Higgsy wrote:You have offered a tiny handful of examples
A “handful” is still more than you’ve posted by way of example and explanation, Higgsy. You and Bob have posted NOTHING but wishful thinking to prove the helical winding seen in the images I posted is due to gravity, wind, “shock”, or turbulence. How exactly do those phenomena produce the helical wound filaments at the bottom of this image, Higgsy?
http://inspirehep.net/record/1255052/files/fig8.png
I’m still waiting to hear an answer. Surely you can provide a link to some computer model result that shows how it happens … some lab experiment that shows it happening due to *your* “physics”?
Higgsy wrote:some of which are patently wrong (like part of the shocked shell of a planetary nebula)
Wrong? There is nothing “patently wrong” with those images. They just show helically wound pairs of filaments that you don’t seem able to explain other than by handwaving. How exactly does “shock” or any of the physical phenomena you believe in produce the helically wound filament seen in the upper right of this image, Higgsy?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nebula.jpg
I’m still waiting to hear an answer. Surely you can provide something besides hand waving … a link to some computer model result that shows how it happens … some lab experiment that shows it happening due to the reasons you claim?
And tell me, Oh Great *Degreed* Physicist, how do those phenomena you claim are responsible for helical winding produce this sort of polarization vectors along a wound filament?
http://inspirehep.net/record/1273530/fi ... e_fig3.png
That, to me, indicates electric currents are traveling down the filament and producing magnetic fields. How, pray tell, does wind, shock, gravity or turbulence do the same thing? Hmmmmmmmm?
Higgsy wrote:
That by eyeballing piccies, and completely refusing to do or find any proper analysis on those piccies to confirm or deny whether what you are seeing is pure pareidolia. Posting a tiny handful of mostly false colour images of a range of phenomena in order to attempt to prove that the large scale structure of the Universe is dominated by electromagnetic effects is absurd and utterly impotent.
At least one can see the phenomena I’m talking about, Higgsy. You? Not so much. And don’t kid yourself. You dark matter, black hole worshipers rely on false color images all the time and can only INFER from them that the gnomes you still haven’t actually seen after 70 years of looking are somehow “proved” by those images via calculations base on your non-existent gnomes. And most articles celebrating modern astrophysics don’t have photographs at all in them. Instead, they contain “artist” conceptions … of black holes, dark matter, dark matter filaments, yada yada yada. So it’s hilarious to see you try this tactic to attack PC/EU. Simply hilarious.
Higgsy wrote:
I have already said that I accept the existence of braided filaments, and I will go further and say that I expect that electromagnetic effects in the plasma contribute to the braiding, but you are yet to demonstrate that such braiding is ubiquitous or near-ubiquitous at all scales
Have it your way, Higgsy. You want to focus on one word like a 9/11 Truther, be my guest. I certainly can’t stop you. I’ve done about all I can do to open your eyes. As they say, you can bring a horse to water, but …
Higgsy wrote:Ignorantly and stupidly reject the fact that very detailed models based on gravitational collapse (and electromagnetic influences) correctly predict the large scale structure of our Universe, including filaments, sheets and walls.
Actually, Higgsy, those models do NOT properly include electromagnetic influences and they assume numerous gnomes (like dark matter) that are needed to jump start the processes that give results that look like what we now see. Also, they are ALL based on incorrect baryonic mass estimates. ALL OF THEM. In short, the knobs in all them have been tweeked to show what the calculators were pre-biased to believe … in dark matter and black holes. Meanwhile, after 70 years of looking for those two things, there is still no real evidence of either. No observations. Just inferences from phenomena that another community (the PC/EU community) say can be caused by adding more baryonic mass and including known, observed electromagnetic effects on plasmas. Even rotation curves can be reproduced by proper modeling of electromagnetic effects (which Bob and you refuse to acknowledge or even discuss … Bob would rather talk about anything than THAT).
We are bombarded daily with observations of much closer and far more recent phenomena that the mainstream is stumped by … that the mainstream says are a complete “surprise” because none of their models predicted them or in fact predict something far different … that will require a retooling of the models. Yet you want us to trust in your models of the extreme distant past … models that must incorporate gnomes to produce anything that looks remotely like what we see. Laughable. Truth is that you folks even assume that redshift equals distance. You ignore all the science that now suggests that’s not true. And there’s probably no bigger threat to mainstream Big Bang theory than seeing plasma redshifts in the lab (
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf ).
And I could go on and on, listing such things, if you really want to talk about “ignorance” and “stupidity”, Higgsy. You can’t explain Herbig Haro helical jets. You can’t explain the helical winding of filaments, no matter where they are. You can’t explain what you’re seeing at the boundary of the solar system. You can’t even explain FTEs. You can’t explain the distribution of momentum in the solar system. The list just goes on and on and on. And in every instance you must rely on gnomes to make it sound like you know what’s going on. And you rely on artists to draw you pretty pictures that will look *impressive* and *convincing* to a clueless public … that is foolishly funding all your work.
Just saying …