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

[sjastro]

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.

You really do struggle intellectually with concepts that are even remotely abstract.
This thread is no exception.
Let me try to explain Scott's error as simply as possible for you.
First of all assuming j≠0 not only contradicts the force free field concept, but the maths error doesn't go away either.
Take a look at the correct Lundquist equations (1) and (2).
The B terms are on both sides of the equation.
What the equations are telling you are the Bz and Bθ components are functions of a magnetic field expressed in terms of Bessel functions.
Simple isn't it.

The wrong equations (3) and (4) while being dimensionally correct are telling you that the jz and jθ components are also functions of a magnetic field.
This is BS because current density and magnetic fields are not the same.

If you want to believe otherwise this is on par with your 1=0.5 nonsense.

 

[Michael]

A mostly irrelevant and ignorant rant but I will address some points:
Scott is deluded because...

You don't even properly understand Scott's solar neutrino predictions, so it appears that the "deluded" one is the guy looking back at you in the mirror.

Mainly because he is part of (and one of the authors touted by) the ignorant Thunderbolts neo-Velikovsky group.

Please quote Scott supporting Velikovsky. That's about as credible as your erroneous neutrino claims. Your whole "smear by association' routine is laughable after that whole Olber's paradox nonsense. The fact you folks support Olber is way less credible than anyone supporting Velkovsky.

FYI, I just looked in the back of Scott's book 'The Electric Sky' and Velikovsky isn't listed in the appendix and I don't recall ever seeing that name anywhere in his book.

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.

Dr. Donald Scott isn't Dave Talbot or Wal Thornhill. Trying to smear Dr. Scott based on another person's beliefs or behaviors is the moral equivalent of me blaming all astronomers, or all atheists for the sins and mistakes of a few "popular" ones.

Celebrity Atheist Lawrence Krauss Accused Of Sexual Misconduct For Over A Decade
ASU professor Lawrence Krauss put on leave amid allegations of sexual misconduct

Does Krauss's behavior mean that all LCMD proponents or all atheists are sexual predators too? Of course not!

He seems to still believe that solar neutrinos have not been detected (his web page still exists!).

False. Scott knows full well that three different types of solar neutrinos have been detected. He rightfully points out that electron neutrinos have never been shown to positively oscillate into tau or muon neutrinos in controlled experiments.

Apparently the delusions are all your own delusions.

• 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.

Oh Please! You of all people have no right to even discuss that topic since you think it happens *without* plasma! FYI Hannes Alfven called MR theory "pseudoscience" and he literally wrote the first textbook on MHD theory.

A lie that Peratt explained galaxy rotation curves.

It's a lie that you are the sole decider of truth RC. You call everyone a 'liar' simply because they don't agree with you personally. Your liar liar pants on fire routine is simply childish.

An invalid model of galaxies cannot explain anything about real galaxies.

You haven't demonstrated anything that Scott has published is 'invalid', and your smear by association routine is utterly contemptible.

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.

The very "sane" expectation is that you can specifically demonstrate a *positive* oscillation (not just a disappearance) of electron neutrinos into tau and muon neutrinos in controlled experimentation to a five plus sigma certainty. That has never happened. Scott's solar model, and his neutrino predictions do not require that claim, or that process to be true, so you have a greater burden of proof.

 

[Michael]

You really do struggle intellectually with concepts that are even remotely abstract.
This thread is no exception.

After your Olber's paradox, and surface brightness Waterloo experience, that comment is utterly laughable.

Let me try to explain Scott's error as simply as possible for you.
First of all assuming j≠0 not only contradicts the force free field concept,but the maths error doesn't go away either.

It doesn't contradict the force free field concept. It just restricts the conversation to a parallel current configuration which only makes sense in the context of a description of Birkeland *currents*. If we were discussing a scenario involving capacitors, and the potential for solutions without currents, then your criticism might have merit. As it stands, your argument is without merit.

Take a look at the correct Lundquist equations (1) and (2).
The B terms are on both sides of the equation.
What the equations are telling you are the Bz and Bθ components are functions of a magnetic field expressed in terms of Bessel functions.
Simple isn't it.

Yep.

The wrong equations (3) and (4) while being dimensionally correct are telling you that the jz and jθ components are also functions of a magnetic field.
This is BS because current density and magnetic fields are not the same.

In the context of Birkeland currents however, we can *assume* that a J=0 scenario isn't applicable in the first place. It wouldn't be a Birkeland 'current' without current. It's BS that you're insisting that he has to allow for J=0 scenarios in *the context of Birkeland currents*.

If you want to believe otherwise this is on par with your 1=0.5 nonsense.

And that was another blatant example of your own cry wolf strawman. I not only fixed selfsim's messed up formula, I simplified it it for him, *and I used it correctly* in my first example with just the number of flips inside the sqrt function, and with the number of permutations variable *outside* of that sqrt function. You can ignore that all you like, but those are the facts. Likewise, you can ignore the fact that a Birkeland current is by *it's very definition* a positive *current carrying device*, but that is also a fact. It's therefore just fine to ignore the J=0 scenario in that specific context.

 

[SelfSim]

... It doesn't contradict the force free field concept. It just restricts the conversation to a parallel current configuration which only makes sense in the context of a description of Birkeland *currents*. If we were discussing a scenario involving capacitors, and the potential for solutions without currents, then your criticism might have merit. As it stands, your argument is without merit.
...
In the context of Birkeland currents however, we can *assume* that a J=0 scenario isn't applicable in the first place. It wouldn't be a Birkeland 'current' without current. It's BS that you're insisting that he has to allow for J=0 scenarios in *the context of Birkeland currents*.

Then you are not talking about a 'Birkeland Current', nor are you talking about 'force free fields'.

I don't think you know what you're talking about actually ... and neither does Scott.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You ...

Nothing much to do with the reasons why Scott is deluded which is mostly by not knowing how deluded the Thunderbolts authors Talbott and Thornhill.
This is not guilt by association - it is so ignorant or gullible or blind or obsessed with his own delusions (electric sun) that deluded is a good summary.

8 March 2018 Michael: A "erroneous neutrino claims" lie because neutrino oscillation has been observed in labs.

8 March 2018 Michael: A lie that an invalid Peratt model of galaxies (obvious to anyone who knows astronomy) can explain galaxy rotation curves.
For others: Peratt's easily debunked galaxy formation model
Debunked today by basic astronomy or by anyone who can Google or read Wikipedia in the first 2 points.

• Spiral galaxies do not have empty space between their arm as predicted by Peratt's model.
• Double lobed radio galaxy are known today (but maybe not in 1986) to be elliptical galaxies, not actual double lobed galaxies as predicted by Peratt's model.
• Plasma has mass but his model has massless plasma!
• His galactic plasma filaments should be easily detected.
• Galaxies move. Galaxies collide. Galaxies merge.
  Peratt ignores what happens to his galactic plasma filaments in these cases.

A killer blow is indirectly given by Peratt himself ! If we plug numbers for a real plasma into his energy balance equation in a later paper by Meierovich and Peratt then the gravitational part of it is 10,000,000 greater than the plasma part.
N.B. This was brought up be tusenfem who happens to be a working plasma physicist.

A blog by an astronomer (Dr W.T."Tom" Bridgman) also addressed how invalid the model is.

P.S. There are other minor problems with the model.
Peratt virtually ignored it since 1986 other than assuming it true and advertising it. A valid model is explored with better tools and data as time goes by. The least that Peratt would do is run his model again on bigger hardware and better, different software.

Everyone else has essentially ignored the model since 1986. Where are the hundreds of astronomy papers on it? Where are the astronomy textbooks on it?
Peratt is partially to blame - instead of publishing his 1986 papers in an astronomy specify journal he published it in IEEE Transaction of Plasma Science. But then where are the many papers by plasma scientist or electrical engineers over the last 32 years?

Another point: If the EU people are so confident that Peratt's model is valid then why do they not run it themselves to see if real spiral and double lobed radio galaxies come out?

Then there is the whole issue of the growth of computing power. Wasn't Peratt's original galaxy model run on a machine around the mid-1980s? In 1986, the Cray X-MP had a speed of about 1 GFLOP. Depending on the benchmarks, modern commercial-grade desktop computers are timed at 30-40 GFLOPs (Wikipedia: Xeon processors). Even desktop class machines are being combined in ways to create even more powerful multiprocessing clusters (Wikipedia: Xgrid, Beowulf). ES supporters cannot claim lack of access to reasonable computing power for their own plasma models (if they actually exist).

I seem to recall rumors of someone planning to run the model on a smartphone!

 

[Michael]

Then you are not talking about a 'Birkeland Current', nor are you talking about 'force free fields'.

I don't think you know what you're talking about actually ... and neither does Scott.

I'm sure about the content of his paper - it's about Birkeland currents. I'm also sure that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to currents and plasma.

 

[Michael]

Nothing much to do with the reasons why Scott is deluded

The only one who's deluded is you because you have completely misrepresented Scott's beliefs, starting with his neutrino predictions and beliefs, and ending with Velikovsky. You're not only a terrible mind reader in terms of associating Scott with Velikovsky, you're also a terrible reader when it comes to your bogus "no neutrinos" nonsense. It's obvious that know absolutely nothing about either Scott's beliefs, or EU theory in general. You never get anything right in fact.

which is mostly by not knowing how deluded the Thunderbolts authors Talbott and Thornhill.
This is not guilt by association -

Yes it is! It's no better that me associated all astronomers or all atheists with Krauss and claiming that they're all sexual predators. It's a totally sleazy debate tactic, which is pretty much par for the course with you.

it is so ignorant or gullible or blind or obsessed with his own delusions (electric sun) that deluded is a good summary.

You didn't even get something as simple as Scott's neutrino predictions right so it's clear who's deluded, and it's not Scott. It's the guy claiming that EU/PC models predict "no neutrinos".

8 March 2018 Michael: A "erroneous neutrino claims" lie because neutrino oscillation has been observed in labs.

Nope. You cannot cite a single published paper that has observed an excess of muon or tau neutrinos from an electron neutrino source. Most of those oscillation studies are based on *missing* neutrinos, not an observed excess of another type, and only muon neutrinos show some (less than five sigma) evidence of potential oscillation to other types of neutrinos. You can't cite a single paper that shows an excess of muon or tau neutrinos from an electron neutrino source.

You're obviously the one that is lying, otherwise you would simply show us the experiment that used an electron neutrinos source and observed an excess of any other type of neutrinos. You'll run from that request too and we both know it.

8 March 2018 Michael: A lie that an invalid Peratt model of galaxies (obvious to anyone who knows astronomy) can explain galaxy rotation curves.

You've called everyone but yourself a liar, but you have lied repeatedly about Scott, about Peratt, about Dungey, Bruce, me, ect. In fact I've never seen you present any EU/PC model or paper fairly or honestly.

For others: Peratt's easily debunked galaxy formation model
Debunked today by basic astronomy or by anyone who can Google or read Wikipedia in the first 2 points.

Oh look, RC cites himself of as the sole source of 'truth" again. You "debunked" his work the same exact way you "debunked' Scott's anode solar model, specifically by flat out lying about his model. How many published papers on astronomy do you have under your belt RC? Don't dodge the question. The last time I asked you, it was *zero*. Did that change recently oh great astronomy guru?

• Spiral galaxies do not have empty space between their arm as predicted by Peratt's model.

Please demonstrate your false claim that his model predicts "empty space" in the first place.

Double lobed radio galaxy are known today (but maybe not in 1986) to be elliptical galaxies, not actual double lobed galaxies as predicted by Peratt's model.

Huh? Your statement doesn't even make any sense.

Plasma has mass but his model has massless plasma!

It's a *model* that is intended to demonstrate that mass isn't the sole influence in galaxy formation! So what?

His galactic plasma filaments should be easily detected.

And they are:

Galactic Jets | COSMOS

Galaxies move. Galaxies collide. Galaxies merge.

And?

Peratt ignores what happens to his galactic plasma filaments in these cases.

False. More handwaving. Every model is limited and doesn't try to model every single possibility in physics.

A killer blow is indirectly given by Peratt himself ! If we plug numbers for a real plasma into his energy balance equation in a later paper by Meierovich and Peratt then the gravitational part of it is 10,000,000 greater than the plasma part.

I'm sure that is the case when it comes to planets and things that aren't directly related to plasma. So what? Plasma however is directly affected by electric fields too, but astronomers essentially ignore them in almost all cases. Solar wind *isn't* most influenced by gravity.

N.B. This was brought up be tusenfem who happens to be a working plasma physicist.

Ya, but he never produced your missing MR math homework assignment either, nor did he corrected your bogus MR nonsense, so he's no more of an 'expert' than any other plasma physicist, including Peratt.

A blog by an astronomer (Dr W.T."Tom" Bridgman) also addressed how invalid the model is.

Tom Bridgman also erroneously claimed that Birkeland only predicted electrons coming from his cathode solar model and he erroneously claimed that Birkeland promoted *three different* solar models based on a single paragraph which were simply describing three possible current flow features found in *one* single cathode surface model! He's no expert on EU/PC theory either.

P.S. There are other minor problems with the model.

So says the guy who believes that EU/PC models predict "no neutrinos"

Peratt virtually ignored it since 1986 other than assuming it true and advertising it. A valid model is explored with better tools and data as time goes by. The least that Peratt would do is run his model again on bigger hardware and better, different software.

Why? You've also virtually ignored Birkeland's work for over a century too, and it works in the lab. You also routinely complain about SAFIRE experiments even though they're doing exactly what you claim should be done and unlike your dark matter experiments, they produce actual results! You don't even tell the truth about EU/PC experiments and models in the first place.

Everyone else has essentially ignored the model since 1986. Where are the hundreds of astronomy papers on it? Where are the astronomy textbooks on it?

https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plas...p/B00RYSQ7DU/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

Peratt is partially to blame - instead of publishing his 1986 papers in an astronomy specify journal he published it in IEEE Transaction of Plasma Science. But then where are the many papers by plasma scientist or electrical engineers over the last 32 years?

You mean like those recent papers by Scott, including one that was (actually is going to be) published this year?

Another point: If the EU people are so confident that Peratt's model is valid then why do they not run it themselves to see if real spiral and double lobed radio galaxies come out?

Why would anyone do that specific thing when you refuse to address any of their other work or even present any of their other work honestly in the first place? You certainly don't care when your own models fail and they fail often.

These galaxies should be chaotic—but they're not

You don't *actually* care about "tests" in the first place unless they so happen to agree with your models, otherwise you simply ignore all the failures.

I seem to recall rumors of someone planning to run the model on a smartphone!

I think you probably made that up too, just like you made up the "no neutrino" nonsense. I don't think I've ever heard you actually tell the truth when it comes to EU/PC models in fact. You're constantly just making up total nonsense like your ridiculous "no neutrino" claim.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You didn't even get something as simple as Scott's neutrino predictions right so it's clear who's deluded, and it's not Scott. It's the guy claiming that EU/PC models predict "no neutrinos".


Nope. You cannot cite a single published paper that has observed an excess of muon or tau neutrinos from an electron neutrino source. Most of those oscillation studies are based on *missing* neutrinos, not an observed excess of another type, and only muon neutrinos show some (less than five sigma) evidence of potential oscillation to other types of neutrinos. You can't cite a single paper that shows an excess of muon or tau neutrinos from an electron neutrino source.

You're obviously the one that is lying, otherwise you would simply show us the experiment that used an electron neutrinos source and observed an excess of any other type of neutrinos. You'll run from that request too and we both know it.

Have you considered that there might be a physics reason why mu-neutrino appearance detections haven't been made?

There are two basic ways in which a neutrino might interact with a detector they are know as neutral and charged current interactions. This refers to the nature of the particle exhanged between the interacting particles. In neutral current interactions, the charges of the interacting particles do not change, but in charged current the particles do change charge.

For example (neutral currents):

When neutrino scatters off a neutron (in a nucleus) both the neutrino (no charge) and neutron (also no charge) remain unchanged, but momentum is exchanged.

When a neutrino scatters off an electron, the same occurs, the electron remains negatively changed and the neutrino neutral.

In both of these processes the flavor of the neutrino is irrelevant to the scattering so if your detector is looking for electrons or nuclei scattered by neutrino interactions, you CANNOT tell the flavor.

For example in charged currents the particles do change charge (and identity).

An electron neutrino (no charge) interacts with a neutron (no charege) free or in a nucleus) and becomes an electron (charge -1) while the scattered neutron becomes a proton (charge +1). The neutrino that disappeared and the electron that emerged both had a lepton number of 1 (so that is conserved) and an electron flavor number of 1 (also conserved).

A muon neutrino could be absorbed by a neutron to create a proton + muon, but it would need a higher energy to account for the mass difference between neutron and proton + muon, and thus need to be at least 100 MeV. (solar neutrinos are about 10 MeV or less)

In these charge current interactions the neutrino's flavor can be identified, but typically only IDing electron neutrino among the sea of total neutrinos (measured with a neutral current technique).

As I think you noted, there is an active experiment at Fermilab to generate mu neutrinos (from the decay of muons) in a beam pointed at an underground detector several hundred km away to look for the appearance of electron neutrinos from the mu-neutrino beam. This is by far the best path toward identifying the appearance from an oscillation.

 

[Michael]

Have you considered that there might be a physics reason why mu-neutrino appearance detections haven't been made?

Yes, and I think you did a really marvelous job explaining it too.

I should also preface my response by saying that I personally accept the concept of neutrino oscillation, but I also understand Scott's concerns, and I can appreciate his preference of a different explanation for the muon and tau neutrinos that we observe from the sun. That's really the only point I was trying to make.

EU/PC skeptics typically don't even understand Scott's solar model well enough to know that his model *does* predict solar neutrinos, and it predicts all three flavors of neutrinos. Scott simply offers an alternative to the production of solar tau and muon flavors that doesn't involve oscillation. That's really the only points that I was trying to convey.

 

[SelfSim]

... I should also preface my response by saying that I personally accept the concept of neutrino oscillation, but I also understand Scott's concerns, and I can appreciate his preference of a different explanation for the muon and tau neutrinos that we observe from the sun. That's really the only point I was trying to make.

And his 'preference' is based upon what exactly? His desires to divert scientific research in a direction which is unsupported in the fundamentals of Physics, is flawed in logic and, itself, has zero observational or theoretical evidence supporting it? Pfft!

EU/PC skeptics typically don't even understand Scott's solar model well enough to know that his model *does* predict solar neutrinos, and it predicts all three flavors of neutrinos.

That would be because Scott doesn't understand it either and therefore his predictions are nothing more than opinionated beliefs.

... simply offers an alternative to the production of solar tau and muon flavors that doesn't involve oscillation.

I'm sure Aunt Jemima can offer similar alternatives, also(?)

That's really the only points that I was trying to convey.

For what purpose, exactly?

 

[Michael]

And his 'preference' is based upon what exactly?

Maybe the fact that we can create other neutrino types with colliders on Earth and the sun's atmosphere is one huge particle collider?

His desires to divert scientific research in a direction which is unsupported in the fundamentals of Physics, is flawed in logic and, itself, has zero observational or theoretical evidence supporting it? Pfft!

False. We create muon neutrino in the lab all the time without fusion.

That would be because Scott doesn't understand it either and therefore his predictions are nothing more than opinionated beliefs.I'm sure Aunt Jemima can offer similar alternatives, also(?) For what purpose, exactly?

"Testing". Your models have failed so many tests, it's not even funny. In fact your solar model failed the convection 'test' by two whole orders of magnitude and you've never fixed it.

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected

What's up with that?

Assuming we ever do advance neutrino detection to the point that we can tell if solar neutrinos originate in the core, or from near the solar surface, we could even use his predictions to "test" his model against yours. Personally I prefer a different solar model altogether (Birkeland's cathode model). In theory it could produce neutrinos from the core *and* from the surface.

 

[sjastro]

After your Olber's paradox, and surface brightness Waterloo experience, that comment is utterly laughable.

What is utterly laughable is that you have no idea you are coming across as a fool with delusions of grandeur.
For nearly 500 years the greatest minds couldn’t resolve the paradox until a finite old Universe was postulated, yet you have shown them all up with such a simplistic argument as the inverse square law.

It doesn't contradict the force free field concept. It just restricts the conversation to a parallel current configuration which only makes sense in the context of a description of Birkeland *currents*. If we were discussing a scenario involving capacitors, and the potential for solutions without currents, then your criticism might have merit. As it stands, your argument is without merit.

Yep.

In the context of Birkeland currents however, we can *assume* that a J=0 scenario isn't applicable in the first place. It wouldn't be a Birkeland 'current' without current. It's BS that you're insisting that he has to allow for J=0 scenarios in *the context of Birkeland currents*.

Evidently my simplified explanation wasn’t simple enough for you to understand.
Equations (3) and (4) are wrong because they state the z and θ components of the current density j are components of a magnetic field, irrespective of your idiotic word salad comments or assuming j has to be non zero.

Your total failure to understand this is has become the physics equivalent of your 1=0.5 nonsense.

 

[sjastro]

DP

 

[SelfSim]

... Your total failure to understand this is has become the physics equivalent of your 1=0.5 nonsense.

And I'd go one step further and state that Scott's moving forward to publish this paper, when it contains such glaring errors, (from a mathematicians' viewpoint), is tantamount to a failure in admitting to his own 'gob smacking errors'!

 

[Michael]

What is utterly laughable is that you have no idea you are coming across as a fool with delusions of grandeur.

Except of course that Thomas Digges beat me to the punch by 600 or so years and your industry misrepresents his "solution" on Wiki, just like you misrepresent Alfven's views of "magnetic reconnection" and Einstein's views on "black holes". I'm sure that many others have pointed out your error and you simply ignored them just like your industry ignored Aristarchus of Samos for more than a thousand years, and you've ignored Birkeland's work for more than a century.

For nearly 500 years the greatest minds couldn’t resolve the paradox until a finite old Universe was postulated, yet you have shown them all up with such a simplistic argument as the inverse square law.

I'm absolutely sure that your industry simply personally ridiculed anyone and everyone else who pointed out your *damn obvious* error. It's not like any of you can avoid the fact that your argument is 200 billion stars and a 100 thousand galaxies short of a valid argument. We all know why you're 200 billion stars short too, and it has absolutely nothing to do with redshift or expansion.

If you have a better explanation as to why you're 200 billion stars short of a valid argument, let's hear it. Otherwise stop blindly parroting utter nonsense.

Evidently my simplified explanation wasn’t simple enough for you to understand.
Equations (3) and (4) are wrong because they state the z and θ components of the current density j are components of a magnetic field,

No, the current is the *cause* of that magnetic field! That's the mistake that your industry has made all along with respect to magnetic fields in space/plasma. You accept that the magnetic fields exist, but you ignore their *source*. A "magnetic rope' is sustained, and the magnetic field of the magnetic rope is sustained by the *current* running through it!

irrespective of your idiotic word salad comments or assuming j has to be non zero.

By definition a "Birkeland current" would not be a "current" without "current"! Oy Vey.

Your total failure to understand this is has become the physics equivalent of your 1=0.5 nonsense.

That was also *your* (false) strawman, not my error, just like your complaint about Scott is *your* strawman, and it wasn't a real error. Scott specifically *excluded* the j=0 scenario for *very obvious* reasons! He's describing a *Birkeland "current"* for crying out loud! What does the term "current" mean to you?

 

[Michael]

And I'd go one step further and state that Scott's moving forward to publish this paper, when it contains such glaring errors, (from a mathematicians' viewpoint), is tantamount to a failure in admitting to his own 'gob smacking errors'!

No, it's obviously you two that have a *serious* problem admitting your mistakes as the Olber's paradox conversation, and your "no neutrino" nonsense so clearly demonstrated. Wow. Could you even be more obviously wrong?

 

[SelfSim]

... So, as usual, Michael attempts to hijack his own thread, in order to cover up for his lack of a cogent response as to why the delusional Scott confuses current density with a magnetic field.
(Pathetic, really ... )

 

[Michael]

... So, as usual, Michael attempts to hijack his own thread, in order to cover up for his lack of a cogent response as to why the delusional Scott confuses current density with a magnetic field.
(Pathetic, really ... )

Oh boloney. I explained *your* error over and over and over again and you refuse to accept that a Birkeland current is by definition a *current carrying* filament. Excluding the J=0 scenario is logical in a paper about Birkeland currents, and ignoring displacement current is normal/typical unless you're discussing *capacitors* and scenarios that involve changing electric fields. Scott did absolutely nothing wrong. This is *exactly* like you two claiming that Scott's solar model predicted "no neutrinos". You're just blatantly wrong and you *refuse* to admit it.

 

[sjastro]

Except of course that Thomas Digges beat me to the punch by 600 or so years and your industry misrepresents his "solution" on Wiki, just like you misrepresent Alfven's views of "magnetic reconnection" and Einstein's views on "black holes". I'm sure that many others have pointed out your error and you simply ignored them just like your industry ignored Aristarchus of Samos for more than a thousand years, and you've ignored Birkeland's work for more than a century.



I'm absolutely sure that your industry simply personally ridiculed anyone and everyone else who pointed out your *damn obvious* error. It's not like any of you can avoid the fact that your argument is 200 billion stars and a 100 thousand galaxies short of a valid argument. We all know why you're 200 billion stars short too, and it has absolutely nothing to do with redshift or expansion.

If you have a better explanation as to why you're 200 billion stars short of a valid argument, let's hear it. Otherwise stop blindly parroting utter nonsense.

Talk about setting yourself up for the perfect punch line.

This is what Carl Sagan stated.
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Your posts are testimonies that you are no Einstein or Alfven but firmly in the Bozo the Clown category.

No, the current is the *cause* of that magnetic field! That's the mistake that your industry has made all along with respect to magnetic fields in space/plasma. You accept that the magnetic fields exist, but you ignore their *source*. A "magnetic rope' is sustained, and the magnetic field of the magnetic rope is sustained by the *current* running through it!



By definition a "Birkeland current" would not be a "current" without "current"! Oy Vey.

Good grief this is priceless comedy.

In a previous post you tried to impress me with your “knowledge” of displacement “currents” and capacitors apparently blissfully unaware they are theoretical and practical examples respectively of magnetic fields that are generated without currents.

Maxwell’s 4th equation ∇XB=μj + με(∂E/∂t) slaps you in the face and tells you if j=0, the magnetic field B≠0.

To make things even more embarrassing for you Scott is very much in “our industry” as well.
This is what he states about Maxwell’s 4th equation “(4)” in his “Birkeland Currents: A Force Free Field Aligned Model”

In (4) it is clear that j, the current density at a point, creates only a single curl(B) vector, not a B vector. In general, there can be (and often is) a non-zero valued B vector at points at which j =0

You have effectively inserted both of your feet into your mouth.
You stated unequivocally of finding no faults in Scott’s paper but by your own standards Scott is clearly wrong.

So which scenario should you go by?
(1) Admit you are wrong to let Scott off the hook.
(2) Admit you are wrong in claiming there are no errors in Scott’s paper.

It must be a nightmare situation for an illogical narcissist.

That was also *your* (false) strawman, not my error, just like your complaint about Scott is *your* strawman, and it wasn't a real error. Scott specifically *excluded* the j=0 scenario for *very obvious* reasons! He's describing a *Birkeland "current"* for crying out loud! What does the term "current" mean to you?

An Einstein or Alfven would have immediately recognized the maths errors and moved on.
Bozo the clown on the other hand doesn’t understand and repeats the same nonsense over and over again.

 

[SelfSim]

I foresee the usual lie of "I never said that ... you're twisting my words again" coming up!