We almost certainly live in a static universe.

SelfSim · Jul 24, 2017

I have a post for yet another apparently cowardly TBolts poster, 'Celeste' who copied my OP on the CFs 'Scotts' EU Birkeland Current Blunders' thread and proceeded to bad-mouth me at TBolts. (It appears that Michael's bad habit of the same behavior has caught on amongst the TBolts in-mates).

As follows:

Celeste said:
SelfSim said:

Put simply, Scott creates a model of a supposed 'Birkeland Current' in plasma, based on the following two key postulates:
i) A force free field is a minimum energy configuration and;
ii) The associated magnetic field, is purely intrinsic and not affected by external fields.
...
Now, I assert that postulate (i) above is false to start with[sup]#1[/sup];
A charged plasma particle moving at constant velocity in a straight line, is in 'a minimum energy configuration' and yet this arrangement does not qualify as 'a force-free field', as postulate (i) asserts. Its circular magnetic field, which forms at right angles to its direction, can never re-orient itself to being parallel to its direction of travel!
A more formal definition of a 'force-free field' requires that a current density direction/vector ('j') and the magnetic field vector ('B') must be in alignment, (parallel or coincident with each other).

Click to expand...

Michael,
It's in this paragraph that an idiot makes himself known:
"Now, I assert that postulate (i) above is false to start with[sup]#1[/sup];
A charged plasma particle moving at constant velocity in a straight line, is in 'a minimum energy configuration' and yet this arrangement does not qualify as 'a force-free field', as postulate (i) asserts. Its circular magnetic field, which forms at right angles to its direction, can never re-orient itself to being parallel to its direction of travel!
A more formal definition of a 'force-free field' requires that a current density direction/vector ('j') and the magnetic field vector ('B') must be in alignment, (parallel or coincident with each other)."

First, Don is talking about the field of the filament (not the particle itself, traveling in the filament). So the minimum energy configuration is the force free configuration where a charged particle follows along the magnetic field of the filament. NOT IT'S OWN MAGNETIC FIELD.
By the argument here, that a charged particle always has a magnetic field around it, at a right angle to it's direction of travel; well maybe. But then by his interpretation of this definition, since a charged particle can never generate a magnetic field parallel to it's OWN direction of travel , there can NEVER be a "force-free field".His "force-free field" by definition can never exist. If you want to say that a force-free field is when a particle follows its OWN magnetic field, and that that magnetic field is always at a right angle to the particle's motion, then by definition, a force-free field can not exist.

To be clear, a force free configuration, is when a charged particle follows along the background magnetic field. It's own magnetic field will ALWAYS be orthogonal to this direction of travel. Again, minimum energy force free configuration is when a charged particle follows along the background magnetic field, NOT it's own magnetic field.

The only 'idiot' here ('Celeste's' word), is 'Celeste':

A force free field is where the magnetic pressure is much greater than the thermal pressure exerted by the plasma. As a result, the magnetic field and the current density are parallel or the current density is zero.

The important point is that the magnetic field and current density are intrinsic properties of the plasma.

A Birkeland current is aligned by an external magnetic field.
The Earth’s magnetosphere is an external field to the solar wind and Birkeland currents are formed in the magnetosphere.
A plasma force free field, implies the current density is parallel to the magnetic field, the converse is not true.
The only plasma force free field known in the solar system, is the Sun’s corona.

Scott not only plagiarised Lundquist's solution in the original 2013 paper, he then blundered his way forward, and in the process, completely screwed up the fundamental physical definitions underpinning Lundquist's model.

SelfSim · Jul 24, 2017

sjastro said:
Since I have been accused by the resident troll of not contributing to science in this thread what better way of rectifying this problem by giving the mathematical outline as to why Einstein needed to incorporate a cosmological constant into a Static Universe model.

It requires some preliminary work on the use of metrics and Einstein’s field equations before going on to the main issue.
This will kept to the most basic level and as maths friendly as possible.

