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

[Smithi]

ImageBam

Shows that you are being economical with the truth again, Michael.

 

[Michael]

However, he was fine with it in the solar atmosphere.

No he wasn't. He used circuit theory.

https://thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfv...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

His double layer paper eliminates the need for MRx in any and all current carrying environments. That's the whole point of his dissatisfaction with MRx.

 

[Smithi]

I didn't claim induction and MRx were one and the same process, I simply noted that induction occurs in *all* conductors during changes to the magnetic field topology. His description of MRx is too generic to eliminate induction as the process he's describing.

No, Michael. You are squirming again. It is a bad habit.

 

[Smithi]

No he wasn't. He used circuit theory.

https://thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents In The Solar Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

His double layer paper eliminates the need for MRx in any and all current carrying environments. That's the whole point of his dissatisfaction with MRx.

Michael! Read my lips; HE. WAS. WRONG. As proven. I could not care less what he thought. He is wrong. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'WRONG'?

 

[Michael]

Yes it has been. Stop lying.

Where's the lab test that demonstrates it?

Really? Where is this written up? Links please.

Type in Z-machine on google.

Read the scientific literature. Too many to list here. On the other hand, show me where any scientist is claiming MR is not a real phenomenon. And induction is pure woo, invented by you.

Faraday demonstrated induction hundreds of years ago. If you have to accuse me of creating something that's hundreds of years old, you don't have an argument.

What current? Where is this written up? Links, please.

I thought you said you read Alfven's work. Where *didn't* he discuss current in space?

Tusenfem linked you to a paper if I recall, showing that such a thing was very unlikely in space plasmas. And they certainly haven't been observed. And certainly not in connection with MR.

That's not what I asked you for. I don't care if you think it's 'unlikely'.

 

[Smithi]

No he wasn't. He used circuit theory.

https://thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents In The Solar Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

His double layer paper eliminates the need for MRx in any and all current carrying environments. That's the whole point of his dissatisfaction with MRx.

And the DLs aren't there. So he was WRONG.

 

[Michael]

Michael! Read my lips; HE. WAS. WRONG. As proven.

The problem is that you didn't "prove" it in the lab. You failed to provide experimental evidenced of your claim in fact. Theoretically one paper should do the trick. Where is it?

I could not care less what he thought. He is wrong. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'WRONG'?

Yes. I think you're wrong. I'm still waiting for that experiment that verifies and describes the physical difference between induction and MRx.

 

[Michael]

And the DLs aren't there. So he was WRONG.

False. Even mainstream astronomers use terms like "Current sheet" and other terms that demonstrate that current is present and flowing through the plasma, and therefore MRx is unnecessary.

 

[Smithi]

Where's the lab test that demonstrates it?



Type in Z-machine on google.

Lol. So you are going full EU cultist on us now, and you think z-pinches are involved?

Faraday demonstrated induction hundreds of years ago. If you have to accuse me of creating something that's hundreds of years old, you don't have an argument.

No Michael, you are lying again. You want induction to explain MRx. That is impossible. Try to be honest for once.

I thought you said you read Alfven's work. Where *didn't* he discuss current in space?

No, you are hero worshiping again, with no grasp of the relevant science.

That's not what I asked you for. I don't care if you think it's 'unlikely'.

It is not me. It is real scientists.

 

[Michael]

No, Michael. You are squirming again. It is a bad habit.

I'm not squirming, I'm holding you responsible to demonstrate your claim. Since plasma is a conductor, induction is a given the moment you introduce changing magnetic fields. If you think that something *other than* induction happens in such conditions, it's up to you to provide laboratory evidence to demonstrate it.

 

[Smithi]

False. Even mainstream astronomers use terms like "Current sheet" and other terms that demonstrate that current is present and flowing through the plasma, and therefore MRx is unnecessary.

No they don't. You are talking nonsense about a subject you have no grasp of. Who is saying MRx is unnecessary? Links, to the scientific literature, or you are lying. Again.

 

[Smithi]

I'm not squirming, I'm holding you responsible to demonstrate your claim. Since plasma is a conductor, induction is a given the moment you introduce changing magnetic fields. If you think that something *other than* induction happens in such conditions, it's up to you to provide laboratory evidence to demonstrate it.

No, we do not need a lab experiment, you obfuscator. It cannot diffuse quickly enough to do anything. Show me the links to the scientific literature claiming induction in the solar atmosphere, or magnetosphere, or you are lying again.

 

[Smithi]

I'm not squirming, I'm holding you responsible to demonstrate your claim. Since plasma is a conductor, induction is a given the moment you introduce changing magnetic fields. If you think that something *other than* induction happens in such conditions, it's up to you to provide laboratory evidence to demonstrate it.

It's not my claim. It's yours, and you have nothing to back it up, other than a poor grasp of plasma physics. Stick to computer science, Michael.

 

[Smithi]

Tim Thompson, an astrophysicist, explaining to Michael, a layman, why induction is impossible nonsense. Again;

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

 

[Smithi]

Martin Volwerk, a qualified plasma astrophysicist, explaining to Michael, a layman, what induction is, and why it cannot explain reconnection;

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

 

[Smithi]

W. D. Clinger, a mathematician, explaining to a confused layman, Michael, what induction is;

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

 

[Smithi]

Hopefully, it is becoming apparent that Michael is not particularly au fait with any of the relevant science he critcises. One therefore has to ask why he continues to post his nonsense on various fora. Those that he isn't banned from, that is. Dunning-Kruger syndrome is certainly one possibility. A general anti-science agenda is another. Hearing the sound of his own voice would be yet another. I would suggest that it is a combination of all three. He simply cannot help himself.

 

[sjastro]

Hopefully, it is becoming apparent that Michael is not particularly au fait with any of the relevant science he critcises. One therefore has to ask why he continues to post his nonsense on various fora. Those that he isn't banned from, that is. Dunning-Kruger syndrome is certainly one possibility. A general anti-science agenda is another. Hearing the sound of his own voice would be yet another. I would suggest that it is a combination of all three. He simply cannot help himself.

You have a lot to offer in this forum why waste it on this individual who seems to be only interested in picking fights with those who he sees as possessing a level of understanding greater than his.

 

[Smithi]

You have a lot to offer in this forum why waste it on this individual who seems to be only interested in picking fights with those who he sees as possessing a level of understanding greater than his.

Fair point. I take the view that it is worth engaging these people, purely for the benefit of the legendary 'lurkers'. Those who might be taken in by such woo. I do the same with other EU clowns elsewhere.
There is an alternative; ignore them, do not give them the oxygen of publicity (a mistake made by Sagan wrt Velikovsky, in my view). It is a fine line. Michael will continue spamming his nonsense, until he is banned from the whole interweb.
However, as an atheist, I am not going to post on any other thread here. And this one seems to be dominated by Michael. And he seems to flood the place with the same woo that he posts on Blunderdolts. I cannot be bothered jumping through hoops to join that execrable site, so am content to take him on here. Hardly a difficult task

 

[Smithi]

I think this is worthy of further scrutiny;

Me:

He screwed up the maths, has no mechanism for moving stars around, and has no evidence for the existence of these impossible currents. I'd say that is a slam-dunk, yes?

Mozina:

No. Like I said I've already pointed out math and physics errors made by Scott's detractors. I haven't seen a reasonable rebuttal to those posts.

Michael's claim is false, as shown by the posts from SelfSim and sjastro;


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

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

Secondly, he has never addressed the lack of a mechanism for stellar rotational velocities. He handwaved them away with a ludicrous claim that they will behave as the bulk of the gas. That is certainly not possible. I refer once again to the former JPL astrophysicist, Tim Thompson, who explained this elsewhere;

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Tim was addressing the model proposed by Anthony Peratt. However, the criticism applies equally to Scott's nonsense.

Finally, we have the conspicuous lack of observation for any of Scott or Peratt's fantasized currents. These should easily be detected, but aren't. This was addressed by Astrophysicist Tom Bridgman, here;

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background

So, given the above, I think it is safe to say that Scott's 'model' is well and truly debunked. It also explains why it sits ignored in a crank, predatory journal. It is nonsense.