• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

More counter rotation evidence to support Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model.

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Oct 18, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    https://phys.org/news/2019-10-supermassive-black-hole.html

    The counter rotation pattern that is predicted in Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model is pretty unique.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +6,339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    While reading I was already thinking: "Why wouldn't accretion disk matter, which is just stars and gas falling towards the BH, be pulled in from some stars/gas that happen to go to one side instead of the other, even though there is a general rotational direction of the galaxy, since some stars/gas have been deflected towards the BH simply by random encounters with other stars."

    In other words, shouldn't we expect accretion disks to be rotating in opposite directions (at least for a while) to begin with, just from ordinary chaotic gravitational interactions that deflects stars and gas at random, all the time, towards the BH?

    So, it seemed pretty unremarkable then to me, but this part near the end of the article is useful to at least be aware of:

    The astronomers think that the backward flow in NGC 1068 might be caused by gas clouds that fell out of the host galaxy, or by a small passing galaxy on a counter-rotating orbit captured in the disk.

    At the moment, the outer disk appears to be in a stable orbit around the inner disk. "That will change when the outer disk begins to fall onto the inner disk, which may happen after a few orbits or a few hundred thousand years. The rotating streams of gas will collide and become unstable, and the disks will likely collapse in a luminous event as the molecular gas falls into the black hole. Unfortunately, we will not be there to witness the fireworks," said Gallimore.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    Oy Vey. :)
     
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    For the record:

    I did *not* mean to imply that Scott's model is the *only* possible way to explain counter rotation patterns in and around galaxies, but it is a very specific prediction of his model, one which can be "tested".

    In this case (and other cases as well), it does jive with observation.

    'Dark matter' theory (alone) for instance, which his model is intended to replace in terms of galaxy rotation patterns, doesn't necessarily predict counter rotation in galaxies, or in and around the core of the galaxy.

    Of course it's entirely possible to dream up various ways to add additional things to virtually any model that might explain the same observation, but the counter rotation predictions of Scott's model are testable prediction of his model. That's all I was trying to imply.

    The "key difference" between Scott's mathematical model of counter rotation and a handwavy claim about gas from another galaxy, or from above the host galaxy, meandering into a counter rotation pattern is that Scott's model predicts the rings to be stable in their counter rotation patterns, whereas the option suggested in the article would be a time limited process and require that galaxy to be in a "special" time in it's lifetime. Unfortunately there's no way to "test" the two options in a human lifetime.

    I would however note that counter rotation is *not* predicted by dark matter models alone, so it is a "unique" prediction in that sense in comparison to the alternative dark matter model that Scott's Birkeland current model is designed to replace. If we're apply an Occum's razor argument here, Scott's model predicts the counter rotation feature out of the box, whereas the mainstream model requires *both dark matter* and a very unusual encounter with another galaxy. There's no reason obvious reason why an encounter with another galaxy would leave a counter rotating ring in a galaxy, and no mathematical model was even offered to demonstrate that claim. From an Occum's razor perspective and from a mathematical explanation perspective, Scott's model wins hands down.
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    In dark matter theory presumably every galaxy is surrounded by a gigantic halo of dark matter that rotates with the galaxy, so the gravitational momentum in terms rotation doesn't really explain how or why a gas cloud might "fall out" of the host galaxy in a counter rotating pattern. The gas above and below equatorial plane should all be rotating in the same direction.

    There is of course a possibility that a merger with counter rotating galaxy could occur, but it would have to be a very small galaxy in this case, and it would have to "drop in" at almost a perfect angle to create a counter rotating pattern in just one small region of the host galaxy. There's no mathematical model offered for that scenario either, so it's a bit of a handwavy argument.

    It would also have to be a very 'special' time in the history of such a merger process, because it wouldn't be stable for long, and yet it must be old enough that it's become "quasi-stable" already.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2019
  7. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +6,339
    United States
    Christian
    Married

    Well you need unique predictions that cannot be accounted for by established theories. Meaning not just one, but any.

    But it's just known that stars are deflected into random new directions by encounters, and that small galaxies are absorbed by larger ones also.

    So, those are already known, and so it seems pretty clear there isn't a need for additional forces past gravity to help bring in matter towards the BH with angular momentum in the opposite direction to the spin of the galaxy. Such matter would of course orbit the BH in the opposite direction.
     
  8. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    Well, in addition to explaining *stable* counter rotation patterns in galaxies (as opposed to temporary ones), a Birkeland current model explains the "galactic bridges" and their magnetic fields that connect galaxies.

    Mapping the Magnetic Bridge Between Our Nearest Galactic Neighbours - Dunlap Institute

    They're essentially generated by current in EU/PC, and they effect galaxy formation by at least sometimes producing counter rotation patterns in various galaxies.
     
  9. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +1,199
    Christian
    Single
    Scott's model is so ridiculously wrong and is characterized by a monumental algebraic error any competent high school student would pick up immediately.
    Furthermore it clearly is not supported by observation.
    For those of you that have the patience or want to refresh your memories, here are Scott's 2015 and 2018 papers.

    Here is the rebuttal of both papers
     
  10. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +738
    Humanist
    Private
    Scott was, and still is completely delusional about Birkeland Currents.

    My commentary on his ludicrous paper started in this thread here.

    Scott's work has been debunked all over the web (including at the International Skeptics forum, by a real plasma scientist). He is incapable of responding .. yet he continues sprouting his Physics trash at conspiratorial Electric Universe pow-wows, hoping to bolster his delusional ego by presenting in front of the gullible EU cultists.

    But of course you already know this .. yet you keep restarting the same nonsense threads over and over ... I've lost track of how many times we've had it out on Scott.

    Scott needs to go back to Math and Physics school and formally apologise for his unabashed plagiarism of Lundquist's solution.
     
  11. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    Ya, that thread made it abundantly clear that you simply do not understand the whole concept of a force free field:

    Force-free magnetic field - Wikipedia

    For purposes of mathematical simplicity Scott just "assumes" that the E field isn't changing (dE/dt = 0), and current flows parallel to the magnetic field through the "Birkeland current". :) Your (and sjastro's) various objections to Scott's model are simply unwarranted.

    There's simply no point in rehashing the same conversation since Justatruthseeker explained (both of) your various errors right here:

    Scott's EU Birkeland Current Blunders

    Force-Free Fields

    It couldn't be anymore obvious that you're both simply wrong.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2019
  12. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +1,199
    Christian
    Single
    What a pathetic attempt of sweeping Scott's errors under the carpet.
    If it so "obvious" then it should have been be a straight forward exercise for you to address and debunk the 7 points I made in rebutting Scott's model in my previous post.
    Your refusal to do so is blindingly "obvious"; you don’t even have the vaguest comprehension of Scott’s model let alone the flaws in it, or the rebuttal of these flaws.
    Your support of Scott’s model is based on blind faith and nothing more.

    As an indication of how far you are out of your depth you are totally unaware of destroying Scott's model without any help on my part.
    This is based on your bizarre idea that supermassive black holes are Alfven's homopolar generator.
    In case you don't understand which is highly likely, a homopolar generator operates on the principle of electromagnetic induction where the current passes through the magnetic flux; in other words the current density and magnetic field cannot be parallel.
    This contradicts Scott’s model which is supposed to be based on a force free field where the current density and magnetic field are parallel.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2019
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    I've already addressed them in previous threads. Readers can go back and read those threads for themselves if they're interested.

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

    That's an example of an error of yours which I've already corrected. You even acknowledged it here, well sort of.

    Essentially Scott is simply "assuming" (for the sake of simplicity) that the E field isn't changing dE/dt = 0, and current must be flowing, otherwise it's not a Birkeland "current". That simplification is essentially what you're railing against.

    No, it's based on observational "evidence", specifically the existence of Birkeland currents in space which astronomers euphemistically refer to as a "space slinky". It's based on counter rotation observed in galaxies, and the fact his model can do away with exotic matter entirely. In short, it's empirically attractive.

    I really don't think you grasp the whole concept of a "Birkeland current" to begin with:

    Birkeland current - Wikipedia
    [​IMG]

    The field and the current wind around one another in 3D.

    FYI, I'm getting ready to travel back east to visit my new grandson, so don't take it personally if I don't respond regularly for awhile. :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
  14. Kaon

    Kaon Well-Known Member

    +2,305
    United States
    Other Religion
    Celibate
    I'm wondering if your specialty is magnetohydrodynamics? If so, it would be interesting to compare some things - specifically about gravity waves affect on photons (i.e. black holes and alleged pull of light).
     
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    Actually I'm a computer programmer by trade. I started studying MHD theory about 13 years ago when I started studying EU/PC theory, and I read the work of Hannes Alfven, including his first book. I found Somov's book, "Fundamentals Of Cosmic Electrodynamics", to be more thorough and better written however. Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" is a bit mind numbing, but(because) it's loaded with math. I certainly wouldn't call MHD theory my "specialty" however. :)
     
  16. Kaon

    Kaon Well-Known Member

    +2,305
    United States
    Other Religion
    Celibate
    But you know the math to discuss it?

    If so, that's good enough.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  17. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    To a degree.
     
  18. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +738
    Humanist
    Private
    .. (in total isolation from any formally recognised academic institute which bases its training on the principles of Physics .. Where, had such formal training been undertaken, would normally produce other than a consistency of demonstrably flawed conclusions on the topic).

    .. (and then came away with the demonstrably flawed idea that plasma is a prerequisite for magnetic reconnection .. Which of course, stands as evidence of a lack of understanding of the principles of MHD).

    .. its also been swept under the rug by Peratt himself .. who hasn't pursued the content for decades. (Peratt has also made it clear he has nothing to do with the Electric Universe, which he considers to be pseudoscience).
    The word 'speciality' is usually used by others (ie: not the speaker) once the claimant has a successfully demonstrated an evidenced track record of topic mastery ...
     
  19. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +738
    Humanist
    Private
    Thread Note:
    Readers be warned - Michael continually misrepresents and misinterprets this diagram in order to benefit his physically invalid arguments. This has been brought to his attention countless times, by myriads of scientifically qualified posters across numerous web science forums.. (Yet he persists with his misrepresentations here at CFs).
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,265
    Christian
    If you're talking that debate about Somov's one diagram, all that debate ultimately demonstrated is that Alfven is correct that the whole concept is redundant and made obsolete by his double layer paper. There's literally no physical difference between what Somov called "magnetic reconnection" in his one "vacuum" example and ordinary magnetic flux in that same vacuum. It's just a direct renaming of magnetic flux to "magnetic reconnection". In fact Somov directly avoiding answering my question to him about that issue, and the physical difference between them.

    FYI, I'm still waiting to see that missing math formula to express a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" without plasma.

    Peratt added something like 50 pages and five more chapters to his 2nd edition book released in 2015. Peratt simply distances himself from Juergen's anode solar model, and Velikovski's ideas, as do I. Peratt certainly still embraces Plasma Cosmology to this day.

    I certainly don't profess to "master" MHD theory.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...