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 Aardwolf » Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:15 am

Higgsy wrote:
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?
I'm not confused. I know exactly how the standard model behaves. This is why astronomers get confused that Andromeda has accelerating edges, that galaxies like NGC 4622 counter rotate, in addition to dark matter requirements and winding problems. I know what it predicts and the resulting absurdities it observes and roundly reject it.

All these problems go away if you accept that stars/binaries/clusters are ultimately ejected form the centre and are likely to be accelerating away in the process.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:06 am

Oh.

We are now solving the mainstream unsolved problem of galaxy rotations.

Why didn't we start another thread.

I always wondered what the mass-distribution would be in a dark-matter model.
All those that I found never work in practice nor fit the actual observations.

Let me add some possible electrical models:
1) the halo is charged.
2) the galaxy centre is electrically charged or magnetic.
3) the main stars in the galaxy are connected with Birkeland currents
4) the plasma causes some extra redshifts due to plasma-redshift
5) the clock-speed of the galaxies is misinterpreted due to plasma-redshift

Isn't physics fun?
See: you can find real answers without using invisible unicorns :)
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

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

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:56 am

Aardwolf wrote:Yes it does.

Lol! Look where the observer is located in the drawing I provided for you. How do you propose the observer can be located in the same plane as the galaxy (and thus see it edge-on), but the data he or she gets is from above the galaxy?

Aardwolf wrote: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?

When you actually understand what I'm trying to explain to you, this won't need to be addressed. You are asking me to explain something that isn't even a problem. You only think it's a problem because you think the data I've shown you is a top view of a galaxy. Like I said, the observer is looking at the galaxy edge-on.

Maybe these pictures will help you see what I'm talking about:

rotation_model.jpg

This is the data one would get viewing the galactic disk edge-on if the disk is spinning. It matches the data. I have placed the data along the observer's line of sight so that you can how the data is recorded (it has to be recorded by the observer, not from above the galaxy, which would be some completely different part of the universe). Everything is in the plane of the page here, including the observer. The top view I'm showing is just to better illustrate to you what is going on.

This is your proposed model:

stupid_model.jpg

Again, this is not at all what we see. Your model doesn't match observation.
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 » Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:39 am

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!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... speed.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07734

Have you been living under a rock or what? Notice how the whole plasma halo is rotating like the rest of the galaxy?

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:
...
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.

Complete vs. incomplete_ionization

You're totally full of it! The last time someone claimed they were going to 'school' me on the topic of plasma physics, RC was claiming that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, and RC and Clinger were claiming that "magnetic reconnection" was a plasma optional process! You guys are completely *clueless* about plasma physics. You don't even know as much about it as you might get from 10 minutes of reading a *WIKI* page!

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.

RC and Clinger put their own feet in their mouths so many times on the topic of plasma, I finally had to break down and ask them if they had ever actually read a textbook on the topic of MHD theory. Of course neither of them had done so, yet they considered themselves to be great experts on the topic of plasma physics. The whole hater posse over at JREF/ISF failed to correct any of their clueless nonsense. To this *day*, six years later, neither of them, or anyone from JREF/ISF has produced their mythical math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in a vacuum without plasma as promised. I'm not holding my breath either. You guys are totally clueless when it comes to plasma physics.

Let's just ask now if anyone in this thread who holds a physics degree has ever read a textbook on MHD theory? Which of you has read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven? Which of you has sat down and read Birkeland's own writings for yourselves?

I really am always amused when someone tries to "school" me about plasma when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about. It's simply hysterical.
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 Aardwolf » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:08 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Yes it does.

Lol! Look where the observer is located in the drawing I provided for you. How do you propose the observer can be located in the same plane as the galaxy (and thus see it edge-on), but the data he or she gets is from above the galaxy?
I’m not stating the observer is in the same plane. You don’t need to be in the same plane for blueshift/redshift expansion effects. This is what we see;
Galaxy Angle.jpg
Galaxy Angle.jpg (9.32 KiB) Viewed 758 times

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: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?

When you actually understand what I'm trying to explain to you, this won't need to be addressed. You are asking me to explain something that isn't even a problem. You only think it's a problem because you think the data I've shown you is a top view of a galaxy. Like I said, the observer is looking at the galaxy edge-on.
The observer you discuss theoretically might be looking edge on but you haven't provided any data edge on and no I don't think it's top down. The data you provided is at an angle and at that angle we can observe the centre, and the central area should not have a lower velocity than the outer area. It’s a problem with your model. Explain why the centre rotates slower. You can’t.

Bob_Ham wrote:Maybe these pictures will help you see what I'm talking about:

The attachment rotation_model.jpg is no longer available

This is the data one would get viewing the galactic disk edge-on if the disk is spinning. It matches the data. I have placed the data along the observer's line of sight so that you can how the data is recorded (it has to be recorded by the observer, not from above the galaxy, which would be some completely different part of the universe). Everything is in the plane of the page here, including the observer. The top view I'm showing is just to better illustrate to you what is going on.

This is your proposed model:

The attachment stupid_model.jpg is no longer available

Again, this is not at all what we see. Your model doesn't match observation.
You haven't provided any data for an edge on galaxy so this is all just wishful thinking on your part.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:43 am

Zyxzevn wrote:Isn't physics fun?
See: you can find real answers without using invisible unicorns :)


But they don't want real empirical answers from real empirical physics. They love their invisible magic unicorns. They are professionally, emotionally and financially attached to their invisible unicorns.

After Higgsy's last couple of clueless posts, I'm starting to think that neither one of our "physics degree" professionals has even read a textbook on MHD theory, let alone Cosmic Plasma or has any understanding of how circuit theory can be applied to plasma. I haven't heard Bob stick his foot in his mouth yet, so maybe there's hope for Bob, but clearly Higgsy doesn't have a clue about plasma physics.
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 » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:00 am

Aardwolf wrote:I’m not stating the observer is in the same plane. You don’t need to be in the same plane for blueshift/redshift expansion effects.

You don't need to be in the same plane for redshift/blueshift rotation effects either. I was showing you the simplest possible case because it was easier to illustrate.

Aardwolf wrote:This is what we see;
The attachment Galaxy Angle.jpg is no longer available

According to what you're suggesting, the data should always be aligned with our line of sight such that the front edge of any spiral galaxy (with top pointing upward and bottom pointing downward) will always be blueshifted, the back edge will always be redshifted, and there will always be a horizontal line of zero relative velocity through the middle. Any data showing the left (or right) edge redshifted and the right (or left) edge blueshifted with a vertical line of zero relative velocity through the middle would not be possible in your model (but is predicted by a rotation model).

Here is some more data for you:

rotation_data.jpg

Look at the third image from the left. This is a spiral galaxy. The velocity data (second row) matches a rotation model, not an expansion model.
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 Zyxzevn » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:36 am

Bob_Ham wrote:Here is some more data for you:
..

Lovely pictures, they show a lot.

I do not think this is the raw data.
What data-manipulation has been performed on them?

The images seem to debunk the common mainstream theory of galaxy-rotation already.
The rotation of the ellipses is certainly not visible. See:
Image
But I do not think any serious scientist would consider that theory anyway.

The pictures only show the inside of the galaxies, not the outside.
I understood that the rotation curve is flat on the outside too. So we are
missing some essential data here.

Within the main galaxy rotation, there are also rotations around the main stars, and around
those stars again. The sun for example rotates around a star and makes an up and down movement
(relative to galactic plane) around the galaxy.
This spiral-in-spiral rotation is partially visible in the 3rd picture.
In here we see the spiral arms having slightly different speeds.
Anyway, for any theory, it would be really interesting to see what rotates around what.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

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

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:54 am

Michael Mozina wrote:.. clue about plasma physics.


Plasma is very hard.
That is why it many scientists just oversimplified it,
and create models with errors.

Plasma is a substance that reacts to electromagnetic fields and also
creates electromagnetic fields.
The matter that we commonly work with are solids, liquids and gasses.
They are simple, because they do not react so much.
In plasma each reaction is like an electric circuit indeed, and this
is hard for people that do not understand circuits.

In the real world all components have influence on each other. Like
in a car. Or in a tall building. If you miss a part of the building,
your building may collapse.
You can not model circuits and structures with simple maths, you have to
take the full structure.

In plasma you can have a current flowing from one end to the other,
like in a plasma globe.
When new charge arrives at the centre, this will follow the same
circuit that was already there, because it has more charged particles
in it.

This works different from a normal theoretical physical system where
at any moment, the state of the system does not matter.
In gravity everything just falls down. That is all.
It is very easy to understand.
It is so simple that it is often wrong too.

In plasma everything is depending on each other.

That is the real world. Dependency makes everything much more difficult.
Just like in relationships: it is much easier if the other would not exist.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

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

Unread postby BeAChooser » Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:46 am

Michael Mozina wrote:But they don't want real empirical answers from real empirical physics. They love their invisible magic unicorns. They are professionally, emotionally and financially attached to their invisible unicorns.


What they practice isn't physics but a cult like religion.

As I've pointed out in the past, modern day astrophysics has all the characteristics of a cult.

For example ...

**********
 
1) Cults pretend to possess indisputable truths about the past, present, and future. Aren’t Big Bang proponents claiming to possess indisputable truths about the past, present and future?  Down to the minutest detail?  Even into the state of the universe billions of years past and future?
 
2) Cults stubbornly refuse to debate their dogma, calling it “settled science” (in this case) and viciously attacking critics. Getting cult member to actually debate is well nigh impossible.

3) Cults have a formal doctrine-setting body … in this case the mainstream physicist priesthood and bodies like NASA. Cult followers regularly appeal to their authority to justify their beliefs in the dogma.
 
4) Cults have a priest class. Cult members sincerely believe that only members of the priest class are capable of understanding and seriously discussing the cult doctrine. That’s exactly the situation with regards to Big Bang cosmology.  Higgsy and Bob are a case in point. Big Bang proponents believe only astrophysicists are capable of understanding what we see out there in the universe.   Electrical engineers and plasma scientists need not apply.  And the astrophysicists the mainstream cites regarding plasma and magnetic fields are completely disconnected from the eminent scientists who founded those disciplines.   All those who speak out against cults are attacked or defamed. Such is the situation with regards to those opposing the Big Bang gnomes.
 
5) Scientific cults appear to worship idols ... in this case, computer models that the priesthood have built based on cult doctrine. With respect to Big Bang, Black Hole, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc cosmology, computer models are the only thing *degreed physicists* have.  Observations haven't proven a thing nor corroborated their computer models.  
 
6) Scientific cults deny, ignore, or distort elementary scientific facts, some of which should be known even to kids. How is constantly calling what’s out there "gas" and not "plasma" anything but denying, ignoring and distorting elementary scientific fact, which should be known to even kids?  Don't the school texts tell children that the universe is 99.999% plasma?   Yes, they do.
 
7) Cults often appeal to medieval science errors. Isn’t there something medieval about scientists insisting the universe had a beginning?   After all, the Church, one of the biggest institutions to come out of the medieval period, is a big supporter of the Big Bang theory because it too believes in a moment of creation rather than continuous creation and no end either way to the universe.  It’s even formally endorsed Big Bang.
 
8) Cults create and spread mythology, sometimes intentionally modeled on archaic misbeliefs that many member attribute to their religion. Aren’t all the gnomes of Big Bang cosmology (inflation, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, frozen magnetic fields, etc, etc, etc) essentially mythologies that have been created out of whole cloth much like demons and angels?
 
9) Like an established religion, the Big Bang cult posits a beginning to time. Absolute belief in this is of paramount importance to the cult.  Isn’t the start date for the Big Bang cult, when instruments recorded objects whose interpreted motions and distances  seemed to suggest an origin back in the distant past ... some 13.8 billion years ago ... in a single point, more important to Big Bangers than almost anything else?
 
10) Cult are almost always eschatological … believing in calamities, catastrophes, and the end of the world. Big Bang cosmologists have some people fearing the creation of black holes in their super colliders.  Others fear the creation of a new universe in those same machines.  And then inherent in the Big Bang Theory is the ultimate death of the universe … either the Big Crunch or the Big Freeze.  What could be more "eschatological"? Except perhaps the belief that Dark Matter spells humanities doom (see http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/8 ... rgy-survey ).
 
11) The Big Bang cult calls its dogma “science” but fails to make any scientific (i.e., non-trivial and testable) statements. This is because when cultists make testable statements, they often can be proven to be incorrect.  So the Big Bang cult calls its dogma science but fails to make any scientific (i.e., non-trivial and testable) statements. Instead, it's accolates just declare “Big Bang is real”, a trivial statement. The statements about string theory are not practically testable. The claims about dark matter are ultimately untestable given the *substances* claimed properties.
 
12) Cults try to seek and exert control over governments.  Big Bang cosmologists certainly have sought to do that.   How else have they gotten the governments of the world to shell out the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars that have gone into costly instrument after costly instrument … all seeking to prove the existence of the countless gnomes that the astrophysicists have created out of whole cloth?
 
See what I mean?

Michael Mozina wrote:I haven't heard Bob stick his foot in his mouth yet, so maybe there's hope for Bob, but clearly Higgsy doesn't have a clue about plasma physics.


He’s said of plenty of stupid stuff, Michael and is now in running mode … focusing on Aaadwolf's hypothesis rather than deal with ANYTHING we are now discussing from the original conversation. I can’t get him to respond to a single post I’ve made recently, yet he’s the one who caused my involvement in this debate with the statement “If you can't even answer simple questions about a model, then you shouldn't be putting it forward as a possible explanation.” Ironic, huh? :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 » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:22 pm

So, Aardwolf, are you just not going to reply anymore now that it's clear you're wrong?
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 » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:05 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:So, Aardwolf, are you just not going to reply anymore now that it's clear you're wrong?


So, Bob, when are you going to reply to my many queries?

Or are you going to continue running because you know you're wrong?

:)
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 7:29 am

BeAChooser wrote:So, Bob, when are you going to reply to my many queries?

You keep asking me to reply to you, but I've gone all the way back to your first comment in this thread and you're just asking Higgsy about filaments. Maybe you're confusing me with Higgsy? I haven't made any claims about filaments, so I don't know how I could be wrong about the subject. You've been following me around in multiple different threads, trolling me about filaments when I haven't even said anything about them. Please find out who you're confusing me with and take it up with them (it appears to be Higgsy).
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 5:41 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:
BeAChooser wrote:So, Bob, when are you going to reply to my many queries?

You keep asking me to reply to you, but I've gone all the way back to your first comment in this thread and you're just asking Higgsy about filaments. Maybe you're confusing me with Higgsy? I haven't made any claims about filaments, so I don't know how I could be wrong about the subject.


Bob, I first raised the topic here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16781&p=120502#p120503

when you wrote

Bob_Ham wrote:If you can't even answer simple questions about a model, then you shouldn't be putting it forward as a possible explanation.


So I asked you a question about helically wound filaments.

Indeed, I asked you before asking Higgsy.

Which you just ignored.

The fact that you’ve said nothing about filaments appears to me to speak volumes.

It’s you avoiding the issue.

But why would a self-proclaimed *degreed* expert do that, ...

... unless the facts surrounding filaments just don't support you view of things?

Hmmmmm?

Besides, it seems to me you invited questions on ANY significant topic when you announced

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16786&p=120571#p120560

If you have a physics degree, please comment whether or not you accept EU.


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

Just saying I see a pattern here. :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 7:32 pm

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

To be honest, I haven't been back in that thread since you posted there, so I never saw it. I see it now, so I'll reply 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.

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?
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 2 guests