Any ordinary plasma ball will demonstrate the filamentary nature of current carrying plasma.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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).
It can only be 'personal' if the accusation is true ..I don't know why you insist on engaging in personal attacks in every conversation.
True .. it takes the person making the claim to make it a 'lie', where it is true.Michael said:The fact you disagree with me doesn't automatically make my statements "lies".
From my rather extensive conversations involving sjastro and yourself on this topic, I certainly, cannot corroborate that claim .. (even in the slightest).Michael said:Yet we've engaged in other conversations since then, and I have addressed at least *some* of your misconceptions.
.. and the never-ending cycle begins .. yet again .. ho-hum ..Michael said:Which *specific* page number, paragraph and formula in Scott's paper(s) does this supposed error occur in? Please be specific. I'm about to leave on a trip soon, so I'd rather not have to go hunt for it.
Its all relevant .. and its not nonsense. Only your claims and pirouettes are.Michael said:I'm just going to skip your other irrelevant strawman nonsense.
It can only be 'personal' if the accusation is true ..
What do you call his entire post#12 in this thread, then?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.
As Selfsim mentioned in his response the information has been has always been available specifically point (4).Emphasis mine. What a huge hijack of the thread, and what an utterly useless personal attack. Six separate times in a single post you took the thread off the topic, and attacked me personally by either claiming that I intentionally lied (as though you're a mind reader), or you questioned my honesty. In the same post you also attacked my "comprehension" abilities, all the while *blatantly avoiding my simple request* to point out the *specific* paper you're referring to, the specific page number and the specific paragraph and specific formula where you allege that Scott supposedly made some math error. Oy Vey.
Do you have a specific formula to cite, yes or no?
So, Michael now needs to clear this up.Michael said:I don't know why you insist on engaging in personal attacks in every conversation. It's utterly ridiculous. The fact you disagree with me doesn't automatically make my statements "lies". Sheesh.sjastro said:You have been caught out lying again.Michael said: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.
You certainly did not address my rebuttal because I had written the final summary in that thread after you had already been suspended for your previous lies.
You were in no position to address all the issues!!!
Even if there was an ounce of truth it does not right the wrongs in Scott's model such as the algebraic errors and confirms you are either totally out of your depth or dishonest in suggesting it does.
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).
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.
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.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.
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:
But in work just accepted by Physical Review Letters, a team of American astronomers found a striking correlation between the visible matter (the stars and dust in galaxies) and its rotation speed. That means they can predict the rotation of galaxies – without invoking the dark stuff at all.
“Nothing in the standard cosmological model predicts this and it is almost impossible to imagine how that model could be modified to explain it, without discarding the dark matter hypothesis completely,” said David Merritt, an astrophysicist at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York and who was not involved in the research.
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.
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
Scott's model is based on blunders in math and rubbish physics.... I would also point out that Scott's model ..
Scott's model is based on blunders in math and rubbish physics.
We are still awaiting your response on this matter .. So where is it?
Unbelievable.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.
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.
The counter rotation pattern that is predicted in Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model is pretty unique.
If that's referring to Scott's electric current model: Its also wrong.The current model is getting old.
If that's referring to Scott's electric current model: Its also wrong.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?