Firstly the concept of a metric.
You have heard of the saying the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
This is only true in flat space and can be mathematically expressed using Pythagoras theorem for a right angle triangle. C²=A²+B².
In this case C is the distance, A and B being the horizontal and vertical distances respectively.
In x-y coordinates with segments dx and dy the equation is ds²=dx²+dy².

ds²=dx²+dy² is known as a metric.
In 3D the metric is ds²=dx²+dy²+dz²

On the surface of a sphere, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line but an arc.
In this case the metric is ds²=r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ) where r is the radius of the sphere, θ, Φ are the latitudinal and longitudinal angles respectively.

These metrics are spatial metrics, however since relativity uses spacetime there is an extra time term c²dt² where c is the speed of light.
The metrics for space time are the difference between the time term and the spatial terms.
Hence in 2D spherical spacetime the metric becomes ds²=c²dt²-r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ).

Now let’s look at the Einstein field equations.
They look like this

Rₐₑ - (1/2)gₐₑR + Λgₐₑ = -(8πG/c^4)Tₐₑ

This equation tells us of the relationship between gravity and spacetime.
When gravity is absent (no mass) spacetime is flat otherwise gravity curves spacetime.
The right hand term indicates the presence of matter.

The metrics are the solutions to the field equations.
Mathematically the field equations are virtually impossible to solve directly.
Mathematicians and physicists have constructed metrics using “educated guesses” which are plugged into the field equations.
If the metric is an exact solution, the field equations breakdown into simpler equations that can be directly solved.

One form of “educated guess” is to construct a metric based on spherical symmetry.
This is based on a simple observation that objects fall radially in a gravitational field.

One such metric has the form.
ds²=(1+f)c²dt²-dr²/(1+f)-r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ) where f is a general function.

When f=2MG/c²r this leads to the Schwarzschild metric which has led to the concepts of gravitational bending of light, gravitational time dilation and blacks holes.
It also explains the irregularities in the orbit of Mercury.

There are another set of solutions of the form f=nₐr ͣ .
One particular function of interest is f=nr² as this can be used to a model a Static Universe.

In order to model a Static Universe one needs to look at the Universe in its formative stages where there no structures such as galaxies or stars but only dust particles.
This dust has a uniform density of ρ and exerts a uniform pressure p.

The metric is ds²=(1+ nr²)c²dt²-dr²/(1+ nr²)-r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ).

When this metric was formulated the Einstein field equations at the time were of the form.

Rₐₑ - (1/2)gₐₑR = -(8πG/c^4)Tₐₑ
There was no Λ term required at this time.

When the metric is plugged into the left hand side of the field equations and the density and pressure terms into the right hand side, the field equations were reduced to a simpler set of equations which led to the following astonishing result p =-ρc².

The equation tells us that p is a negative value.
Negative pressure results in the dust particles collapsing preventing the formation of stars and galaxies.

In order to prevent this Einstein introduced a repulsive Λ term known as the cosmological constant into the metric which took on the form.

ds²=(1+ Λr²/3)c²dt²-dr²/(1+ Λr²/3)-r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ).
The field equations were modified to include the Λ term.

Ironically when the Universe was found to expand, the metrics for the inertia expanding Big Bang and Steady State models no longer required the Λ term which Einstein referred to as his greatest blunder.

Like a revolving door when expansion was found to accelerate, the Λ term reappeared again this time in the form of dark energy.

Thanks for that sjastro!
Its good to see some real analysis and an accurate historical record for a change around here ... (as opposed to Michael's tripe and drivel)!

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

SelfSim said:
I have a post for yet another apparently cowardly TBolts poster, 'Celeste' who copied my OP on the CFs 'Scotts' EU Birkeland Current Blunders' thread and proceeded to bad-mouth me at TBolts. (It appears that Michael's bad habit of the same behavior has caught on amongst the TBolts in-mates).

Before I ever get into your *other* misconceptions about Scott's paper, I want to hear you respond to this paragraph from my last post to you which you seem to simply have avoided like the plague:

Wait a minute! Let me get this straight, just so that I'm sure that I correctly understand the full nature of your personal attack on Scott. You're accusing Scott of plagiary without so much as a single citation to a *specific paragraph* from Lundquist's work which you claim Scott somehow "stole" from Lundquist. You're furthermore accusing Scott of "plagiary" in a (I believe) *non published* preprint which was simply intended to solicit feedback from the EU/PC community? Really? What absolute *gall*! Man, that's just a purely unethical personal attack without a *shred* of credibility unless you can show me where Scott's 'preprint' was published. Citation?

You *continue* to publicly accuse Dr. Scott of plagiary under an anonymous handle, without even so much as the common decency of citing the *publication* which you're claiming that Scott published this supposedly plagiarized material. You haven't had the common decency to cite so much as a single paragraph which you believe that Scott plagiarized in an apparent *rough draft*. You don't even have the decency to accuse him of plagiary using your real name either, just some ridiculous handle you made up. As opposed to the rough draft which Scott distributed to the EU/PC community for feedback, the actual *published* version of Scott's paper clearly does contain the appropriate references to Lundquist's work, so when *exactly* and where *exactly* did Scott "plagiarize" anything?

You falsely accused Scott of plagiary in what appears to be nothing more than a "rough draft/work in progress" which was only intended to solicit feedback from within the EU/PC community, and you have the nerve to whine when EU/PC members call you names for such unethical behavior? Really? Where did you learn "ethics" from anyway? What would you have them do when you show such a huge lack of ethics while you *continue to this day* to make such false accusations about EU/PC members? You owe Dr. Scott a public apology, or you need to demonstrate that he actually *published* anything which plagiarized anything from anyone. You haven't even come *close* to doing that yet.

FYI, when I "lost my cool" recently at TB, and I went after a specific poster from ISF at TB, most of the members at TB responded by telling me to take it easy, forget the trash talking at ISF and move on with my life. They didn't encourage me to respond in kind to the trash talking at ISF, they generally *discouraged* me from responding to it in fact.

Compare and contrast that overall response at TB to the "hater mob" mentality, and personal attacks that go on continuously at ISF, which continued over the weekend and which continues today at ISF. What right do any of you EU/PC haters have to complain about the way you might be treated at TB while you engage in such unethical and irrational behaviors at ISF, and you personally falsely accuse Scott of something which he never did?

I want to hear you respond to the specific paragraph I reposted for you on and hear you justify your irrational claims about plagiarism. That's a serious accusation directed at the *person*, and I've yet to hear you even come *close* to justifying it. If you can't justify your false claims about plagiary, while you continue to falsely accuse him, why should I even listen to or respond to anything else that you might have to say about Scott's paper? You owe us (actually Scott) a citation to a published paper, and a specific page number and paragraph, or you owe Dr. Scott a public apology, one or the other. Which is it?

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

sjastro said:
Since I have been accused by the resident troll.......

SelfSim said:
Thanks for that sjastro!
Its good to see some real analysis and an accurate historical record for a change around here ... (as opposed to Michael's tripe and drivel)!

So you just encourage the name calling as long as it's not directed at you eh?

Oh wait, you actually *engage in it yourself* whenever you feel like it, including this weekend:

A gathering of cranks!

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

SelfSim said:
force free field is where the magnetic pressure is much greater than the thermal pressure exerted by the plasma. As a result, the magnetic field and the current density are parallel or the current density is zero.

Do you understand the term "current" in the term "Birkeland current"? If so, what do you think it means?

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

lesliedellow said:
Myself, I side with the geocentrists. I am arrogant enough to think that I know better than every astronomer who has ever walked the Earth since the seventeenth century.

I'm still trying to understand what you think astronomers "know" when 95 percent of their own theory is composed of placeholder terms for human ignorance, and the mathematical models which they apply to plasma are obsolete "pseudoscience" according to Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory? What do you think they actually *know*?

