Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:33 pm

Also, I'm still waiting for a reply from Aardwolf...
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:44 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:
BeAChooser wrote:Bob, I first raised the topic here:

I'd like to know what EU models predict the shape of the nebulae that you are showing. By model, of course, I mean something like a computer simulation or something that actually produces the shape, not just someone saying that it should sort of look like that. When you say something is predicted by EU, I am skeptical of that since I haven't seen any actual calculations or simulations put forward by the EU community that make correct predictions. All I ever hear about are qualitative arguments, mainly aimed at trashing the scientific community, rather than actually making new predictions.


Seriously, Bob? You’re going to sit there and claim that Birkeland currents, current pinches, field aligned currents and Marklund Convection don’t exist? I suppose double layers don’t exist in your universe either? You DEMAND I prove they do? LOL! Do you have any idea how stupid that makes you look now? Michael is going to have a field day with you.

Sorry, Bob, it just doesn’t work that way. Not in this universe. I asked first. The ball is in your court to show there are mainstream models (simulations) that produce the sort of helical winding seen in those images. Because you were the one who wrote “If you can't even answer simple questions about a model, then you shouldn't be putting it forward as a possible explanation.” And the mainstream has been putting forward gravity, shock, wind and turbulence as the ONLY explanation for the observations in those photos I linked. So I’d like to see their proof. I’d like to see those models and their results. Surely an *expert* like you can put your fingers on them with no difficulty. Put up or shut up, I say, Bob.

Because you see, I can indeed point you to super computer calculations and lab experiments that show current carrying filaments winding about each other in a helical manner, based on the WELL ESTABLISHED physics promoted by PC/EU theorists. Frankly I’m surprised that a *degreed physicist* like you is completely unaware of them. Could that be a sign of a poor education, perhaps?

For example, earlier I pointed you to peer reviewed scientific articles on super computer calculations done by Anthony Peratt 30 plus years ago in which he modeled two current carrying plasma filaments and they wound about each other just as you see in those images. In fact, over timescales modeling the creation of galaxies, they wound themselves into plasmoids … the sort of pinch phenomena that might produce a quasar at the center of a galaxy (seeing as it’s only assumed that quasars are black holes). In fact, those calculations showed that the object produced the sort of power output that quasars do and produce jets, just like quasars. What a coincidence. I’d suggest you read on a little further and locate the link I provide to my response to you about rotation curves, because in that post you’ll find links to papers on that calculation.

Here … just to tempt you, let me quote a portion of the International Astronomical Union’s “Galactic and Intergalactic Magnetic Fields: Proceedings of the 140th Symposium” from 1989. In it, you’ll find this:

Vershuur: You have a model in which very long Birkeland filaments interact. Are we to understand that at discrete intervals along these filaments the interactions you discuss occur? Then, if you twist the filaments a little, would you envisage the creation of clusters of galaxies?

Pratt: Yes. As with the case of filamentary laboratory plasma, where Birkeland filaments flare out, pinch, and twist at discrete intervals along the plasma, we expect the same to be true with galactic-dimensioned, current-carrying filaments. In the laboratory, the width/lenght ratio is generally in a range 10^^-3 - 10^^-5 so that a typical cosmic Birkeland filament length may be of the order of 350 Mpc (Peratt, 1986, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 16, 639). This size is the same as that of the recently discovered supercluster filaments and ribbons.


:D

In Peratt’s many articles and his book, “Physics of the Plasma Universe”, he provides many examples of calculations and lab experiments that produce the phenomena observed out in space, Bob. You’d be wise to go read them before saying anything further. :D

Bob_Ham wrote:
BeAChooser wrote:And by the way, I’ve also asked you questions about rotation curves which you also ignored.

Sorry, I didn't see that either. What was your question?


Seriously? Where’s your head, Bob?

Earlier in this thread you asked celeste …

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16786&start=45#p120736

celeste, how do you propose galaxy rotation curves are solved by EU?


