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

[Michael]

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.

The amusing part of all that whole personal attack nonsense is that I never claimed to be an Einstein, or an Alfven, or a Birkeland, but I do happen to agree with Einstein about GR in general (I'm not a fan of what he called "blunder" theory however) and I share his views about black holes. I agree with Alfven about circuit theory as it's applied to space, and about the topic of magnetic reconnection too, although I'm not as adamant as he was. I share Birkeland's beliefs as well, but I've never tried to take credit for them as RC tries to insist. You're the one that fancies yourself to be smarter than all of them, not me.

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.

They aren't generated without currents *and* without changing electric fields however, particularly in plasma. You might get a magnetic field from a solid but even that is related to the synchronized movement of electrons in the lattice of the solid.

Astronomers however try to discuss magnetic field including either the current *or* the changing electric field as though they were "magic" magnetic fields.

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.

That's only true if there's either real current or displacement current (changing electric fields), but I agree with Scott's assessment that we can ignore the possibility of changing electric fields in his example. Again however, you're the odd man out.

To make things even more embarrassing for you Scott is very much in “our industry” as well.

After that whole conversation I had with RC and the hater posse at JREF, I've come to realize that you folks do *not* understand even the most basic aspects of plasma physics, starting with the fact that it requires *plasma* in RC's case. I'm certainly not impressed with "your industry" as it relates to EM field theory or MHD theory.

This is what he states about Maxwell’s 4th equation “(4)” in his “Birkeland Currents: A Force Free Field Aligned Model”



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.

No, you just stuck your own feet in your own mouth because I find no fault with his choice to ignore the J=0 scenario as it relates to Birkeland *currents*, or his *conscious decisions* (not an unconscious error) to assume that the electric fields aren't changing over time. You're the one *assuming* things that aren't relevant to his paper. It's illogical to worry about a J=0 scenario when discussing *currents*, specifically Birkeland currents. There's also nothing wrong with "assuming' that the E field isn't changing for the purposes of his presentation.

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.

You are apparently just making this up as you again go just like your 'no neutrino" nonsense. There are no actually errors in his work because his paper is related to Birkeland currents, and he's simply assuming a constant E field.

It must be a nightmare situation for an illogical narcissist.

It's evidently a nightmare for you then but it's not a problem for me. I don't think you actually listen to my responses. You certainly don't seem to understand my position at all.

I also think it's ironic as hell that you're stuck between a rock and hard place over that "no neutrino" fiasco, and your Obler's paradox fiasco. You guys can't admit your wrong, even when it's damn obvious your wrong:

Thornhill (Page 70)
Neutrino deficiency.

Solar physicists have acknowledged for decades that the Sun’s output of neutrinos, a by-product of nuclear fusion, is about 1/3 of that expected in the standard solar model. Three types or ‘flavors’ of neutrinos have been identified, and recent attempts to solve the problem require unwarranted assumptions about neutrino ‘change of flavor’ en route from the center of the Sun. An electric Sun, however, can generate all flavors of neutrinos in heavy element synthesis at its surface. Therefore, it requires no assumptions about ‘changing flavors’ to hide the deficit.

Neutrino variability.

The neutrino output varies inversely with the surface sunspot cycle. Were they produced in the nuclear ‘furnace’ at the center of the Sun, this relationship would be inconceivable, since solar physicists calculate that it takes about 200,000 years for the energy of internal fusion to affect the surface. In the electrical model, more and larger sunspots mean less ‘lightning’ at the surface, where the nuclear reactions occur. Thus, the decline in neutrinos with increasing sunspot number is expected.


Scott, Page 106:

The neutrino flux from the sun seems to vary inversely with sunspot number. This is not unexpected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-pinch-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL) – and sunspots are the locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.

The fact you guys can't even admit that Scott's model does *not* predict "no neutrinos" is just hilarious. It totally and completely undermines your credibility, not to mention that whole Obler's (non) paradox nonsense.

An Einstein or Alfven would have immediately recognized the maths errors and moved on.

No, they would have recognized the value of simplifying the formulas in the *specific scenario* they were being used in, and moved on. Only Bozo the clown would worry about J=0 when discussing Birkeland *currents*.

Bozo the clown on the other hand doesn’t understand and repeats the same nonsense over and over again.

You mean like you, Selfsim and RC and your "no neutrino" nonsense, and the fact that none of you you can explain why we see less than 10,000 stars out of the 200+ *billion* star in our galaxy? I think you should look at yourselves in the mirror. You've all got bright red noses on your painted white faces.

 

[Michael]

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

You mean like you folks did to Scott and Thornhill with that no neutrino and excess gamma ray nonsense?

 

[sjastro]

No, you just stuck your own feet in your own mouth because I find no fault with his choice to ignore the J=0 scenario as it relates to Birkeland *currents*, or his *conscious decisions* (not an unconscious error) to assume that the electric fields aren't changing over time. You're the one *assuming* things that aren't relevant to his paper. It's illogical to worry about a J=0 scenario when discussing *currents*, specifically Birkeland currents. There's also nothing wrong with "assuming' that the E field isn't changing for the purposes of his presentation.



You are apparently just making this up as you again go just like your 'no neutrino" nonsense. There are no actually errors in his work because his paper is related to Birkeland currents, and he's simply assuming a constant E field.

Amongst your comprehension issues is understanding simple English.
Like your responses in general, this one makes absolutely no sense because it doesn’t address the issue that Scott’s paper explicitly states that a magnetic field can exist without a current which contradicts you.
You have been caught out by this disagreement.

Let me repeat …..

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.

If you continue making incomprehensible responses or imply there is no contradiction it is another piece of evidence that confirms you are an individual of low intelligence.

 

[Michael]

Amongst your comprehension issues is understanding simple English.
Like your responses in general, this one makes absolutely no sense because it doesn’t address the issue that Scott’s paper explicitly states that a magnetic field can exist without a current which contradicts you.
You have been caught out by this disagreement.

You're apparently just making this up as you go and sticking words in my mouth again. If you're talking about magnetic fields being created by changing electric fields, I've never denied that possibility. I simply agreed with Scott that it makes sense to ignore that possibility in *this specific instance*.

Let me repeat …..

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.

That's obviously a false dichotomy fallacy because I never claimed that magnetic fields could not exist without current. You made that up. I'm well aware of the meaning of Maxwell's forth equation.

If you continue making incomprehensible responses or imply there is no contradiction it is another piece of evidence that confirms you are an individual of low intelligence.

Quote me claiming that changing electric fields could not generate magnetic fields. I never said that in the first place. You simply made it up just like you made up that 1=.5 nonsense, that "no neutrino" nonsense, and that Olber's paradox nonsense. Your own strawmen are not my fault, or Scott's fault they're *your* fault.

 

[SelfSim]

You're apparently just making this up as you go and sticking words in my mouth again.
..
Quote me claiming the changing electric fields could not generate magnetic fields. I never said that in the first place.

Ha! Iknew it! Right on cue!
.. The usual lame Michael smoke-screen! (See post#40). Had to happen (of course)!

 

[SelfSim]

What we see here is Michael stepping outside of what is a fundamental honesty that is part and parcel of doing proper science.

When the going gets tough, and the evidence 'boxes' one in, most honest people acknowledge and accept the confines of their own self-imposed beliefs and step beyond them.

Not Michael though ..

 

[SelfSim]

For readers: this thread, and Scott's paper, was pronounced 'Dead on Arrival' way back in post#5.

This discussion is now about Michael's ego not letting go.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

 

[Michael]

What we see here is Michael stepping outside of what is a fundamental honesty that is part and parcel of doing proper science.

When the going gets tough, and the evidence 'boxes' one in, most honest people acknowledge and accept the confines of their own self-imposed beliefs and step beyond them.

Not Michael though ..

Wow. Talk about a complete lack of ethics. You accused me of saying something I didn't actually say. I then simply asked you to support your false claim and to quote me making the statement that you accused me of making. Just as I figured, you can't and you won't do that because I never said any such thing! Just wow. You folks just make stuff up as you go. First you falsely accuse Scott of that "no neutrino' nonsense and now you falsely accuse me of stuff that I never said.

Typical bogus nonsense, different day.

 

[Michael]

Ha! Iknew it! Right on cue!
.. The usual lame Michael smoke-screen! (See post#40). Had to happen (of course)!

When you falsely accuse me of saying things that I never said, it's not exactly evidence of your great mind reading skills to expect me to call you on your own BS. You folks make up stawmen and burn them at a rate that's hard to keep up with. You also just make stuff up as you go. You can bet that I'll call you on that same unethical behavior every single time you do it.

 

[Michael]

For readers: this thread, and Scott's paper, was pronounced 'Dead on Arrival' way back in post#5.

This discussion is now about Michael's ego not letting go.

Ya, and you also pronounced that I made a claim that I never actually made, so your pronouncements are pretty much worthless.

 

[SelfSim]

So Michael continues to deepen his lie, eh?

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Michael]

So Michael continues to deepen his lie, eh?

Why am I not surprised?

You two are the kings of sleazy debate tactics. Show us I this supposed "lie" by quoting the specific sentence(s) of mine that you're claiming are 'lies' otherwise we'll all know that you're just making this nonsense up as you go.

 

[sjastro]

You're apparently just making this up as you go and sticking words in my mouth again. If you're talking about magnetic fields being created by changing electric fields, I've never denied that possibility. I simply agreed with Scott that it makes sense to ignore that possibility in *this specific instance*.



That's obviously a false dichotomy fallacy because I never claimed that magnetic fields could not exist without current. You made that up. I'm well aware of the meaning of Maxwell's forth equation.



Quote me claiming that changing electric fields could not generate magnetic fields. I never said that in the first place. You simply made it up just like you made up that 1=.5 nonsense, that "no neutrino" nonsense, and that Olber's paradox nonsense. Your own strawmen are not my fault, or Scott's fault they're *your* fault.

When did you have the conversion that magnetic fields can exist at the exclusion of currents?
Answer: In the last few posts to cover up the contradictions with Scott.

You are an inane poster and a really stupid liar; stupid from the point of view your lies are so transparent that blind Freddie can spot them a mile away.

You have made it perfectly clear in the past you are one of those “magnetic fields are always caused by currents” people.

Here is an example.

They try to model plasma exclusively with magnetism when in fact the magnetic field itself is empirically *caused by* the current flow in the first place. They continuously put the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse in their plasma models, and they can't figure out why it doesn't work out right.

Now that this has been cleared up answer the question:

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.

 

[SelfSim]

When did you have the conversion that magnetic fields can exist at the exclusion of currents?
Answer: In the last few posts to cover up the contradictions with Scott.

Here is an example.

.. and here is another we had on the topic of capacitors:

"But in the case you cited that flow of current in the circuit is neither superfluous or irrelevant as the LED *in* the circuit as drawn demonstrates. The LED is lit while the current flows in the circuit and while the magnetic field exist between the plates. The moment the current stops flowing in the circuit, the LED goes dark, and the magnetic field that it *causes* disappears as well. It's still a current driven process, and the flow of current is still generating the time variable electric fields in the plates as well as the magnetic field. There's still a "cause/effect" relationship between the flow of current and the existence of the magnetic field as the LED will demonstrate."

The problem with being a chronic liar, is that one can't keep track of which lie was told, and when ..

Now that this has been cleared up answer the question:

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.

Well, Michael? Gonna tell another one to avoid the question?

 

[sjastro]

.. and here is another we had on the topic of capacitors:
The problem with being a chronic liar, is that one can't keep track of which lie was told, and when ..


Well, Michael? Gonna tell another one to avoid the question?

Ah yes thanks for the memories.
I recall the capacitor argument was introduced to try to convince Michael that a magnetic field exists across a capacitor where a current couldn't flow due to the insulator and yet he was so adamant you still needed a current as per his cause/effect nonsense.

How times have changed!!!!!

 

[SelfSim]

Ah yes thanks for the memories.
I recall the capacitor argument was introduced to try to convince Michael that a magnetic field exists across a capacitor where a current couldn't flow due to the insulator and yet he was so adamant you still needed a current as per his cause/effect nonsense.

Yep .. And was then made even simpler for him by disconnecting the capacitor from its circuit and putting it into a vacuum.
(Which of course, resulted in yet another lie to get out of his self-imposed conundrum).

 

[Michael]

When did you have the conversion that magnetic fields can exist at the exclusion of currents?
Answer: In the last few posts to cover up the contradictions with Scott.

You are an inane poster and a really stupid liar; stupid from the point of view your lies are so transparent that blind Freddie can spot them a mile away.

You have made it perfectly clear in the past you are one of those “magnetic fields are always caused by currents” people.

Here is an example.




Now that this has been cleared up answer the question:

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.

Huh? I've never denied having conversations about electric and magnetic fields!

You have a very *horrible* habit of taking my statements *totally out of the context* in which they were written, twisting them like a pretzel to suit yourself, and then implying contradiction where there is none. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that I have actually lied. Which specific statement (sentence please) are you claiming is a "lie"? Why is it a lie?

 

[Michael]

.. and here is another we had on the topic of capacitors:

Again, I've never denied having conversations about electric or magnetic fields so 'discussing' them isn't under debate. You claim I "lied" however and you continue to refuse to demonstrate that claim. What *specifically* did I say that was a lie?

The problem with being a chronic liar, is that one can't keep track of which lie was told, and when ..

You're clearly projecting again.

Well, Michael? Gonna tell another one to avoid the question?

You've never demonstrated that anything I have said is a lie yet, and your either/or question is a blatant oversimplification fallacy! The answer is 3) *neither*. I was not wrong, and Scott made no errors.

 

[Michael]

And by the way...

You lied or at least misrepresented the facts when you attributed this BS to me:

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

Michael said:
Now that this has been cleared up answer the question:

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.

I didn't ask that oversimplified nonsense, you did! Fix *your* quote and quit putting your words in my mouth!