I kid you not Leslie, every EU/PC 'hater' that I spoke with at ISF tried to claim (or supported the claim) that "magnetic reconnection" was a plasma optional process, and not a single member at ISF (besides me) even tried to correct that ridiculous misconception. Six years later I'm *still* waiting to see them produce their missing math formula to express a non-zero *rate* of reconnection without plasma.

They didn't even try to correct a vocal member at ISF who *repeatedly* claimed that 'electrical discharge are impossible in plasma"!

I've even seen so called "professionals" blatantly and wilfully misrepresent the predictions of various EU/PC solar models with respect to neutrinos and/or solar wind direction/content.

What makes you think that the mainstream *knows* anything at all about plasma and/or plasma physics if they believe that kind of nonsense? What makes you think that they know anything at all about EU/PC theory if they can't even get the *simplest* stuff right?

lesliedellow · Jul 24, 2017

Michael said:
I'm still trying to understand what you think astronomers "know" when 95 percent of their own theory is composed of placeholder terms for human ignorance,

You sound like a creationist complaining because biologists do not yet have a viable theory of abiogenesis. The word "abiogenesis" is a place holder for something not yet understtod. So what?

and the mathematical models which they apply to plasma is obsolete "pseudoscience" according to Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory? What do you think they actually *know*?

I can pick up any textbook you care to name, if it is related in any way to plasma physics, and I will see the phrase "Alfven waves". They will give credit where credit is due, but they will not give credit for bunkum cosmology.

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

lesliedellow said:
You sound like a creationist complaining because biologists do not yet have a viable theory of abiogenesis. The word "abiogenesis" is a place holder for something not yet understtod. So what?

So evolutionary theory and abiogenesis aren't even the same theory in the first place. Compare and contrast that with LCDM which contains four supernatural constructs and is composed of 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance. Your comparison and your analogy is therefore invalid.

If evolutionary theorist were running around claiming that evolution is a function of invisible, impotent on Earth 'dark" forces, I'd probably reject it too.

I can pick up any textbook you care to name, if it is related in any way to plasma physics, and I will see the phrase "Alfven waves". They will give credit where credit is due, but they will not give credit for bunkum cosmology.

They don't give Alfven credit where credit is due or they'd be using his double layer paper to describe events inside double layers rather than using pure "pseudoscience". They blatantly *misuse* his mathematics.

Would you *really* believe in EV theory if EV proponents were telling you that evolution is mostly caused by ninety five percent "black magic" and five percent astrology?

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

lesliedellow said:
bunkum cosmology.

Care to point out which part(s) of Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma or which part of his published papers are 'bunkum' and why you think it's 'bunkum'?

lesliedellow · Jul 24, 2017

Michael said:
So evolutionary theory and abiogenesis aren't even the same theory in the first place. Compare and contrast that with LCDM which contains four supernatural constructs and is composed of 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance. Your comparison and your analogy is therefore invalid.

I didn't use the word evolution, you did. So that is another way in which you resemble creationists, if you don't know the difference between the two.

The comparison is entirely valid.

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

lesliedellow said:
I didn't use the word evolution, you did. So that is another way in which you resemble creationists, if you don't know the difference between the two.

You're right, my bad.

The comparison is entirely valid.

No it's not. Biology as a field of science produces useful consumer products, like antibiotics, drugs and surgical techniques which can extend human life. Compare and contrast that with the pure impotence of dark matter and dark energy and inflation and "space expansion". There is no comparison in terms of empirical physics.

lesliedellow · Jul 24, 2017

Michael said:
You're right, my bad.

No it's not. Biology as a field of science produces useful consumer products, like antibiotics, drugs and surgical techniques which can extend human life. Compare and contrast that with the pure impotence of dark matter and dark energy and inflation and "space expansion". There is no comparison in terms of empirical physics.

The fact that a pure science (cosmology) is not an applied science (biology) is not relevant to my comparison in any way shape or form.

