• 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.

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

    +1,160
    Christian
    Any ordinary plasma ball will demonstrate the filamentary nature of current carrying plasma.
     
  2. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    It can only be 'personal' if the accusation is true ..

    True .. it takes the person making the claim to make it a 'lie', where it is true.

    From my rather extensive conversations involving sjastro and yourself on this topic, I certainly, cannot corroborate that claim .. (even in the slightest).

    .. and the never-ending cycle begins .. yet again .. ho-hum ..
    Its all relevant .. and its not nonsense. Only your claims and pirouettes are.
     
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    No, actually it can be a "personal attack" whether it's true or not. Either way it is *off topic*!

    For goodness sake, all I asked for was the *specific paper*, the specific paragraph, and the *specific* formula where sjastro alleges that Scott made a math error. Is that really too much at ask for?

    It's possible he posted it in a previous thread and I missed it, but I didn't see it, and I'd like a specific reference.
     
  4. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    What do you call his entire post#12 in this thread, then?
     
  5. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    As Selfsim mentioned in his response the information has been has always been available specifically point (4).
    So you either didn't read the rebuttal or it was misunderstood to the the degree it didn't register.
    Whatever the reason is, it is a crystal clear example of a falsehood when you have mentioned on numerous times in this thread of correcting my "misconceptions" of Scott's model when you are not even familiar with the flaws described of Scott's model.

    Whenever you do bend the truth it is very much on topic as it devalues the educational value of the thread which should be a prime objective in a SF.
    So when you come out with classics such as Space Slinkys being examples of Birkeland currents when the articles clearly describe them as gas you are going to be called out accordingly.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2019
  6. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    So, Michael now needs to clear this up.
    The evidenced fact is that he has not addressed 'the wrongs in Scott's model' .. and the only person who thinks he's been 'personally attacked' is Michael ... and that's because his above initial claim was in fact, false ... yet he then asserted it (above) as being true.

    So .. for the sake of clearing this mess (of Michael's making) up, I'd like to know why Michael claimed it as being true .. and only Michael can do that .. (hopefully we can then get back on topic).
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
  7. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    Now that his confusion has been sorted out it is up to him to address the rebuttal.
    There are no more excuses.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2019
  8. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +5,305
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Ah ha! I didn't respond to this, but it's not like you'd guess! In my actual experience I learned what really happens is (at first) unexpected: really wild outcomes.

    What kind of experience? -- extensive experimenting with chaotic systems of bodies interacting under gravity even in just Newtonian gravity (which is plenty accurate enough at distances to get this above effect -- that in falling gas could be in the counter direction to the predominate direction.

    This experimenting began kinda way back when I was a freshman in physics, and bought a very basic computer (an Apple II), and wrote a code to simulate orbits. I remained fascinated. Jump forward in time, past many simulations I'd watched from supercomputers, etc. and then imagine my excitement then many years ago to find out my modern computer, so vastly much more speedy than the one from the early 80s could quickly be put to work with an excellent gravitational interaction simulator where I could add a lot of bodies in any manner I wished and watch their N-body gravitational interactions!

    Generally in many cases one will see chaotic seeming outcomes.

    If you have a longer time scale or are willing to set up a system that isn't in equilibrium to begin with, that is, a typical real galaxy situation...

    So, from a lot of just simulating (accurately enough), I find that it's quite easy for a mass to end up going in the opposite direction. It's just merely momentum transfer.

    And I already know then, from experience, that of course some bodies/gas, etc., will inevitably end up going in the other direction, just as a normal thing.
     
  9. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +5,305
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I was searching for a simulation that could help illustrate, but so far just found one simple simulation (but brief) showing how when there are more than 2 bodies interacting gravitationally, then a body can be flung in a new direction that is unlike the predominate old direction of the group of bodies before the momentum transfer. In short, you can have a net momentum in one direction, the total momentum of the bodies, and they can initially all be going in that direction, such as orbiting the galactic center in 1 direction, and then get the near approach involving more than 2 bodies and get 1 of the bodies flung off in a new direction. The net momentum of all the bodies is conserved. If 1 is flung in a near opposite direction, the remaining have more velocity in their original direction to conserve the momentum. Also, any star can be torn apart by a close interaction with a dense massive object (such as neutron star or black hole, of which any galaxy will have very many). So, you can easily get gas then moving in a new direction.

    Example of a chaotic 3-body interaction:

     
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    It's obviously possible to introduce a series of events and exotic material that might *also* explain counter-rotation patterns *and* the velocity patterns of galaxies, but Scott's model does away with the need to add either exotic matter, or unusual merger processes to explain counter-rotation patterns. Perhaps an "additional test" is that Scott's model doesn't preclude us from finding galaxies with very *complex* rotation patterns, with multiple rings moving in various directions. To put it another way, his model predicts that the counter-rotation patterns could be quite complex in some instances.

    My primary point however is that both Scott and Peratt have suggested that galaxy rotation patterns are heavily influenced by EM fields, not *just* gravity. Furthermore the discovery of galaxies which do *not* required 'dark matter' to explain their movement patterns is consistent with a model that predicted variation in EM fields.

    Another "odd" feature of galaxy rotation patterns is that they can be completely predicted by the amount of ordinary matter present:

    Spinning galaxies question existence of dark matter | Cosmos

    There are a number of observations which aren't directly "predicted" by dark matter models, which might be better explained simply by adding EM field influences to the models.
     
  11. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +5,305
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Ok, ready for something new? :)

    New research suggests about 10 billion years ago the Milky Way consumed a smaller galaxy, and the remnants of that cosmic lunch are still swirling around in the Milky Way’s belly.

    The long-ago feast was discovered when researchers looked at data collected by the European Space Agency's Gaia space telescope, analyzing data on tens of thousands of stars within 33,000 light years of our own sun, reports Lisa Grossman at ScienceNews. What the data shows is that a group of about 30,000 of those stars aren’t rotating around the galactic center like they should. Instead, they appear to be moving the opposite way.
    The Milky Way Ate One of Its Neighbors 10 Billion Years Ago | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine
     
  12. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Thanks for the link. I suppose I'll need to read the paper I can't really tell from the article if the 30,000 stars in question form an actual concentric ring, or whether it's a "clump" of stars moving in the opposite direction. I would also point out that Scott's model would also tend to predict some amount of elemental separation between the various concentric rings. The fact they don't have the same metal content could interpreted as an example of Marklund convection in Scott's model.

    I accept the fact that there could be various explanations for counter rotation patterns in various galaxies, but if we start finding *complex* rotation patterns in galaxy as well, I think that would tend to favor Scott's model over a 'merging' phenomenon. If such complex patterns are found, and they also exhibit properties consistent with Marklund convection, then I think it would definitely tilt the scales in Scott's favor.

    I should also point out that Anthony Peratt has built computer models based on EM field influence to simulate various galaxy formation configurations which tend to emerge and their comparison to actual galaxies.

    1995Ap&SS.227...97P Page 97
    Galaxy formation | Plasma-Universe.com
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
  13. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Which specific issues are your waiting for a response to which I haven't already responded to?

    As far as I can tell, sjastro's biggest 'beef' was that Scott simplified the formula a bit by *assuming* that J could not be zero (current must flow through the 'Birkeland current"), and the electric field can't be changing in his simplified model, but so what? Those are entirely reasonable "assumptions/mathematical simplifications" for the purpose of his papers.

    Such an argument amounts to pointing out that "black hole" mathematics fail at r=0 and then handwaving that this is 'proof that black holes don't exist'.

    Sorry, but those seem like a reasonable assumptions/limitations to me.
     
  15. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    Unbelievable.
    Selfsim has made the same request as I have in the other thread!!
    You are so confused by referring to an old thread which predates the rebuttal of Scott's model.
     
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Your assertions about Scott making mathematical errors are like redshift dejavu all over again. Scott *intentionally* simplified his model by limiting it to *current carrying scenarios* (j cannot be 0) and instances where the electric field is not changing! You're "misinterpreting" those *simplifications* as "math errors". Sheesh.
     
  17. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,105
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    The current model is getting old.
     
  18. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    If that's referring to Scott's electric current model: Its also wrong.
     
  19. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    The mainstream's electrophobia is hurting not only solar physics research, but astronomy in general. The filamentary nature of space is *absolutely* caused by current that runs through the plasma of spacetime.
     
  20. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    Rubbish .. Its demonstrable nonsense like what you and the buffoon, Scott, are trying to propagate, out of complete and utter ignorance of Physics, that's completely laughable.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...