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

ianw16 said:

I'm wondering which part of the bolded that MM is having trouble deciphering. The top of the photosphere means the top of the photosphere. Which is 10^-9 times less dense than Earth's atmosphere at sea level.

Click to expand...

I don't have any trouble deciphering the fact that the fusion process that he's describing occurs inside of a double layer that is located at the top part of the photosphere. Note that he did not claim that it's happening in the double layer of the chromosphere or in the corona, he's specifically talking about fusion occurring in a double layer at the top of the photosphere.

So what is preventing all the gamma rays escaping?

Click to expand...

Absorption.

Solar Moss With Yohkoh Overlay



This is a Trace/Yohkoh composite overlay image of magnetic ropes in the solar atmosphere. Yohkoh soft x-rays are shown in yellow and Trace 171A wavelengths are shown in blue. As you can see, the x-rays emitted from the coronal loops as seen by Yohkoh are only visible in the upper halves of the loops where they have risen abot the photosphere and chromosphere are they are no longer being absorbed by the lower solar atmosphere. On the other hand, the 171A emissions can be observed much further down into the solar atmosphere because they are a lower energy emissions and they aren't all absorbed by the solar atmosphere as efficiently as the x-rays.

I'll tell you; they don't exist, because the neutrinos are created by fusion in the core. And it is NOT as Scott claims, from heavy element nucleosynthesis in the photosphere.

Click to expand...

It's certainly your prerogative to believe that, and Birkeland's cathode model allows for core fusion too, but what satellite evidence or other types of evidence do you have to demonstrate that gamma rays are necessarily going to be visible from beneath the surface of the photosphere?

Those neutrinos have a different energy spectra than those from the vast majority of neutrinos which are produced by the first step in the P-P chain.

Click to expand...

Citation please? We routinely create high energy muon and tau neutrinos from particle accelerators that slam things together in the lab, and the solar atmosphere is one of the most prolific particle accelerators in our solar system.

While there is in fact some evidence (only three sigma, not five sigma) that higher energy muon neutrinos may transform into, or at least result in an excess of electron neutrinos, I'm unaware of any lab experiments that begins with electron neutrinos and measures an excess of muon or tau neutrinos. You're therefore *necessarily* making 'assumptions' which cannot be verified in lab experiments, wheres lab experiments definitively demonstrate that there are other ways to generate muon and tau neutrinos that do not require fusion or oscillation.

If Scott were right (and he never is) then the neutrino detection spectra would not match prediction. They do. His silly idea is dead.

Click to expand...

What published study do you have to support the claim that Scott's preferred way of generating neutrinos would necessarily not match observation? You seem to be handwaving in that claim without any published study to support it. It sounds suspiciously like that "no neutrino" kind of nonsense that I've read on bogus blogs.

As far as I can tell, so called "critics' of EU/PC solar models seem to base all their arguments on handwavy claims, most of which are simply "made up" and posted on a random blog in cyberspace. Such sources are obviously spurious and dubious like that 'no neutrino' nonsense. No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos", but that has never stopped unscrupulous people from posting such nonsense on their blogs.

Your one scientifically valid criticism seems to be related to a 15+ year old paper that did not observe any variation in neutrino emissions during sunspot activity, as Scott expects to observe. That is in fact a valid concern/criticism, but most of the rest of the nonsense that I see on the internet is just 'junk', and most of it is simply 'made up'.

I'll point out again, that the standard models has serious convection problems too, so a single failed prediction isn't typically an automatic death sentence for any solar model.

ianw16 said:

Ahh, so just the loons, then?

Click to expand...

Considering the fact that LCDM violates the tenets of GR theory by miraculously and inexplicably escaping it's own Schwarzschild radius
and it requires at least four metaphysical fudge factors to make it work, it's absurd for you to be calling others a "loon" simply because you disagree with an idea they happen to hold belief in.

Such as Thornhill and Talbott? We all know about Talbott's Saturn nonsense. Think that's a goer, MM? And of course Thornhill is a big fan, too:
Velikovsky the Unsung Genius – The Thunderbolts Project ™

Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, and Peratt are the real inventors of the first EU/PC solar theories and EU/PC *cosmology* theory, whereas Thornhill and Velikovsky did not even propose a separate cosmology theory to begin with, so who cares what they think? I don't happen to agree with Thornhill on every topic in EU/PC theory, so it's no big deal to me personally.

And then we have Scott's seeming approval of their lunatic electrical scarring rubbish, including creating Valles Marineris (lol)!!!!! Reckon that's a goer, Michael?

Click to expand...

Me? Nah. Then again, you might want to take a gander at the surface of the anode sphere in that SAFIRE video after the discharge process. Electrical discharges certainly have the capacity to shape the the surface of objects.

Plasma effects within the solar system

Click to expand...

What about it? Some of the concept I may agree with, some of it I probably don't. Then again I don't even prefer an anode solar model like Scott, rather I prefer Birkeland's internally powered cathode model so like I said, we don't all think in lockstep in the EU/PC community. It's just not like the LCDM "group think" routine.

Ya know....

It's not like the LCDM concept is particularly "better". In fact I find the LCDM cast of metaphysical characters to be a lot *less* believable than some of the stuff Velikovsky put out there. Inflation? Dark energy? Please!

ianw16 said:

Nope. Just read Scott's paper again. Definitely says it's a z-pinch. Nothing about homopolar generators. Here is a z-pinch:
Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Um, ok, I'll bite. Why can't you have two z-pinches, with one at each pole?

Notice how the current flows in one direction? Which is precisely what is not seen in the M2-9 nebula or in supernovae. So, why did he say z-pinch? Had he not seen the doppler data?

Click to expand...

Beats me. You seem to be assuming that there has to be only *one* z-pinch occurring rather than two, with one at each pole. Why?

Just out of curiosity, have you actually read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma? Yes or no?

ianw16 said:

Lol. Another failed prediction is the total lack of a current to power his delusion. Why can't we detect it?

Click to expand...

We certainly do detect some amount of current flowing into the solar system in the form of cosmic rays which are overwhelmingly positively charged. Birkeland (unlike Juergen's/Scott) actually predicted that space was positively charged with respect to the surface of the sun, and he was absolutely correct. If you'd like to see the evidence which supports his cathode solar model, you'll find it here:

An introduction to the Birkeland cathode solar model | Cnps

I don't have a clue how much external current would be required to power Scott's model since there is fusion occurring locally inside the sun in his model, and he hasn't really specified how much energy comes from outside of the sun, or how much is produced locally inside the sun.

The few handwavy calculations that I've seen from so called "skeptics' o flat out ignore the internal fusion process entirely and try to claim that all the energy comes from outside of the sun, when clearly that isn't the case. I'm not even convinced that Scott knows how much external power is required to maintain the overall energy output of his anode model, and how much energy is produced inside the fusion processes that he's describing in the photosphere.

As it stands, there is zero evidence for this electric sun rubbish, and nobody, other than a handful of cranks, believe in it.

Click to expand...

Oh boloney. I doubt that you even realize that there are *at least* three different 'electric sun' models to choose from. I personally only prefer and support one of them, and it's not Scott's anode model, it's Birkeland's internally powered cathode model.

There is a *lot* of evidence to support Birkeland's model and I listed some of that evidence in the thread I just cited for you. Go read that thread and follow the links I provided, and then tell me there's no evidence to support his 'electric sun' model. His model even works in the lab, and produces and sustains a full sphere hot corona, which is a whole lot more than can be said for the standard solar model.

ianw16 said:

Huh? Want to draw a picture of that? If there were two pinches, we would see two stars. Just link me to where this has been modelled or described. Sounds like complete nonsense.

Click to expand...

Unipolar inductor - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)



You'll notice that the arrows point in opposite directions coming off the poles and current flows in along the equator. Alfven applies this same model to stars, galaxies and basically anything and everything that spins in space.

ianw16 said:

Because two makes no sense, and secondly because that is how Scott is modelling it (well, just looking at a piccy, actually, and saying "ooooh, looks like a bunny!").

Click to expand...

I really get the impression that you have never read Alfven's book for yourself. That's probably why these ideas don't make sense to you. FYI, Cosmic Plasma by Alfven is consider to be 'the' defining book on EU/PC *cosmology* theory. Paratt, Alfven's student actually wrote a much better book on this topic which you can find here.

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

Both books include mathematical models, but Peratt's book is far more complete and more detailed.

If you want to understand the basics of EU/PC *cosmology* theory, these two books essentially define it, and describe it. I do not believe any other author has even offered a full "cosmology" theory. Both books cover the topic of homopolar/unipolar generators.

ianw16 said:

^^^^^^And that is not a z-pinch! Let me remind you, Scott explains the M2-9 Butterfly nebula as a z-pinch. Why did he say z-pinch, and provide diagrams thereof, if he meant something completely different? I realise it was in a crank journal, but still.........

Click to expand...

Birkeland current - Wikipedia

Birkeland currents are also one of a class of plasma phenomena called a z-pinch, so named because the azimuthal magnetic fields produced by the current pinches the current into a filamentary cable. This can also twist, producing a helical pinch that spirals like a twisted or braided rope, and this most closely corresponds to a Birkeland current.

Click to expand...

They are z-pinches. A Birkeland current is a plasma 'pinch' process. The currents flowing through the plasma filament generates magnetic fields around the thread that act to "pinch" the filament together and evacuate the region directly around the thread, insulating it from the rest of the plasma. An ordinary plasma ball demonstrates this basic principle. The filaments takes on an appearance of an tornado like structure.

In EU/PC theory, the Birkeland current is the basic current carrying structure of all currents in space. Plasma scales many orders of magnitude. The mainstream euphemistically calls these things "jets", or space slinky's, or filaments, or "magnetic ropes", but they are all basically just the same thing, namely current carrying filaments of all sizes that are 'pinched' into well defined, more dense regions which act to carry the currents through space.

ianw16 said:

Lol. Another failed prediction is the total lack of a current to power his delusion. Why can't we detect it? As it stands, there is zero evidence for this electric sun rubbish, and nobody, other than a handful of cranks, believe in it.

Click to expand...

FYI, I've seen you post to at least one blog site that I know for a fact is spewing pure misinformation about this topic. The author of the blog did a couple of "hit pieces" on EU/PC theory, starting four years ago when he erroneously claimed that the solar model proposed by Scott/Thornhill predicted "no neutrinos", and a non-thermal spectrum. Neither of those claims is even *remotely* true, nor is his handwavy gamma ray argument on his most recent blog entry.

He's just spewing pure misinformation, and intentional misinformation at that. If that's the quality of information that you're getting on this topic, I assure you that it's pure unadulterated garbage.

I don't even favor the particular solar model that Scott prefers, but I know for a fact that the information on that blog related to Scott's solar model is utter nonsense. The author of that blog has no clue what he's even talking about.

If that blog is the primary source/basis of your beliefs about EU/PC theory, it's no wonder that the EU/PC model seems silly to you, but the real problem is the author of that blog, not the model itself.

I'd really urge you to consider the source of that misinformation since the author falsely and ignorantly claimed that Scott and Thornhill predicted no neutrinos, when in fact both of their books which were listed as resources for his blog entries make it very clear that they not only predict neutrinos from the sun, they predict their emission location (top of the photosphere rather than the core), and they predicted their variability with the sunspot cycle.

The *actual* predictions of their model do provide us with a method of falsification, and you do have a valid argument related to the variability of the neutrino output (or lack thereof). Keep in mind however that variability is very difficult to test due to the small number of neutrinos that we can detect and the small number of sunspots that we've seen over the last few years.

Those two blog entries on this topic however are utterly misleading and flat out wrong, and the author knows it, but he still leaves that junk on his website anyway. What does that tell you about his character and his level of professionalism, or lack thereof?

It is totally logical and fair to look at the *actual* predictions of any model and point out where those predictions have been shown to be wrong, like the convection speed predictions of the standard model, but it's unethical to simply misinform the public and just "make stuff up". I'd be careful about where you get your information on this topic. Most of the criticisms of EU/PC theory that you will find on the internet are simply false claims to start with.

I'd suggest that you read Kristian Birkeland's work, Charles Bruce's work, Hannes Alfven's work, Anthony Peratt's work and Dr. Donald Scott's work for yourself and then make up your mind. It's always better to go to the source for your information. Its down right dangerous and foolish to go by anything that you may have read on that particular blog. Almost none of it is true.

SelfSim said:

.. and those dire warnings are coming from someone who has demonstrated, in this very thread and many others, that the basis of such judgemental opinions is a clearly demonstrated ideology of propagating misinformation and a totally distorted concept of scientific 'truth'.

Click to expand...

What "misinformation"? FYI, I don't even believe in "scientific truth" in the first place. I just believe in, or lack belief in scientific *theories* which may or may not be valid.

I might disagree with (actually lack belief in) the LCDM model and the standard solar model, but I don't go out of my way to *misrepresent* the standard solar model's predictions, or the predictions of LCDM.

I'm more than happy to point out where any theory's "predictions' are incorrect as in the case with mainstream solar convection predictions, or the lab tests of the CDM hypothesis, but I do not go out of my way to blatantly *misrepresent* the models themselves as does the author of that blog.

I've even defended Scott's solar model when it's being unfairly misrepresented, and I don't even like or agree with the anode solar model in the first place.

I'd correct someone who erroneously claimed that the LCDM model is false (or falsified) because it predicts that objects move faster than light, and I'd correct someone who claimed that Scott's solar model predicts "no neutrinos" too, not because I agree with either theory, but because I have some scientific ethics. The author of that particular blog clearly does not have any such scientific ethics.

sjastro said:

Are you so comprehensively stupid.
You were put on notice by the moderators who you exposed to threats of legal action and you continue to make personal attacks against that author.

And you claim to possess scientific ethics.................what an absolute joke.

Click to expand...

I simply pointed out that there are good references on this topic (typically the authors themselves) and bad ones, and pointing out to him that everything that he's been arguing thus far sounds like he's been hanging out with bad references on this source material.

Whatever my faults, I certainly do *not* go out of my way to misrepresent mainstream theory. I may not agree with it, but I don't misrepresent it.