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

lesliedellow said:
The fact that a pure science (cosmology) is not an applied science (biology) is not relevant to my comparison in any way shape or form.

It's absolutely relevant. If the various metaphysical claims of LCMD were not "metaphysical", but had empirical cause/effect support, I wouldn't be an LCDM critic in the first place! Your comparison is invalid because biology is an *empirical* form of science, whereas LCDM is not. In terms of empirical usefulness, LCDM is 95 percent "dark voodoo" mixed with about 5 percent astrology.

lesliedellow · Jul 24, 2017

Michael said:
It's absolutely relevant. If the various metaphysical claims of LCMD were not "metaphysical", but had empirical cause/effect support, I wouldn't be an LCDM critic in the first place! Your comparison is invalid because biology is an *empirical* form of science, whereas LCDM is not. In terms of empirical usefulness, LCDM is 95 percent "dark voodoo" mixed with about 5 percent astrology.

Blah, blah, blah. So all those experiments you keep complaing about aren't empirical science.

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

lesliedellow said:
Blah, blah, blah. So all those experiments you keep complaing about aren't empirical science.

That's just a cop out IMO. There's a distinct empirical difference between empirical physics and hypothetical claims as to cause. As long as you refuse to accept that significant difference, your analogies will simply be false and invalid.

If you were comparing LCDM to *astrology* or even M-theory, now *that* would be a "fair" comparison between two purely *hypothetical* claims.

lesliedellow · Jul 24, 2017

Michael said:
That's just a cop out IMO. There's a distinct empirical difference between empirical physics and hypothetical claims as to cause. As long as you refuse to accept that significant difference, your analogies will simply be false and invalid.

If you were comparing LCDM to *astrology* or even M-theory, now *that* would be a "fair" comparison between two purely *hypothetical* claims.

I have got news for you sunshine. Every scientific theory starts out as a hypothesis.

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

lesliedellow said:
I have got news for you sunshine. Every scientific theory starts out as a hypothesis.

So? There's still a *huge* empirical difference between biology and LCMD theory in terms of useful empirical value, and in terms of cause/effect claims being made. I wouldn't accept "hypothetical voodoo" as a valid form of biology unless someone could demonstrate that voodoo has some tangible effect on cells/people. Would you?

lesliedellow · Jul 24, 2017

Michael said:
So? There's still a *huge* empirical difference between biology and LCMD theory in terms of useful empirical value, and in terms of cause/effect claims being made. I wouldn't accept "hypothetical voodoo" as a valid form of biology unless someone could demonstrate that voodoo has some tangible effect on cells/people. Would you?

Your favourite brand of nonsense has no more relevance to everyday life than mainstream cosmology has

Michael · Jul 24, 2017

lesliedellow said:
Your favourite brand of nonsense has no more relevance to everyday life than mainstream cosmology has

That is simply not true.

The cosmology theory which I prefer has *local* (to Earth) implications which have a demonstrated effect on the planet, it's weather patterns, etc. Every tenet of EU/PC theory *works in the lab*, and it can be studied in the lab, just like biology.

Inflation has no effect on anything in the lab. Dark energy and space expansion claims have no effect on Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or even the galaxy supercluster. Dark matter is a total joke. Billions spent on that snipe hunt and yet there is *zero* evidence to support the existence of exotic matter. Not only can't most of LCDM's core claims and tenets even be studied in a lab, the one part that can be tested in the lab has been a complete *disaster*.

lesliedellow · Jul 24, 2017

Michael said:
That is simply not true.

The cosmology theory which I prefer has *local* (to Earth) implications which have a demonstrated effect on the planet, it's weather patterns, etc. Every tenet of EU/PC theory *works in the lab*, and it can be studied in the lab, just like biology.

Crap. All your "Polar Light Simulation" demonstrates is that a vacuum tube ought to work, and moving electrons get deflected by a magnetic field. We knew that already.

We almost certainly live in a static universe.

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency