• 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.

New Paper Eliminates The Need For Dark Matter To Explain Galaxy Rotation Patterns

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Feb 27, 2018.

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

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    A new paper by Dr. Donald Scott eliminates the need for "dark matter" to explain galaxy rotation patterns:


    Here's a relatively short Youtube video that explains the paper and it's findings:

    Essentially Dr. Scott builds on Kristian Birkeland's laboratory work with Birkeland currents, and Lundquist's mathematical framework to demonstrate that galaxies are simply embedded inside of large scale Birkeland currents which dictate and describe the rotation patterns of galaxies without any need for exotic forms of matter.

    Note that Dr. Scott's new paper is completely consistent with the recent discovery of two different hot plasma and cooler gas "halos" that surround our own galaxy, and his paper also explains why the rotational axis of distant galaxies are all aligned along the filaments that connect the galaxies over billions of light years of distance.

    NASA - The Milky Way's Hot Gas Halo
    Hydrogen, Hydrogen, Everywhere!
    Astronomers Shocked To Find Galaxy Alignments In Earliest Cosmos
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2018
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    Oh dear: the rather deluded Donald Scott has a new PDF!
    Deluded because he is part of the ignorant Thunderbolts neo-Velikovsky group and seems to believe in their delusions, e.g. the Grand Canyon was blasted out by electrical discharges, solar neutrinos have not been detected (his web page), blind faith in Peratt's easily debunked galaxy formation model (predicts spiral galaxies that are not real spiral galaxies, not elliptical double lobed radio galaxies), electric currents do magic on/in the Sun and produce fusion that does not fry the Earth with gamma rays, etc.

    Scott may still think that the M2-9 Butterfly nebula is a z-pinch when that is physically impossible: Known Unknowns

    Here from 2014: Scott's EU Birkeland Current Blunders (why his previous paper on Birkeland currents is so bad)

    Now he has his imaginary, invisible not Birkeland currents moving stars and gas around. Birkeland currents are the currents in planetary ionospheres caused by the interaction between the solar wind and a strong planetary magnetic field. They have only been observed around Earth. The presence of aurora on other planets suggests Birkeland currents exist there. There is no physical evidence for Birkeland currents outside of the Solar System. The Thunderbolts people have plenty of ignorant fantasies about the fact that plasma forms filaments without any Birkeland currents needed.
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    Somehow you think it's *you* that isn't delusional, even though your cosmology model requires four supernatural components, and maybe five by the time you explain the dependency between SN1A results and Planck data. Go figure. FYI, Scott doesn't evoke any new forms of physics to explain ordinary galaxy rotation patterns, and neither did Peratt.

    Please quote Scott supporting Velikovsky. I think you're just lying again, just like you lied about Scott's solar model predicting "no neutrinos". You have a bad habit of misrepresenting everyone, yet you think everyone else is 'delusional'.

    Quote him.

    Actually his current position is that you haven't demonstrated in a lab that electron neutrinos change into muon or tau neutrinos. Care to cite an experiment that demonstrates that claim with a five sigma certainty?

    He provided a mathematical model of his own, so it's not 'blind faith', and your way of "debunking" authors is to put false words in their mouth like your "no neutrino" nonsense. Nothing you say is true as it relates to EU/PC authors. You have proven track record of misrepresenting their statements and beliefs in fact.

    Case it point. You cannot and you will not quote Scott predicting an excess of gamma rays from his solar model. You made the up, just like you made up the "no neutrino" claim that Scott never made, and you can't even keep your stories straight from one day to the next. Either he predicts "no neutrinos", or excess gamma rays, but you can't have it both ways, and he never made either prediction to start with! Talk about delusions. Man are you deluded about what Scott even predicts. Quote him predicting either no neutrinos, or excess gamma rays, or better yet, admit you made it up.

    You obviously don't know anything about what Scott really predicts or believes since you can't even keep your stories straight about neutrino predictions.

    You haven't produced a single mathematical error in any of his two papers.

    Considering the fact that you have four invisible imaginary friends in LCDM , you're the last person to criticize anyone on that front, and Birkeland' currents are not "invisible". Your industry euphemistically calls them "jets" and 'space slinkies" and filaments and tendrils and 'magnetic ropes" and "steve" and just about anything other than their proper scientific name.


    Space 'Slinky' Confirms Theory with a Twist

    Do you ever tell the truth?

    You have that backwards. Your industry is constantly evoking unnecessary metaphysical entities to explain simple current carrying structures in space.
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    NASA - The Milky Way's Hot Gas Halo
    Hydrogen, Hydrogen, Everywhere!
    Astronomers Shocked To Find Galaxy Alignments In Earliest Cosmos

    Scott's model is completely consistent with all those observations, including the ones that "shock" mainstream astronomers. :) The alignment of the galaxies with the Birkeland currents that they are embedded in is direct evidence of the predictive accuracy of his model, and it's another great example of the *failures* of your model! LCDM is an *epic* fail and no "dark matter" is necessary to explain either galaxy rotation patterns, or the numerous failures in your baryonic mass estimates of galaxies.
  5. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    Since you want examples of maths errors here is one which results in Scott’s new paper falling apart like a house of cards.

    The equations (1)-(2) in Scott’s paper is the Lundquist solution of the PDE (partial differential equation) for a magnetic force free field.
    The PDE is:

    X B = αB

    ∇ is the differential operator in cylindrical coordinates; B is the magnetic field and α is a constant.
    ∇X B is the curl or rotation applied to B which results in the helicity of the magnetic field which is a necessary condition for force free fields.
    In a magnetic force free field, the Lorentz force j X B= 0 where j X B is the cross product of the current density j and magnetic field B vectors.
    Since j X B =0 ⇒ j=0 or jB.
    In other words for a magnetic force free field the current density j can be either zero or parallel to the magnetic field.
    Equations (1) and (2) are solutions of the PDE for the magnetic field B in the z direction and θ and are expressed as Bessel functions J₀(αr) and J₁(αr) respectively.

    Equations (3) and (4) are where Scott completely goes off the rails.
    Scott has derived equations (3) and (4) by using Maxwell’s 4th equation with a constant electric field ∂E/∂t=0.
    Maxwell’s 4th equation with a constant electric field is:
    ∇X B = μj where μ is the magnetic permeability.
    Since ∇X B = αB then αB = μj
    Scott has used the substitution B=(μ/α)j into equations (1) and (2) to obtain equations (3) and (4) respectively which are the current density in the z direction and θ.

    This methodology is comprehensively wrong.
    Scott has only made the substitution for the left hand side of the equations; the right hand side retains the Bz(0) term.
    Since the right hand side of equations (3) and (4) contains the terms Bz(0), J₀(αr) and J₁(αr) which can never be zero this contradicts j=0 as being a physical solution in a magnetic force free field.

    The “correct” method (which is ultimately also wrong, see below) is to make the substitution into the PDE which is then solved.
    This leads to the PDE:

    X (μ/α)j = α(μ/α)j
    ⇔ ∇X j = αj since μ/α is constant.

    Using the constraint in equation (5) as per the Lundquist method, the solutions in the z direction and θ are of the form j(0)J₀(αr) and j(0)J₁(αr) respectively and are clearly not equivalent to equations (3) and (4).
    Furthermore j(0) can take on a zero value and therefore preserves j=0 as a solution.

    In reality however the equation ∇X j = αj is nonsensical.
    The ∇ operator only “works” on conservative forces involving scalar potentials, vector potentials and fields such V, A, E, B and g.

    The bottom line is that equations (3) and (4) or the “correct” versions do not exist as there is no PDE to generate solutions.
    Since these equations form the basis of Scott’s paper in the form of equation (9), the paper overall is comprehensively wrong.
    Scott is basically treating the magnetic field and current density as identical parameters which is nonsense.

    Then there are various non mathematical blunders such as associating Birkeland currents with field aligned currents in force free magnetic fields.
    The presence of Birkeland currents does not imply the magnetic field is force free as the Earth’s own non force free magnetic field illustrates.

  6. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    Thank you so much for that in-depth math analysis there, sjastro!
    This totally takes care of the 'challenge' Michael has been propagating far and wide across the web since this dumb paper surface at the IS forum.
    So if I understand this correctly, (and summarising), you've demonstrated that Scott's substitution of Maxwell's equation for a constant electric field, (his 4th), into Lundquist's solution produces nonsensical results. This is because the differential operator, ∇, can only be used for conservative forces, whereas Scott has incorrectly assumed Lundquist's solutions share the same PDEs as Maxwell's 4th(?)
    (I may not yet have this bit totally 'straight' yet).

    This sounds strangely reminiscent of Michael's notorious n=p and therefore 0.5 =1 nonsense(?) :)
    So just as a final nail in Scott's coffin, even if a force-free magnetic field could momentarily be established, (in some poorly conducting medium), it would decay without added external energy, (in the form of an external magnetic field), because the Lundquist solution is basically saying that any momentary counter-rotating concentric layers would also act to rip it apart .. (ie: the complete opposite of Scott's entire claim).

    So the present definition of 'Birkeland current' thus still requires this external energy input and Scott's attempts to derail the definition are flawed by his own misapplication of the math operators?
  7. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    Last edited: Mar 6, 2018
  8. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    It wasn’t the case of Scott incorrectly assuming Maxwell’s 4th equation and the force free field equation being the same.
    Maxwell’s 4th equation in full is ∇XBj + με(∂E/t).
    In Scott’s previous paper he assumed ∂E/t=0 and concluded ∇XBB= μj.
    Scott didn’t realise he has created a problem by assuming ∂E/t=0, as Maxwell’s equation which is now ∇XBj has the condition j=0 ⇒ B=0.
    In a force free field however B≠0 if j=0, so when he made the substitution B=(μ/α)j it led to the contradictions in equations (3) and (4) as described in my previous post.
    Also the presence of the Bessel functions in equations (3) and (4) implies an underlying PDE involving j the current density.

    Rather than dealing with conservative forces in fields, the best way of explaining the significance of ∇ is the action of the operator when applied to a field itself.

    In Cartesian coordinates ∇≡(∂/∂x)i +(∂/∂y)j +(∂/∂z)k, where i, j, k are orthogonal unit vectors.
    When applied to a scalar field ϕ such as the temperature distribution around a hot body.
    ∇ϕ=(∂ ϕ /∂x)i +(∂ ϕ /∂y)j +(∂ ϕ /∂z)k is known as the gradient of ϕ and is the rate of change of the field ϕ at (x,y,z) in the directions i,j,k.

    When applied to vector fields such as E.
    ∇.E =[(∂/∂x)i +(∂/∂y)j +(∂/∂z)k].[E₁i+E₂j+E₃k]
    =∂ E₁ /∂x + ∂ E₂ /∂y + ∂ E₃ /∂z is known as the divergence of E.

    The divergence of a vector field such as E is described by enclosing an electric charge with a surface with the electric field lines passing through the surface.
    By shrinking the volume enclosed by the surface, the surface converges to a point and the divergence of the vector field E is simply the “density” of the field lines that is diverging from or converging to that point.

    The curl of a vector field say B is defined as
    ∇X B = (∂ B₃ /∂y-∂ B₂ /∂z)i +(∂ B₁ /∂z-∂ B₃ /∂x)j + (∂ B₂ /∂x-∂ B₁ /∂y)k.

    The field undergoes rotation such as the circulation of the magnetic field around a straight wire carrying a current.

    By comparison j is the current density and not a field and equations such ∇X j in the context of force free fields are meaningless.

    I wouldn’t degrade Scott’s mathematical abilities to that extent; the 1=0.5 nonsense is not only the height of pure ignorance but a failure to admit to such a gob smacking error.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    Ya know.......

    At first glance, it's entirely possible that you might have a valid mathematical argument as it relates to Scott's last paper, but it's virtually impossible to 'trust' you two after that *howler* of an Olber's paradox discussion, and your consistent misrepresentations of my statements and the statements of other EU/PC proponents. You both peddled that Olber's paradox nonsense that came up 268,770 AU shells, 100 thousand galaxies, and 200 billions stars short of a valid scientific argument. You personally *botched* the entire meaning of that experiment on the inverse square law, and surface brightness. Selfsim also botched his own math homework assignment which I caught (and fixed). In my use of the *right* (and simplified) formula, I absolutely, positively put the number of permutations *outside* of the sqrt function, and I specifically and intentionally left only the *number of flip attempts* inside the sqrt function.

    When you two blatantly try to rewrite history, and you intentionally misrepresent something as simple as the neutrino emissions from EU/PC solar models, its really hard to believe anything else you two might have to say.

    In this case however I will take the time to consider your argument and I'll look at the math a bit more closely today to see if your argument holds water. Like I said however, its not like you two haven't made your own *howlers* of errors in past conversations, so even if Scott did make an error, you might as well climb down off that high horse before you hurt yourself. If he actually made an error, he's certainly in good company, including both of you two.

    Your continued use of strawman arguments, and your false assertions about the solar neutrino predictions of EU/PC models only undermines your own personal credibility. You're like two the little boys that cried wolf. After awhile I start to doubt everything that you two have to say.

    Selfsim and sjastro cry wolf:

    "Wolf, Olber's paradox!" - No wolf, no paradox.
    "Wolf, stellar surface brightness!" - No wolf, stellar surfaces obey the inverse square laws.
    "Wolf, galaxy surface brightness!" - No wolf, galaxies obey inverse square laws too.
    "Wolf, shell math proves us right!" - No wolf, 268,770 AU shells short of a wolf.
    "Wolf, no neutrinos!" - No wolf, lots of neutrinos which vary with solar cycle.
    "Wolf, excess gamma rays!" - No wolf, no such "prediction".
    "Wolf, 1=0.5!" - No wolf, no such "prediction".
    "Wolf, Scott made a math error!" - ???
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2018
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    No, this bad math cry wolf routine sounds very reminiscent of the false words you've put in my mouth and Scott's mouth about neutrinos, and it sounds like that ridiculous strawman that you made up after you hysterically *failed* your own math quiz. :)

    That's absolutely false. First of all plasma isn't a "poorly" conducting medium, it's almost (but not quite) a *perfect* conducting medium. Secondly, the only thing required to hold the filament together is *sustained current* through the filament, which generates a magnetic field around the filament that pinches it together. An ordinary plasma ball will verify that for you. The filaments won't decay or dissipate until/unless you turn *off* the electric field. As long as the electric field persists, the filaments form inside the ball and stay pinched into current carrying filaments. Oy Vey.

    We'll add another cry wolf routine to your growing list of false claims:

    "Wolf, a Birkeland current needs an *external* magnetic field" - No wolf, the current flowing through the filament generates a magnetic field around the thread that pinches it together.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2018
  11. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    Ok .. got it now!
    Thanks muchly! :)

    We'll see ... Its hard to imagine Scott not proceeding with his plans to publish this rubbish in the crank journal, 'Progress in Physics'.
    If he does, then I see no difference between this and Michael's stubborn, ego-driven defense of the indefensible (aka: 1=0.5)!

    Scott should know better .. assuming he accepts any ethical responsibilities as a retired teaching professional, and as a publishing 'academic'.
  12. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    .. Spoke too soon!
    Looks like he did .. See 2018 (vol. 14), issue 2 .
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    I seriously doubt that you really "got it" since you still seem to erroneously believe that Birkeland currents require an outside magnetic field to hold them together! Oy Vey. A Birkeland current is a *plasma pinch* for crying out loud.

    Birkeland current - Wikipedia

    As long as there is current flowing through the filament, it's not going to dissipate or fly apart. It's being held together by the magnetic pinch process. An ordinary plasma ball will clearly demonstrate that point for you.

    AFAIK the paper was published before we even started discussing it. I'd imagine he can modify it if there really is a flaw, but it's not like he can unpublish it. It was a busy day at work but I should have time to look at the math a bit more closely this evening. Until I do, I'll reserve judgment.

    LOL! Your whole 1=.5 strawman is nothing but a stubborn ego-driven self defense mechanism on your part because you *botched* your own math homework assignment. I had to fix *and simplify* your formula for you. What's even *worse* is your stubborn ego-driven self defense mechanisms about Olber's paradox. What a joke that turned out to be. You two came up hundreds of thousands of AU shells short, and hundreds of billions of light sources short of a valid scientific argument and you're *still* emotionally attached to that lame argument. Then there's the "no neutrino" and excess gamma ray nonsense.

    Even *if* this isn't just another cry wolf routine on your part (which seems like the most likely scenario), you're no one to be talking about ethics after that "no neutrino" nonsense and the pathetic hit piece you folks did on Scott's solar model.

    AFAIK, the paper has already been published so the most he could do now is revise the paper and revise the formula to include ∂E/t, although I have no logical reason to believe that the electric field is necessarily changing over time in the first place. Would either of you two care to explain why you're sure it's changing over time?
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2018
  14. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    The crank journal 'Progress in Physics' website shows that '2018 (vol. 14), issue 2' is still 'Open for submissions', although Scott's paper is schedule for that issue and is also currently available as a PDF download.

    There's still time for him to pull the paper, or for the reviewers to wake up and see that its utter rubbish, and pull it anyway.

    I'm not anticipating your looking can possibly change the fact that its still rubbish!

    I've got a good idea for resolving this:
    Seeing as the above mentioned issue of the crank journal 'Progress in Physics' is still 'Open for submissions', why don't you make a submission on the topic of your amazing refutation of Olber's paradox?

    I mean, if they fail to recognise it as being total rubbish and publish it, then at least you could cite yourself as a reference in place of your current inability to come up with any references whatsoever, to support your delusion about Olber's!
    On the other hand, if they don't publish it, then we may have to concur that they may indeed have some kind of peer-review process, after all!
    Its a win-win proposition for you! :)

    Nope .. Your turn .. following your in-depth 'look at the math a bit more closely this evening', you tell us why incorporating it makes any difference whatsoever?!
    (It would take a different mind from mine, (like your own), to explain this gobbledygook!)
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    Yes he did, and he explained his reasoning as well. It certainly wasn't an oversight on his part:

    That term which Maxwell added to make the math more universal is applicable when discussing capacitors, or instances where the E field is changing over time, but he's specifically *assuming* that there is no such change taking place in *this specific circumstance*.

    You're basically condemning him for making a logical assumption about the specific circumstances he's interested in for the purposes of his paper. It's not as though he *accidentally* left it out! It looks like this is just another "cry wolf' scenario on your part.
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    The unethical nature of the debate tactics that astronomers resort to in discussions about astronomy is just ridiculous. You folks usually start by personally attacking the individual. If that doesn't work, you bash on the publication, and if that doesn't work, you simply misrepresent their statements entirely (no neutrinos)! The fact that you refuse to have a debate that is "focused exclusively on the science" says volumes about your scientific abilities, or or in your particular case, "lack thereof".

    I give sjastro some credit for sticking to the *topic* and debating the *choices* that Scott made, and focusing on the math as I asked, but you seem to have nothing useful to add to any discussion. Most of what you say is utter nonsense from the standpoint of "science", just like that Olber's paradox nonsense. When we skeptically looked at your various arguments, they utterly fell apart at the level of real physics.

    FYI, Scott made a specific and conscious *choice* to set ∂E/t to zero based on the *specific circumstances* involved in his argument and his paper. He's consciously *assuming* that the the electric fields are *not changing* for purposes of illustrating his point related to galaxy rotation patterns. It's not as though he doesn't discuss that *choice* either in the appropriate paper, so it's clearly not an error of omission on his part.

    In order to demonstrate it's a problem for his paper, or his argument, you'd have to demonstrate that the E field *is changing* in those specific circumstances and therefore it's an invalid *choice* that he made. If we were talking about scenarios and circuits involving capacitors, you might have a valid argument. As it stands however, not so much.

    You haven't demonstrated that his *choice* to assume a constant E field in this case is "rubbish", and therefore you've provided no logical reason to "pull" anything.

    It's really telling IMO that you irrationally accuse me of having a "delusion about Olber" when the reality of the situation is that *you* came up 268,770 AU shells, 100 galaxies, and 200 *billion* stars short of a valid scientific argument. The obvious reason we don't see all the stars in our own galaxy and all the galaxies in our local supercluster at night is due to the limitations of human eyesight, and the inverse square laws of light. There is no 'paradox'. Thomas Digges was right all along. There's a very *logical and scientifically demonstrated reason* why Olber's argument is scientifically bankrupt.

    The fact that you're *still* emotionally (and professionally) attached to that lame argument without being able to address my complaints and answer my questions says *volumes*.

    If they did publish my criticisms of Olber's paradox, you'd simply use that fact to accuse them of being a 'crank publication' again! Your whole "shtick" is personal attack nonsense, because your scientific arguments are *indefensible*. If you have a defense and a rational answer to my questions, explain why we only see less than 10,000 of the 200+ billion or so stars in our own galaxy, and less than 10 galaxies out of the 100 thousand or so galaxies in our local supercluster. If you can't explain that obvious feature of the night sky, then you don't have a valid scientific argument. Period.

    Notice how you *assumed* that Olber was *right* and I'm wrong? It's a win-win for you, not for me.

    Ya, that's what I figured. Scott made a *valid* assumption given the circumstances and the scope of his paper, and therefore you can't deal fault his choice from the perspective of science.

    There's no logic in *assuming* that the E field is changing over time in this specific scenario. Scott made a conscious *choice* to set it to zero, and it's a logically acceptable choice given the specific circumstances, and the scope of his paper. If the E field *isn't changing* (and we have no reason to believe that it is changing), then it's a valid choice to set the displacement current variable to zero.

    It only seems to require a *skeptical* mind to explain all of your mistakes and your gobbledygook. If you have a valid reason to presume changing electric fields as it relate to the scope of his paper, put them on the table. Otherwise this is another example of you having no clue what you're talking about and no logical scientific explanation for your criticism.
  17. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    Scott has certainly done nothing of the sort.
    In plasma physics the displacement current ∂E/t =0 is a good approximation for low velocity/frequency plasma.
    No where in his paper does he even describe the plasma conditions that justify this reasoning.

    The correctness or otherwise of the papers doesn't even hinge on whether Scott has made a "logical assumption" or not.
    As I have have already explained he made an algebraic substitution to the left hand side of equations (1) and (2) while ignoring the right hand side Bz(0) term.
    This is a very basic maths error and the resultant equations (3) and (4) are nonsensical.
    They cannot even pass as an empirical relationship because it contradicts the j=0 condition for force free fields.

    The facts are Scott's maths is wrong, get over it.
  18. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    Then his reasoning leads back to the contradictions pointed out by sjastro in post #5 (and explained further in post #8):
    I wish you'd quit beating around the bush and stick to the topic for once!
    Scott made a fundamental algebra blunder in his substitution which leads to logical contradictions!
  19. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    Oh for crying out loud! There is no "logical contradiction" because without any current there wouldn't be a Birkeland "current" to begin with, and his paper wouldn't be applicable in the first place! He's *assuming* a non-zero J from the start!

    Yep, just like I figured, another 'cry wolf' routine from you two with no actual wolf.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  20. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    A mostly irrelevant and ignorant rant but I will address some points:
    Scott is deluded because
    • Mainly because he is part of (and one of the authors touted by) the ignorant and deluded Thunderbolts neo-Velikovsky group. His membership is why he is deluded. A rational person would have learned about the bad science from Velikovsky, how Talbott extended it into delusions (The Saturn Myth), etc.
    • He seems to still believe that solar neutrinos have not been detected (his web page still exists!).
    • He denies the existence of any magnet reconnection at all when it is textbook physics that labs here on Earth have worked with for decades.
    A lie that Peratt explained galaxy rotation curves.
    An invalid model of galaxies cannot explain anything about real galaxies.

    Spiral Galaxies & Grand Canyons is Thornhill's delusion and that is being charitable!
    ETA: Read the idocy that is the rest of the article, e.g. he overlays a spiral galaxy on Valles Marineris!

    It is a lie that "electron neutrinos change into muon or tau neutrinos" have not been observed in a lab: Neutrino oscillation
    Unless this is the insane demand that a lab in a single building observed the oscillations.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.