Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Galaxy rotation patterns are better explained by Birkeland currents than by dark matter.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sjastro" data-source="post: 73833719" data-attributes="member: 352921"><p>Scott’s mathematical nonsense I highlighted last year only scratches the surface.</p><p>Apart from failing to eliminate the Bz(0) term, the issue is why he used Maxwell’s equation </p><p>∇ X <strong>B</strong> = μ<strong>j </strong>with Lundquist’s original equations to obtain the equations</p><p>jz (r) = (αBz (0)/µ)J0(αr) and jθ (r) = (αBz (0))/µ)J1(αr) in the first place.</p><p></p><p>Not only does it contradict the <strong>j</strong> = 0 condition but also the parallel condition <strong>j</strong> = α<strong>B </strong>or in the case of the component condition jₙ(r) = αBₙ(r) where α is a constant.</p><p>Scott’s component equations for jz(r) and jθ(r) are clearly not the equations for a force free field as the Bessel functions J0(αr) and J1(αr) are not constant.</p><p></p><p>Scott’s reasoning was since Maxwell’s equation is ∇ X <strong>B</strong> = μ<strong>j </strong>and the equation for a force free field is ∇ X <strong>B</strong> = α<strong>B </strong>then μ<strong>j = </strong>α<strong>B </strong>leading to the nonsensical equations for jz(r) and jθ(r) and the subsequent mathematical mess.</p><p>Not only did Scott make a blunder, but from a physics perspective it is nonsense as the Maxwell and force free equations represents very different physical systems.</p><p>In a force free field the condition <strong>j</strong> X <strong>B</strong> = 0 applies where <strong>j </strong>= 0 or <strong>j</strong> and <strong>B</strong> are parallel.</p><p></p><p>In the Maxwell equation this can never be the case.</p><p>∇ X <strong>B</strong> = μ<strong>j</strong></p><p>(∇ X <strong>B</strong>) X <strong>B</strong> = μ(<strong>j </strong>X<strong> B</strong>).</p><p>(∇ X <strong>B</strong>) X <strong>B</strong> ≠ 0 since ∇ X <strong>B</strong> is not parallel to <strong>B</strong> hence <strong>j </strong>X<strong> B</strong> ≠ 0.</p><p></p><p>In other words the current density <strong>j</strong> in the Maxwell equation bears no resemblance to <strong>j </strong>for the force free field.</p><p></p><p>As for the grandiose claim that Scott’s model is the greatest thing since sliced bread in addressing the counter rotation of gas and stars in galaxies let’s play the devils advocate in assuming the paper is mathematically coherent.</p><p>What the model tells you is the counter rotation is an intrinsic property of a galaxy rather than caused by a chance event such as the result of galaxy mergers as suggested by mainstream.</p><p>The idea that mainstream fails to “predict” counter rotating galaxies is nonsensical as it would require the galaxy mergers which is purely random to be predictable.</p><p></p><p>The obvious question that arises if counter rotation is an intrinsic property than why do the vast percentage of galaxies where the rotation curves have been measured do not display this effect?</p><p>Given that Scott cannot explain this but simply assumes the effect is an anomaly is further evidence along with the mathematical nonsense his theory is a total failure.</p><p></p><p>It’s no coincidence that Scott’s paper would wind up in a predatory journal; a reputable journal would have spotted the algebraic error, the incorrect physics assumptions, and not published it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sjastro, post: 73833719, member: 352921"] Scott’s mathematical nonsense I highlighted last year only scratches the surface. Apart from failing to eliminate the Bz(0) term, the issue is why he used Maxwell’s equation ∇ X [B]B[/B] = μ[B]j [/B]with Lundquist’s original equations to obtain the equations jz (r) = (αBz (0)/µ)J0(αr) and jθ (r) = (αBz (0))/µ)J1(αr) in the first place. Not only does it contradict the [B]j[/B] = 0 condition but also the parallel condition [B]j[/B] = α[B]B [/B]or in the case of the component condition jₙ(r) = αBₙ(r) where α is a constant. Scott’s component equations for jz(r) and jθ(r) are clearly not the equations for a force free field as the Bessel functions J0(αr) and J1(αr) are not constant. Scott’s reasoning was since Maxwell’s equation is ∇ X [B]B[/B] = μ[B]j [/B]and the equation for a force free field is ∇ X [B]B[/B] = α[B]B [/B]then μ[B]j = [/B]α[B]B [/B]leading to the nonsensical equations for jz(r) and jθ(r) and the subsequent mathematical mess. Not only did Scott make a blunder, but from a physics perspective it is nonsense as the Maxwell and force free equations represents very different physical systems. In a force free field the condition [B]j[/B] X [B]B[/B] = 0 applies where [B]j [/B]= 0 or [B]j[/B] and [B]B[/B] are parallel. In the Maxwell equation this can never be the case. ∇ X [B]B[/B] = μ[B]j[/B] (∇ X [B]B[/B]) X [B]B[/B] = μ([B]j [/B]X[B] B[/B]). (∇ X [B]B[/B]) X [B]B[/B] ≠ 0 since ∇ X [B]B[/B] is not parallel to [B]B[/B] hence [B]j [/B]X[B] B[/B] ≠ 0. In other words the current density [B]j[/B] in the Maxwell equation bears no resemblance to [B]j [/B]for the force free field. As for the grandiose claim that Scott’s model is the greatest thing since sliced bread in addressing the counter rotation of gas and stars in galaxies let’s play the devils advocate in assuming the paper is mathematically coherent. What the model tells you is the counter rotation is an intrinsic property of a galaxy rather than caused by a chance event such as the result of galaxy mergers as suggested by mainstream. The idea that mainstream fails to “predict” counter rotating galaxies is nonsensical as it would require the galaxy mergers which is purely random to be predictable. The obvious question that arises if counter rotation is an intrinsic property than why do the vast percentage of galaxies where the rotation curves have been measured do not display this effect? Given that Scott cannot explain this but simply assumes the effect is an anomaly is further evidence along with the mathematical nonsense his theory is a total failure. It’s no coincidence that Scott’s paper would wind up in a predatory journal; a reputable journal would have spotted the algebraic error, the incorrect physics assumptions, and not published it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Galaxy rotation patterns are better explained by Birkeland currents than by dark matter.
Top
Bottom