I answered your question here, a few posts later …

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16786&start=60#p120754

About an hour after that post, you made a post to aardwolf in which you clearly implied that you’d seen my post because you wrote …

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16786&start=60#p120760

I will await celeste's reply, since celeste is the only user so far to claim to have a physics degree and support EU.


So I made a second post to you …

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16786&start=60#p120764

in which I responded to that statement with this …

PLUCK PLUCK PLUCK. For your information, Mr *DEGREED Physicist*, Anthony Peratt whose articles I linked in my post to you was also a DEGREED Physicist. Tell us, how many papers have you successfully gotten published, Bob? Hmmmm? I’m willing to bet that Peratt beat you in that regard. And I’m also willing to bet that he knows a whole lot more about rotation curves than you. In fact, what’s deeply illuminating is that you appeared to be completely ignorant of his work. Just saying. The truth is that our discussions so far prove you are ignorant of so much and you don’t even seem to be aware of it. And don’t want to learn. Instead, you hide behind a scrap of paper that tells you that you are soooooo *smart* … ironically awarded to you by people with equally sheltered existences.


All throughout this thread you’ve been carrying on a conversation with aardwolf, so we know you were actively reading this thread. And here you are trying to claim you didn’t see my posts? I find that a little hard to believe, Bob. Unless you’re extremely inattentive. And that wouldn’t fit the model of a *degreed* physicist, would it? :D
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:57 pm

BeAChooser, your personal attacks make the idea of responding to you much less attractive. You seem to have something against physicists or people with degrees in general. I started this thread to find EU proponents with degrees so that I could actually discuss the physics with them quantitatively. You don't have a physics degree, and you don't seem to be interested in a quantitative discussion anyway.

Also, why do you say that Michael is going to "have a field day" with me? Are you talking about Michael Mozina? He doesn't actually seem to be capable of doing any physics, so I'm not sure what you consider a "field day," but I think you're going to be rather disappointed when he basically just gives his opinion while calculating nothing. Again, I'm looking for a quantitative discussion.

I only responded to Aardwolf's original claim because it was so ridiculous. Now I'm just curious what Aardwolf has to say, since his claims are completely out of touch with the evidence of reality.

I am still waiting for celeste's reply, by the way, who is the only person here so far who claims to hold a physics degree and believe in EU at the same time.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:34 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:BeAChooser, your personal attacks make the idea of responding to you much less attractive.


No, Bob, I'm not attacking you personally. I know nothing about you other than that you are a *degreed physicist* who thinks he's smarter and more knowledgeable than the rest of us. You've made that attitude eminently clear. I'm attacking you as the self-chosen representative of the group you put on a pedestal ... Big Bang, gnome believing *degreed physicists*. You're the one that made this personal, sir, by effectively saying all the rest of us ... those without that scrap of paper you're so very proud of ... are not even worth talking too. Indeed, you started this *hit* thread with the INTENT of giving yourself an excuse to ignore us ... to not respond to people like me, Bob. Talk about "personal attacks".

Bob_Ham wrote: You seem to have something against physicists or people with degrees in general.


Not at all, Bob. I have great respect for physicists who are still practicing actual science rather than behaving like the priests of a cult. And for you're information I have a advanced degree ... one from a very prestigious university in a technical field that required I take MANY physics and math classes. Indeed, you could almost say I minored in those two subjects. So you see, Bob, you know next to nothing about me.

Bob_Ham wrote: I started this thread to find EU proponents with degrees so that I could actually discuss the physics with them quantitatively.


No, you started this thread to find EU proponents with "PHYSICS" degrees (look back at the title you gave your thread, Bob). And you did that so you could do a lot of handwaving, appeal to authority, and have an excuse NOT to discuss physics "quantitatively" with anyone else, regardless of their degree status.

Bob_Ham wrote:
You don't have a physics degree


You don't know anything about me Bob, other than that I (and a few others) are running circles around you in this *debate*. You don't even seem to realize that it's a fundamental error in logic to appeal to authority like you're doing.

Bob_Ham wrote:
and you don't seem to be interested in a quantitative discussion anyway.


Is that going to be your excuse from running away from the links I provided to Peratt's work? Hmmmmmm? If you wanted to discuss physics "quantitatively", you would obtain a copy of Peratt's book and articles and try to attack them. Not ignore them like you're trying to ignore us.

Bob_Ham wrote:
Also, why do you say that Michael is going to "have a field day" with me?


Well, he's been looking for an example of you putting your foot in your mouth before lumping you in the same category as Higgsy. I think you've just provided it.

Bob_Ham wrote: Again, I'm looking for a quantitative discussion.


No, you are not. You are HIDIN, Bob. I've given you several perfect openings to show us how "quantitative" you are, Bob. Supply the sources, simulations and articles that you seem to think prove those helically wound plasma filaments in the images I linked can result from gravity, wind, shock and turbulence alone. You can do that, can't you? And yet you told someone else that if he can't even answer simple questions about a model, then he shouldn't be putting it forward as a possible explanation. I've also provided you links to an alternative explanation for galactic rotation curves. Every one can see that you are desperately trying not to discuss that because then you'd have to get "quantitative". :D

Bob_Ham wrote: I am still waiting for celeste's reply, by the way, who is the only person here so far who claims to hold a physics degree and believe in EU at the same time.


PLUCK, PLUCK, PLUCK. :P
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:06 am

Bob_Ham wrote:Also, why do you say that Michael is going to "have a field day" with me? Are you talking about Michael Mozina? He doesn't actually seem to be capable of doing any physics,


Let's clear up your first serious misconception right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Actually Bob, it's you and the mainstream that don't seem to be capable of "doing any actual physics", whereas EU/PC theory physically works in the lab and it's been verified to work in the lab for more than a century. That's real "physics", and everyone in the EU/PC community does actual physics and has a preference for working empirical physics.

You're confusing the term "barks math on command for me when I tell him to" with "doing physics". I haven't and probably won't personally bark any math for you on command unless it's relevant to our discussion, because nothing about EU/PC theory rises or falls based on my personal math skills, and I refuse to participate in that erroneous mentality that you're stuck in. I will however point you to the relevant mathematical models if you want them, but I would expect you to read them yourself.

Whether or not EU/PC theory is quantified to your personal liking or not, most likely depends on whether or not you have personally sat down and taken the time to review the mathematical models and formulas that were presented by Birkeland, Alfven, Bruce, Peratt, Lerner, Scott, etc. Have you personally read their mathematical presentations for yourself, yes or no? Don't dodge the questions, just be honest.

The term "physics" and "math' aren't the same word and contrary to your statements, they don't have the very same meaning.

so I'm not sure what you consider a "field day," but I think you're going to be rather disappointed when he basically just gives his opinion while calculating nothing. Again, I'm looking for a quantitative discussion.


Have you read Birkeland's mathematical presentations for yourself yet Bob? Yes? No? If not, why not? Why do you believe that it's necessary or even relevant for me personally to bark math homework assignments for you on command? Which part of Birkeland's mathematics rises and/or falls based on *my personal math skills*?

*If* I were complaining about your mathematical formulas, or claiming that your mathematical formulas were messed up in some way, my personal math skills might be relevant to our discussion. Since however I think your math is fine, but your conceptual understanding is pitiful, there's really no point in me personally complaining about your math. It's more relevant for me to point out your *physics errors and laboratory inadequacies*, and point out the conceptual errors which I think you're making which make your mathematical models irrelevant. A good case in point is Alfven's double layer paper which makes all of your mathematical models of 'magnetic reconnection" irrelevant and obsolete in terms of mathematical models to explain high energy events in plasma. They serve no necessary purpose for describing solar flares, magnetospheric activity, or anything related to low density, high energy events in space. Your math is fine, except of course your rates of reconnection (particularly Parker's model) are way too slow to jive with some observations.

What's really missing from you however, and what you have never shown us, and likely never will show us is your *physics*. Birkeland recreated everything in that video and much more over 100 years ago Bob. What's your lame excuse for not getting *at least* that far in the lab after 100 years? You can't create and sustain *any* of those various solar physics features related to particle movements and full sphere coronas, or anything even in the ballpark. You're the one that cannot do any actual "physics". You evidently just have some pseudoscientific mathematical models that don't produce any useful working physical results. What good are those mathematical models in terms of "working laboratory physics"? The few 'experiments" that have been done on "magnetic receconnection" only work while the power is turned on. Most of them begin and end with an electric field. None of them produce *a sustained and full sphere corona* over time. None of them produce sustained hot plasma thread, or current sheet over hours at a time.

From the standpoint of *actual working physics*, your models are *woefully inadequate, or completely missing*. You're the one that doesn't do physics Bob, not us.

Not only does Birkeland's solar model simulate a full sphere hot corona, it simulates solar wind, polar jets, electron beams/strahl, solar flares, "hot" (compared to the surface temperature) coronal loops, and pretty much every important solar observation we've seen from satellites in space. All of them can be *sustained over time*, simply by sustaining the electric field.

Now it's your turn to do some real 'physics' for us and show us a working physical model of a solar atmosphere based on "magnetic reconnection" which produces these same observed solar features. Show us your physics skills Bob.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:52 am

Michael, you just said that you won't do any specific calculations for me, so why should I be expected to do them for you? All you are going to do is point to where they are? Ok, I can do that too: There are several models discussed here. Please tell me what you think is wrong with each model, one by one.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:43 am

Bob_Ham wrote:Michael, you just said that you won't do any specific calculations for me, so why should I be expected to do them for you?


I specifically did *not* ask you to do any calculations for me at all. I specifically asked you to show me a *working physical model* of your claim. A simple video similar to the one which I cited for you on Birkeland's cathode solar model will suffice. I don't even want to see your math at all in fact, I want to see your physics. I want to see your claims work in the lab, not just on paper. You guys have a bad habit of creating 'mathematical mythology" that only works on paper and computer models, but doesn't ever work right in the lab. Math isn't physics. I want to see your physical evidence, not your math.

All you are going to do is point to where they are? Ok, I can do that too: There are several models discussed here. Please tell me what you think is wrong with each model, one by one.


Why? We already agree that Maxwell's equations can solve correctly for both E and B didn't we? What makes you think that your problem is mathematical in nature rather than *conceptual* in nature? IMO you simply put the the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. You have it working conceptually backwards. The E field does all the work and provides all the original kinetic energy, and sustains that energy over time too.
Alfven didn't point out math problems in MR models, he just provided you with his double layer paper which uses a different mathematical model of the same event.
If you want me to actually do a math assignment for you, you should start by offering to do one for me. Can you point out the mathematical errors in Alfven's double layer paper for us? There's only *one* to worry about too. If you can find a problem in his math, I'll happily see if I can reciprocate with respect to MR models.

For the record, and to refresh your memory, I asked you to produce working physics, not math "theory". Yes or no, can you produce a working experiment that uses magnetic reconnection to create and sustain a single high temperature filament for several minutes? Can you do *anything remotely* like that demonstration of Birkeland's model with respect to a full spherical corona and planetary aurora based on magnetic reconnection?

Again, I'm not asking you for math. A *video* presentation of a working model will suffice.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:50 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Higgsy wrote:Yes, I know that you will do anything rather than admit that your claim that the diffuse hot halo would cool in hours or days was wrong by, as I have now reminded myself, TWELVE to SEVENTEEN orders of magnitude. The density is derived from the very observation of the halo that you are trumpeting and there is no, zero, nada, zilch evidence of significant non-uniformity or organised high speed flows in the halo.


Oy Vey. You guys wave around those physics degrees as though they give you some kind of superpowers and instant credibility as it relates to *plasma physics* and then you continually make ridiculously false statements about plasma which anyone who'd even read a *WIKI* presentation would know was wrong. You also (as a group) seem blissfully ignorant of current events. Your last claim is utter nonsense!
No it isn't. There is no evidence that there is non-uniformity in the halo, nor is there evidence of organised high-speed flows, by which I mean currents that would result in pinches that would make higher density threads in the halo. All the evidence, including in your links below is that the halo is co-rotating or under-co-rotating with the galaxy as a uniform neutral plasma.


And don't talk to me about thermodynamics. You didn't even know how the temperature of a gas or plasma is defined until I schooled you on that. You thought that ions have an intrinsic temperature which would fall by spontaneous emission of photons:
"A high temperature ion is going to release it's energy *faster* in a diffuse and cold environment because nothing close by is radiating heat back into the ion and heating it back up again!... If we tossed *anything* at millions of degrees into deep space, it's going to cool off in short order (days), even if it's a *dense* and massive object. Tiny ions and individual particles will emit heat and cool off *instantly* (seconds/hours) by emitting photons. Do they actually think that the ion can emit photons for millions of years and not lose energy...Without current to sustain those temps however, the paticles will emit photons and the material will cool, particularly if it's all spread out like that... Every object has an intrinsic "temperature" as well as external kinetic energy. Ions, or at least collections of ions would have such an internal temperture as well. Once they ions start emiiting gamma rays and x-rays, they will start to cool off."
Pure unadulterated ignorance. At least after I schooled you, you now know that ions don't have an "intrinsic" temperature,


Case in point. If you even had a *cursory* understanding of plasma physics, from even what someone might learn on a WIKI page, you'd know that the ionization state of the ion also determines it's 'temperature', hence the difference between "hot", "warm" and "cold" plasma.
Doubling down on ignorance. If you had a cursory understanding of any sort of physics, you'd realise that the ionisation state of a plasma is a consequence of its temperature - it doesn't provide an ionisation temperature separate from the temperature as defined by the mean kinetic energy of its constituents. You are absolutely ignorant about even the most elementary physics. Even after I schooled you, you are just doubling down on your ignorance. Unteachable.

Yes, physicists sometimes refer to plasmas as hot or cold depending on their degree of ionisation. But the degree of ionisation is a consequence of the temperature of the plasma according to the Saha equation; the degree of ionisation doesn't constitute a temperature seprarate from the temperature defined by the kinetic energy of the particles. This is a matter of definition and you are absolutely and embarassingly wrong.
that the temperature of a gas or plasma is proportional to the mean velocity of its particles and that plasmas don't lose temperature by the spontaneous emission of photons from its ions but require collisions and other interactions.


You keep trying to ignore the fact that highly ionized ions will attract electrons over large distances and you can't whip up a math formula that fails to consider the EM implications of the plasma and treat it like neutral particles that whiz right by each other and never interact via EM influences. Your numbers are therefore *useless* and *meaningless* and you're so ignorant about it all, you seem to think you're "schooling" me. WOW! Give it a rest already.
The cooling relationships that you are dismissing have been fully accepted physics for decades. These are not something I have just invented. We are talking about a very diffuse plasma at a temperature over 150eV whereas the ionisation energies of hydrogen and helium are 13.6, 24.6 and 54.4eV so the hydrogen and helium will be fully ionised. If you think that the electrons and ions will readily interact in a plasma of this density why don't you work out the collision cross-section of a proton with an electron and calculate the mean free path and mean time between collisions for a plasma of this density and temperature? Put your sums where your intuition has misled you. You won't, because, as I have learned, you'll do anything other than quantify your bogus ideas.

But the main point of this post is that you have doubled down on ignorance. After I schooled you about the definition of temperature in gas or plasma, you didn't learn your lesson, but came back with an ignorant tale about how "the ionization state of the ion also determines it's 'temperature'". Since you can never admit you're wrong, you'll never learn anything worth knowing. And you are wrong. Completely wrong. SEVENTEEN orders of magnitude wrong.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:32 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:You guys have a bad habit of creating 'mathematical mythology" that only works on paper and computer models, but doesn't ever work right in the lab.


I bet every last one of these guys is a believer in anthropomorphic global warming, too. Because there's exactly the same problem occurring with AGWalarmists. They've been led far astray by their *math* and *models*. They ignore observations that say the models are wrong. They claim that only "climatologists" can weigh in on the debate (the same appeal to authority) to avoid having to debate the issue with skeptics. They too are a cult.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:42 pm

BeAChooser wrote:I bet every last one of these guys is a believer in anthropomorphic global warming, too.

Haha anthropomorphic? So this is global warming with arms and legs, or what?
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby celeste » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:37 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:
I am still waiting for celeste's reply, by the way, who is the only person here so far who claims to hold a physics degree and believe in EU at the same time.


Bob, I must have missed the question.

I don't want you to think of me as an enemy. Believe me, no one would be happier than I would be to think that all the time and money I spent on school, was not a waste.

But here is what I didn't know,and please share if your education covered this:
In grad school, they didn't cover the effects of dethermalization in the solar environment. Not that they didn't know about dethermalization by an electric field, just that there was supposedly no electric field to begin with, and therefore, dethermalization didn't apply.
You see this article from 2001,which reminded everyone of the electric field at the solar surface?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A%26A...372..913N

Well, that was published in 2001, but it took a little while before tenured professors at my school seemed to notice it. This still not taught in the early 2000's.
But as you know, if we forgot about electric fields at the sun's surface, then we obviously missed the dethermalization effect that goes with it. Now, as you can see, there was a cascade effect. If we didn't know the sun was charged at the surface, then we didn't know about the temperature either. And we DID get some crazy ideas about how the sun's temperature changed with radius.

We also didn't know about how current filaments in space would obey that Bessel function, with magnetic fields that changed direction with radius. So, that too, forced us to very wrong conclusions about magnetic field strength. Now I'm sure you DO know about Faraday rotation, and how magnetic fields are measured in space. But as you know, a changing magnetic field on any sightline (towards and away on the same sightline), does cancel in the Faraday rotation measurements.

So now, it gets worse. If we "forgot" the electric fields that we knew about in the 1920's, didn't allow for the dethermalization from those fields (meaning our temperature measurements were off),missed the magnetic fields because they changed direction and "cancelled" in the Faraday rotation measurements, then you start to see why we were left with the gravity only model. If we forgot the electric fields, and still can't see the magnetic fields, it WAS a good guess that we needed dark matter. But still.....

Here is where we should have caught the error (and where I'll jump in):
Let's look at our "fudge factors", in the gravity only model. We have dark matter, which is our diffuse source of gravitational attraction. We have black holes, which is the compact source of gravitational attraction. We have dark energy, which is the diffuse source of expansion. And to round out the set , we have quasars, which are the effective point sources of energy. You know this picture.
So here is what we should have asked: Are there situations where we have faster rotation than can be explained by the amount of "baryonic matter" present, but where a "black hole" is too compact, or dark matter too diffuse? If we can, that means the the dichotomy between black holes and dark matter isn't real, and this spectrum of rotation must be caused by another force. To make that clearer, we "knew" there was a black hole in the center of our galaxy, and the rotation of stars near G.C. could supposedly be explained by that hole. On the other hand, we have galactic rotation, which could supposedly be explained by a dark matter halo. But what about objects like Gould's Belt, where neither dark matter nor a black hole would work?
Here is the problem, (and I'll speak as my mainstream education would dictate): We are surrounded by a ring of stars, which seems to be rotating as a ring, all around us. There can not be a black hole at the center of that ring, or we would know it by the sun's motion (we are inside that ring of stars). But we can't have dark matter out there around the ring, since we've already ruled out any significant dark matter being in the solar neighborhood, (galactic rotation curve for the Milky Way gives us only a few solar masses per cubic parsec near the sun). Do you see the problem? It is not a matter of solving a rotation structure on any individual scale. We can solve any rotation problem we wish, by throwing in some dark matter or black hole wherever we need. The problem comes when we want to solve rotation issues across scales. Again, We can't throw matter into a region of space, to solve for local dynamics, and take it back out to solve for larger scale dynamics. That is the issue with gravity, and it shouldn't have been the EU people that pointed that out to us.
So, while Michael and others here may focus on how we may solve these problems by including electricity and magnetism, I know you are not ready to hear that. I will be happy if I can convince you that the gravity only model is completely untenable. THEN maybe you'll be open to what they have to say.
Last edited by celeste on Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:38 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:Haha anthropomorphic?


Ok, smartass ... it's late here ... anthropogenic. Now deny that you believe in it.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:06 pm

Higgsy wrote:No it isn't. There is no evidence that there is non-uniformity in the halo, nor is there evidence of organised high-speed flows, by which I mean ....


Ah, the infamous disclaimer. :)

currents that would result in pinches that would make higher density threads in the halo.


The 2.5 million degree temperature difference between the "gas" halo they found this year and the 'plasma' halo they found in 2012 would imply the existence of currents, particularly in an EU/PC cosmology model. Let me guess, you think that supernova smoothly spread themselves out in that halo? Even the velocity of the particle and that fact it's charged make each particle a form of moving "current" traveling in a vectored direction.

Man, you make bizarre self-conflicted arguments without really even thinking about the implications of your own statements! How is that high velocity, highly ionized, highly charged moving particle *not* a form of current?

All the evidence, including in your links below is that the halo is co-rotating or under-co-rotating with the galaxy as a uniform neutral plasma.


Oh, you assumed it is neutral? That's your problem right there. All that plasma is a "current carrying' plasma. It's million degree temperature also implies that the charged particles are moving hella-fast and heated by current. You can't keep treating high velocity charged particles like neutral gas particles. Even the increased ionization state has an influence of it's interactions with photons (induced deexcitation) and other charged particles.

Doubling down on ignorance.


Yes, apparently you are. :)

If you had a cursory understanding of any sort of physics, you'd realise that the ionisation state of a plasma is a consequence of its temperature - it doesn't provide an ionisation temperature separate from the temperature as defined by the mean kinetic energy of its constituents.


Now you're just building strawman arguments out of my statements, since I didn't state that the ionization state wasn't a consequence of its temperature. Your beliefs are self conflicted however. *If* (I didn't say it actually works that way in the real universe) an ion isn't moving at all, but it does have high ionization state, it would in fact still have a residual internal kinetic energy "temperature" state which will decrease over time and emit additional photons in the process. There is an inherent energy state difference, and a photon emission potential difference between a stationary ion at a low ionization state vs. a high ionization state. Of course the temperature determines the ionization state, but the ionization state itself is form of higher temperature, or lower temperature which can change as result of induced excitation/de-excitation. It doesn't even have to interact with other charged particles, it could interact with photons and change energy states.

I simply pointed out that your You are absolutely ignorant about even the most elementary physics. Even after I schooled you, you are just doubling down on your ignorance. Unteachable.


Oh the irony.

Yes, physicists sometimes refer to plasmas as hot or cold depending on their degree of ionisation.


Indeed. Case closed. Now for your infamous "disclaimers".....

But the degree of ionisation is a consequence of the temperature of the plasma according to the Saha equation;


When did I state otherwise?

the degree of ionisation doesn't constitute a temperature seprarate from the temperature defined by the kinetic energy of the particles.


The ionization state is a part of the total kinetic energy state of the particle!

This is a matter of definition and you are absolutely and embarassingly wrong.


No, I'm not wrong. The ionization state the ion is also a form of kinetic energy which changes over time. A highly ionized 'stationary' particle would still "cool off" by emitting photons.

The cooling relationships that you are dismissing have been fully accepted physics for decades.


I don't think you really grasp the implications of "rejecting" mainstream theory in favor of EU/PC theory. Your dark energy mathematical models have been "accepted (meta)physics" for more than a decade. Inflation mathematical models have been accepted (meta) physics" for *several* decades, and exotic matter models have been around for decades too. I don't have any problem rejecting or dismissing your computer models your mathematical models when they fail to include the EM field influences which you routinely ignore. What's so hard to understand about me rejecting your flawed models when they treat plasma like a 'gas'?

These are not something I have just invented.


Not you personally of course, but they were invented without respect to the electric fields that permeate spacetime. The fact that inflation theory has been around for decades and you didn't write it doesn't mean I'm personally obligated to embrace inflation theory either. Get the idea?

We are talking about a very diffuse plasma at a temperature over 150eV whereas the ionisation energies of hydrogen and helium are 13.6, 24.6 and 54.4eV so the hydrogen and helium will be fully ionised.


How about elements like Oxygen and Iron and Nickel and other elements? Did any of your models include influences like Bremsstrahlung (free/free radiation)? It's hard to know since you refuse to ever cite your sources.

If you think that the electrons and ions will readily interact in a plasma of this density why don't you work out the collision cross-section of a proton with an electron and calculate the mean free path and mean time between collisions for a plasma of this density and temperature? Put your sums where your intuition has misled you. You won't, because, as I have learned, you'll do anything other than quantify your bogus ideas.


If *I* felt like it might present some type of real problem for the EU/PC cosmology model, I might bother. Since you're the one who is doing all the handwaving, why would I do your mathematical bidding when you won't even bother to cite any references for me and you simply handwave all your arguments at me without so much as a published source? Which specific published paper cites that specific 1-2.5 million degree plasma halo and describes it's temperature loss over time? Wait, let me guess? You're going to ignore my request for a published support of your claim again?

But the main point of this post is that you have doubled down on ignorance. After I schooled you about the definition of temperature in gas or plasma, you didn't learn your lesson, but came back with an ignorant tale about how "the ionization state of the ion also determines it's 'temperature'".


Despite your egotistical boasting, you haven't "schooled" me on anything. You've mostly been ignoring the different kinetic energy states of highly ionized ions vs. less ionized ions. In terms of their ability to "cool off' by photon emission, they don't have the same energy state even if they have the same velocity.

Since you can never admit you're wrong, you'll never learn anything worth knowing. And you are wrong. Completely wrong. SEVENTEEN orders of magnitude wrong.


I've admitted to being wrong plenty of times in my life and I'm sure I'll do so again many times in my future, but before I can admit to being wrong you'll first have to demonstrate that I'm actually wrong. All I've seen from you are mostly handwaves and no published study of the cooling potential of that recently discovered halo to even support your claim. You're becoming infamous in terms of your complete lack of external references.

How can you know that the halo is question doesn't experience any cooling due to cyclotron/synchrotron radiation or due to other factors which you simply overlooked?

You're just ignorantly treating current carrying plasma like a neutral gas and insisting that I have wallow around in that same state of ignorance with you. Sorry, no can do. Wake me up when you can demonstrate your claims with real laboratory physics. None of your claims *ever* work in the lab and you always have excuses as to why I should just 'trust' you guys.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

A question for the folks with physics degrees

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:16 am

Does it bother or worry you that in spite of your physics degrees involving the study of electromagnetism, plasma physics and gravity theory that you're reduced to using 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the universe? Does it bother you or concern you that you can't even name a single source of 'dark energy', yet it makes up close to 70 percent of your entire cosmological belief system? Does it ever concern you that your belief in exotic forms of matter are utterly unsupported in the lab after spending billions of dollars trying to support them? Does it concern you that the standard particle physics model has been so accurate in terms of it's predictions in the lab? Does it bother you that electric fields aren't used in astronomy today? Does it ever concern you that inelastic scattering is a *known and empirically demonstrated cause* of photon redshift whereas "space expansion" is doomed to always remain an "act of faith" from the standpoint of empirically demonstrating cause/effect relationships?

Do any of those things ever give you pause and make you wonder if you aren't just on the wrong track theoretically speaking?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:55 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:A highly ionized 'stationary' particle would still "cool off" by emitting photons.

Please show how you think an isolated electron can emit a photon.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest