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.
What has any of this got to do with Scott's model?HubbleSite: News - Faint Glow Within Galaxy Clusters Illuminates Dark Matter
A Universe of Stars May Exist Outside Galaxies | RealClearScience
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.
Oh dear! Not Scott's nonsense again. He's probably a nice chap, but is completely clueless. He really should stick to re-wiring houses, or whatever he used to do.
'Smithi' is correct ... regardless of interactions with yourself. (Or more likely, because of few interactions with yourself). For instance, you and I have discussed Scott's models ad nauseum and yet I still concur that Scott is clueless especially when it comes to describing Birkeland currents because of his flawed application of physical models and invalid substitutions in the math descriptions of them.Again? Have you and I ever even discussed Scott's work? Funny how a "clueless" electrical engineer can explain galaxy counter rotation, and plasma separation processes in counter rotating galaxies where as the dark matter model doesn't explain any of that.
a "clueless" electrical engineer"
The constant personal attacks directed at Scott and everyone involved in PC/EU theory simply demonstrates desperation IMO. You'll have to explain any supposed math error in your own words because previous claims which were alleged by others turned out to be their own errors.
Rather than having one of Scott's mathematically ignorant minions presenting his case, the idea was floated that Scott should defend his own model.That would appear to be a lie, Michael. I do not see any refutation of sjastro's analysis. And maths certainly isn't your forte, from what I've seen over the years. Perhaps you can come to an agreement with sjastro, along the lines that both arguments will be presented on a different physics forum (or Quora, or PSE), and the loser never posts here again? Without putting words in his mouth, I've a feeling sjastro would agree to that. What about you, Michael? Are you confident enough in this clueless ex-EE, and his paper in a predatory, crank journal, to agree to something like that?
A guy who thinks M2-9 is a z-pinch? Did he even look at the Doppler for those lobes? And that an electric field accelerates the fast solar wind? Despite the fact that such a field would accelerate + and - charges in opposite directions, contrary to what is observed in the solar wind? And that fusion occurs in the chromosphere, despite the horrendous consequences of such a thing for life on Earth? That an invisible, undetectable current is flowing in, against the outgoing solar wind and IMF, to power the Sun? My guess is that you would run a mile from such an offer.
Oh, and EU is not a 'theory'. It is pure pseudoscience. No valid science, no valid mechanisms, no evidence. And PC bit the dust decades ago. Nobody of any note bothers with that stuff any more.
Scott has, for many years, published these papers containing the same flawed descriptions (and operations).... In fairness to Scott he should have the best representation.
Let's also not forget Michael's legendary CFs math blunder of proving 1=0.5 in the context of LIGO's noise calculations (gravitational wave detections).sjastro said:.. An example of one of his scripted responses which you have been a recipient of, is the "show me the maths error" routine.
It was this bluff about Scott's model that was called by me that led to the subsequent threads and has resulted in Michael already running a mile by refusing to address the maths issues and engaging in strawman responses.
Unfortunately his behaviour isn't going to change on a different site and the likely outcome for a debate particularly on a physics forum is Michael being banned.
Then we will get the usual playing the victim role or Galileo complex.
I've been a member at CQ (Cosmoquest) for some time and am now occasional poster there. I can assure those unfamiliar with CQ practices that they aren't particularly receptive to EU discussions even when raised from a mainstream perspective. Pseudoscience in Q&A is verboten and anyone raising a thread in the ATM section is expected to defend it. (Ie: the ATM section is intended as a trap for acolytes/cranks).Agreed re Michael likely getting banned! However, he need not even be part of the discussion. Somebody else could simply post in a relevant forum, with a link to Scott's woo, and suggest he made an error with the maths. The ATM section of Cosmoquest, or even the Q and A section would be suitable. I know for a fact that it is likely to be seen by at least one qualified plasma astrophysicist. And a number of other people who would be capable of finding an error if there is one. And Michael is already banned from there!
You wouldn’t happen to be “JonesDave” who posts regularly at Phys.Org and has used the original refutation link on a few occasions when EU nutters try to derail topics such Dark Matter and Black Holes by bringing up Scott’s model?Agreed re Michael likely getting banned! However, he need not even be part of the discussion. Somebody else could simply post in a relevant forum, with a link to Scott's woo, and suggest he made an error with the maths. The ATM section of Cosmoquest, or even the Q and A section would be suitable. I know for a fact that it is likely to be seen by at least one qualified plasma astrophysicist. And a number of other people who would be capable of finding an error if there is one. And Michael is already banned from there!
Scott said:Bz(r) = Bz(0)J0(αr) (1)
Bθ(r) = Bz(0)J1(αr) (2)
jz(r) = (α/μ)Bz(0)J0(αr) (3)
jθ(r) = (a/μ)Bz(0)J1(αr) (4)
Comparing expressions (1) and (3) shows that magnitudes Bz and jz have the same shape except for a difference in scale (size). The same is true for Bθ and jθ as seen in expressions (2) and (4). In general, both B and j take on parallel, concentric spiral shapes.
That would appear to be a lie, Michael. I do not see any refutation of sjastro's analysis.
And maths certainly isn't your forte, from what I've seen over the years.
Perhaps you can come to an agreement with sjastro, along the lines that both arguments will be presented on a different physics forum (or Quora, or PSE), and the loser never posts here again?
And that an electric field accelerates the fast solar wind?
Despite the fact that such a field would accelerate + and - charges in opposite directions, contrary to what is observed in the solar wind?
And that fusion occurs in the chromosphere,
despite the horrendous consequences of such a thing for life on Earth?
That an invisible, undetectable current is flowing in, against the outgoing solar wind and IMF, to power the Sun? My guess is that you would run a mile from such an offer.
Oh, and EU is not a 'theory'.
It is pure pseudoscience.
No valid science,
no valid mechanisms,
no evidence.
And PC bit the dust decades ago. Nobody of any note bothers with that stuff any more.
Well Smithi only implied what appeared to him to be a lie .. but I'll make the call that Michael's above response makes Michael's above statement a slam-dunk, outright lie!Smithi said:I am well aware of Scott's nonsense. He is clueless in both plasmaI physics and astrophysics. And maths, judging by what sjastro pointed out.Michael said:... You'll have to explain any supposed math error in your own words because previous claims which were alleged by others turned out to be their own errors.You evidently arrived late in the conversationSmithi said:That would appear to be a lie, Michael. I do not see any refutation of sjastro's analysis.
Scott made an outright error that was not refuted by anyone .. including Michael!sjastro said: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.
Pretty much all EU/PC solar models would predict that the bulk of the fusion of the sun occurs under the surface of the photosphere. Birkeland's cathode model predicts fusion throughout the sun. I've never preferred an anode model myself, but even an anode model could be modified as necessary just like any other EU solar model.
Meh. I'm not into an anode solar model if that's what you mean. I happen to know that cosmic rays are not "invisible" or "undetectable". I also note that "strahl" electrons coming from the sun are simply the faster speed electrons in Birkeland's original cathode model of the sun. That's why I personally prefer a cathode model over an anode one. Either an anode or a cathode model however is better than a model based on 'magnetic reconnection". Even an anode model has no problem creating a hot corona around the sphere in SAFIRE experiments.
The current alternative to EU/PC theory is composed of 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, none of which works in the lab. Pseudoscience is exactly what Alfven called "magnetic reconnection" theory by the way, "pseudoscience' that makes up most of the remaining 5 percent of the LCDM model. I'd say you're projecting at this point.
It has EM field mechanisms, heavy on the electric field mechanism. Those work in the lab by the way.
We occasionally do observe gamma rays during solar flares which are consistent with fusion in the solar atmosphere in electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.
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?