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 Higgsy » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:08 pm

BeAChooser wrote:
LOL! I finally got a response. But seriously, Higgsy? THIS is going to be your tactic? To deny that everywhere we turn out there we encounter helically wound plasma filaments? Seriously? LOL! You really are *old school*. I thought that tactic went out the window after the Herschel Observatory went up and found them literally everywhere.

SNIP

Now, you want to go on claiming that filaments are not ubiquitous?


Note the goalpost creep from the ubiquity of helically wound plasma filaments to the ubiquity of filaments. One has not been demonstrated especially by you from a tiny handful of eyeballed piccies (including piccies which are obviously not of helically wound filaments), and the other is accepted by everyone.

And as far as the ubiquity of filaments at all scales up to 100Mpc goes, I just say Millenium Run.
Last edited by Higgsy on Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

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

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:12 pm

celeste, in your view, what specific claims does EU make that conventional physics disagrees with that you think EU gets right?
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 Higgsy » Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:21 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Higgsy wrote:... that the dominant force in structure formation is electromagnetic.

This is pure bullshit.
A force does not need to be larger to have a major effect.

If you are saying that electromagnetic effects in plasma might have an influence on structure formation on relatively small scales (within galaxies), I don't have a problem with that. If someone claims that the dominant force in structure formation, particularly at large scales, is electromagnetic, I say rubbish.
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 Jul 31, 2017 10:23 pm

Higgsy wrote:Note the goalpost creep from the ubiquity of helically wound plasma filaments to the ubiquity of filaments.


If you recall, I wrote that helically wound filaments “seem almost ubiquitous”. I still stand by that because I’ve offered example after example after example, so far, and you’ve yet to offer anything to prove me wrong. For example, this source (https://phys.org/news/2013-11-stars-bor ... weigh.html ) contains an image of the L1641 clouds in Orion A:

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net ... orninf.png

Expand that image and you can see helically wound filaments distributed throughout it. And other scientific articles on this cloud confirm that the filaments in these clouds are helically wound. For example, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... lback=true “Evidence for a rotating helical filament in L1641, part of the Orion cloud complex”. And that article states that “our viral analysis infers that the magnetic field in at least several filamentary clouds is probably helical and toroidally dominated.” And this cloud is by no means unique. Here, for example, is a helical filament in cloud L1251: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2 ... 83-15.html “A rotating helical filament in the L1251 dark cloud”. Everywhere they turn, they are finding helically wound filaments. Here’s a 2017 paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.04713.pdf ) on structures which they call molecular “tornadoes”. They start off the paper saying “Recent observations near the Galactic Center (GC) have found several molecular filaments displaying striking helically wound morphology that are collectively known as molecular tornadoes”.” Amazingly, they don’t mention the word “plasma” even once, even though the material comprising these structures is clearly plasma. Tell us, Higgsy, do you understand the phrase “Garbage In, Garbage Out”?

Also, Higgsy, you apparently didn’t actually bother to look at the presentation about the Herschel results that I linked you earlier. If you had, then you’d know that they did note helical winding as being VERY common … they just didn’t use that specific term. But what do you think they were talking about in a presentation (http://herschel.esac.esa.int/SFaxz2014/ ... HacarA.pdf ) titled “Understanding the internal substructure of Herschel filaments” where the cover page of the presentation clearly shows helically wound wiring as a representation of a filament? Hmmmmmm? Did you miss the statement that “filaments are not ‘monolithic objects’ but complex bundles of fibers”? And mind you, Higgsy, that's a report/presentation coming from people like yourself who are trying studiously to ignore the helical wound geometry of the filaments they are studying because that would cause problems for their gravity/shock only models. They talk solely about “gas” when they in fact are dealing with plasmas. It’s a huge mistake in terms of modeling and understanding. How big a mistake? Well this article might give our readers an idea: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.02132.pdf . No mention of the helical shapes in those photos I linked. Not one mention of plasma. And no mention of electromagnetism. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Higgsy wrote:And as far as the ubiquity of filaments at all scales up to 100Mpc goes, I just say Millenium Run.


Yeah … you can call forth a calculation (LOL!) based on the God of Gnomes (:rolleyes:), but you are clearly not able to explain how gravity and shock create the many helically wound filaments that I showed you … or you would have. Why is that, Higgsy? You led us to believe that a degree in physics means you can explain everything with gravity and shock. :D
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

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

Unread postby BeAChooser » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:15 pm

Higgsy wrote:If you are saying that electromagnetic effects in plasma might have an influence on structure formation on relatively small scales (within galaxies), I don't have a problem with that. If someone claims that the dominant force in structure formation, particularly at large scales, is electromagnetic, I say rubbish.


:lol: But Higgsy is perfectly ok with believing that a half dozen magical gnomes (or more) ... not one of which has been proven to exist ... explain the structure ... just because it was priests called "physicists" who dreamed them up and preach their wonderous properties. :roll:
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

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

Unread postby Maol » Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:47 am

I wish you guys weren't so harsh. Dont break anybody's spirit because I want to see some of the mathematical proofs referred to earlier in this thread. Show us the calculations. Some of us have those fancy scientific calculators with the funny buttons with the little squiggles and Pi and everything.
Maol
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Unread postby BeAChooser » Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:49 am

Maol wrote:Some of us have those fancy scientific calculators with the funny buttons with the little squiggles and Pi and everything.


8-)
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

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

Unread postby Maol » Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:08 am

Are we going to see the math, or just hear about it?
Maol
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:48 am

Maol wrote:Are we going to see the math, or just hear about it?


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16784#p120541

If you want to see the math, open up your eyes. You'll actually have to read the materials that are cited in that link if you wish to stop living in pure denial of the existence of what you asked for.

For the record, Alfven wrote over 100 papers, and a book on this topic, and I've yet to see any of you hot shots find a single flaw in any of his mathematical models, not even one in 12 years. I've also never seen anyone point out any mathematical errors in any of Peratt's papers, his computer models or his book either. Do you folks just bury your head in the sand or what?

The mainstream's complete ignorance of EU/PC theory knows no bounds apparently.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby BeAChooser » Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:56 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Maol wrote:Are we going to see the math, or just hear about it?


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16784#p120541

If you want to see the math, open up your eyes. You'll actually have to read the materials that are cited in that link if you wish to stop living in pure denial of the existence of what you asked for.


Michael, based on his past posts, I suspect Maol is actually on our side in this debate ... and is yanking Higgsy's chain.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

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

Unread postby celeste » Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:27 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:celeste, in your view, what specific claims does EU make that conventional physics disagrees with that you think EU gets right?

Bob, What got me hooked was being able map motions across scales (spiral arms,stars streams,solar system orbits,etc).
You are of course familiar with the distributions of dark matter required to solve these problems? As a quick dabbling (and I'll try to keep it to theories of the last decade or so), we have halos of dark matter used to explain galactic rotation curves. We have galaxies ejected by collision from their halos. We have strings of dark matter connecting galaxies,with light bending around the strings. We have clumps of dark matter passing through the galactic plane to form structures like the Local Chimney. We have a distribution of dark matter in the sun's neighborhood, that explains the rotation od Gould Belt stars. I could go on.
The problem here for me, was not any of the individual theories. The problem comes from putting the ideas together. If dark matter is in nearly spherical halos outside around galaxies,and galaxies can be ejected from these halos, how does that fit with the strings of dark matter connecting and running through galaxies. If we had a clump of dark matter passing through the galaxy to form the Local Chimney,then how does that fit with the distribution of dark matter that keeps Gould's Belt stars at least weakly bound. And how do either of those ideas (clumps of dark matter passing through the galaxy in the sun's neighborhood to form a chimney or a ring of dark matter still there to explain Gould's Belt rotation), fit with the idea that there is no significant dark matter in the sun's neighborhood (a few solar masses per cubic parsec, in order to explain galactic rotation).Even more so when these "chimneys" appear in other galaxies, also inside the radius where there should be no significant dark matter.

So yes, I am over the dark matter idea, unless you want to give it one more special property: Not only is it nearly undetectable except by its gravitational pull on baryonic matter, but it must also have the property of both being in and not being in the same volume of space, depending on the particular problem we are trying to solve. I was unable to posit such a quality for dark matter.
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 Maol » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:06 pm

Gentlemen, in preaching to the choir I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear I was throwing a tease to the gentleman touting a "Physics Degree" and claiming EU theory lacks mathematical proofs. I want him to show his math he purports will prove EU theory is bunk. Put up ....... or ...
Maol
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

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

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:20 pm

celeste, how do you propose galaxy rotation curves are solved by EU?
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 Aardwolf » Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:49 am

Bob_Ham wrote:celeste, how do you propose galaxy rotation curves are solved by EU?
No need. Galaxies don't rotate.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:21 am

Aardwolf wrote:No need. Galaxies don't rotate.

Hahahaha what?!?! So how do you explain the measured Doppler effects?
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: jimmcginn and 4 guests