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

[Michael]

Like you ran from submitting your nonsense to an appropriate journal? For anyone interested, here is what a qualified astrophysicist told MM about his silly claims:

Mozina (??????):


Tim Thompson (astrophysicist):

As much as I like, appreciate and respect Tim, he's simply miguided in terms of his response to that graph. The graph in question isn't related to a *single* flare event, it covers many of them, and therefore expecting to see obvious "bumps" in that graph isn't logical to start with.

And that is what any peer reviewer in an appropriate journal would have told them.

And I would have responded the same way.

 

[Michael]

Nope. Irrelevant. A metal ball being heated tells us nothing. The Sun is gaseous, not metallic. There is no mains supply.

Do you even listen? Birkeland's cathode solar model is *internally* powered. It's not powered by "mains", it generates is own electrical energy via fusion and induction. It doesn't actually even matter if it's metallic or not! Oy Vey. You're not even paying attention or acknowledging the differences between Birkeland's internally powered cathode model and Juergen's externally powered anode model! You're like a broken record who isn't even bothering to read their own references or any references for that matter.

 

[ianw16]

As much as I like, appreciate and respect Tim, he's simply miguided in terms of his response to that graph.......

In matters astrophysical, I would take his word over that of anybody who hangs out with the EU loons. Not to mention that there are other papers reporting single flare events, where these non-existent CNO lines are unsurprisingly absent. So, dips where you need bumps (lines, really), and no nitrogen signature at all. Yep, I'm convinced.

 

[Michael]

PERVASIVE FAINT Fe XIX EMISSION FROM A SOLAR ACTIVE REGION OBSERVED WITH EUNIS-13: EVIDENCE FOR NANOFLARE HEATING - IOPscience

So, that to me looks a lot better bet than models that don't even get past first base, are scientifically unviable and possess zero evidence. And, essentially, don't exist.

In other words you *prefer* claims that are based upon pure affirming the consequent fallacies rather than lab tested physics. It's nice when you don't have to actually demonstrate a damn thing you write about because you can just make up whatever nonsense you wish. "Faeries did it, and here's the math to prove it!"

 

[ianw16]

Birkeland's.........yada yada yada

Is irrelevant. He wouldn't believe it himself, if we could resurrect him. Get out of the early 20th century, and read some current science.

 

[ianw16]

In other words you *prefer* claims that are based upon pure affirming the consequent fallacies rather than lab tested physics.

There is no lab tested physics. You need a gaseous ball, with fusion going on at the core. That is not happening in a lab. So, we observe instead. Based on realistic hypotheses for the heating. Like reconnection. Not heating up metal balls that in no way resemble the Sun, and can tell us nothing.

 

[Michael]

In matters astrophysical, I would take his word over that of anybody who hangs out with the EU loons.

Name calling from a guy peddling four supernatural claims that fail to work in a lab, five if we include your invisible nano-faeries.

Not to mention that there are other papers reporting single flare events, where these non-existent CNO lines are unsurprisingly absent.

FYI, I would *expect* that since the flare in question was rather unique in that way which is why we chose that particular one. Lots of them are missing the 2.2 Mev line too.

So, dips where you need bumps (lines, really), and no nitrogen signature at all. Yep, I'm convinced.

You obviously didn't look at the SERTS data as I suggested? Do you ever read any actual published material or do yo just wing it based on nonsense you read somewhere on the internet?

 

[Michael]

Is irrelevant. He wouldn't believe it himself, if we could resurrect him. Get out of the early 20th century, and read some current science.

Bwahahahahahahahaha! That's a riot. Every "prediction" that Birkeland made has since been verified by satellites in space and evidence that came to light after his death. You're clearly dreaming. He wouldn't believe that you're still this ignorant of the role of electricity in space!

 

[Michael]

There is no lab tested physics.

You need a gaseous ball,

No I don't. Any conductive surface demonstrates the important parts that explain high energy solar atmospheric events.

with fusion going on at the core.

Again, it's not required. Fusion however has been demonstrated on Earth.

That is not happening in a lab.

It's not necessary or logical to expect that in the first place, but that doesn't mean we can't do *real* work in the lab. Just because your invisible stuff never works in the lab doesn't mean real physics is impotent in every experiment.

So, we observe instead.

You didn't *observe* nano-faeires/flares, you made them up based on a pure affirming the consequent fallacy! "I see x, therefore nano-faeries did it!"

Based on realistic hypotheses for the heating.

Electrical current is *routinely* used to heat plasma and sustain it at high temperatures. Nano-faeries are another of your impotent in the laboratory make-believe claims like dark matter and dark energy.

Like reconnection.

Show me a working model of 'reconnection" that generates million degree plasma and sustains that plasma at high temperatures for hours and days on end and does *not* use electricity. You're trying to use pseudoscience to replace real science.

Not heating up metal balls that in no way resemble the Sun, and can tell us nothing.

Boloney. It even explains why the outer layers of the sun are hotter than the inner layers. That blue plasma is hotter than the spheres.

 

[ianw16]

^^^^So, quit the whinging, get off your high horse, leave the woo boys behind, and do your experiments. Publish it in a respectable, relevant journal, and await your ticket to Stockholm. Your cult has achieved the square root of zero since its inception. Perhaps you could be the first to actually accomplish something. Bloody unlikely, I know, but we await developments.
Pound to a penny you'll still be hanging out with the Velikovskians, with their electric......everythings, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing and whining about the terrible mainstream, while the mainstream continue to do all the work, and you try to deny it.
You think Birkeland's terrella was good? Have a look at the piece of kit that detects gravitational waves for us, and even proved the existence of neutron stars beyond any doubt. Have a look at SNO, Borexino et al, that detect neutrinos. Have a look a PPPL that creates MRx in the lab. Et boring cetera. These are the people doing the real science, not poseurs like you, Scott, Thornhill etc. who are merely seeking attention for some unknown reason. I could speculate, but I won't.

 

[Michael]

^^^^So, quit the whinging, get off your high horse, leave the woo boys behind, and do your experiments. Publish it in a respectable, relevant journal, and await your ticket to Stockholm.

Birkeland did all that for you a century ago and you're still ignorant of his work as this discussion so clearly demonstrated. For my efforts of trying to educate you about his solar wind experiments and predictions, you called me a liar, when it fact it was you that was lying all along.

Your cult

For a guy peddling five forms of metaphysics including your nano-faeries, you're the last one who should be talking about cults. My cosmology beliefs all work in the lab.

has achieved the square root of zero since its inception.

Except for working models and real explanations based on real physics.

Perhaps you could be the first to actually accomplish something.

I doubt I'd get the Nobel Prize like Alfven, and if I did you'd probably abuse my work too, just like you abuse his MDH theory.

Bloody unlikely, I know, but we await developments.

Don't hold your breath. Alfven published something like a 100 papers on this topic, and you have continuously ignored his work for decades. You've ignored Birkeland's work for more than a century!

Pound to a penny you'll still be hanging out with the Velikovskians,

You're unethical as hell since I have already *repeatedly* told you that I have no interest in Velikovsky's writing in the first place and not everyone that posts at Thunderbolts does either.

with their electric......everythings,

Well, it is an electric universe.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing and whining about the terrible mainstream,

Only because you waste all our tax dollars on invisible snipe hunts! Billions spent, nothing found.

while the mainstream continue to do all the work,

None of your metaphysical claims "work", certainly not in the lab. That's not "work", that's make-believe with math! You don't understand the value of *working* models!

and you try to deny it.

You're the one that has to deny the negative outcome of billions of dollars of your own "tests" while you stick out your hands for more money to do more invisible matter snipe hunts, only to ignore those negative results too.

You think Birkeland's terrella was good?

For its time, and for the money spent? Absolutely.

Have a look at the piece of kit that detects gravitational waves for us,

I was actually impressed with the last (and only) example of multimessenger astronomy, and I've even devoted computer time to LIGO's cause in the past. Even still, it doesn't make up for your billions of wasted dollars on invisible matter snipe hunts.

Have a look at SNO, Borexino et al, that detect neutrinos.

You don't hear me complaining about those experiments do you?

Have a look a PPPL that creates MRx in the lab.

Pfft. They use electric fields and current to do the actual work and then they claim 'pseudoscience did it". I'm not impressed with MRx and neither was Alfven.

These are the people doing the real science, not poseurs like you,

Psst: I'm a self employed computer programmer by trade and I don't ask you for your tax dollars to look for invisible snipes all day like you folks do.

Scott, Thornhill etc. who are merely seeking attention for some unknown reason. I could speculate, but I won't.

All we want is to move us out of the literal "dark ages" of astronomy and allow empirical physics to flourish. We try to educate folks like you about the value of empirical physics, but apparently you seem to think that you already know it all, and you don't have to actually do any real reading, not even your own references apparently! It makes the education process a lot harder when you're erroneously running around claiming that all EU/PC solar theories predict "no neutrinos", excess gamma rays and different neutrino content. Holy cow. How ignorant you guys are! Trying to teach LCMD proponents the value of empirical physics is harder than trying to teach young Earth creationists the value of empirical physics.

 

[ianw16]

All we want is to move us out of the literal "dark ages" of astronomy and allow empirical physics to flourish.

Hahahaha. You are still stuck in the early 1900s with Birkeland! Thornhill is a clueless Velikovskian, and Scott is also clueless when it comes to astrophysics. Why on Earth would anybody take any notice of you lot? Seriously?

 

[ianw16]

......all EU/PC solar theories predict "no neutrinos", excess gamma rays and different neutrino content.

And I'm sick of explaining to you things that you are apparently unable to understand. I couldn't give a tuppenny about their neutrino claims. They are wrong. As observed. And yes, for the umpteenth time, Scott has fusion in the chromosphere. Do you not understand that that will produce gamma rays? His model sucks. As does Thornhill's (assuming it exists), as does yours. It is all a total irrelevance; a mish-mash of unscientific, evidence-free crackpottery. Nobody is listening, except those who are equally scientifically challenged. You are in no position to educate anybody. You are none of you sufficiently qualified in the relevant areas, and believe in complete nonsense. You have, and will continue to have, zero influence on real science.

 

[Michael]

And I'm sick of explaining to you things that you are apparently unable to understand.

Pffft. That's laughable. You don't even seem to understand or comprehend the fact that there are *at least* three different EU/PC solar models, each with their own set of *unique and different* predictions.

I couldn't give a tuppenny about their neutrino claims. They are wrong. As observed.

Even *if* your criticisms of Juergen's anode solar model were true for every possible variation of anode models (and they're not), they do not even apply to Alfven's EU/PC solar model or Birkeland's internally powered cathode solar model in the first place!

And yes, for the umpteenth time, Scott has fusion in the chromosphere.

Who cares? Even if I conceded that point, Thornhill specifically put the fusion in the *photosphere* and you still haven't explained the Yohkoh/Trace composite image! You run from that image every single time! For all I know the chromopshere would absorb gamma rays too.

Why don't we see any higher energy photons from the solar moss region of that image?

Do you not understand that that will produce gamma rays?

You don't understand that gamma rays are absorbed in the solar atmosphere? You don't understand that Thornhill specifically said that fusion happens *in* the photosphere? You don't understand that Alfven's EU/PC model and Birkeland's *internally* powered cathode solar model work differently anyway?

His model sucks.

Since it's not my favorite solar model in the first place, ask me if I care.

As does Thornhill's (assuming it exists),

Except none of your criticisms, save perhaps the solar wind arguments even apply to his model since he specifically put fusion *in the photosphere*, not the chromosphere.

as does yours.

LOL. You can't even come up with a valid scientific objection to a "generic" internally powered cathode solar model based on a core fusion design. Period. End of story. The worst you could do is find something to complain about that is related to my own personal beliefs.

It is all a total irrelevance; a mish-mash of unscientific, evidence-free crackpottery.

More lame name calling from guy peddling five metaphysical claims, none of which work in the lab, including your make-believe nano-faeries.

Nobody is listening, except those who are equally scientifically challenged.

Again, more lame insults from a guy peddling nano-faeires.

You are in no position to educate anybody.

Definitely not you, that's for sure because you won't be bothered to read any relevant material or ever your own references!

You are none of you sufficiently qualified in the relevant areas,

Like magic matter, magic energy, magic inflation, and magic space expansion? Guilty as charged. Then again none of you are even remotely qualified on those topics either as those billions of dollars of failed magic matter lab tests so clearly demonstrate.

and believe in complete nonsense.

Nope. Unlike you all my beliefs are lab tested and they work in a lab. You're the one peddling non-existent nano-faeries and exotic matter based on blatant affirming the consequent fallacy arguments. "I see (or don't see) x, therefore invisible nano-faeries did it!" That's your *entire* argument in a nutshell!

You have, and will continue to have, zero influence on real science.

You don't even have a clue what "real science" is in the first place as all of your negative lab results so clearly and painfully demonstrate.

 

[ianw16]

Birkeland did all that for you a century ago....................

Oh, bore off with Birkeland. It's ancient history.

My cosmology beliefs all work in the lab.

They are rubbish in the real world, though. Seen any iron Suns lately? What is the melting point of iron? Hell, what is the boiling point?

Except for working models and real explanations based on real physics.

No it hasn't. Show me anything that EU (and I'm talking about the cult set up by the Velikovskians Thornhill and Talbott) has achieved. Zilch.

I doubt I'd get the Nobel Prize like Alfven, and if I did you'd probably abuse my work too, just like you abuse his MDH theory

Nope. That's just your lack of understanding of both Alfven and plasma physics.

Alfven published something like a 100 papers on this topic, and you have continuously ignored his work for decades. You've ignored Birkeland's work for more than a century!

Off into ancient history, again. Who gives a toss? I wasn't even around then! Neither were the people doing all the work now. Get into the real world.

You're unethical as hell since I have already *repeatedly* told you that I have no interest in Velikovsky's writing in the first place and not everyone that posts at Thunderbolts does either.

And you have reading comprehension problems. Among other things. I said you'd still be hanging out with them. You do realise that your cult was started by two Velikovskians? T & T? Do some reading on it.

Well, it is an electric universe.

Not in the way that the woo merchants at your cult think it is. Not that they're qualified to know.

Only because you waste all our tax dollars on invisible snipe hunts! Billions spent, nothing found.

They found neutrinos. They found gravitational waves. They found a comet, despite not using any of your cult leaders idiotic ideas on gravity.

None of your metaphysical claims "work", certainly not in the lab.

You can bore of with this 'lab' nonsense, as well. Your models are rubbish, so it is irrelevant what happens in the lab. The real world is not conforming to the scientifically illiterate nonsense espoused by your cult. So, I would suggest you build this alternate electric universe in a lab, and all go live in it. Meanwhile, the rest of us will deal with the real world.

You're the one that has to deny the negative outcome of billions of dollars of your own "tests" while you stick out your hands for more money to do more invisible matter snipe hunts, only to ignore those negative results too.

At least it's not being wasted on scientifically illiterate woo. Still found GWs, neutron stars, gravitational lensing, neutrinos, landed on a comet, the moon, visited Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn etc, etc. All of this whilst using nothing from the Velikovskian cult, nor finding any evidence for their nutty beliefs.

Even still, it doesn't make up for your billions of wasted dollars on invisible matter snipe hunts.

For which there is at least gravitational lensing evidence. You lot have nothing. Literally.

Pfft. They use electric fields and current to do the actual work and then they claim 'pseudoscience did it". I'm not impressed with MRx and neither was Alfven.

Who cares less what you think? And Alfven admitted it was possible. And his protege, Falthammar, fully accepts it. If he can do that, why can't you? After all, people like him and Tusenfem know far more about plasma physics than anybody associated with your cult. Your opinions are irrelevant.

Psst: I'm a self employed computer programmer by trade and I don't ask you for your tax dollars to look for invisible snipes all day like you folks do.

Me? Since when? I just happen to have studied enough relevant science, formally and informally, to know BS when I see it. And believe me, EU is BS.

We try to educate folks like you.........

Do not make me laugh! Thornhill? You? Scott? Dear God. What are we going to be educated on? By people who aren't even relevantly qualified? Electric comets? Electric cratering? Electric volcanoes? Electric stars? Sorry, you can keep that rubbish. I'll choose to reside in the real world.

 

[ianw16]

Pffft. That's laughable. You don't even seem to understand or comprehend the fact that there are *at least* three different EU/PC solar models, each with their own set of *unique and different* predictions.

Yep. And they are all nonsense. And don't actually exist, to all intents and purposes. They certainly aren't science.

Who cares? Even if I conceded that point, Thornhill specifically put the fusion in the *photosphere* and you still haven't explained the Yohkoh/Trace composite image!

So, I'll ask again; where is Thornhill's model. Written up. In full. So that it can be laughed at. And you don't have to concede anything about Scott. I have shown his description, and provided the diagram, where it is totally obvious.

......you still haven't explained the Yohkoh/Trace composite image!

An unreferenced picture? What am I? Psychic? Link me to the paper to which it pertains. As it stands, it is just a pretty picture. No use at all.

You don't understand that gamma rays are absorbed in the solar atmosphere? You don't understand that Thornhill specifically said that fusion happens *in* the photosphere?

Where is Thornhill's model? He hasn't got one, as far as I can see. And Scott has it in the chromosphere. Provably. You seriously think that the corona is going to absorb those gamma rays? What is the density of the corona?

LOL. You can't even come up with a valid scientific objection to a "generic" internally powered cathode solar model based on a core fusion design. Period. End of story. The worst you could do is find something to complain about that is related to my own personal beliefs.

What is the melting point of Fe? What is its boiling point? What temperature is the photosphere? Dead, as I said.

Definitely not you, that's for sure because you won't be bothered to read any relevant material or ever your own references!

I did read my references. I read the whole papers. You have no papers, other than rubbish in crank and/ or irrelevant journals.

Like magic matter, magic energy, magic inflation, magic space expansion?

And you have nothing other than hot air to challenge them. There's a saying round these parts - 'All mouth, no trousers.' That pretty much sums up your cult.

You don't even have a clue what "real science" is in the first place as all of your negative lab results so clearly and painfully demonstrate.

Lol. Birkeland, Birkeland, Birkeland, Alfven, Alfven, Alfven, lab, lab, lab!! Don't you ever get bored of yourself, as you sit there with the Velikovskians, achieving the square root of zero? I sure do.

 

[Michael]

Oh, bore off with Birkeland. It's ancient history.

It's a tried and true technology, whereas your solar model *bombed* (by two orders of magnitude) the convection "test".

They are rubbish in the real world, though. Seen any iron Suns lately?

Yep. I saw one today in fact, and I'll see more of them tonight.

What is the melting point of iron?

Much as you'd love to ignore the fact that lab tests show that the plasma above the sphere is hotter than the sphere, that claim has also been demonstrated in the lab.

It's been verified by observation too by measurements of sunspots.

No it hasn't. Show me anything from that EU (and I'm talking about the cult set up by the Velikovskians Thornhill and Talbott) has achieved. Zilch.

Like a working explanation of a corona which you've never managed to do?

Nope. That's just your lack of understanding of both Alfven and plasma physics.

Alfven called your MRx theory "pseudoscience" till the day he died.

Off into ancient history, again. Who gives a toss? I wasn't even around then! Neither were the people doing all the work now. Get into the real world.

It's not my fault that you're young and ignorant. Have you even read Peratt's book? It's been updated recently by the way.

And you have reading comprehension problems. Among other things. I said you'd still be hanging out with them. You do realise that your cult was started by two Velikovskians? T & T? Do some reading on it.

I don't have faith in a metaphysical cult like you do, and Birkeland's work and Alfven's work and the Peratt's work have *nothing* to do with Velikovsky. Do some reading on it. Oh, I forgot, you only read ignorant mainstream blogs that claim *all* EU/PC solar models predict "no neutrinos", gamma rays, yada, yada, ignorant BS yada.

Not in the way that the woo merchants at your cult think it is. Not that they're qualified to know.

I'm sure that some of their beliefs are wrong, but I know a lot of your beliefs are *more* wrong.

They found neutrinos.

The originally found them before you were born too.

They found gravitational waves.

That was actually an impressive accomplishment from my perspective as well. I'm glad that not *all* of my tax dollars went to waste.

They found a comet, despite not using any of your cult leaders idiotic ideas on gravity.

Psst: I'm a big fan of GR theory without all your metaphysical kludges to 'blunder' theory. EU/PC proponents aren't forced to all think in lockstep like you guys.

You can bore of with this 'lab' nonsense, as well.

Ya, young Earth creationists have the same pathetic attitude when their ideas fail in the lab too.

Your models are rubbish, so it is irrelevant what happens in the lab.

So claims the guy peddling Iron heating nano-faeries. Sheesh. You guys really are worse than YECs.

The real world is not conforming to the scientifically illiterate nonsense espoused by your cult.

No, your cult is too busy making up the next metaphysical nonsense in the sky, like your nano-nonsense. Meanwhile our stuff actually works in the lab.

So, I would suggest you build this alternate electric universe in a lab, and all go live in it. Meanwhile, the rest of us will deal with the real world.

You don't live in the real empirical world, you live in the metaphysical dark ages of physics. EU/PC theory is based on the same principles and processes that make your cellphone work. That's the *real* world.

At least it's not being wasted on scientifically illiterate woo.

Except for your billions of dark matter woo claims.

Still found GWs, neutron stars, gravitational lensing, neutrinos, landed on a comet, the moon, visited Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn etc, etc.

None of that required any dark metaphysical nonsense.

All of this whilst using nothing from the Velikovskian cult, nor finding any evidence for their nutty beliefs.

You're so unethical it's just pathetic. I've explained to you countless times that I don't give a hoot about Velikovky or any such nonsense, and I'm old enough to have actually watched us walk on the moon. By the way, it required EM field theory, but none of your dark metaphysical nonsense.

For which there is at least gravitational lensing evidence. You lot have nothing. Literally.

Gravitational lensing has *nothing* to do with your magical matter claim. Your baryonic mass estimates are just a joke.

Who cares less what you think? And Alfven admitted it was possible.

Nope. He claimed that MRx theory was pseudoscience and he "hoped" that his double layer paper would put the final nail in that stupid coffin. Alas, it's like a dead zombie.

And his protege, Falthammar, fully accepts it. If he can do that, why can't you?

Actually I personally do accept the *math*. I just reject the stupid name you give it and all the misunderstandings that it causes. If you called it "circuit reconnection" I'd be on board 100 percent. As it stands however I've seen RC, Clinger and many others confuse the hell out of themselves over the stupid name that you give it. Even you're confused as hell if you think you're going to get MRx without electricity and/or currents.

After all, people like him and Tusenfem know far more about plasma physics than anybody associated with your cult.

Pfft. Tell tusenfem he too still owes me a math formula to express a non zero rate of 'magnetic reconnection' without plasma since he failed to correct Clinger and RC.

Your opinions are irrelevant.

Except they work in the lab and all your MRx experiments require current and/or electric fields.

Me? Since when? I just happen to have studied enough relevant science, formally and informally, to know BS when I see it. And believe me, EU is BS.

Ya, except I saw for myself today how you reacted to me explaining to you how Birkeland came to predict that both ions and electrons were present in solar wind, so I don't believe anything you have to say. I also so you peddling nano-flaeires based on affirming the consequent fallacies today as well, so your reputation isn't impressive IMO.

Do not make me laugh! Thornhill? You? Scott?

No, Birkeland, Alfven, Peratt, Bruce and Lerner.

Dear God.

Hey, at least I got you to talk about God today. That's a plus.

What are we going to be educated on?

The value of empirical physics and empirical explanations.

By people who aren't even relevantly qualified?

Alfven won a Nobel Prize but you've never read his book, have you? Do you have a Nobel too?

Electric comets?

Nah, that even seems goofy to me.

Electric cratering?

Well, SAFIRE did generate electric cratering but it would require a lot more current than a planet tends to experience.

Electric volcanoes?

You got me there. I never heard of it.

Electric stars?

Definitely! You'd actually have to read Birkeland's work for yourself however instead of just *assuming* I'm lying to you every time that I discuss his work.

Sorry, you can keep that rubbish. I'll choose to reside in the real world.

Like I said, you don't live in the real world. You live in the dark ages of astronomy, where invisible superstitious nonsense rules the universe.

 

[ianw16]

I can't be bothered replying to all that usual boring Mozina nonsense again^^^^. It's rubbish, and isn't worth the time spent on it. Apart from this rubbish:

Meanwhile our stuff actually works in the lab.

Michael? You do realise that you don't have any 'stuff'? Yes? You are not participating in science. Your rubbish only exists on crank Velikovskian forums and Youtube nonsense. It is a total irrelevance. And will remain so. Nobody cares, and you are making absolutely no impact, other than showing that Messrs. Dunning & Kruger were on the right track.

 

[Michael]

Yep. And they are all nonsense. And don't actually exist, to all intents and purposes. They certainly aren't science.

Unlike your bogus dark sky nonsense, EU models work in the lab like all real "science".

So, I'll ask again; where is Thornhill's model. Written up. In full. So that it can be laughed at.

Beats me. I'm not even into an anode model in the first place but I can tell you where Birkeland's model is "written up" and I can show you that it works in the lab.

And you don't have to concede anything about Scott. I have shown his description, and provided the diagram, where it is totally obvious.

It's also totally obvious you're never going to deal with the observational evidence that demonstrates that high energy photons are absorbed until the loops get into the corona.

Why is there no higher energy light coming from the solar moss region of this image? Watch you run again.

An unreferenced picture? What am I? Psychic? Link me to the paper to which it pertains. As it stands, it is just a pretty picture. No use at all.

Solar Moss With Yohkoh Overlay
I've *repeatedly* handed you the link to where it comes from. Do you know *anything* about Yohkoh and Trace images?

It's been available to study for almost 20 years now.

Where is Thornhill's model? He hasn't got one, as far as I can see.

Me either, but so what? SAFIRE experiments show that anode solar models produce a real corona which is more than you will *ever* do with your nano-flaeries.

And Scott has it in the chromosphere. Provably.

And still no explanation from you about that composite image. Hmmm. Why should I care if it's not in the corona?

You seriously think that the corona is going to absorb those gamma rays?

No, but the chromosphere might.

What is the density of the corona?

It's obviously too thin to absorb the Yohkoh x-rays in that image, but the chromosphere appears to absorb them.

What is the melting point of Fe? What is its boiling point?

It doesn't matter. My published papers describe a *rigid*, not solid layer under the photosphere. Birkelands experiments and the SAFIRE experiments also both demonstrate that the electrode can be and is cooler than the plasma double layers in the atmosphere which *just so happens* to be consistent with the temperature gradients we observe.

What temperature is the photosphere? Dead, as I said.

No, you're just unwilling to read anything I've presented, so your ignorance is showing (again).

I did read my references. I read the whole papers.

Yet you *erroneously* claimed there was "evidence" for nano-flaeries based on nothing but a blatant affirming the consequent fallacy while flat out rejecting a *working model*!

You have no papers, other than rubbish in crank and/ or irrelevant journals.

What have you published in *any* journal?

And you have nothing other than hot air to challenge them.

This from a guy who's only able to cite some lame random JREF/ISF unpublished website to argue against it. Gah.

There's a saying round these parts - 'All mouth, no trousers.' That pretty much sums up your cult.

How ironic coming from a guy peddling nano-flaeires and dark sky nonsense. I'll take working physics every time. My cell phone works fine on EM field theory and it doesn't require nano-flaeires or dark nonsense.

Lol. Birkeland, Birkeland, Birkeland, Alfven, Alfven, Alfven, lab, lab, lab!! Don't you ever get bored of yourself,

I'm getting pretty bored of this conversation since you won't bother to read the appropriate materials.

as you sit there with the Velikovskians, achieving the square root of zero? I sure do.

More smear by association in the complete absence of a valid scientific argument. Yawn.

 

[Michael]

Michael? You do realise that you don't have any 'stuff'? Yes?

I certainly do realize that it's *Birkeland's* solar model and Alfven's cosmology theory. I don't try to take personal credit for any of it.

You are not participating in science.

I'm not getting paid to look for invisible snipes and solar nano-flaeries if that's what you mean. I'm not sucking the lifeblood out of physics like your dark sky cult "scientists" either for that matter.

Your rubbish only exists on crank Velikovskian forums

You keep insisting on lumping everyone into the same belief system only apparently because your little dark sky cult is forced to think in lockstep or your mean old nasty LCDM "teachers" fail you in class. Tbolts isn't remotely like that I'm afraid. Your constant fixation on Velkovsky is pure BS that you evidently picked up on some lame mainstream blog and you keep trying lump everyone into the same category only to smear everyone with one broad stoke. It's unethical nonsense.

and Youtube nonsense.

That isn't nonsense, that's called "working physics". I know that all your LCDM experiments in the lab are a total bust, so you probably don't know what a working model actually looks like, but EU/PC models actually do work in the lab, and that what one looks like.

It is a total irrelevance.

Only to ignorant folks like you who never do their homework and never read the appropriate materials and only read lame irrelevant blogs that post bogus nonsense about all EU/PC solar models predicting "no neutrinos" and excess gamma rays and complete trash.

And will remain so. Nobody cares, and you are making absolutely no impact, other than showing that Messrs. Dunning & Kruger were on the right track.

More personal insults from the the guy that thinks he understands Birkeland's solar theory and model without bothering to read his work, and from a guy peddling nano-flaeries. Sheesh. Talk about Dunning & Kruger delusions of grandeur. Just trying to educate you on his solar wind predictions was a perfect example of your horrendous affliction with Dunning and Kruger delusions.