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Event Horizon Telescope

Hannes Alfven's homopolar generator model of objects in space would predict that such supermassive, and potentially rapidly rotating objects are inducing current flow in the plasma around them as they rotate, and they emit those induced Birkeland currents at both poles.

Messier 87 - Wikipedia

This is indeed exactly what we observe, suggesting that supermassive black holes are also supermassive electrical current generators.

Astronomers Find Quasars Are 'Aligned' Across Billions Of Light-Years

These supermassive electrical generators are also 'wired together' along even more massive Birkeland current filaments. The Birkeland current quasar "jets" even align themselves with the direction of the filaments.

Pretty much every observation in space is consistent with the Birkeland current model, and Alfven's homopolar generator model.

Not only are suns potential generators of electrical current, every rotating object in space could potentially induce current flow in the surrounding plasma.

Galaxy rotation predictions are only the tip of the iceberg with respect to improving our understanding of the physical universe by including the E fields in the discussion of space, as well as including them in the mathematical models of space.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well I stand corrected with respect to force free fields but it doesn’t let Scott off the hook.
In fact the link confirms Scott’s model is nonsense.

(1) Note there is no reference to deriving the force field equations (11)-(12) using Maxwell’s 4th equation ∇ X B = μ(j + ε∂E/∂t).
Maxwell’s equation is based on Ampere’s circuital law where the current passes through the magnetic field that is wrapped around the wire.
Clearly j and B not parallel and therefore plays no role in the derivation of the equations.
In the case of Maxwell’s equation (∇ X B) X B ≠ 0.

(2) Equation (13), the mathematical relationship between the component of the current density j in the z direction and magnetic field B is derived from the determinant of a 2 X 2 matrix using the components of the magnetic field.
(This is how the curl of the magnetic field (or ∇ X B) is calculated.)

µ₀jz₀ = ∂By₀∂x − ∂Bx₀∂y (equation 13)
Compare this with Scott’s derivation jz (r) = (αBz₀/µ₀)J₀(αr).

Even though there is not a direct comparison between the equations as different coordinate systems are being used, when equation (13) is defined as a boundary value condition as stated in the link, Scott’s version is totally at odds with the physical interpretation.
In equation (13) the current density j in the z direction depends on the magnetic components of B in the x and y directions where as in Scott’s equation it is solely in the z direction.
Clearly both cannot be right.
Given that Scott’s derivation is based on an algebraic error due to a partial substitution using Maxwell’s 4th equation where j and B are not even parallel it’s obvious where the error resides.

(3) No where in the link are the currents referred to as Birkeland currents with good reason since Birkeland currents have only been measured in magnetic fields that are not force free such as the Earth’s magnetosphere.

So along with the link to Messier 82 galaxy this latest link only confirms why Scott’s model is comprehensively wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Well I stand corrected with respect to force free fields but it doesn’t let Scott off the hook.
I didn't read your post in the sense that would call for correction. It is Scott who has confused the physical integrity of the model via the cut and paste style behind his argument .. trying to force-fit the real force free equations into his dreamed up version of a Birkleland current.

sjastro said:
In fact the link confirms Scott’s model is nonsense.
...
Clearly j and B not parallel and therefore plays no role in the derivation of the equations.
In the case of Maxwell’s equation (∇ X B) X B ≠ 0.
I agree.

sjastro said:
... when equation (13) is defined as a boundary value condition as stated in the link, Scott’s version is totally at odds with the physical interpretation.
In equation (13) the current density j in the z direction depends on the magnetic components of B in the x and y directions where as in Scott’s equation it is solely in the z direction.
Clearly both cannot be right.
Ahh .. yes!

sjastro said:
Given that Scott’s derivation is based on an algebraic error due to a partial substitution using Maxwell’s 4th equation where j and B are not even parallel it’s obvious where the error resides.
Thanks for 'rooting out' exactly where the error is.
A substitution error violates the integrity of his model.
I think this happens because he appears to blindly follow the unchecked (physically) cut and paste approach(?)

sjastro said:
(3) No where in the link are the currents referred to as Birkeland currents with good reason since Birkeland currents have only been measured in magnetic fields that are not force free such as the Earth’s magnetosphere.
Which is also not necessarily saying that such evidence won't occur in some forthcoming observations .. How localised those scenarios may be, (and other considerations) would then become the main issues.
Ubiquitous (universal) intergalactic galactic scale 'Birkeland currents' is simply an 'EU fantasy' with no theoretical foundations. (Doubly so now, given the exposure of Scott's above blunders).
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4693

See equation 11 from Wiegelmann/Sakurai and notice how it matches equation 13 in Scott's paper. J and B *are* parallel/collinear in the z axis.

From Scott's paper.

It follows from (11) that the Lorentz forces are everywhere equal to zero in a force-free current because every j is collinear with its corresponding B.This arrangement is therefore also called a field-aligned current (FAC).

Or as Wignelmann/Sakurai state:

B || ∇×B force-free fields. (8)

In order to *correctly* critique Scott's paper, one has to first actually understand Scott's model properly with respect to the vector direction of j and B (including the z axis), as well as understand something about Beltrami vector fields.

Messier 82 demonstrates, it's also *critically important* to realize that plasma inside the Birkeland current can move *in either/both direction(s)*, not just one way. In addition, Alfven's homopolar generator model allows for massive objects, like objects at the centers of galaxies to induce current flows in the surrounding plasma and produce 'jets' near the poles.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4693

See equation 11 from Wiegelmann/Sakurai and notice how it matches equation 13 in Scott's paper. J and B *are* parallel/collinear in the z axis.

From Scott's paper.



Or as Wignelmann/Sakurai state:



In order to *correctly* critique Scott's paper, one has to first actually understand Scott's model properly with respect to the vector direction of j and B (including the z axis), as well as understand something about Beltrami vector fields.
It seems Scott is the one that doesn’t understand Beltrami vector fields because every time he refers to the Maxwell equation as necessary condition for a force free field the Beltrami vector field doesn’t apply.
The problem is Scott’s paper shows j and B are not collinear.
I suggest you look at both equations (13) and (14) in Scott’s paper which highlights the issue.
Scott said:
∇ × B = αB (13)
which from (4) is equivalently,
µj = αB (14)
There is no equivalence at all.
Equation (4) is Maxwell’s equation ∇ × B = µj + ε∂E/∂t which for the umpteenth time B and j are not collinear.

In the Maxwell equation the current is passing through a closed magnetic loop.
This contradicts equation (14) which states B and j are collinear.

If you want see the correct derivation of equation (13) you can use your own link.
Wignelmann/Sakurai said:
j × B = 0, (2)
j = 1/µ₀ (∇ × B) is the electric current density, (3)
∇ · B = 0, (4)
or by inserting Equation (3) into (2):
(∇ × B) × B = 0, (5)
∇ · B = 0. (6)
Equation (5) can be fulfilled either by:
∇ × B = 0 current-free or potential magnetic fields (7)
or by
B ║ ∇ × B force-free fields. (8)
.........
…….
The B ║ ∇ × B condition can be rewritten as
∇ × B = αB, (11)
It is insignificant that equation (11) in your link is the same as equation (13) in the Scott paper.
Scott’s paper literally falls apart from equation (14) onwards and leads to the nonsensical equations (49) and (50) due to the incorrect algebraic substitution mentioned in past posts.
In fact equation (50) says it all jθ (r) = α/µ(Bz (0)) J1 (αr).
It should be obvious even to you jθ and Bz are not collinear.

Messier 82 demonstrates, it's also *critically important* to realize that plasma inside the Birkeland current can move *in either/both direction(s)*, not just one way. In addition, Alfven's homopolar generator model allows for massive objects, like objects at the centers of galaxies to induce current flows in the surrounding plasma and produce 'jets' near the poles.
Don’t let the facts get in the way.
1964ApJ...140..942B Page 942

Did you bother reading this link that tells you the spectra of your so called Birkeland current is a combination of mainly dust and neutral hydrogen gas that expands outwards from both sides of the disk, something that is impossible for a potential driven Birkeland current to do.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I didn't read your post in the sense that would call for correction. It is Scott who has confused the physical integrity of the model via the cut and paste style behind his argument .. trying to force-fit the real force free equations into his dreamed up version of a Birkleland current.
The “correction” doesn’t exonerate Scott it adds to the confusion.

He starts off with Maxwell’s equation where (∇ X B) X B ≠ 0 applies, then somewhere in the paper the equation magically changes to (∇ X B) X B = 0 to reflect the force free condition.
In fact he oscillates between (∇ X B) X B ≠ 0 and (∇ X B) X B = 0.
It’s like the literary sleight of hand followed by the algebraic error.

Thanks for 'rooting out' exactly where the error is.
A substitution error violates the integrity of his model.
I think this happens because he appears to blindly follow the unchecked (physically) cut and paste approach(?)
The irony is if he never made the algebraic substitution in the first place he would have reproduced Lundquist’s 1950 equations.
It’s almost as if to make it an “original work” he has decided to tinker around with the equations by the incorrect substitution which has ended up in a mathematical disaster.

Which is also not necessarily saying that such evidence won't occur in some forthcoming observations .. How localised those scenarios may be, (and other considerations) would then become the main issues.
Ubiquitous (universal) intergalactic galactic scale 'Birkeland currents' is simply an 'EU fantasy' with no theoretical foundations. (Doubly so now, given the exposure of Scott's above blunders).
Here is the interesting point.
Force free fields apply where the magnetic pressure exceeds the plasma pressure.
Birkeland currents are associated with z pinches which by definition increase the plasma pressure as for example “in the laboratory” regarding plasma fusion.
So whether Birkeland currents can actually exist in force free fields is a relevant question and is probably a reflection in the Wignelmann/Sakurai link why the aligned currents are not Birkeland currents.

If we go by Scott’s recipe that Birkeland currents and force free fields go hand in hand there is a real problem in our solar system.
In a way it relates to that “interesting” discussion of hydrostatic equilibrium of the Earth’s atmosphere with that individual on the other site.:sorry:
While the Sun’s corona is not in hydrostatic equilibrium the outward force of the plasma pressure is countered by the inward gravitational force of the Sun.
This unique set of circumstances which includes the density of the plasma in the corona sets up the conditions for a force free field in the corona.
Beyond the corona there is no force free field in the solar wind so what happens to the Birkeland current?

Then there is the contradiction that Birkeland currents exist in the Earth’s magnetosphere which is not a force free field and adds to the confusion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
When discussing Maxwell's equations with respect to plasma physics, it's necessary to understand the particle physical processes that are occurring and taking place within the plasma itself as a result of Maxwell's equations.

It's critically important to understand that real plasma, even current carrying plasma, is almost never fully ionized, let alone ionized to it's full ionization potential/state. Plasma in space is 'dusty' and it contains all sorts of molecules, solids, liquids and gasses. Don Pettit from NASA even conducted experiments in space which demonstrate that dust particles tend to develop an electrostatic 'charge' and act a bit like an ion (or bar magnet) with respect to being influenced by Maxwell's equations. They tend to cause the dust particles to 'clump'.

Images of space would necessarily contain light from these Birkeland currents on many different wavelengths, from higher energy wavelengths related to discharges through the plasma, to lower energy wavelengths related to the light emitted by ordinary dust particles. Birkeland currents are the visual antithesis of 'dark matter". Unlike "dark matter", some Birkeland currents emit light from virtually the entire energy spectrum. They are absolutely not "invisible". They emit light from their dust particles, and light in the form of x-rays and gamma rays electrical discharges on Earth and in solar flares. Birkeland currents are *entirely* visible on many wavelengths. Some of those wavelengths might be more easily absorbed/scattered, but the currents are emitting light up and down the energy spectrum. We can easily distinguish between light or absorption patterns from highly ionized iron, and light from ordinary dust particles or simple molecules.

As Maxwell's equations relate to plasma physics, the term "current" (J) describes the net particle movement with respect to charge and direction through the Birkeland current. The charged particles can, and typically are flowing in both directions simultaneously through a Birkeland current. Dust and plasma ions can move in one direction at one speed, and electrons can flow in the opposite direction at different speeds that are sometimes different by entire orders of magnitude. During 'discharge' processes in plasma, electrons are typically "hotter"/faster moving particles and they tend to carry the bulk of the current during such events.

In a typical plasma, ions tend to move in the opposite direction of electrons. Ions (and dust) form the current carrying "threads"/tubes which form the conductive parts of the Birkeland current filaments. The complex magnetic fields within the Birkeland current acts to evacuate the areas/regions between the various 'tubes'. The magnetic fields tend to "pinch"/concentrate the ion density into various tubes of different sizes, with different movement patterns, within the Birkeland current. The net result of the magnetic field separation process, is an overall insulating effect between the various tubes with respect to carrying current.

To use an analogy, the complex magnetic fields act to direct particle traffic onto specific roads and particle lanes that move in specific directions. As long as the particles continue to travel and move along the roads in an orderly fashion, it's a "force free" (collisionless) environment. Particles move in a field aligned particle flow pattern that is the physical manifestation of a complex magnetic field. These tubes can be moving in opposite directions with different spins as directed by the complex magnetic fields of the Birkeland current.

The center of the current is the most dense part of the filament and it carries the bulk of the electrical current through the filament. Most of the mass flows (ions and electrons) take place near the core of the current, and the plasma density and mass flow is typically reduced with increasing radii.

We also know that Markelund currents act to separate elements by ionization state and concentrate Iron near the core of the filament, and cause hydrogen to be located on the outer areas.

For all intents and purposes, the positively charged ions (and charged dust particles) will flow along the magnetic fields patterns of the Birkeland current and form the physical structures of the Birkeland current. They pretty much 'go with the flow' of the magnetic field. Their location and movement patterns are directed by the complex magnetic field patterns within the Birkeland current. They are physical (moving) manifestations of the magnetic field arrangements that Maxwell's equations describe.

As current (J) in the form of electrons flows through the plasma, the electrons are flowing along the magnetic field lines, and various ion locations (lanes), of the Birkeland current. The current is necessarily moving in a collinear direction in the direction of the magnetic fields of the Birkeland current at all times, regardless of what path the current takes, or the direction it takes. The ion location, it's movement pattern and it's direction of motion is all directed by and dictated by the magnetic field. Electrons attempting to flow through the Birkeland current will simply travel though the ions which are the physical manifestion of the magnetic field lines. At the most fundamental level of plasma physics, there's no physical possibility that J and B are not collinear at all times. Any deviation from that orderly movement would not be "field aligned current'.

As Scott specifically states in his paper:

It follows from (11) that the Lorentz forces are everywhere equal to zero in a force-free current because every j is collinear with its corresponding B.This arrangement is therefore also called a field-aligned current (FAC).

By definition he's describing a "field aligned current".

The Birkeland current itself, along with it's complex physical pattern is entirely visible, up and down the energy spectrum. In electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere, and solar discharges can result in the emission of gamma rays and x-rays. In space even the dust is emitting light at various wavelengths. Birkleland currents are the exact opposite of dark matter. They are fully interactive with the EM spectrum. They are light emitting/absorbing filaments up and down the energy spectrum. We can see them on many wavelengths.

Of course not *all* charged particle movement in space is collisionless as the corona and aurora can easily demonstrate.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
...
It’s like the literary sleight of hand followed by the algebraic error.

The irony is if he never made the algebraic substitution in the first place he would have reproduced Lundquist’s 1950 equations.
It’s almost as if to make it an “original work” he has decided to tinker around with the equations by the incorrect substitution which has ended up in a mathematical disaster.
Yes.

sjastro said:
... So whether Birkeland currents can actually exist in force free fields is a relevant question and is probably a reflection in the Wignelmann/Sakurai link why the aligned currents are not Birkeland currents.
If we go by Scott’s recipe that Birkeland currents and force free fields go hand in hand there is a real problem in our solar system.
In a way it relates to that “interesting” discussion of hydrostatic equilibrium of the Earth’s atmosphere with that individual on the other site.:sorry:
As an aside: I think this relationship lurking in the background is why I was feeling so uncomfortable with the 'spin' being added in that other discussion.

sjastro said:
While the Sun’s corona is not in hydrostatic equilibrium the outward force of the plasma pressure is countered by the inward gravitational force of the Sun.
This unique set of circumstances which includes the density of the plasma in the corona sets up the conditions for a force free field in the corona.
Beyond the corona there is no force free field in the solar wind so what happens to the Birkeland current?
Then there is the contradiction that Birkeland currents exist in the Earth’s magnetosphere which is not a force free field and adds to the confusion.
Well, along the lines of its magical abilities, it magically disappears .. then magically re-appears in say, the Earth's magnetosphere! :sorry: :p

But more seriously though, that diagram we keep getting forced into looking at, (see post #40), deserves correction! The green circular field was originally intended as denoting an externally imposed magnetic field and the red/blue helical paths are those taken by freely moving charge particles because of that externally imposed field... (and not the reverse as per the commentary added by Michael/Scott).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

From the very title of his paper, Scott begins, ends, and never deviates from a three dimensional plasma physics "force free, field aligned" current environment where (∇ X B) X B = 0. From the start of the paper to the end of the paper, he methodically explains how current seeks the path of "least (force) resistance" through a plasma filament, and he describes the dynamic and complex magnetic field patterns, and the particle flow patterns that emerge in that environment from the standpoint of Maxwell's equations as they apply to a force-free, field aligned plasma physics model.

The basic "moving helix of current" concept can be observed at home inside of any ordinary plasma ball. The bright current carrying filaments which form between the glass globe and the core of the plasma ball will form a tornado/twister-like spinning filament that connects the negatively charged glass wall to the anode core. Electrons from the glass surface flow through the plasma filament, toward the anode core, and the twister shaped filaments glow as they act as a conductor. The overall movement of ions in the twister toward the glass is also a form of current.

Scott's intent when he started to write his papers was never to merely duplicate the work of Lundquist whom he wasn't even aware of at the time. Scott's intent was to understand and describe the physics, the mechanics and the current transfer process of Birkeland currents as they form and operate in space. He wanted to understand their magnetic field properties, particle flow patterns, etc. In the second paper, Scott applies the Birkeland current concept to galaxy rotation, and counter rotation. It's a mathematical and physical masterpiece.

Unlike the dark matter model, there is nothing metaphysical or magical going on in a field aligned, force free Birkeland current model. It is just a logical application of Maxwell's field equations to a three dimensional, current carrying plasma physics, "field aligned" environment where (∇ X B) X B = 0. The physical and mathematical model that emerges naturally from Maxwell's equations describe varying rotation patterns of galaxies without the need for exotic forms of matter. The model also explains complex counter rotation patterns, and elemental separation in galaxies, both of which have already been observed and verified in space. The Birkeland current model does all of those things "naturally", all the while remaining entirely compatible and completely congruent with the standard model of particle physics and all standard equations of gravity, unlike MOND theory and dark matter theory.

Plasma is a nearly "perfect" (not completely perfect, but far better than copper) conductor, so it makes perfect sense that a universe composed of mostly plasma is conducting currents in space. It not only makes perfect sense, it's been verified to conduct current over vast distances.

MOND theory requires a rewrite of Newton's formulas which then have to be inelegantly grafted onto a GR based theory of cosmology. The MOND concept is also falsified by observations of galaxies that are correctly described by pure Newtonian equations, and without dark matter.

Dark matter theory doesn't address counter rotation or ion separation between counter rotating parts of the same galaxy, both of which have already been observed. It also incorrectly predicts that satellite galaxies will form random rotational patterns around the galaxy, when actual observations suggest that satellite galaxies align themselves along the disk. In baseball terms, that's like taking a swing and a miss, and then watching two perfect strikes go by the plate without even swinging at them, and getting called out on strikes.

Of the three main galaxy rotation models, only the Birkeland current model correctly predicts all of the important aspects that we observe in galaxy rotation patterns and mass flow patterns in and around galaxies. It's not even a contest at this point. In baseball terms, it's a Birkeland current grand slam. Scott hit it out of the park.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
...

The basic "moving helix of current" concept can be observed at home inside of any ordinary plasma ball. The bright current carrying filaments which form between the glass globe and the core of the plasma ball will form a tornado/twister-like spinning filament that connects the negatively charged glass wall to the anode core. Electrons from the glass surface flow through the plasma filament, toward the anode core, and the twister shaped filaments glow as they act as a conductor. The overall movement of ions in the twister toward the glass is also a form of current.
Fester.gif

Michael said:
Scott's intent when he started to write his papers was never to merely duplicate the work of Lundquist whom he wasn't even aware of at the time.
Not credible .. given that he corrected his mistake of not crediting Lundquist's work in his originally circulated paper .. in the subsequently published revision of it.

Michael said:
Scott's intent was to understand and describe the physics, the mechanics and the current transfer process of Birkeland currents as they form and operate in space.
If you say so .. so therein lies his first error .. there is no evidence of Birkeland currents forming and operating throughout the vast majority of intergalactic space. Ie: he set out to describe something unobserved when it was possible to observe them if they were there. He set out to write some sci-fi fantasy .. that's all.

Michael said:
He wanted to understand their magnetic field properties, particle flow patterns, etc. In the second paper, Scott applies the Birkeland current concept to galaxy rotation, and counter rotation. It's a mathematical and physical masterpiece.
No .. its a pile of rubbish!
 
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
NASA Viz: Galactic Lobes


By the way, our own Milky Way galaxy has visible "gamma ray lobes" that come up through the center of the galaxy, just as a Birkeland current model predicts. Birkeland currents are the absolute antithesis of "dark matter". They are entirely compatible with the standard particle physics model, so they emit light and absorb light on a wide range of wavelengths depending on the specific conditions of the dusty plasma. They are visible all over the universe, including those visible gamma ray lobes that electrically connect our galaxy to the rest of the universe.

The evidence that we live in an electric universe is overwhelming, and the size of the currents observed are simply staggering.

Universe's highest electric current found
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
From the very title of his paper, Scott begins, ends, and never deviates from a three dimensional plasma physics "force free, field aligned" current environment where (∇ X B) X B = 0. From the start of the paper to the end of the paper, he methodically explains how current seeks the path of "least (force) resistance" through a plasma filament, and he describes the dynamic and complex magnetic field patterns, and the particle flow patterns that emerge in that environment from the standpoint of Maxwell's equations as they apply to a force-free, field aligned plasma physics model.

The basic "moving helix of current" concept can be observed at home inside of any ordinary plasma ball. The bright current carrying filaments which form between the glass globe and the core of the plasma ball will form a tornado/twister-like spinning filament that connects the negatively charged glass wall to the anode core. Electrons from the glass surface flow through the plasma filament, toward the anode core, and the twister shaped filaments glow as they act as a conductor. The overall movement of ions in the twister toward the glass is also a form of current.

Scott's intent when he started to write his papers was never to merely duplicate the work of Lundquist whom he wasn't even aware of at the time. Scott's intent was to understand and describe the physics, the mechanics and the current transfer process of Birkeland currents as they form and operate in space. He wanted to understand their magnetic field properties, particle flow patterns, etc. In the second paper, Scott applies the Birkeland current concept to galaxy rotation, and counter rotation. It's a mathematical and physical masterpiece.

Unlike the dark matter model, there is nothing metaphysical or magical going on in a field aligned, force free Birkeland current model. It is just a logical application of Maxwell's field equations to a three dimensional, current carrying plasma physics, "field aligned" environment where (∇ X B) X B = 0. The physical and mathematical model that emerges naturally from Maxwell's equations describe varying rotation patterns of galaxies without the need for exotic forms of matter. The model also explains complex counter rotation patterns, and elemental separation in galaxies, both of which have already been observed and verified in space. The Birkeland current model does all of those things "naturally", all the while remaining entirely compatible and completely congruent with the standard model of particle physics and all standard equations of gravity, unlike MOND theory and dark matter theory.

Plasma is a nearly "perfect" (not completely perfect, but far better than copper) conductor, so it makes perfect sense that a universe composed of mostly plasma is conducting currents in space. It not only makes perfect sense, it's been verified to conduct current over vast distances.

MOND theory requires a rewrite of Newton's formulas which then have to be inelegantly grafted onto a GR based theory of cosmology. The MOND concept is also falsified by observations of galaxies that are correctly described by pure Newtonian equations, and without dark matter.

Dark matter theory doesn't address counter rotation or ion separation between counter rotating parts of the same galaxy, both of which have already been observed. It also incorrectly predicts that satellite galaxies will form random rotational patterns around the galaxy, when actual observations suggest that satellite galaxies align themselves along the disk. In baseball terms, that's like taking a swing and a miss, and then watching two perfect strikes go by the plate without even swinging at them, and getting called out on strikes.

Of the three main galaxy rotation models, only the Birkeland current model correctly predicts all of the important aspects that we observe in galaxy rotation patterns and mass flow patterns in and around galaxies. It's not even a contest at this point. In baseball terms, it's a Birkeland current grand slam. Scott hit it out of the park.
Let’s call your post for what it is, a massive handwave.
No one is interested in your science fiction definitions.

Scott’s errors and contradictions have been pointed out to you in detail, none of which you have been able to address while the observational evidence screams out “no Birkeland currents” from measurements beyond the Earth’s magnetosphere to spectroscopic data for the streamers and filaments of the M82 galaxy.

And please stop with the dishonesty of linking this thread to other threads claiming that Scott’s model is irrefutable and the skeptics are reduced to handwaving.
As anyone reading this thread can plainly see you are doing all the handwaving.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Michael said:
From the very title of his paper, Scott begins, ends, and never deviates from a three dimensional plasma physics "force free, field aligned" current environment where (∇ X B) X B = 0.
…..It's a mathematical and physical masterpiece……..
………….It's not even a contest at this point. In baseball terms, it's a Birkeland current grand slam. Scott hit it out of the park………….
Oh my gosh this is no longer handwaving but straight out propaganda.
From the start of the paper to the end of the paper, he methodically explains how current seeks the path of "least (force) resistance" through a plasma filament, and he describes the dynamic and complex magnetic field patterns, and the particle flow patterns that emerge in that environment from the standpoint of Maxwell's equations as they apply to a force-free, field aligned plasma physics model.
So why does applying Maxwell’s equations lead to equation (50) from his 2015 paper and equation (4) from the 2018 paper, jθ (r) = α/µ(Bz (0)) J1 (αr).

This equation spells out in black and white the field is not force free as the current density and magnetic field are not parallel.
Since you don’t appear to understand why this is the case, claiming Scott’s papers are a mathematical and physical masterpiece is hyperbole bordering on pure comedy given the mathematics is clearly beyond you.

As a poster mentioned in another thread if you became familiar with science (and maths) you would appreciate how nonsensical Scott’s papers are.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
305037_bae5bb4466e7a022f797d3e6a69936bb.gif

Selfsim,

The Uncle Fester model is better than the planeterella model but I can see scope for further improvement.
It looks as if Uncle Fester is using a 2400 K colour temperature incandescent bulb which doesn’t match the solar spectrum.
I suggest Uncle Fester uses a daylight compact fluorescent lamp which closely mirrors the spectrum.

Now having a solar spectrum that can be reproduced in the lab we can, using EU/PC formalism, develop a physical model of the Sun based on this new lab model.
In this case our EU/PC solar model of the Sun becomes a gigantic invisible Uncle Fester in the sky with a massive daylight compact fluorescent lamp shoved in his mouth.

This is a far superior physical model to equating the Sun as a laboratory planeterella demonstration.:amen:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
sjastro said:
The Uncle Fester model is better than the planeterella model but I can see scope for further improvement.
It looks as if Uncle Fester is using a 2400 K colour temperature incandescent bulb which doesn’t match the solar spectrum.
I suggest Uncle Fester uses a daylight compact fluorescent lamp which closely mirrors the spectrum.
Well .. ok then .. but Uncle Fester (UF) still possesses the magical power to light it up!
It requires his omnipotent presence y'know .. :bow:

sjastro said:
Now having a solar spectrum that can be reproduced in the lab we can, using EU/PC formalism, develop a physical model of the Sun based on this new lab model.
In this case our EU/PC solar model of the Sun becomes a gigantic invisible Uncle Fester in the sky with a massive daylight compact fluorescent lamp shoved in his mouth.
Reminds me of the latest improved resolution image of the EHT's M87 black hole image just posted in the other thread:

56652810_2252300694826772_1559369906393186304_n.jpg
[/Q

sjastro said:
This is a far superior physical model to equating the Sun as a laboratory planeterella demonstration.:amen:
More seriously, the Fester (revised) model appears to have extraordinary EU explanatory power .. perhaps we should explore this amazing, extraordinarily close parallel analogy/model some more?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
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
As the saying goes: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink".

I've demonstrated that massive electrical currents have already been observed in space. I've demonstrated that GeoSpace scientists already accept the fact that space is "fundamentally electrical in nature". I've explained the counter rotation prediction benefits of Scott's model, and I've cited the literature that demonstrates that counter rotation in almost every type of galaxy has already been documented. I've explained the Marklund current prediction of the Birkeland current model and shown how that ionization state separation prediction has also already been observed in at least one of those counter rotating galaxies. I've explained that Scott's Birkeland current model is completely consistent with the standard model of particle physics, whereas the dark matter model is not compatible with the standard model of particle physics.

I even took it a step further and I pointed out some of the math errors made by Scott's critics, and I can explain and have explained the physical processes in plasma in great detail for anyone who *wants* to understand it.

Suffice to say that Birkeland currents are known to affect our own atmosphere, there is observational evidence of the existence of Birkeland Currents in space, and they've been mathematically modeled in great detail. The evidence to support their existence in space is *overwhelming*. "Magnetic ropes"/field aligned Birkeland currents have been observed to connect the sun to the Earth and the sun to Saturn. Furthermore, the physics of plasma is known to scale many orders of magnitude.

However, the one thing that I cannot do is force anyone deal with the observational evidence that supports the Birkeland Current model, even when it's staring them in the face in numerous wavelengths.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I've demonstrated that massive electrical currents have already been observed in space. I've demonstrated that GeoSpace scientists already accept the fact that space is "fundamentally electrical in nature". I've explained the counter rotation prediction benefits of Scott's model, and I've cited the literature that demonstrates that counter rotation in almost every type of galaxy has already been documented. I've explained the Marklund current prediction of the Birkeland current model and shown how that ionization state separation prediction has also already been observed in at least one of those counter rotating galaxies. I've explained that Scott's Birkeland current model is completely consistent with the standard model of particle physics, whereas the dark matter model is not compatible with the standard model of particle physics.
Not one single link you have supplied doesn't even mention the term Birkeland current let alone is an example of one.
Your first link is an example.
You see the word "current" and read it as a Birkeland current, likewise you see a picture of M82 with a filament structure so it must be a Birkeland current despite the contrary evidence.
You are so blinded by your own prejudice you read and see things in articles that are not there.

This is a classic strawman and highly dishonest for you to even suggest you understand the maths while your explanation of the plasma processes is one of confusion as you think Birkeland currents and plasma are interchangeable terms.
I suggest to acquire a knowledge of basic science such as understanding the difference between plasma and an electrical current.

You should also brush up on your high school algebra.
Didn't you learn early in your maths education at school that for a mathematical formula, whatever you do to the left hand side of the equation, you do to the right hand side as well.
That's the magnitude of Scott's error because he ignored this fundamental rule in algebra when tinkering with the Lundquist equations with Maxwell's (illogical in itself) leading to his nonsensical equations in particular
jθ (r) = α/µ(Bz (0)) J1 (αr) which contradicts the current being field aligned.
Suffice to say that Birkeland currents are known to affect our own atmosphere, there is observational evidence of the existence of Birkeland Currents in space, and they've been mathematically modeled in great detail. The evidence to support their existence in space is *overwhelming*. "Magnetic ropes"/field aligned Birkeland currents have been observed to connect the sun to the Earth and the sun to Saturn. Furthermore, the physics of plasma is known to scale many orders of magnitude.
Once again you are deluding yourself. There is no evidence.
While Birkeland currents have been observed in the magnetospheres of planets, the idea that Birkeland currents link the Sun to the Earth and Saturn violates the laws of physics because there is no external magnetic field to the solar wind.
For the umpteenth time this is supported by the fact that Birkeland currents have never been measured outside the Earth's magnetosphere.

However, the one thing that I cannot do is force anyone deal with the observational evidence that supports the Birkeland Current model, even when it's staring them in the face in numerous wavelengths.
Here is an image of M81 and M82 in the same field.
According to mainstream, the streamers and filaments in M82 is suspected to be caused by the gravitational interaction with M81.
2017-03-15_58c8e6bb2cd15_M81_M82.jpg

Your own standard of pareidolia fails you.
Where is the Birkeland current connecting the galaxies in particular since counter rotating gas has been found in M82?
Furthermore how do you explain this "Birkeland current" being mysteriously truncated on both sides which goes nowhere.
Using your own standards the picture clearly illustrates Scott's model is a total failure.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
M81, M82, NGC 3077 | HI data of the M81 Triplet (M81, M82, NGC3077)
m81robsdss-2.jpeg


Min's M81 Group Page

m81hi.gif


Here we see hydrogen filaments connecting the various galaxies.

Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias - IAC - Educational Outreach
prensa1007_1640.jpg


Apparently M81 also has Birkeland current 'jets'

Not all Birkeland current threads are as obvious as the current carrying 'jet' coming our way from M87:

This further information is more of the same:
(1) The images are not of Birkeland currents.
(2) You seem to be incapable of reading or understanding the information you supply.

The first two images are of the HI regions surrounding M81 which is neutral hydrogen, not Birkeland currents or even plasma.
With regards to the third image, well what can I say, it's an artist's interpretation of M81!!!
You are even seeing Birkeland currents in works of art.

With regards to M87 according your video and the supportive data this "Birkeland current" extends only about 1000 light years.
Why does it abruptly stop and not connect to a neighbouring galaxy?

All you have accomplished is to dig a deeper hole for yourself.

On top of all this I'm still waiting on your explanation on how Scott's model is a "mathematical masterpiece" when the equation
jθ (r) = α/µ(Bz (0)) J1 (αr) clearly contradicts a force free field.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
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
HubbleSite: News - Faint Glow Within Galaxy Clusters Illuminates Dark Matter

A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies | RealClearScience

According to the study, as many as half of the universe's stars may dwell outside of galaxies, representing a stellar population previously unknown to science!

A recent 2018 Hubble study verifies an earlier study from 2014 that suggests that astronomers have been grossly underestimating the number of stars *between* galaxies in a cluster, and it shows that "dark matter" traces to the locations of the ordinary matter that is known to be present.

There's really no mystery as to why we haven't identified all the ordinary matter that is present in space. Our technology is still very limited, and we're therefore forced to make a whole host of assumptions that have since been shown to be false.

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

There's been a consistent trend of locating significant amounts of new ordinary matter since that now infamous bullet cluster study in 2006. In 2019 we now know that there was virtually no "assumption" that was made in the luminosity based baryonic mass estimates of galaxies that was even close to correct in 2006. The stellar underestimates alone were staggering, and were off by 2 to 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. The two different halos found around our own galaxy since 2006 contain more mass than all the stars combined.

There's plenty of evidence to show that are mass estimation techniques based on luminosity were never particularly accurate, and there better and purely empirical way to explain galaxy rotation curves that have nothing to do with inventing new forms of matter.
 
Upvote 0