Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" program?

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Yep, just as I figured....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:13 am

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=137

JeanTate:

How does this make Scott any different from the thousands of other fringe/crackpot authors,


Yep Jean, just as I figured. You're completely incapable of finding any mathematical errors or physics errors in his new paper, so the first thing you do is engage in personal attacks and character assassination while hiding like a coward behind an anonymous handle. You "debate" the topic by attacking the *person* rather than the idea and by calling him a 'crackpot". EU/PC haters have no scientific ethics whatsoever as you so clearly demonstrated.

And what is your next "ploy"?

who publish in obscure or totally dodgy journals (e.g. PIP),


Since you can't find any math errors, you attack the *publication* too! Wheeeeee! In short, you're incapable of finding any mathematical errors, or physics errors, so all you can do is attack the person and/or the publication.

How sad that you simply ignore all the failed "tests" of your own models, and deny the fact that other models do exist which eliminate the need for your exotic, invisible, dark matter snipes. What's the point of throwing mathematical pearls before EU/PC hater swine anyway?

There are, historically, many a thread on ideas by such authors, here, in CQ, even in PF; for example, there’s a long-running thread here in ISF on Mills and his “hydrino”. And we even had Lerner start a thread here, on his own BB never happened ideas.


CQ? WTF? Really? That's the single most draconian board and ridiculous rule system I've ever seen in cyberspace. Most religious based websites are more open and honest, and allow for more debate than CQ. ChristianForums is more open and fair than that lame Cosmosquelch website. You folks ban everyone that posts there, and you close every thread within 30 days. CQ burns all it's heretics at the stake! Why the hell would anyone care about CQ? Physicsforums isnt' much better. They not only instantly ban everyone who posts anything related to EU/PC theory, they also ban everyone who even dares to question their dark matter dogma as I quickly discovered. Your mainstream websites aren't "special" in any way Jean.

Addressing all this fringe/crackpot stuff....


Yawn. More personal attacks, and no substance whatsoever, just as I predicted.

would take far more time than one person has, so prioritization is essential.


Right. You have plenty of time to whine in your endless EU/PC threads at ISF about how the EU/PC community isn't "working" on anything (which is a lie to start with), but when appropriate material, including the math that you asked for is handed to you on a silver platter, you 'don't have time for it". What a frigging hypocrite.

That’s one reason why I like to focus on tests ...


You don't give a damn about your own failed tests, so that BS is nothing but a convenient lie that you tell yourself and others. Your DM claims failed every conceivable test it was put to over the past decade, both in the lab, and in space, so you definitely don't give a damn about your own "tests" unless they happen to agree with your preconceived beliefs. You spent *billions* supposedly testing your DM claims, and it was an *epic* fail.

so in this case, did Scott propose some concrete, feasible tests of his musings?


Did you? What kind of 'tests' would suffice? FYI, the fact that we observe all those galaxies aligned with the threads they're embedded inside of over hundreds of millions of light years is in fact a great "test" of this concept. That's exactly what we'd expect to see!

Has he posted to a relevant, moderated forum?


Translation: You only have time to endlessly bitch and moan and lie about EU/PC theory on irrelevant websites. You don't have time to actually respond to any of the materials presented, so your make up any lame excuse to not deal with the material and you going to to right back to bitching about EU/PC theory anyway. Got it. You're a liar. You weren't even interested in the materials that you asked for in the first place.

If not, why does he deserve any of us taking time away from our own research?


Right, because you only have time to take away from your own "research" (all of which failed every test you came up with) to complain about EU/PC theory on ISF and other lame websites. You don't have the time to be bothered to read or respond to any actual published and peer reviewed material that conflicts with your blind hatred of empirical alternatives to your supernatural creation mythology.

EU/PC hater are 100 percent predictable. You all lie like a rug, you cheat at debate, you attack *people* not ideas, and you run like hell from the materials that you claim to want to see, all while hiding like cowards behind anonymous handles. EU/PC haters are nothing but two bit cowards and liars.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:58 am

Selfsim:

After perusing this latest paper by Scott, it looks as though its a 'lets see if we can make the data fit the model' exercise.


Irony overload. You do the exact same thing only you use 95 percent metaphysical gap filler to do it, and you have to ignore all the data that doesn't fit!

Reference [8] failed, so I chased up the proper link here. Almost needless to say, there is nothing about galaxies forming 'on and along Birkeland currents' in it.


Why would you expect mainstream papers to use the proper scientific term for a Birkeland current? Instead of using proper scientific terms you make up lame and ridiculous terms like "magnetic slinky", or "space slinky, or "Steve" or "filament" or "tendril". That's not Scott's fault, that's the mainstream's fault. It's still a filamentary structure in plasma, and the filamentation process is caused by current flow through the plasma.

Overall, given that just about all of the references we've, (JD, myself), checked thus far, either don't support his statements in the paper, or are blind links, I'd say this paper amounts to prime test material for testing out the quality of the so-called 'peer-reviewers' in the crank journal he intends to publish it in.


Your claim about those links "not supporting" his paper is directly related to how you personally choose to 'interpret" those links. The fact the paper calls it a 'tendril' rather than a Birkeland current is not evidence that the paper in question doesn't support Scott's model and his paper. You're splitting hairs over terms and ignoring the filamentary aspects which are identical.

I love how you folks label every person you disagree with as a "crank/crackpot/yada, yada,yada", and every publication as well. It's like your personal knee-jerk reaction to everything and everyone you disagree with. You instantly start with the personal attacks.

Also even if NGC 1620's rotation velocity profile data happens to fit into the Lunquist solution, (no error bars considered by him either in this exercise), his errored seminal arguments about the physics of force-free fields, (in his original paper), totally undermine the rationale in this paper.


You haven't cited any *specific* error to start with Seflsim. You just keep handwaving away about non-existent errors that are apparently just 'made up" in your head. I guess you figure if you just repeat the same false statement, someone is bound to eventually believe you.

I'd say this paper is not any more worthy of further consideration than any other crank paper. It is certainly lacking in quality, (thus far).


What's actually lacking in 'quality' thus far is any valid argument against Scott's paper. You haven't pointed out a single mathematical error in his paper, or even a real physics error in his paper. Instead you've just repeated the term "crank" over and over again as your personal attack mantra. That's not a valid scientific rebuttal.

I'll give you one point for finding a dead link and I'll give JD a point and a half for rounding up the link to the actual paper. Big deal.

JonesDave116
What I can make of it so far, is that he's basically trying to resurrect Peratt's failed model, and not doing a very good job of it.


You're right that it builds on Peratt's work, but I'd say that Scott did an *excellent* job actually.

This relies on the observed filamentary structure of space, and the streamers of gas connecting galaxies.


True, along with the rotational speed arguments.

Looking at references [32] & [33] in Scott's paper shows that, despite Scott's claims, these appear to be talking about cold, neutral flows, detected in Lyman alpha. Ref [35] does see ionised gas, but that is as the gas approaches the QSO.
Ref [32] is paywalled, but I have the paper. Scott hasn't, as he referenced a pop-sci article about it on phys.org! Amazed the peer reviewers let that go! (not really ).

The ironic thing here is that ref [33] is to a paper where the authors use various model parameters to try to simulate the filamentary structure we see. All of their models use dark matter to achieve the results! The very thing that Scott is trying to replace, is necessary to observe the filaments. Irony, much?


I think it's ironic that you don't seem to realize that Scott is specifically trying to replace "dark matter" filaments with ordinary Birkeland currents, so it's a perfectly logical comparison. You don't even have a valid explanation as to why those filaments form to start with, whereas Scott does. Current naturally generates filamentary features in plasma.

As I pointed out before, there is evidence of a gigantic halo of million degree plasma surrounding our own galaxy which not only supports Scott's model, it's "best" explained *by* Scott's Birkeland current model. What besides sustained current would sustain that plasma at millions of degrees indefinitely?

FYI JD, thanks for rounding up the appropriate links and papers. I really do appreciate that.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Reality Check is a lying scumbag.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:29 am

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=139

Reality Check:

..fantasy....ignorant..fantasy....ignorance...ignorantly...ignorance (or denial)...lie....lie...lie


I've met a lot of people in cyberspace over the years, but I've never met anyone even close to as unethical, as cowardly, as bigoted and as verbally abusive as you RC. Every single one of your posts is filled with loaded personal attack language, personal insults, and blatantly false statements.

In your last post about lyin' Brian Koberlein's bogus "no neutrino" claim, you flat out lied about Findlay, you lied about Scott, you lied about Thornhill and you lied about Talbot. You misrepresented everything that each of those authors wrote with respect to the topic of neutrinos. You lie repeatedly and you lie often in nearly every single post in fact.

You lied for *months* when you claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma and you lied some more about Dungey when his published paper refuted your false claim. You lied about Peratt and what he wrote in his book and in his papers. You lied about me and my beliefs many many times. You lied about magnetic reconnection being a plasma optional process which is why you have never provided that missing formula to describe a non-zero rate of reconnection without plasma. You lied about Somov and his statements. You lied when you said that there is "proof" of dark matter. There isn't even any such thing as "proof" in "science" for God sake! All you had evidence of in that bogus bullet cluster study is that your baryonic mass estimates were not worth the paper they were printed on as many later studies confirmed over and over again.

You lie constantly! In fact, almost nothing that you say is true. The worst part is that you lie repeatedly about everyone while you hide like a coward behind an anonymous handle.

The only lie worth responding to in your last post is this huge whopper of a lie:

ETA: Scott ignores that some galaxies have gas that rotate in the opposite direction to their stars


This may be the biggest lie that you ever told. Not only does Scott *not* ignore that possibility, he *explained* it. Scott's model explains why different bands of plasma/stars can move in different directions. That's probably the single most important element of his entire model in fact!

RC, you are the poster child, and the living embodiment of everything that is wrong in astronomy in the 21st century. You're a verbally abusive liar of the worst sort and you are a coward. You are exactly the type of person that keeps us stuck in the dark ages of astronomy. I don't have a clue how you can even look yourself in the mirror and feel good about yourself.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:27 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=150

jonesdave116:
Here's some news; there is ZERO evidence for Scott's or Birkeland's model. And a tonne against.


Dear JD,

I've seen you post some insightful comments at ISF from time to time, as well as some really absurd and off the wall stuff, but that particular false claim is absolutely ridiculous. It's actually beneath you. It shows just how completely out of touch with reality you've become, and it demonstrates that you're unwilling to think for yourself. Pull your head out of RC's backside.

There's no point in me trying to defend an anode solar model since it's not my personal EU/PC solar model of choice, but there is absolutely, positively *tons* of evidence to support Birkeland's cathode model, some of which I've already listed and posted on a completely "neutral" website where we can both post freely to our hearts content. You're welcome to join me there and have a real scientific debate with me if you're so inclined. You'll find that thread and that forum here:

http://cnps.boards.net/thread/32/introd ... olar-model

First of all Birkeland's model works in the lab, and produces and sustains a full sphere corona, which is certainly far more than can be said for the standard solar model.

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

All scientific models are judged based on how well they accurately predict later observations. I won't rehash the that entire thread or repost all the supporting links found in that thread, but here is a short recap of some of the successful predictions of Birkeland's model:

Birkeland's string of successful predictions about solar physics were based on ideas and upon observations that he and his team had learned through empirical simulations in his lab. As a result of what they learned in these empirical experiments, they correctly predicted the existence of a hot corona, the presence of both types of high speed solar wind particles flowing from the sun, cathode rays/electron beams flowing from the sun, polar jets, coronal loops, field aligned Birkeland currents, including those found in planetary aurora, and electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. All of their important predictions were later verified by satellites in space, but this didn't start to happen until the 1970's, long after Birkeland's death. Unfortunately most of his work was overlooked at the time, and most of it continues to be overlooked to this very day.


Birkeland also predicted that the sun's cathode surface was negatively charged with respect to "space". We now measure cosmic rays that constantly bombard our solar system and they are *overwhelmingly* positively charged, just as Birkeland predicted.

FYI, the highest energy cosmic rays that bombard the sun are somewhere in the 10^20 electronvolt range, and I believe they peak somewhere in the .3 gigaelectronvolt range by the time they reach Earth.

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0206072
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray

Most cosmic rays, however, do not have such extreme energies; the energy distribution of cosmic rays peaks at 0.3 gigaelectronvolts (4.8×10−11 J).[12]


You will in fact have to leave standard solar and cosmology theory behind if you ever expect to wean yourself away from using 95 percent metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe our universe. Birkeland currents are not invisible, though they can be difficult to see from Earth. They thread the whole universe together and we definitely observe their presence in the lensing data which your lame industry currently chalks up to "dark matter". They're also often referred to as "space slinky's", black hole "jets", (dark matter) filaments, tendrils, magnetic ropes and an array of other off the wall terms. Essentially they're referred to by astronomers as *anything other* than their proper scientific name.

Birkeland made a whole slew of successful predictions about solar wind and what is euphemistically referred to as "strahl" electrons. I'll be happy to discuss those things with you in the appropriate thread if you're actually interested in an honest scientific discussion on this topic. Unless you've posted here or at Christianforums under a different handle, I don't think we've ever directly bumped heads before so I have no real "beef' with you personally. If you check your attitude at the door of the other forum, I'm sure we'll get along famously. :)

The one thing I'd suggest that you do immediately however is that you ignore and/or reject everything RC ever told you about EU/PC theory because I know for a fact that most of it is false. No EU/PC theory predicts "no neutrinos", and RC *never* came up with his missing math homework assignment to describe a non-zero rate of 'magnetic reconnection" without a plasma particle to his name, and he never will. RC is completely clueless and he's intentionally deceitful as his last post on neutrino predictions in EU/PC theory so clearly demonstrated. Whatever you think he "taught" you about EU/PC theory is most certainly false.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:24 am

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=155
Seflsim

Another classic comes from the stand-up comedian himself, MM. He constantly demands to know where Scott's math is wrong in the Birkeland/Dark Matter paper .. Never mind if it isn't Scott's math in the first place .. its Lundquist's .. so why would that be wrong?


If his math is right then there's no mathematical need for dark matter to explain galaxy rotation patterns. It's damn clear that his math *is* right, and its equally clear that you personally don't even understand the math in the first place, or you wouldn't be claiming that Birkeland currents should fly apart!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

Birkeland currents are also one of a class of plasma phenomena called a z-pinch, so named because the azimuthal magnetic fields produced by the current pinches the current into a filamentary cable.


For crying out loud! A Birkeland current is a plasma *pinch* for God's sake!

Also, when its pointed out that Scott's infinite integral limit for calculating the total Lumens received from a static infinite universe is incorrect, (and should be finite), suddenly the response becomes 'Who cares {if Scott's math is wrong ...}?'


Your introduction of that PDF file into our conversation was a complete ruse. I had already utterly *destroyed* your Olber's paradox argument *long before* I even read that PDF and that PDF was utterly irrelevant to the flaws in your claim! That's why I didn't care then and that's why I *still don't care* now. You came up 268,770 AU shells, 200 billion stars, and 100,000 galaxies short of a valid scientific argument and the PDF didn't fix or address any of *your* errors.

Then of course there is his own blunder of mistaking 0.5 as being equivalent in value to 1!


You'll never quote me making that made up claim anymore than you'll quote Scott or Thornhill claiming that their EU solar model predicts "no neutrinos". You're just demonstrating how utterly unethical you all are. You'll flat out lie about anyone and everyone.

Let's recap the events of the last 10 years of my debates with the EU/PC hater posse on the internet and see how you folks did, shall we?

Lyin' Brian Koberlein/RC claimed that EU solar models predict no neutrinos and that was a flat out lie. He lied when he blamed Findlay for his unprofessional lie. He lied when he claimed that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma as Dungey's 'electrical discharge' solar flare paper demonstrated. RC lied some more when he claimed that "magnetic reconnection" is a plasma optional process. He never did produce a published reference that didn't *include* plasma and *include* plasma particle acceleration. I've waited for a math formula to express his non-zero rate of reconnection in a vacuum for almost 7 years and we all know that I'll never see it. Most of the entire EU/PC hater posse failed to correct his MR or neutrino nonsense and you all *still* refuse to correct his bogus nonsense to this very day. Apparently none of you can tell the physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and a process in plasma involving plasma particle acceleration. Based on your silence, none of you apparently have the first clue about something as simple as the neutrino predictions of EU/PC solar theories either.

Your Olber's paradox claim was a complete disaster. You stuck your foot in your mouth to the tune of 200 billion stars and 100,000 galaxies, and you and sjastro made all sorts of bogus claims about surface brightness and the inverse square laws of light. You personally also apparently believe that Birkeland currents should fly apart even though they're *plasma pinches* by definition. Oy Vey!

Ten years ago you were proudly waving that now infamous Bullet Cluster paper in my face and claiming to have "proof", not even just evidence mind you, but absolute proof of exotic forms of matter. You were all insisting that your baryonic mass estimates were correct and you insisted that you had accounted for every bit of baryonic matter in a galaxy down to something size of a small moon, only to later find out that you botched the stellar mass estimates of those Bullet Cluster galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. You underestimated the brightness of those galaxies by a factor of two and your whole mathematical calculation of baryonic mass was based on brightness! You underestimated the number of stars *between* galaxies, and you underestimated the number and size of large stars in those galaxies too. You didn't even know about two different gas and plasma halos around our own galaxy and every galaxy until *just last year* in the case of the gas halo, and those two halos contain more mass than all the other massive mistakes that you made *combined*! That Bullet Clusterf*ck paper only proved that your bayonic mass estimates were horrifically flawed as all the later studies conclusively demonstrated.

The LCDM faithful ridiculed me and called me a crackpot and a crank for even questioning whether you'd find experimental evidence of exotic forms of dark matter at LHC. You folks boastfully insisted 10 years ago that LHC or some other experiment you had in the works would find evidence of dark matter. Here we are a decade later, and tens of billions of dollars later, and you still have absolutely *no* experimental evidence whatsoever to support your dark metaphysical nonsense.

Oh, and let's definitely not forget that whole Bicep2 fiasco. David came over to CF the day of the big announcement to shove that paper in my face. He confidently insisted that Bicep2 demonstrated that I was a complete crackpot for ever doubting inflation theory and LCDM in general. He ranted and raved about that five sigma figure for weeks even after I pointed out that section 9 of that paper was a complete disaster. A few months later however, the whole claim bit the dust in section 9.

I also found out from our debates that you folks burn your heretics at the public stake and you just make sh*t up about other people too just like you did with that .5=1 nonsense and that "no neutrino" crap.

What I've learned from our various debates around the internet is that not only is the EU/PC hater posse completely *clueless* about basic physics and totally ignorant about basic EU theory, you are all unethical as hell.

I'd rather be a stand up comic than completely clueless and totally unethical like you folks.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby neilwilkes » Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:00 am

Well said, Michael.

I have been following this thread, and whilst I admit I do not understand the fine details I understand enough from the last few months to be well aware that every search for any form of Dark Matter - not just the LCDM model but all of them - have come up empty and the entire concept if not actually dead & buried ought to at least be on the way to the cemetery at long last.
It is not science, it is dogma and very akin to spending billions of public money searching for evidence of God in His/Her (delete according to personally favoured model preference) heaven and would be about as successful - it certainly couldn't be a bigger waste of money than the DM fiasco.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:11 pm

JoneDave116:

And another beauty from the court jester of dunderbolts!


Gee, more personal insults from a guy who won't even engage in a direct one on one debate of EU solar models on a neutral website, and even after I extended you an olive branch of sorts. Oh well. Fine, we'll do it you way with the gloves off.

Michael:
If his math is right then there's no mathematical need for dark matter to explain galaxy rotation patterns. It's damn clear that his math *is* right,...

Never mind that there is zero evidence for these Birkeland currents that Peratt said we should see (and don't),


What a bunch of pure horse manure. We absolutely *do* see currents and threads inside of radio jets (and higher energy jets), just as Peratt originally predicted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_galaxy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Condon/condon1.html

In fact, the whole universe is aligned along current carrying threads:

https://futurism.com/videos/detailed-ma ... -universe/

In 2010 we found radio "lobes" around our own galaxy that are entirely consistent with Birkeland currents:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronom ... rk-debate/

We even found million degree plasma around our own galaxy in 2012:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... 2-331.html

As a matter of fact, it was Hannes Alfven who first predicted the emission of synchrotron radiation from those so called "jets" back in 1950!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotr ... _detection

You've obviously still got your head stuffed way up RC's backside and you still buy his utter BS without ever bothering to even think for yourself. You're like his LCMD cult court jester side kick.

but absolutely no mechanism for how these non-existent currents would make stars rotate faster than if DM wasn't accounted for! And Scott totally fails to offer one.


That's baloney too. The current itself generates rotational movement in *all* current carrying filaments which would simply not exist were it not for the presence of the current. An ordinary plasma ball will demonstrate that process for you. Go turn one on and watch how it generates rotational movements in current carrying plasma threads.

It's the same nonsense as the Thornhill/ Scott neutrinos -


No, the utter nonsense was you idiots claiming that any EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos" and failing to set lyin' Brian Koberlein straight in over four years and counting. It just demonstrates how utterly ignorant you all are of the most *basic* aspects of EU/PC theory, and how unethical you all are too because that mistake has been repeatedly pointed out and you still parrot the same crap.

their models are rubbish, and don't work,


Bullshit. SAFIRE experiments work in the lab and they produce a hot corona. The one thing that EU/PC solar models (plural) do is *work in the lab*, unlike your lame models which have *never* produced and sustained a full sphere hot corona based on "magnetic reconnection".

and the neutrino energy spectra just doesn't match,


Pure handwave and pure projection! Other types of neutrinos are *routinely* created in the lab without any need of core fusion. Your spectra doesn't match unless you *assume* that electron neutrinos can oscillate into muon and tau neutrinos, but not single experiment to date shows any excess of muon or tau neutrinos from an electron neutrino beam, even if muon neutrinos might show evidence of oscillation into electron neutrinos. Your model doesn't even work without *assuming* something that's never been demonstrated in a lab!

among numerous other problems.


None of the crap that lyin' Brian Koberlein posted is actually a real problem or a real prediction in the first place, they are all blatant lies and strawmen.

Who cares what they predicted?


What an unethical hypocrite! Later in this very same post you rip on me for being sloppy about what your model supposedly "predicts" with respect to filaments, yet you refuse to accurately portray our models. A real scientist *would* and *should* care about what a model actually does and does not predict and they wouldn't go out of their way to *misrepresent* those predictions. Anyone interested in "truth" should care, but you folks never cared about truth or science. That's why you don't care.

It was unevidenced, impossible rubbish,


https://principia-scientific.org/plausi ... derations/

BS. Both the anode and cathode configurations have been shown to work in the lab, and your so called 'criticisms' are lies that aren't actual "predictions" of any EU/PC solar model. Meanwhile your own solar model failed it's convection "test" by two whole orders of magnitude. Talk about impossible rubbish!

that has never been written up.


That's not true either. Juergens started "writing it up" decades ago and both Thornhill and Scott wrote whole books on the topic. Charles Bruce wrote about the electrical aspects of solar physics too. Even Alfven wrote papers that would be applicable to other EU/PC solar models including Juergen's anode model with respect to coronal loops.

Birkeland's cathode model was "written up" over a century ago and I'll bet you *still* haven't read his work for yourself.

A complete irrelevance that is rightly ignored.


Ya, ya, ya. The mainstream ignored Birkeland's work on aurora for decades until satellites in space proved him right. You guys ignore stuff your shouldn't ignore. In fact the mainstream has a proven track record of ignoring the *right* model for *centuries* and then trying to give the wrong guy the credit for the right model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocent ... s_of_Samos

I don't think these people realise quite what an irrelevance to real science they actually are!


That's really laughable from a guy who's cosmology model is 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, and who's core "predictions' have consistently failed in the lab, and failed numerous observational "tests" including several "tests" last month alone!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16991

And another one:

Quote:
You don't even have a valid explanation as to why those filaments form to start with, whereas Scott does. Current naturally generates filamentary features in plasma.


Dear me. Apart from the fact that there is zero evidence for any current,


More BS. See the list of links above.

these filaments are modelled in LCDM simulations! Scott referenced one of them in his travesty of a paper [33], and I referenced it upthread. There is another paper I've read from 1996 doing a similar thing:

How Filaments Are Woven Into The Cosmic Web
Bond, J. R. et al
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9512141.pdf

So they know very well how these filaments form. More to the point, the DM filaments are detected through gravitational lensing, as per:

The weak-lensing masses of filaments between luminous red galaxies
Epps, S. D. & Hudson, M. J.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...3/2605/3059154

and;

A filament of dark matter between two clusters of galaxies
Dietrich, J. P. et al.


Well, far be it from me to act like you folks and fail to acknowledge my own sloppy indiscretions. Depending on whether or not one considers a mathematical model that is based on 95 percent 'dark magic", I suppose it's *possible* to interpret your magical math as an "explanation" of sorts. Furthermore my statement is sloppy because it's possible that gravity combined with expansion of ordinary baryonic matter *might* result in "filaments" too.

I'll be a man about it and I'll acknowledge that problem *but* that just opens up a whole other can of worms in your mathematical models and it points out another one of your string of failed "predictions" that all point to there being no need for exotic matter to create those filaments:

https://www.space.com/24431-dark-matter ... image.html

The researchers estimated that more than 10 times the amount of normal diffuse gas exists in the nebula than predicted.

"We think there may be more gas contained in the small, dense clumps within the cosmic web than is seen in our models," Cantalupo said. "These observations are challenging our understanding of intergalactic gas and giving us a new laboratory to test and refine our models."


Ten times? Your models *failed* yet another observational 'test' when they found *10 times* more ordinary baryonic material than your models "predict". You want me to give you full credit for your models predicting "filaments" based on 95 percent dark magic, even when they fail tons of different 'tests", and those models *grossly* underestimated the amount of ordinary baryons by a factor of 10! Wow.

So, if I'm "bad" for not acknowledging your so called "explanation' based mostly on nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, even when they fail a slew of other 'tests". where do you get off claiming that EU/PC solar models predict 'no neutrinos'? Talk about pure hypocrisy on a stick!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:02 pm

JonesDave116
Regarding Brian Koberlein's blog - the comments are back! I did see something a few weeks ago on G+ or Twitter sating he was upgrading the website, so that may have been what was going on.

https://briankoberlein.com/2018/01/2...tory/#comments


Ya, the comments are back but Koberlein's lying bullshit never left. His "no neutrino" nonsense is still posted on his blog in spite of two of his cited references *directly contradicting* his bogus claim, and the third reference never even discussed neutrinos in his entire PDF:

Thornhill (Page 70)
Neutrino deficiency.

Solar physicists have acknowledged for decades that the Sun’s output of neutrinos, a by-product of nuclear fusion, is about 1/3 of that expected in the standard solar model. Three types or ‘flavors’ of neutrinos have been identified, and recent attempts to solve the problem require unwarranted assumptions about neutrino ‘change of flavor’ en route from the center of the Sun. An electric Sun, however, can generate all flavors of neutrinos in heavy element synthesis at its surface. Therefore, it requires no assumptions about ‘changing flavors’ to hide the deficit.

Neutrino variability.

The neutrino output varies inversely with the surface sunspot cycle. Were they produced in the nuclear ‘furnace’ at the center of the Sun, this relationship would be inconceivable, since solar physicists calculate that it takes about 200,000 years for the energy of internal fusion to affect the surface. In the electrical model, more and larger sunspots mean less ‘lightning’ at the surface, where the nuclear reactions occur. Thus, the decline in neutrinos with increasing sunspot number is expected.


Scott, Page 106:

The neutrino flux from the sun seems to vary inversely with sunspot number. This is not unexpected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-pinch-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL) – and sunspots are the locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.


Brian Koberlein has demonstrated repeatedly that he's a two bit pathological liar.

Selfsim:

Cool!
So much for the idea that Brian might have been running away from delusional 'EU threats'!


Threats? What threats? Nobody here threatened him, we just all know that he's simply a lying sack of sh*t. He's banned everyone from our community that pointed out his BS so he's still "running away'" from our criticisms of his BS.

You however apparently have another chance to demonstrate that your whole industry isn't just as bad as he is. Go over there set him straight selfsim. Show us that your industry has a little scientific integrity and find out from him who the hell in the EU/PC community ever claimed that any EU/PC solar model predicts excess gamma rays, or a photosphere surface that isn't 5800 Kelvin and isn't capable of emitting a full black body spectrum? We all know that he simply made all that BS up on his own. He can't provide any references from the EU/PC community to support those lies either, and we all know it.

Either your entire industry is utterly clueless about how EU/PC solar models actually work, or you're all unethical as hell, or some combination thereof. Which is it in your case? Are you man enough to set him straight, or are you all just as unethical as he is? You evidently have another golden opportunity to go set lyin' Brian straight, but we know that none of you will do that because none of you have any professional ethics whatsoever.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:40 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
JonesDave116
Regarding Brian Koberlein's blog - the comments are back! I did see something a few weeks ago on G+ or Twitter sating he was upgrading the website, so that may have been what was going on.

Either your entire industry is utterly clueless about how EU/PC solar models actually work, or you're all unethical as hell, or some combination thereof. Which is it in your case? Are you man enough to set him straight, or are you all just as unethical as he is? You evidently have another golden opportunity to go set lyin' Brian straight, but we know that none of you will do that because none of you have any professional ethics whatsoever.


Well JD and selfsim, your silence is deafening. You noted early in the week that Koberlein's comment section is back up and running, but none of you have bothered this week to even ask lyin' Brian for an appropriate EU/PC reference to support his bogus claim about any EU/PC solar model predicting excess gamma rays, or predicting a non thermal surface of the photosphere. So what does that say about your lack of ethics and/or your complete ignorance of EU/PC solar models?

Either you are all *utterly and totally clueless* about the *actual* predictions of EU/PC solar models, *or* you're unethical as all hell or some combination of the two. I already know for a fact that lyin' Brian is a pathological liar and beyond hope after his no neutrino BS, and his banning extravaganza, but I thought that maybe there was some hope for the rest of you. Apparently I was mistaken.

Here's the deal. You cannot and will not quote anyone in the EU/PC community predicting the following about EU/PC solar models:

1. They emit no neutrinos
2. They emit excess gamma rays
3. The surface of the photosphere is less than 5800 Kelvin and does not emit a thermal spectrum.

Lyin' Brian made all that sh*t up. If you had any professional or scientific ethics at all you'd insist that Brian provides the appropriate quotes from Thornhill or Scott to support those three false claims. I can't find anything in either of their two books about expecting/predicting excess gamma rays, or a predicting a photosphere surface that is less than 5800 Kelvin, but I have posted their comments on their neutrinos predictions:

Thornhill (Page 70)
Neutrino deficiency.

Solar physicists have acknowledged for decades that the Sun’s output of neutrinos, a by-product of nuclear fusion, is about 1/3 of that expected in the standard solar model. Three types or ‘flavors’ of neutrinos have been identified, and recent attempts to solve the problem require unwarranted assumptions about neutrino ‘change of flavor’ en route from the center of the Sun. An electric Sun, however, can generate all flavors of neutrinos in heavy element synthesis at its surface. Therefore, it requires no assumptions about ‘changing flavors’ to hide the deficit.

Neutrino variability.

The neutrino output varies inversely with the surface sunspot cycle. Were they produced in the nuclear ‘furnace’ at the center of the Sun, this relationship would be inconceivable, since solar physicists calculate that it takes about 200,000 years for the energy of internal fusion to affect the surface. In the electrical model, more and larger sunspots mean less ‘lightning’ at the surface, where the nuclear reactions occur. Thus, the decline in neutrinos with increasing sunspot number is expected.


Scott, Page 106:

The neutrino flux from the sun seems to vary inversely with sunspot number. This is not unexpected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-pinch-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL) – and sunspots are the locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.


These are direct quotes that come right from the two books that lyin' Brian claimed that he used as his references. Either he's professionally incompetent, or he's a pathological liar, but it's definitely one or the other. Based on the fact that I've repeatedly shown him such quotes in the past, and Koberlein *still* blames Findlay for his own error like a kid blaming his dog for eating his homework, it's damn clear that Koberlein is a total liar and a lost cause.

None of you are apparently man enough, or have enough scientific integrity to even ask him for appropriate EU/PC quotes and references to support his bogus excess gamma ray prediction claim or his non thermal spectrum claim. What a bunch of unprofessional chumps.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you folks don't have any ethics or any problem misrepresenting the facts after that whole Olber's paradox fiasco at CF, but I must say I've certainly lost of lot of respect for your entire industry over the last four years. Evidently *nobody* in your entire industry has the knowledge or the integrity to set lying Brian Koberlein straight on his BS. None of you actually care one iota about science or care about integrity or honesty. All you care about is lying to little children who are two young and naive to even doubt or question your complete bullshit. You continually force them to drink poison Cool-aid or you fail them in class. How can you people even look yourselves in the mirror and call yourselves "professionals"? Gah!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:34 am

https://briankoberlein.com/2018/01/27/j ... /#comments

6 March 2018
Reply
tusenfem

Actually, I have already calculated (oh the horror, math!) why Juergens’ model cannot be correct, and that holds for all electric sun models, and that is that the interplanetary magnetic field would be (several) orders of magnitude larger than measured by spacecraft if currents are inflowing into the sun. It is somewhere on internationalskeptics, and got mocked on thunderbolts.


It turns out that the calculation in question was actually posted at Cosmosquelch rather than ISF which you can find here:

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread ... post748778

If you read through the calculation, you'll find that it clearly demonstrates the danger of the whole "debunking" mentality employed by the mainstream, and it also demonstrates the real problem with EU/PC haters. They simply don't take the time, or make the effort, to actually *understand* the nuances of any of the EU/PC solar models (plural) and they don't understand properly them in the first place. They really just tilt at windmills of their own design, and burn strawmen rather than deal with the actual models themselves.

Having spent some time debating tusenfem at ISF/JREF, I've never known him to go out of his way to intentionally "embellish" EU/PC models with malicious intent like Reality Check, so I'd be inclined to believe that this is just a relatively honest mistake that is caused by him not really understanding the various EU/PC models, or correctly understanding any of them for that matter.

I should start by pointing out that both Alfven's EU/PC solar model and Birkeland's cathode solar model are primarily *internally* (not externally) powered, so tusenfem's statement about his calculation holding for *all* EU/PC solar models is absolutely and laughably false. (Yes, I mocked you tusenfem) Such a calculation could/would really only apply to Juergen's externally powered model, and it does not even correctly apply to that model in the final analysis.

While Juergen's anode solar model is indeed powered by external currents, it is not required to get *all* of it's energy from external currents because it is also generating local fusion processes in the upper layers of the sun which also contribute to it's overall net energy output. In fact, one could 'tweak" Juergen's model to their hearts content in terms of the ratio of local fusion energy production vs. external electrical current energy requirements. His calculation therefore really demonstrates absolutely nothing other than what we already know. The sun must experience some amount of internal fusion. That's all his calculation really demonstrates. It doesn't come close to falsifying *any* actual EU/PC solar model, and certainly not all of them.

Such ignorant comments really do demonstrate the fact that the mainstream is almost entirely *clueless* about how EU/PC solar models actually work. They aren't even interested in *trying to understand* them properly, or *trying* to make them work. Instead they are only interested in providing some handwave of an argument, or some oversimplified math formula to supposedly 'debunk" the idea. It's a really lazy unprofessional attitude, and a misguided attitude, not to mention a *hypocritical* attitude since the mainstream solar model has already been 'debunked" by such standards, and by it's failed "predictions" related to convection:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/ ... projected/

The convection predictions of the mainstream solar model are *way* off. They are off by *two whole orders of magnitude*, so if such a simple math exercise can be used to "debunk" a whole solar model, the standard solar model was "debunked" five years ago, and it's never been fixed.

As the whole missing neutrino days of solar physics demonstrates, it's never true that one mathematical "mystery" is an automatic falsification of any solar model. Some problems are simply *shelved* until a better understanding comes along. While the neutrino deficit problem, circa Juergen's introduction of the anode solar model, was at one point in time, a very serious problem for the mainstream model, it's now considered to be no problem at all. No short term mathematical inconsistency can or should be used to eliminate an entire solar model. That's the real danger of the whole 'debunking" mentality.

I think the most sad aspect of lyin Brian's blog is the fact that we have seen absolutely no mainstream astronomer call lyin' Brian on any of his blatant lies. It's one thing to make an *honest* mistake, but none of Koberlein's lies were 'mistakes', let alone honest mistakes. He's been intentionally misrepresenting EU/PC theory maliciously for over four years now and not a single mainstream astronomer has called him on any of those blatant errors.

All of the EU/PC haters at ISF *know damn well* that no EU/PC author "predicted' 'no neutrinos' but they won't say a damn thing about it. They have no scientific ethics whatsoever.

On top of that, they really don't begin to actually understand anything at all about EU/PC theory. What they "think" they know is is total bullshit, and they're too lazy to take the time to really do their homework so calling them 'professionals' is a total misnomer. Public EU/PC haters are *anything but* "professional" in their attitude because they don't do their homework, and they're virtually clueless about how EU/PC theory actually works and what it actually "predicts".

No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos". No EU/PC solar author ever predicted an excess of gamma rays from the sun. No EU/PC author ever predicted a photosphere surface that wasn't 5800 Kelvin or a non thermal spectrum either. All three of those bogus claims on lyin' Brian's blog remain completely unchallenged by any mainstream astronomer so we must conclude that most astronomers are *utterly ignorant* of EU/PC theory in general, and few of them are blatantly dishonest cowards and scoundrels.

How very sad indeed. No wonder we're still wallowing around in the dark ages of astronomy.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

MRx

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:17 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=1897

JeanTate:

Yeah, that's rite Solly boy, attem!

But you gotta be careful, these mainstreamers are a cunning bunch.


You're not nearly as cunning or clever as you presume as your missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of 'reconnection" without a plasma particle to your name so clearly demonstrated in that thread you cited Jean. :) That was a riot. It turned out that your whole EU/PC hater posse can't tell the physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and the process of converting magnetic energy into particle kinetic energy known as 'magnetic reconnection". You're evidently not nearly as clever as you imagine. When might i see your missing math formula? Never. Math? What Math?'

They say they have wizzy labs full of plasma experiments - like the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory - which do "empirical science" non-stop. But we know it's all a con, cos they talk big about creating magnetic reconnections in those plasmas. Clearly no one there has read pre-eminent EU scientist, MM's totall demolision of magnet reconnections, in a thread in this very part of ISF!


The amusing part of those PPPL experiments is that they have to plug every single one of them into a wall socket to get them to work, circuit energy drives the whole process, and once the electrical switch is turned off, their so called 'reconnection" process comes to an abrupt halt.

FYI, it you simply called it "circuit reconnection", you might have a little truth in advertising and maybe it would have dawned on your hater posse that you need *plasma* and you require a transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy to logically call it 'reconnection", otherwise it's just ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum.

Your hater posse literally cannot tell the physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum and the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration called "magnetic reconnection". So much for you folks being cunning or clever. That was about as daft and stupid as it gets in fact. Six years and counting and I'm still waiting for a math formula to support your bogus vacuum reconnection claim that we both know I'm never going to get it from you. You're all just too proud to admit that Clinger and RC and the rest of you screwed up royally on MRx in that conversation at JREF. Math? What math? So much for your superior math skill too.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=1898

JonesDave116:

The interesting thing about Fälthammar and EU, from my perspective, is that they rarely refer to him. And yet there he was as the heir apparent to Alfven's plasma cosmology.


Er, no. Anthony Peratt was Alfven's obvious "heir apparent" and he continued his work too. Maybe that's why nobody here considers Falthammar to be all that important to astronomy these days.

A former co-author, friend and colleague, and succeeded him as Professor of Plasma Physics at the Royal Institute in Sweden. Bigs Alfie up every chance he gets.


Mostly in lip service only however, not by continuing his work in circuit theory as it's applied to plasma in space.

And yet, doesn't invoke exploding double layers to account for solar flares (or anything else that I can remember).


Case in point. An heir apparent to Alfven would have been using circuit theory and exploding double layers to explain high energy events plasma in space, like Peratt.

Does invoke magnetic reconnection both in the magnetosphere, and on the Sun.


Another good reason why nobody here takes him seriously anymore. He went over to the dark side of magnetic pseudoscience.

If he'd even pressured them to call it "circuit reconnection" one might understand his appreciation for the mathematical B field orientation of plasma physics, but as it stands, he didn't do anyone any favors, particularly your ignorant hater posse that still can't tell the physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum and a transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration known as 'reconnection". His lack of efforts to educate you folks. his aversion to circuit theory in space, and his continued use of "pseudoscience", is why nobody here considers him to be particularly important to the future of astronomy. That should be rather obvious.

He was one of the PIs on the Cluster mission before his retirement, and obviously was well aware of the findings of that mission re MRx.


And in contrast, Alfven described all magnetosphere activity in terms of circuit theory not MRx, and for good reason too:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... dec_themis

"The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."


Bingo! Circuits! If they'd have called it a "Birkeland field aligned current", it would have been "better", but the concept is exactly the same. The "wires" in space aren't made of copper Jean, but they aren't invisible either.

So, having written that down, maybe it's not so surprising that they rarely mention him!


Ya, it's really no mystery as to why he's not real popular around these parts. :)

I know for a fact that he must have been open to the idea of MRx being possible at least as early as 1979, seven years before Alfven supposedly trashed it in an address to a conference. And yet a decade prior to that, Alfven can be seen to suggest that 'magnetic merging' is 'possible'.


It was undoubtedly the mainstream's continued misuse of his MHD math that finally pissed Alfven off, pushed him over the edge, and got him to write his double layer paper that made the whole concept of MRx obsolete and irrelevant.

I'm wondering if the EU-ists really know what Alfven was actually saying? They treat MRx as if it is one of the seven deadly sins, as pronounced by one of their gods. All very strange.


Oh we all know exactly what the term "pseudoscience" means, and we clearly understood Alfven's desire to put the final nails in the MRx coffin. You folks just resurrected the dead zombie while you ignore circuit theory entirely, until of course when you get to the lab and then you *plug in* all of your MRx experiments while *still* ignoring the importance of circuit theory to the process. Oy Vey.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:31 am

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=1951

JonesDave116

This might interest Sol:




It never ceases to amaze me how much utter *crap* that EU/PC haters parrot from each other, including that infamously erroneous "no neutrino' nonsense attributed to Thornhill, and completely bogus claims about magnetic reconnection that have nothing to do with Alfven's actual beliefs or his actual statements.

Cosmic plasma is less than 170 pages long, and it contains no such "Table 1" in the entire book. That page number is marked 476, and no such table exists in Cosmic Plasma, so it obviously isn't even a real quote by Alfven.

FYI JonesDave, since you obviously haven't actually read his book for yourself, you might be interested in what Alfven actually *said* in Cosmic Plasma about magnetic merging/reconnection:

Page 13:

(5) An electric current often produces electrostatic double layers (also called sheaths) associated with an almost discontinuous jump V in the voltage (II .6). As the aforementioned effects are common in low density cosmic plasmas (especially in `collisionless plasmas'), the `frozen-in' concept is very often invalidated . In particular, when combined with the `magnetic field-line reconnection' concept (`magnetic merging'), it has led to a serious misunderstanding of many important phenomena (II .33, II.5.3 and CE 5 .4).


Page 16:

11.33. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT `FIELD LINE RECONNECTION' AND `MERGING' IN THE STATIONARY MAGNETOSPHERE

Our Gedanken experiment shows that neither the injection of one test particle, a small number of test particles, or all of the solar wind particles call for a change in the Maxwellian concept of magnetic field lines. There is no need for `frozen-in' field lines moving with the plasma, still less for `field-line reconnection' or `magnetic merging' . The magnetic field always remains static and not a single field line is `disconnected' or `reconnected'. The energy of a charged particle is given by Equation (6) . There is no 'field-line reconnection' that can transfer energy to the particles or release energy in any other way. Other arguments against reconnection models are forewarded by Heikkila (1978). If the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near the neutral points (points where B = 0) may change in a way that may be considered as the field lines disconnecting and reconnecting. It may be argued that in this case, the usual field-line reconnection formalism should be applicable. As will be shown in II.5 this is not correct . The field line reconnection theories are erroneous also in this case.


Page 28:

Fig. II.17. Auroral circuit (seen from the Sun). The central body (Earth and ionosphere) maintains a dipole field. B, and Bz are magnetic field lines from the body . C is a plasma cloud near the equatorial plane moving in the sunward direction (out of the figure) producing an electromotive force V = J S2 V X B • ds which gives rise to a current in the circuit C 1, al , a2, C2 and Cl. In a double layerD with the voltage VD, the current releases energy at the rate P = IVD, which essentially is used for accelerating auroral electrons. The energy is transferred from C to D not by high energy particles or waves, and not by magnetic merging or field reconnection. It is a property of the electric circuit (and can also be descr ibed by the Poynting vector) .


Page 29:

113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES
What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface. In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention .


Page 74:

Much effort has been spent on attempts to explain solar flares by a magnetic field formalism (a survey of these efforts is given by Heyvaerts (1979)) . For reasons given in Chapter I (see Figure I.4), such an explanation is inadequate. To be more specific, since the boundary conditions are not correctly introduced in the magnetic merging theories of solar flares, these theories cannot explain the rapid concentration of the entire circuit's inductive energy at the point of disruption . On the other hand, there are theories which account for a solar flare as a disruption of a current, but attribute the disruption to instabilities other than exploding double layers . Such theories deserve to be taken seriously.


Nowhere in any of the 100 or so published papers by Alfven, or anywhere in his book Cosmic Plasma will you find him extolling the virtues of magnetic merging/reconnection JonesDave. I have no idea why you have never read his book for yourself, or any idea why EU/PC haters quote someone *other than* Alfven to support that nonsense while trying to claim the statement came from Alfven, but Alfven did *not* support MRx theory at all.

Every single place, location and instance where the mainstream uses MRx theory, Aflven used circuit theory and/or his double layer paper which makes the whole MRx theory irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments.

Alfven not only rejected MRx theory, he quite literally called it "pseudoscience' seven times in his keynote speech at the same conference where he introduced his double layer paper. He hoped his double layer paper would put the final nails in the coffin of that zombie apocalypse of a theory.

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.


As much as EU/PC haters want to believe that Alfven supported MRx theory, nothing could be further from the truth. He outright called it "pseudoscience" and he tried desperately to nail that coffin shut on MRx pseudoscience with his double layer paper.

You guys never actually read the material you claim to critique, you just parrot each others false claims, just like that "no neutrino" BS you made up about Thornhill, and just like the MRx BS you make up about Alfven. EU/PC haters are a bunch of unethical and lazy buttheads.

FYI, all of the EU/PC haters at ISF still owe me your missing math formula to express a non-zero rate of 'magnetic reconnection' in Clinger's absurd vacuum contraption without a single plasma particle to your names. None of you, not even your MHD demi-god tusenfem set clueless Clinger straight, so you're all as clueless and as ignorant as Clinger and RC. You spew nothing but lies and BS and your missing math formula proves it. Six years and not a single one of you math aficionados has managed to produce that missing math formula, so either you're not nearly as mathematically literate as you imagine, or you're all full of it in terms of the actual physics of magnetic reconnection. You don't even know the frigging physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum and the process in plasma known as 'magnetic reconnection"! Gah, EU/PC haters are a bunch of clueless idiots.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: MRx

Unread postby BeAChooser » Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:34 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Anthony Peratt was Alfven's obvious "heir apparent" and he continued his work too.


Yes, and I believe that someday in the far future Peratt and Alfven will get a Nobel for their work on this topic.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: MRx

Unread postby Metryq » Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:45 am

BeAChooser wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Anthony Peratt was Alfven's obvious "heir apparent" and he continued his work too.


Yes, and I believe that someday in the far future Peratt and Alfven will get a Nobel for their work on this topic.


Although there have been a few, rare exceptions, Nobel prizes are not given posthumously.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Webbman » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:04 am

Why would you want one?
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests