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 Michael Mozina » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:31 am

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

Where were you when I schooled Mozina on the physics of cooling in plasmas, and showed that his claim that the hot plasma halo around the galaxy would cool in "hours or days" was wrong by about ten orders of magnitude?


Where was I and when was that? You "schooled" me in the lab, or you "schooled" me as it relates to your own *unsupported assumptions*?

Let's see you produce and keep any plasma in a lab at a million degrees for even an hour without adding energy to the system, and then you can claim to have 'schooled' me about empirical physics rather than "schooled" me about your irrational dogma.
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 Higgsy » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:48 am

BeAChooser wrote:
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.

You have offered a tiny handful of examples, some of which are patently wrong (like part of the shocked shell of a planetary nebula) 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.

Doing physics by eyeballing random photographs is not how physics is actually done. When you can take those pictures and demonstrate that they really are what you claim them to be by measuring or linking to measurements of particle flow velocities, current densities, magnetic field strengths, number densities, temperatures, composition, energy sources and so on come back and we can talk. In the meantime posting these small number of random photos and claiming that they prove your point is no more compelling than eyeballing photographs of comets and claiming they are made of rock.

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, nor that the structure of the universe is dominated or even significantly affected by electromagnetic effects.
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.
That's right. 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.

Electomagnetic effects are fundamental to this model by the way, as it depends on the different effects felt by dark matter and ordinary matter.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

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

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:51 am

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

Where were you when I schooled Mozina on the physics of cooling in plasmas, and showed that his claim that the hot plasma halo around the galaxy would cool in "hours or days" was wrong by about ten orders of magnitude?


Where was I and when was that? You "schooled" me in the lab, or you "schooled" me as it relates to your own *unsupported assumptions*?

Let's see you produce and keep any plasma in a lab at a million degrees for even an hour without adding energy to the system, and then you can claim to have 'schooled' me about empirical physics rather than "schooled" me about your irrational dogma.

That answer is a perfect demonstration of your abject and incorrigible ignorance. If you don't know why a plasma in the lab can't be kept at a million degrees without energy input while the diffuse hot plasma halo can, after all of my quantified and careful explanations of the cooling processes and rates, then you are indeed unteachable.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:17 pm

Higgsy wrote:That answer is a perfect demonstration of your abject and incorrigible ignorance. If you don't know why a plasma in the lab can't be kept at a million degrees without energy input while the diffuse hot plasma halo can, after all of my quantified and careful explanations of the cooling processes and rates, then you are indeed unteachable.


The problem Higgsy is that you are *not* basing your "dogma" on anything you actually measured or "know". You're basically whipping up a number that may or may not apply to actual conditions in space, and your answer depends on the *density* figures used which is the very thing we're debating with respect to "dark matter" vs. plasma/gas! Your numbers are FUBAR IMO because they are based on unrealistic assumptions related to density and collision probability, and unrealistic thermodynamic assumptions galore.
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 Michael Mozina » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:41 pm

Higgsy wrote:You have offered a tiny handful of examples, some of which are patently wrong (like part of the shocked shell of a planetary nebula) 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.


This is why you guys have no credibility whatsoever. Plasma is *known* to scale up and down the spectrum very well, and Birkeland currents, along with their helical features have been observed at every scale, including the largest scales possible. You make up ridiculous names for them, like a "magnetic slinky", a "magnetic portal", a magnetic rope, Steve, and stupid terms that are utterly absurd. You can't even recognize a Birkeland current when you see one. You accuse other of "pareiodoia" when it's irrational to do so because field aligned currents generate those filaments *in the lab*. Claiming they form *without* current is *pure BS*!

Doing physics by eyeballing random photographs is not how physics is actually done.


True. Real physics is actually done like this:

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

On the other hand, you folks engage in pure "pseudoscience" to explain the same observations and you *refuse* to do any laborary demonstrations of your claims. When did the mainstream ever produce a full sphere hot corona based on "magnetic reconnection"? How about that strahl and that solar wind?

When you can take those pictures and demonstrate that they really are what you claim them to be by measuring or linking to measurements of particle flow velocities, current densities, magnetic field strengths, number densities, temperatures, composition, energy sources and so on come back and we can talk.


What's there to "talk about" when you call them "Steve" right here in the Earth atmosphere? You should *at least* be able to recognize a Birkeland current on Earth for God sake!

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,


You mean you admit that there's a field aligned current running through those filaments? Or do you think twisted magnetic field lines just form by magic?

but you are yet to demonstrate that such braiding is ubiquitous or near-ubiquitous at all scales,


Have you even read Peratt's work for yourself? Ignorance isn't bliss.

nor that the structure of the universe is dominated or even significantly affected by electromagnetic effects.


Baloney. Birkeland did that over a hundred years ago, and Alfven, Peratt and Lerner have provided you with all the mathematical models that you require to verify the scaling features for yourself. The fact you personally keep sticking your head in the sand isn't our collective fault, it's *yours*.

Electomagnetic effects are fundamental to this model by the way, as it depends on the different effects felt by dark matter and ordinary matter.


What "dark matter"? You have *zero* empirical laboratory evidence that exotic forms of matter even exist in the first place! Every single "attribute" you assign to "dark matter" is just "made up" starting with the invisibility component and it's presumed interactions (or lack thereof) with gravity, EM fields and photons. How can I even "test" your claims in the lab when you have no evidence that dark matter even exists, let alone have the ability to demonstrate any of the attributes you assigned to it?

Bah. Your degrees are apparently *useless* when it comes to real empirical physics since you're not even using real physics in the first place, just various different forms of *metaphysical mumbo-jumbo* to the tune of 95 percent of your model. The other five percent is mostly pseudoscience too.
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 celeste » Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:45 pm

Still awaiting either Bob's or Higgsy's response to my post,before I go on.
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 Bob_Ham » Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:43 pm

celeste wrote:The problem with the galactic rotation curves, is that we started trying to map the large scale motion, before we mapped enough of the smaller scale motions first. An analogy would be to imagine someone coming to our solar system, and trying to map the motion of all bodies, without making distinctions between planets and moons. One might get the idea that objects like Io and Europa, etc, are on more or less Keplerian elliptical orbits (they do orbit the sun at more or less the rate of Jupiter), but that they have some extra "bobbing" motion. Now you and I know that idea is crazy. Kepler's laws don't allow "bobbing motion".

Do you even know what galactic rotation curves are? It deals with the rotational velocities of stars at certain distances from the centers of galaxies, not with any "bobbing motion."

celeste wrote:Nevertheless, that's where we were on the galactic scale back when I was an undergrad.

How long ago did you get your degree?
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 Bob_Ham » Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:57 pm

Aardwolf wrote:First of all. You have no idea which way the galaxy is orientated so all of your statements above are merely assumptions.

You misunderstand what I'm saying. For any spiral galaxy that isn't face-on with respect to our line of sight, half of that galaxy will be closer to us than the other half (see here). The sides of the galaxy (from our perspective, so left and right in that image) will be either redshifted or blueshifted with respect to the rest of the galaxy, like this. According to what you're saying, the sides of the galaxy should not be redshifted or blueshifted at all relative to the rest of the galaxy, since the motions of those stars should be directly outward from the center, meaning they would only have transverse velocity, and not any radial velocity toward or away from us. Also, in your view, the stars in the middle portion of the disk nearest us should be the most blueshifted in the entire galaxy, since their velocity would be 100% radial toward us with no transverse component. If you still don't understand this after this explanation, then I don't know what to tell you. This is very simple.
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 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:13 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:First of all. You have no idea which way the galaxy is orientated so all of your statements above are merely assumptions.

You misunderstand what I'm saying. For any spiral galaxy that isn't face-on with respect to our line of sight, half of that galaxy will be closer to us than the other half (see here).
I agree. Not sure I disputed that anywhere. Both the diagrams I provided representing your view and mine had one half closer than the other. No misunderstanding there.

Bob_Ham wrote:The sides of the galaxy (from our perspective, so left and right in that image) will be either redshifted or blueshifted with respect to the rest of the galaxy, like this.
Yep. That’s exactly how I represented your view in the first image I provided. Still no misunderstanding.

Bob_Ham wrote: According to what you're saying, the sides of the galaxy should not be redshifted or blueshifted at all relative to the rest of the galaxy, since the motions of those stars should be directly outward from the center, meaning they would only have transverse velocity, and not any radial velocity toward or away from us.
What? No. I clearly showed in the second image that the tilted galaxy is half moving toward us and half away with a thinner line between each half representing transverse motion in respect of our position. The top right half mostly moves toward us, the bottom left mostly away from us. How can you see anything but that description in the image. The shadow represents a tilted galaxy. Didn’t think I would need to explain that to a physics graduate.
Galaxy Expansion.jpg
Galaxy Expansion.jpg (10.95 KiB) Viewed 573 times
f2a2.png

Bob_Ham wrote: Also, in your view, the stars in the middle portion of the disk nearest us should be the most blueshifted in the entire galaxy, since their velocity would be 100% radial toward us with no transverse component. If you still don't understand this after this explanation, then I don't know what to tell you. This is very simple.
What are you talking about. Half of the galaxy moves toward us and half away. There is no radial motion in my model because all the stars are heading directly out of the centre in a straight line. That's what the big arrows were for. Did they show you any diagrams or explain what an arrow is when you studied? It appears you’re choosing to misrepresent the diagram so you don’t have to address it.

Also you didn’t respond to the glaring error in your diagram;
Aardwolf wrote:Second, your image refutes what you have theorised. Toward the very centre of your image there are lighter blue and yellow/orange areas. This would signify at those regions the reduced blueshift/redshift equates to slower rotating stars. This is in direct contradiction of what is expected in gravitational theory. Near the centre the stars should at least be the same speed or even faster. They certainly shouldn’t be slower moving. Check the video below. Are they moving slower in the centre? I don't think so but maybe your closed mind will overrule your eyes.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGalaxy_rotation_under_the_influence_of_dark_matter.ogv
If it represented rotation it should look more like this because the stars closer to the centre should at least be moving as fast as the stars at the edge;
f2a4.png
However, as I suspected your mind may have overruled your eyes and there was merely a dark gaping void where my critique of your diagram was placed. We can only hope you spot it this time.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby BeAChooser » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:34 pm

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 … :D

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 …
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

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

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:17 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Higgsy wrote:That answer is a perfect demonstration of your abject and incorrigible ignorance. If you don't know why a plasma in the lab can't be kept at a million degrees without energy input while the diffuse hot plasma halo can, after all of my quantified and careful explanations of the cooling processes and rates, then you are indeed unteachable.


The problem Higgsy is that you are *not* basing your "dogma" on anything you actually measured or "know". You're basically whipping up a number that may or may not apply to actual conditions in space, and your answer depends on the *density* figures used which is the very thing we're debating with respect to "dark matter" vs. plasma/gas! Your numbers are FUBAR IMO because they are based on unrealistic assumptions related to density and collision probability, and unrealistic thermodynamic assumptions galore.

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.

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, 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.
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 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:30 pm

Aardwolf, you don't understand. Below is a diagram of what I'm talking about. This is a top view of the galaxy with the observer in the plane of the page looking at the galaxy nearly edge-on.

rotation_model.jpg

As you can see, the radial velocities in a rotating disk give a gradient like you see in the data I showed you:

f2a2.png

The expanding model that you're talking about does not give the observed velocity gradient:

stupid_model.jpg

Like I said, your idea does not agree with observations. If the universe worked like you believe, then the data I showed you would look completely different, with the central region the most blueshifted and the edges showing no radial velocity component.
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 » Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:49 am

Higgsy wrote:that the temperature of a gas or plasma is proportional to the mean velocity of its particles .

That would of course be proportional to mean energy or velocity squared.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

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

Unread postby Higgsy » Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:10 am

Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf, you don't understand.

Bob, maybe Aardwolf is getting confused by the fact that the line of zero relative red shift doesn't fall straight up the page?
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:36 am

Bob_Ham wrote:Like I said, your idea does not agree with observations.
Yes it does.
superior_model.jpg
f2a2.jpg

Now for the third time for you to ignore, why in your model does the inner area I have marked have slower moving stars than the outer area?
f2a2.png
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests