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

[ianw16]

Peratt's model.........

Yada yada yada. Peratt's ancient model has failed. Why would I study it? Or his nonsense about petroglyphs? The guy has clearly lost it. Alfven's model failed. His cosmology stuff was weird to say the least.

 

[ianw16]

but depth of the electrode would be exactly the same as my model, and the bulk of the electrical discharge activity would never reach the surface of the photosphere, and I'd expect the gamma rays to be absorbed as per that previous image I've cited.

So, quote the passage from Scott where he says the fusion is occurring below the surface. Because all I can find is totally contradictory to that claim. This is what happens with such crap models, where people don't write them up.

fusion taking place at the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen and helium).

 

[Michael]

What an idiotic comment. They will have never heard of them or their stupid models.

If so, then it's equally ridiculous to try to claim that their paper falsifies a model they never mentioned!

The fact that they detect the predicted amount of neutrinos from p-p fusion, and that it isn't from heavy element fusion falsifies the claims of those woo merchants.

No, that's simply not true. Those so called "predictions" are actually *postdictions* that rely on oscillation claims that you can't be sure are correct, but more importantly they're based on 'postdicting a fit' based on the observed data set. In otherwords, they tweaked the numbers in terms of temperature and density to make it work.

It's a perfectly valid way to *support* your own model, but it can't be used to *exclude* any other interpretation of the same data set.

Typical crank response.

Yawn. The name calling is never ending with you guys. For a guy peddling four metaphysical constructs, you're a little trigger happy with the 'crank' commentary. Your cosmology model is akin to a religion based on four supernatural "gods" all rolled into a creation mythos.

They detected what they detected.

They detected something *other than* all electron neutrinos too. You seem to gloss right over that issue, along with the fact that you have no direct laboratory evidence to support your claim that electron neutrino oscillate into muon and tau neutrinos. Muon neutrino beams have been shown (3 sigma only) to probably oscillate into electron neutrinos, but the reverse has never been demonstrated.

I guess it's all a conspiracy to keep down idiotic, scientifically impossible woo as proposed by EU cultists?

Hardly. If it is a "conspiracy", it's the worst conspiracy in the history of physics because astronomers keep shooting their own claims in the foot. I've lost count of how many "tests" that LCMD has flat out failed over the last decade. It numbers into the *dozens*.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

That these scientists will almost certainly never have heard of. Or their silly models.

If they never heard of them, then their papers cannot possibly include a falsification of a model they never heard of. You're *still* confusing a "supporting" document for the standard model with a *falsification study* of another model. They aren't the same thing!

Yep, it's all a huge conspiracy. Pathetic.

It would be pretty pathetic conspiracy alright since they keep blowing their own claims out of the water.

And you never will. It's all word salad. However let me repeat this for the hard of understanding: they predict HEAVY ELEMENT fusion at the surface. Is that what is seen? No, it isn't and their model is therefore dead in the water, isn't it?

No. Those numbers and that specific graph are based on *entirely different* assumptions and conditions. *If* Scott and Thornhill were predicting heavy element fusion *in the core* with the very same pressures and conditions as *assumed* in that paper, *only then* might you actually have a case.

Since however they are talking about and describing *completely different* conditions, different temperatures, different densities, etc, it's not a falsification of their model! You really need to stop believing everything that you read on random blogs.

Hahaha. Nowhere near hot nor dense enough.

They are *plenty* hot enough and it's a plasma *pinch* so they are dense enough too. There are even satellite observations that are entirely consistent with fusion in the solar atmosphere.

[astro-ph/0512633] Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle

It's obvious that this is a pointless exercise, as you appear to be intellectually incapable of understanding the subject matter.

LOL. The problem here is that every one of your deeply flawed arguments seem to originate with the same unreliable source that also told you (and everyone else) that EU/PC solar models (plural) predict "no neutrinos", yet you treat his phony arguments as "gospel". You evidently haven't even read Alfven's work or Peratt's work, or Birkeland's work for yourself, so you project your own ignorance of EU/PC theory on me personally.

