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

[Smithi]

We also have additional evidence of field aligned currents over a billion of light years long:

Why do galaxies align?



From the planetary scale, to the galactic scale to the billion light year scale we see evidence of currents in space. The Birkeland current model of galaxy rotation is *far* better than the dark matter model at explaining various galaxy rotation patterns and in terms of explaining why galaxies are formed by and shaped by the filaments of spacetime.

So, let us now critically examine the above false claim by Michael;

You'll notice that instead of referencing papers within the literature, he pulls the usual EUist trick of linking to a press release or article, hoping nobody will critically examine his claims.
As it happens, in Scott's execrable paper, he links to a paper that models the cosmic web. It is reference [33] in the paper;

Coutinho, B. et al.
The Network Behind the Cosmic Web
The Network Behind the Cosmic Web

The irony of this is that all of the models tested by Coutinho et al, are using baryonic and dark matter! Dark matter is required to achieve the observed good fit of their model. The very thing Scott is trying to do away with!

He also references [32], which is;

A giant protogalactic disk linked to the cosmic web
Martin, C. et al.
A giant protogalactic disk linked to the cosmic web (paywalled)

Scott doesn't directly reference the paper, he actually links to a PR on phys.org! One would never get away with such a thing in a real journal. Scott's context for referencing these papers is;

New research [32, 33, 34] suggests that galaxies are connected to one another with streams of hot thin ionized gas (hydrogen plasma) called the intergalactic medium or IGM.

The Coutinho et al paper [33] has no mention of gas. The Martin paper [32] sees emission from Lyman-alpha. They attribute this to recombination. I am no expert, but I would have thought that recombination in a supposed current was unlikely, but others will likely know better.

Another piece of appalling scholarship by Scott, is his reference [8]. He again references a press release! The context for the reference is the lie;

It has been suggested [8] that galaxies form on and along cosmic Birkeland currents.

This is the PR;

Astronomers find faint strings of galaxies inside empty space

No mention of Birkeland currents there!

So, let's instead have a look at the free access paper that Scott couldn't be bothered to reference, for whatever reason;

Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): fine filaments of galaxies detected within voids
Alpaslan, M. et al.
Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): fine filaments of galaxies detected within voids

Word search time!;

'Birkeland' = zero hits.
'current' = zero hits.

So, why is he claiming that Alpaslan et al suggested such a thing? It is an outright lie, an appalling piece of professional misconduct, and just shows more evidence of why this author, and his 'paper', deserve no consideration whatsoever.

 

[Smithi]

Another apparent error in the 'paper' is pointed out by plasma astrophysicist Martin Volwerk, aka 'Tusenfem', on ISF;

well it is bad, especially calculating the charge density from dividing current density by velocity, not taking into account that electrons and ions move In opposite directions. charge density should probably be quasi neutral, but an electric engineer only thinks of moving electrons in a wire ...

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Electric Universe: has there ever been a scientific research program?

 

[sjastro]

So, let us now critically examine the above false claim by Michael;

You'll notice that instead of referencing papers within the literature, he pulls the usual EUist trick of linking to a press release or article, hoping nobody will critically examine his claims.
As it happens, in Scott's execrable paper, he links to a paper that models the cosmic web. It is reference [33] in the paper;

Coutinho, B. et al.
The Network Behind the Cosmic Web
The Network Behind the Cosmic Web

The irony of this is that all of the models tested by Coutinho et al, are using baryonic and dark matter! Dark matter is required to achieve the observed good fit of their model. The very thing Scott is trying to do away with!

He also references [32], which is;

A giant protogalactic disk linked to the cosmic web
Martin, C. et al.
A giant protogalactic disk linked to the cosmic web (paywalled)

Scott doesn't directly reference the paper, he actually links to a PR on phys.org! One would never get away with such a thing in a real journal. Scott's context for referencing these papers is;



The Coutinho et al paper [33] has no mention of gas. The Martin paper [32] sees emission from Lyman-alpha. They attribute this to recombination. I am no expert, but I would have thought that recombination in a supposed current was unlikely, but others will likely know better.

Another piece of appalling scholarship by Scott, is his reference [8]. He again references a press release! The context for the reference is the lie;



This is the PR;

Astronomers find faint strings of galaxies inside empty space

No mention of Birkeland currents there!

So, let's instead have a look at the free access paper that Scott couldn't be bothered to reference, for whatever reason;

Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): fine filaments of galaxies detected within voids
Alpaslan, M. et al.
Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): fine filaments of galaxies detected within voids

Word search time!;

'Birkeland' = zero hits.
'current' = zero hits.

So, why is he claiming that Alpaslan et al suggested such a thing? It is an outright lie, an appalling piece of professional misconduct, and just shows more evidence of why this author, and his 'paper', deserve no consideration whatsoever.

With regards to the cosmic web Scott follows a behavioural pattern common to his minions, ignore the data behind the surveys and read your own bias into the images.
The absolute killer the filaments are not Birkeland currents is that the galaxy surveys are predominately in the 21-cm emission line which corresponds to neutral hydrogen.
Then there is the fact the cosmic web structure disappears from about 100 megaparsecs (the "End of Greatness").
Why would this occur in a static Universe?
It's easily explained by BB cosmology where the effects of metric expansion at large cosmological scales results in a homogeneous and isotropic distribution of the galaxies.

 

[sjastro]

I think this is worthy of further scrutiny;

Me:


Mozina:

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.

He was given every opportunity to explain in detail how a reference to a Wikipedia article rights all the wrongs in Scott's papers yet the best he can do is to provide a vague mantra.
I am going to have to update the errors found in Scott's papers with the latest additions.

 

[sjastro]

Another apparent error in the 'paper' is pointed out by plasma astrophysicist Martin Volwerk, aka 'Tusenfem', on ISF;



International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Electric Universe: has there ever been a scientific research program?

The perspective from a plasma physicist which complements the mathematical errors.
Both the physics and mathematical criticisms of Scott's model can be summarized by Tusenfem's previous comment.

.............the stupid in the scott paper, starting at the introduction (nasa calls it birkeland currents, no flux ropes!) and culmination in the section 2 title "force-free plasmas are field aligned" which physically makes no sense at all. And really, after 65 years Scott was the one to explain bessel funnctions (sic) to the world? section 2 is just bonkers, how can something like that get through review? (i guess it was not reviewed)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Unfortunately, the site is now down. However, I did find it on Wayback;

Magnetic Reconnection

Not all the links work however, and there appear to be images missing. A shame, as the site was up until fairly recently.

This link does work, though;

An Unusually Pure Example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

Also worth a look;

Some of TimThompson's Science Posts at the JREF Forum

Classic stuff! - I'd forgotten those JREF 'discussions'.

 

[Smithi]

Something else that occurs to me regarding Scott's attempted dismissal of dark matter, it the fact that we can measure it from lensing of the CMB, as well as other lensing studies.

A paper has recently been released on a related theme. The ApJ version is paywalled, but luckily...;

THE HALO MASS OF OPTICALLY-LUMINOUS QUASARS AT Z ≈ 1–2 MEASURED VIA GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
Geach, J. E. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.06955.pdf

There are other observations, such as;

Evidence of Lensing of the Cosmic Microwave Background by Dark Matter Halos
Madhavacheril, M. et al.
Evidence of Lensing of the Cosmic Microwave Background by Dark Matter Halos

We present evidence of the gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background by 10^13 solar mass dark matter halos. Lensing convergence maps from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope Polarimeter (ACTPol) are stacked at the positions of around 12,000 optically-selected CMASS galaxies from the SDSS-III/BOSS survey. The mean lensing signal is consistent with simulated dark matter halo profiles, and is favored over a null signal at 3.2 sigma significance. This result demonstrates the potential of microwave background lensing to probe the dark matter distribution in galaxy group and galaxy cluster halos.

 

[Smithi]

In the OP of this thread, Michael introduced two of Scott's 'papers'. We have dealt extensively with the dark matter paper, and it stands as 100% debunked nonsense. What about the other one?

http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF

Well, it seems to me that he just prattles on about Birkeland currents. And how he wants to attribute all sorts of space-based phenomena to them. It may have been debunked elsewhere on here. However, I'll just concentrate on one particular stupid error that he makes. In the conclusions, he says;

The M2-9 Hourglass planetary nebula in Figure 10 is a prime case in point. We suggest that the narrowing of the plasma FAC channel due to the z-pinch creates an increased current density which causes a transition of the plasma from the dark mode into the visible glow and arc modes. The observed dual, concentric cylinders of excited plasma are consistent with the counter-rotation, matter scavenging, and reversing flows described in this paper.

Here, hopefully, is an image of said nebula;

Jolly pretty, I think we'd all agree!

Now, how does a z-pinch work? Well the current flows in one direction, and gets pinched at some point, a la; >>>>>>>>*>>>>>>>>>, where * is the pinch, and > is the current and its direction of flow.
So, what do we see from M2-9 when we look at it in Doppler? What we see is; <<<<<<*>>>>>>, where * is the central star, and < & > is the gas and its observed direction of flow. This can be seen in more technical detail in figure 2 in the paper , here;

M2-9-A planetary nebula with an eruptive nucleus?
Balick, B.
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/6553/AJ_97_476_480.pdf?sequence=1

and also below. Twice. And I can't seem to edit that. However, you get the picture!

So, yet again, everybody's favourite clueless ex-EE makes a horrendous error, when the observation that showed him to be wrong had been in the scientific literature for nigh on three decades. Is calling him 'clueless' unkind? Unfair? Inaccurate? I think it is being kind.

 

[SelfSim]

... So, yet again, everybody's favourite clueless ex-EE makes a horrendous error, when the observation that showed him to be wrong had been in the scientific literature for nigh on three decades.

And yet, he continues to appear at the annual cult pow-wows, which always seem to include these images and his delusions about he thinks they demonstrate ... which he then tries to pass these off as having been unchallenged since his original delusion about them!

.. Is calling him 'clueless' unkind? Unfair? Inaccurate? I think it is being kind.

I'd say what he exhibits is 'cluelessness' about the ethics of correcting oversights in his seminal works when there's abundant publically available evidence of others' efforts to highlight the inconsistencies of his sloppy pareidolia based analyses.

This dude Scott is one of the worst in the grab-bag of EU theorists.
The gardner and security consultant , Crothers, is the other one, (although he seems to have rightly fallen asunder in EU terms, of late)? I wonder what Crothers now has to say about the recent BH image?

 

[Smithi]

This dude Scott is one of the worst in the grab-bag of EU theorists.
The gardner and security consultant , Crothers, is the other one, (although he seems to have rightly fallen asunder in EU terms, of late)? I wonder what Crothers now has to say about the recent BH image?

I suspect that the idiot Crothers is teaming up with the idiot Robitaille to claim that the EHT image is of the Pacific Ocean!

 

[sjastro]

In the OP of this thread, Michael introduced two of Scott's 'papers'. We have dealt extensively with the dark matter paper, and it stands as 100% debunked nonsense. What about the other one?

http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF

Well, it seems to me that he just prattles on about Birkeland currents. And how he wants to attribute all sorts of space-based phenomena to them. It may have been debunked elsewhere on here. However, I'll just concentrate on one particular stupid error that he makes. In the conclusions, he says;



Here, hopefully, is an image of said nebula;

Jolly pretty, I think we'd all agree!

Now, how does a z-pinch work? Well the current flows in one direction, and gets pinched at some point, a la; >>>>>>>>*>>>>>>>>>, where * is the pinch, and > is the current and its direction of flow.
So, what do we see from M2-9 when we look at it in Doppler? What we see is; <<<<<<*>>>>>>, where * is the central star, and < & > is the gas and its observed direction of flow. This can be seen in more technical detail in figure 2 in the paper , here;

M2-9-A planetary nebula with an eruptive nucleus?
Balick, B.
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/6553/AJ_97_476_480.pdf?sequence=1

and also below. Twice. And I can't seem to edit that. However, you get the picture!

So, yet again, everybody's favourite clueless ex-EE makes a horrendous error, when the observation that showed him to be wrong had been in the scientific literature for nigh on three decades. Is calling him 'clueless' unkind? Unfair? Inaccurate? I think it is being kind.

Notice in the example Scott gives for M2-9 that his "plasma FAC" undergoes compression in the Z-pinch which would increase the plasma pressure.
The definition of a force free field however is as follows.

A force-free magnetic field is a magnetic field that arises when the plasma pressure is so small, relative to the magnetic pressure, that the plasma pressure may be ignored, and so only the magnetic pressure is considered. For a force free field, the electric current density is either zero or parallel to the magnetic field. The name "force-free" comes from being able to neglect the force from the plasma.

This would contradict the magnetic field in the z-pinch being force free.

Scott "solves" this issue via word salad.

The fundamental vector calculus definition of a force-free, field-aligned current in space is expanded in cylindrical coordinates to directly obtain the Bessel partial differential equation that specifies the magnetic field created by such a current.

A force-free field aligned current????
This makes absolutely no sense.

I must admit when going through the mathematical errors in Scott's papers the danger is focusing too much on the minor details and missing out on these whopper errors in definition.

 

[sjastro]

An interesting summary of Crothers.
Stephen J. Crothers - RationalWiki

While Scott's maths errors are at a high school level Crothers' errors are more subtle as they involve higher level maths used in GR.
The best way of describing Crothers' errors in a nutshell is that he doesn't understand the difference between mathematical models used by physicists and mathematics used by (pure) mathematicians.
By definition mathematical models are far less rigorous than mathematics and are not subject to proof.
They are best described as approximations.

As an example take the Schwarzschild metric for static black holes.
Before this metric was investigated as a theory for black holes, the metric was able to predict the gravitational bending of light, gravitational redshift and explained the perihelion advance of Mercury's orbit.
Yet the metric is based on an assumption that stars and planets don't spins on their axes.
According to Crothers' standards this "proves" the metric is flawed despite the successful predictions.
Since stars and planets slowly rotate the metric is a valid approximation.
So while Crother's is able to "pick out flaws" in everything from various metrics to the GR field equations he fails to consider the models are approximations.

Some of Crothers more obvious blunders involve failing to understand the non linear aspect of gravity in GR where the gravitational field is also a source of gravity along with mass, to incorrectly accusing physicists of having no understanding of the radius r in the Schwarzschild metric for black holes.

 

[sjastro]

Here is another issue with Scott's 2018 paper.

Marklund convection stipulates that hydrogen and helium, two elements with the highest ionization voltage,will indeed be found at the outer rim of a plasma filament. The observation of this phenomenon by Merrifield suggests that a Birkeland current is likely to be responsible for the hydrogen rich band that he discovered...

Marklund convection involves a plasma filament where positive ions and electrons migrate to the filamentary axis. The lower the ionization potential of the atom the closer the corresponding ion can reside to the axis.
Recombination can occur to form neutral atoms.

There is a problem for Scott.
The first ionization potential of helium is much higher than hydrogen (24.58 vs 13.59 eV).
One would therefore expect helium to exclusively occupy the outer band instead of hydrogen.
It seems too much of a coincidence the outer helium band is also missing from Scott's fig 5 in his paper.

Scott's own model fails the very observation referenced in his paper!

 

[sjastro]

List of Issues

(1) Incorrect terminology in 2015 paper.

The heading of the paper implies a force free field is a condition for a Birkeland current.
While a force free field is a necessary condition for a field aligned current, the converse is not true as shown by the existence of Birkeland currents in the Earth’s magnetosphere which is not force free.

The term “force free field aligned current” makes no sense as a force free field is a property of the magnetic field where the magnetic pressure dominates while the plasma pressure is small and can be ignored.

(2) Observations contradict 2015 and 2018 papers.

In the 2015 paper the Birkeland current passing through the nebula M2-9 is contradicted by Doppler measurements of the Hα emission line indicating the Birkeland current is in fact gas ejected from the central star in both directions.

In the 2018 paper Marklund convection of the plasma filament would lead to the prediction that helium would reside in the outer layer due to its much higher first ionization potential than hydrogen, yet hydrogen is found to be predominate in the counter rotating gas.

(3) Derivation of μj = αB equation.

In Scott’s 2015 paper he derives the equation based on the similarities of Maxwell’s
4th equation (∇ X B) = uj and the force free equation (∇ X B) = αB.
This is incorrect as Maxwell’s 4th equation is based on Ampere’s circuital law where j and B are not parallel.
Maxwell’s 4th equation is a special case where the closed loop and magnetic field are in the same plane with the current density perpendicular to the magnetic field.
The equation μj = αB instead is based on the force free field condition j X B = 0.

(4) Algebraic substitution error of B = (μ/α)j into the Lundquist equations in 2015 and 2018 papers.

Scott has used the component substitutions Bz(r) = (μ/α)j(r) and Bz(θ) = (μ/α)j(θ) into the Lundquist equations;

Bz(r) = Bz(0)J0(αr) and Bθ(r) = Bz(0)J1(αr) to obtain Scott’s equations;
jz(r) = (α/μ)Bz(0)J0(αr) and jθ(r) = (α/μ)Bz(0)J1(αr) respectively.

Scott has failed to substitute the Bz(0) term which is the value of B in the z direction where r=0.
This is particularly obvious when comparing:
Bz(r) = Bz(0)J0(αr) with jz(r) = (α/μ)Bz(0)J0(αr)

Since the substitution applies over the range r ≥ 0, Bz(0) needs to be substituted as well.
This is a fundamental algebraic property.

The “obvious” substitution μj = αB in the force field equation to obtain solutions of the form
jz(r) = jz(0)J0(μr) and jθ(r) = jz(0)J1(μr) fails as the general equation
(∇ X j) = μj implies the current density j is a field.

(5) Scott’s equations are erroneously considered to be scaled versions of Lundquist’s equations.

Scott claims that B and j are parallel in his model as his equations are scaled versions of the Lundquist equations.
In this case the scaling factor is (α/μ).
If this was correct then (α/μ) and (μ/α) must be dimensionless and the equation
B = (μ/α)j would imply the magnetic field and current density are equivalent dimensionally with the same units which is nonsensical.

(6) jθ(r) = (μ/α)Bz(0)J1(αr) is not consistent with a force free field.

Since B and j are in cylindrical coordinates which is orthogonal:
B = BrΡ + BθΦ + BzZ and j = jrΡ + jθΦ + jzZ
Ρ, Φ and Z are the orthogonal unit vectors in cylindrical coordinates.
B = (μ/α)j → BrΡ + BθΦ + BzZ = (μ/α)(jrΡ + jθΦ + jzZ)
B and j are both parallel in the direction of Φ when applying the dot product.
(BrΡ + BθΦ + BzZ). Φ = [(μ/α)(jrΡ + jθΦ + jzZ)]. Φ

This reduces to Bθ = (μ/α)jθ or alternatively:
jθ = (α/μ)Bθ

There are no components which are parallel of the form jθ = (α/μ)Bz.
Since Scott’s equation jθ(r) = (μ/α)Bz(0)J1(αr) is of this form it cannot be consistent with a force free field as jθ(r) and Bz(0) are not parallel.

(7) j = 0 also applies for a force free field.
The force field condition j X B = 0 not only has the solution μj = αB but j = 0.

For Scott’s equations jz(r) and jθ(r) can never be zero as (α/μ) ≠ 0, Bz(0) ≠ 0 and the Bessell functions J0(αr) and J1(αr) are non zero.

The incorrect algebraic substitution in (4) has resulted in the contradictions in (5), (6) and (7).
Scott’s model is comprehensively wrong as his equations do not describe the force free model he has attempted to define.

 

[HotBlack]

Amazing!

This is the first time I have ever seen Michael run. I mean don't get me wrong he has been a laughing stock since the JREF days when he embarrassed himself about MRx, though 1=0.5 and so many other occasionsions where he comprehensively lost the argument. But everytime he returns with some new press release her can't quite understand, ignores the previous points and is ready to advocate more EU woo.

I really think this is a sign that the EU cult is collapsing. Even their staunchest propagandists have run out of ammunition.

The refusal of the collective internet hive mind, to allow obvious nonsense to flourish is truly inspiring.

Well done! (a lurker)

 

[SelfSim]

Amazing!

This is the first time I have ever seen Michael run. I mean don't get me wrong he has been a laughing stock since the JREF days when he embarrassed himself about MRx, though 1=0.5 and so many other occasionsions where he comprehensively lost the argument. But everytime he returns with some new press release her can't quite understand, ignores the previous points and is ready to advocate more EU woo.

I really think this is a sign that the EU cult is collapsing. Even their staunchest propagandists have run out of ammunition.

The refusal of the collective internet hive mind, to allow obvious nonsense to flourish is truly inspiring.

Well done! (a lurker)

Finally he surfaces! Welcome to the topside!

Thank you for your various votes of confidence throughout these debates. They are very exhausting and inspiration to continue is often hard to find (and that goes for all parties, I suspect?)

Michael continues his rage against the cosmological redshift component of the mainstream model elsewhere ... all on the basis of a rather interesting new article here.
If he truly has retreated, we might now even be able to have a reasonable discussion about it(?)

 

[Smithi]

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.

If Michael ever comes back, then perhaps he could reference these challenges, within the scientific literature, to the Bullet Cluster observations. The paper has > 2400 citations, and I don't want to go through all of them.

On the other hand, why only look at the BC observations? There have been numerous other such observations supporting the existence of dark matter.
These include MACS J0416.1-2403;

Free-form lensing implications for the collision of dark matter and gas in the frontier fields cluster MACS J0416.1−2403
Diego, J. M. et al. (2015)
Free-form lensing implications for the collision of dark matter and gas in the frontier fields cluster MACS J0416.1−2403

And also four galaxies within the Abell 3827 cluster;

The behaviour of dark matter associated with four bright cluster galaxies in the 10 kpc core of Abell 3827
Massey, R. et al. (2015)
behaviour of dark matter associated with four bright cluster galaxies in the 10 kpc core of Abell 3827

References within those papers will also lead to more, similar observations. How does Scott's 'model' explain these observations?

 

[Smithi]

Interesting new paper in the literature;

The Radial Acceleration Relation (RAR): Crucial Cases of Dwarf Disks and Low-surface-brightness Galaxies
Di Paolo, C. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.08472.pdf (published in ApJ)

McGaugh et al. have found, in a large sample of disk systems, a tight nonlinear relationship between the total radial accelerations g and their components g b that have arisen from the distribution of the baryonic matter. Here, we investigate the existence of such a relation in Dwarf Disk Spirals and Low Surface Brightness (LSB) galaxies on the basis of Karukes & Salucci and Di Paolo & Salucci. We have accurate mass profiles for 36 Dwarf Disk Spirals and 72 LSB galaxies. These galaxies have accelerations that cover the McGaugh range but also reach out to one order of magnitude below the smallest accelerations present in McGaugh et al. and span different Hubble Types. We found, in our samples, that the g versus g b relation has a very different profile and also other intrinsic novel properties, among those, the dependence on a second variable: the galactic radius, normalized to the optical radius R opt, at which the two accelerations are measured. We show that the new far from trivial g versus

relationship is a direct consequence of the complex coordinated mass distributions of the baryons and the dark matter (DM) in disk systems. Our analysis shows that the McGaugh et al. relation is a limiting case of a new universal relation that can be very well framed in the standard "DM halo in the Newtonian Gravity" paradigm.

Here is the press release;

https://www.sissa.it/sites/default/files/Dark matter exists SISSA PR_2.pdf

 

[sjastro]

Amazing!

This is the first time I have ever seen Michael run. I mean don't get me wrong he has been a laughing stock since the JREF days when he embarrassed himself about MRx, though 1=0.5 and so many other occasionsions where he comprehensively lost the argument. But everytime he returns with some new press release her can't quite understand, ignores the previous points and is ready to advocate more EU woo.

I really think this is a sign that the EU cult is collapsing. Even their staunchest propagandists have run out of ammunition.

The refusal of the collective internet hive mind, to allow obvious nonsense to flourish is truly inspiring.

Well done! (a lurker)

The MRX embarrassment continues to this day with the misunderstanding of Somov's diagram and the Clinger bashing that has been going on for years.
Michael should contact Scott who is an electrical engineer who will tell him that in the following diagram;

The two ⦻ signs are cross sectional views of the wires indicating two separate currents passing through the parallel wires in the same direction resulting in an attractive Lorentz force which brings the wires closer together.

 

[SelfSim]

The MRX embarrassment continues to this day with the misunderstanding of Somov's diagram and the Clinger bashing that has been going on for years.
Michael should contact Scott who is an electrical engineer who will tell him that in the following diagram;
...
The two ⦻ signs are cross sectional views of the wires indicating two separate currents passing through the parallel wires in the same direction resulting in an attractive Lorentz force which brings the wires closer together.

Nice diagram! I haven't seen the coloured version before.

I note the heading too .. "What is reconnection in vacuum?"