Let me know if and when you even get around to actually *reading* any of the actual books and/or published papers that have been written by EU/PC authors. As far as I can tell, every single one of your nonsensical beliefs about EU/PC theory comes from the same unreliable source that told you that all EU/PC solar models predict "no neutrinos". That's just ridiculous.

 

[Michael]

Yada yada yada. Peratt's ancient model has failed.

Well, his model is less "ancient" than your dark sky mythology for starters. It's never "failed" AFAIK, unlike LCMD which has failed more "tests" than it passes, including billions of dollars of dark matter 'tests' at LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon1T, etc.

Where did you even get the impression that Peratt's model failed? Let me guess. The same resource that told you that EU/PC solar models predict "no neutrinos"?

Why would I study it?

Scientific curiosity? I've studied *dozens* of different cosmology models over the course of my life and I've found many of them to be interesting actually, several of them more "probable" than LCDM in fact.

Or his nonsense about petroglyphs? The guy has clearly lost it.

That particular term isn't even mentioned once, anywhere in the 372 pages of his book. His book however includes lots of mathematical models and examples. He works(ed) at Los Alamos, and studied under Alfven, so he clearly knows something about plasma physics and he has plenty of published papers on the topic of cosmology.

Alfven's model failed.

When? How? FYI, in twelve years of debates I've never seen anyone pick out a specific error in any of his hundred or so published papers or his book. He has a Nobel prize for MHD theory. Could you cite a specific example of where his model failed or is that just another rumor you heard somewhere?

His cosmology stuff was weird to say the least.

Not really, certainly not as "weird" as a cosmology theory that requires four metaphysical components. It's basically just circuit theory applied to plasma. How is that weird?

It really does sound like your beliefs on this topic come from someone or some thing *other than* the authors themselves. Most of what you seem to believe is simply false.

 

[ianw16]

Could you cite a specific example of where his model failed or is that just another rumor you heard somewhere?

In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized Alfvén–Klein cosmology, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".[16] In his book he also showed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons, which are not observed in the amounts predicted. While it is possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell is simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition does not lend itself to observational tests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmologye

Which would be why nobody takes it seriously. Same with Peratt. The COBE, WMAP and Planck results show it to be wrong.

 

[ianw16]

They are *plenty* hot enough and it's a plasma *pinch* so they are dense enough too. There are even satellite observations that are entirely consistent with fusion in the solar atmosphere.

No there aren't. You had all that explained to you by Tim Thompson and others at ISF. That is not CNO fusion! Dear me.

 

[Michael]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmologye

Which would be why nobody takes it seriously. Same with Peratt. The COBE, WMAP and Planck results show it to be wrong.

I assume you meant to leave the e off the end of your link because it doesn't work that way.

Which specific page number(s) and paragraph(s) from Peeble's book are you claiming shows Alfven's model to be wrong? That whole paragraph sounds preposterous starting with the claim it doesn't predict Hubble's law, or the cosmic microwave background.

Specific citations please.

 

[Michael]

No there aren't. You had all that explained to you by Tim Thompson and others at ISF. That is not CNO fusion! Dear me.

Tim Thompson published a rebuttal paper? Where? When? The fact that someone disagrees with me on a random website in cyberspace isn't evidence that they are right and I am wrong. Did Tim go through a peer review process or is this just an unpublished handwavy argument again?

The only conversation I recall having with Tim on that topic was related to his belief that there weren't the "right" wavelengths cited in the paper to make him happy and support CNO Fusion rather than P-P fusion, but I rounded up links for him showing that the sun does indeed emit those specific wavelengths. I think Tim suggested it was a P-P fusion event rather than CNO fusion but I don't recall him claiming it wasn't fusion.

 

[ianw16]

If they never heard of them, then their papers cannot possibly include a falsification of a model they never heard of. You're *still* confusing a "supporting" document for the standard model with a *falsification study* of another model. They aren't the same thing!

Yes they are. Try to understand this - Thornhill and Scott predict HEAVY ELEMENT fusion at or above the surface. Heavy elements are not hydrogen, are they? Yes we can detect neutrinos from 'heavy' elements, such as O and N and Be, but they are a teeny tiny fraction of what is observed. And is fully in agreement with the standard model. It is totally out of line with the claims of Scott and Thornhill. The vast majority of neutrino production is from the fusion of hydrogen. Which, I remind you, is NOT A HEAVY ELEMENT. Therefore Scott and Thornhill are wrong. Their models are dead. No fusion at the surface, and no excess of heavy element neutrinos. Still waiting to see where Scott puts all this non-existent heavy element fusion deep in the photosphere, by the way. Not that it matters, as observation shows it to be wrong. Which is why it has never been published in the scientific literature.

 

[ianw16]

Muon neutrino beams have been shown (3 sigma only) to probably oscillate into electron neutrinos,....

7.5 sigma, as it happens.
The T2K Experiment

 

[ianw16]

Tim Thompson published a rebuttal paper?

Why would he need to? The paper has been pretty much ignored, due to it not being in an astrophysics journal. Had such a thing been confirmed, it would be headline news. I don't see anyone else claiming the RHESSI results show CNO fusion to be occurring.

 

[Michael]

Why would he need to?

It would carry a little weight if his argument passed any sort of peer review process.

The paper has been pretty much ignored, due to it not being in an astrophysics journal.

Ya, what does the Journal of Fusion Energy know about fusion anyway?

Had such a thing been confirmed, it would be headline news. I don't see anyone else claiming the RHESSI results show CNO fusion to be occurring.

You don't see astronomers even talking about *anything* electrically oriented with respect to space because they simply won't print it or discuss it.

 

[Michael]

7.5 sigma, as it happens.
The T2K Experiment

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link.

 

[ianw16]

Ya, what does the Journal of Fusion Energy know about fusion anyway?

It is not the journal one would choose to make such a claim. The peer reviewers are likely not astrophysicists, who would understand the processes described, and the significance of such a claim.

 

[Michael]

Yes they are. Try to understand this - Thornhill and Scott predict HEAVY ELEMENT fusion at or above the surface.

Yes, under completely different conditions and completely different temperatures and completely different pressures than the paper you cited.

Heavy elements are not hydrogen, are they?

No, nor do they have to be in order to emit neutrinos.

Yes we can detect neutrinos from 'heavy' elements, such as O and N and Be, but they are a teeny tiny fraction of what is observed.

Again, your 'tiny faction' claim is entirely dependent on your pressure and temperature selections.

And is fully in agreement with the standard model.

Ok.

It is totally out of line with the claims of Scott and Thornhill.

Unless you can quote a paper based on *their* model rather than the standard model, that's *pure speculation*.

The vast majority of neutrino production is from the fusion of hydrogen.

FYI, I assume that's true in my model as well, but so what?

Which, I remind you, is NOT A HEAVY ELEMENT.

I also remind you that they aren't assuming the same temperature and pressure as the standard model.

Therefore Scott and Thornhill are wrong. Their models are dead.

Only if you blindly ignore the fact that they're not claiming the same temperature and pressure numbers as you're *assuming*.

No fusion at the surface,

*Definitely* (published paper definitely) fusion at the surface. It may not be nearly enough to support their model, but it's been observed.

and no excess of heavy element neutrinos.

Based on what temperature and pressure assumptions?

Still waiting to see where Scott puts all this non-existent heavy element fusion deep in the photosphere, by the way.

I'm posting between tech calls at work. I'll try to look up some quote for you, but you already posted one from Thornhill that specifically said it occurs *in* the photosphere not above it, and I've already posted images that show that higher energy wavelengths are absorbed rather efficiently by the solar atmosphere, it's really just busy work as I see it.

Not that it matters, as observation shows it to be wrong. Which is why it has never been published in the scientific literature.

I'm sure that epicyle maths were once all the rage, and someone said the same thing about solar centric models too. Birkeland's aurora predictions were ignored for decades too before satellites in space finally confirmed his predictions. Solar atmospheric fusion was published in scientific literature and you ignored it anyway.

 

[Michael]

It is not the journal one would choose to make such a claim. The peer reviewers are likely not astrophysicists, who would understand the processes described, and the significance of such a claim.

Oh please. People who work with fusion on a daily basis understand the processes and the conditions required for fusion, and they'd understand the significance of such a claim just fine.

 

[SelfSim]

Oh please. People who work with fusion on a daily basis understand the processes and the conditions required for fusion, and they'd understand the significance of such a claim just fine.

They also publically dissociate themselves from the EU delusions.

 

[Michael]

They also publically dissociate themselves from the EU delusions.

That must explain why they published our paper.

 

[ianw16]

I think Tim suggested it was a P-P fusion event rather than CNO fusion but I don't recall him claiming it wasn't fusion.

Then your memory is playing tricks on you.
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Moderated] Iron sun with Aether batteries...
and;
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Moderated] Iron sun with Aether batteries...
and;
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Moderated] Iron sun with Aether batteries...
and;
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Moderated] Iron sun with Aether batteries...
and;
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)
and
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)
and;
International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not
which includes the following:

Then there is the curious publication venue: The Journal of Fusion Energy. Just read the "Aims and Scope" of this journal: "Journal of Fusion Energy features contributions and review papers pertinent to the development of thermonuclear fusion as a useful power source. Intended to serve as a journal of record for publication of research results, the journal also provides a forum for discussion of the broader policy and planning issues that have played, and will continue to play, a crucial role in the fusion program. To this end, the journal presents articles on important matters of policy and program direction." So you submitted a paper on stellar astrophysics to a journal that specializes in nuclear reactor technology and social policy. If you are so confident in your claims, why did you not submit your paper on stellar astrophysics to a journal that publishes papers on stellar astrophysics? You chose a venue that would effectively hide your results from the very community of scientists whom you should most want to read the paper. Why did you do that?......................................So, I stand by what I said before: RHESSI does not observe fusion processes. Furthermore, I cite your paper as a specific reference to back me up. After all, your paper specifically says the gamma rays observed come from positron annihilation and neutron capture, and nowhere claims that they come directly from CNO reactions.

So, I think we can definitely say that Tim would not be stupid enough to suggest p-p fusion at the surface, any more than he would suggest CNO fusion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh please. People who work with fusion on a daily basis understand the processes and the conditions required for fusion, and they'd understand the significance of such a claim just fine.

This paper?

On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars

Really!? The editors and referees of "Journal of Fusion Energy" are familiar with the conditions required for fusion discussed in *this paper*?

Then they are far better at reading between the lines than anyone I know. There are no "conditions" for fusion discussed in this paper at all. No numbers showing the density, temperature, or composition of the "fusing" plasma. The main body of the paper is a presentation of some very basic nuclear data (the masses of the atomic nuclei; not *fusion energy, but nuclear physics), transformed (without rigor) into an energy source for stars(?just the sun?).

Dear Lurkers:

The Journal of Fusion Energy describes it self as such:

"The Journal of Fusion Energy features original research contributions and review papers examining the development of thermonuclear fusion as a useful power source."

The last three words are the most important "useful power source". That is they are focused on work to replace (at least) nuclear fission (the current nuclear power plants), hydroelectric dams, coal and gas burning power plants, etc. with power plants driven by nuclear fusion.

Spoiler

The central power source of the Sun.

The focus of the published work is on things to make reactors work, including plasma confinement, plasma heating, cooling losses, reactor vessels, etc. This paper should have been returned by the editors as inappropriate for their journal.