Scott explains galaxy rotation patterns without dark matter

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

Scott explains galaxy rotation patterns without dark matter

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:54 am

A fabulous new paper by Dr. Donald Scott eliminates the need for "dark matter" to explain galaxy rotation patterns:

http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF

Here's a relatively short Youtube video that explains the paper and it's findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdYrgJrBFr0

Essentially Dr. Scott builds on Kristian Birkeland's laboratory work with Birkeland currents, and Lundquist's mathematical framework to demonstrate that galaxies are simply embedded inside of large scale Birkeland currents which dictate and describe the rotation patterns of galaxies without any need for exotic forms of matter.

Note that Dr. Scott's new paper is completely consistent with the recent discovery of two different hot plasma and cooler gas "halos" that surround our own galaxy, and his paper also explains why the rotational axis of distant galaxies are all aligned along the filaments that connect the galaxies over billions of light years of distance.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... _halo.html
https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/hydrog ... everywhere
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedormi ... 0464b05ccf

This is a really *excellent* new paper. Congratulations Dr. Scott.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Scott explains galaxy rotation patterns without dark mat

Unread postby BeAChooser » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:31 pm

Thanks. Great work by Dr Scott. But somehow I don't think this will make a dent in the belief of the mainstream astrophysics community or the mainstream media. They'll just ignore it like everything else. :x
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Scott explains galaxy rotation patterns without dark mat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:49 pm

BeAChooser wrote:Thanks. Great work by Dr Scott. But somehow I don't think this will make a dent in the belief of the mainstream astrophysics community or the mainstream media. They'll just ignore it like everything else. :x


Unfortunately I'm sure that you're right, but.......

You'd *think* (hope) that after blowing tens of billions of dollars on their invisible matter snipe hunt and finding nothing, and after all those serious baryonic mass estimate errors they've been making with respect to galaxy mass, they'd be a little more open minded toward replacing their metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance with ordinary current and ordinary physics.

Unfortunately however, their metaphysical Frankenstein of a cosmology model just won't work correctly without exotic matter gap filler. They'd be fine replacing magic matter with ordinary current in terms of explaining galaxy rotation patterns and lensing patterns, but that would screw up the rest of their cosmology model with respect to nucleosynthesis and power spectrum predictions.

You're therefore right, they'll just ignore it. They'd have to toss out their whole cosmology model if they didn't ignore it. :( LCDM is a total metaphysical kludge and it's a noose around the neck of mainstream astronomers.

I think it's noteworthy that all that the EU/PC hater posse at ISF has complained about so far are pure handwaves, and no specific math errors have been cited.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Scott explains galaxy rotation patterns without dark mat

Unread postby neilwilkes » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:48 am

But nothing will change - at least, not immediately.
I used to be naive enough to think that one day there would be a smoking gun that was utterly irrefutable and which moreover completely overturned the current understandings of everything we thought we knew. I am now much older and wiser & understand that this is simply never going to happen.
Why? A couple of reasons, neither of which has anything to do with the truth or even the scientific method but nonetheless will be exactly why the sum total of difference made will be slightly better than zero. I'll take the slightly better every time though for reasons I'll explain later.

Reason number one - Psychology. I just re-read this exact point in the Foreword for Velikovsky's "Ages In Chaos", where he points out the following, which I shall quote verbatim as he says it much better than I could.
It is quite conceivable that historians will have even greater psychological difficulties in revising their views and in accepting the sequence of ancient history as established in Ages In Chaos than the astronomers had in accepting the story of cosmic catastrophes in the solar system in historical times. Indeed, a distinguished scholar, who followed this work from the completion of the first draft in 1942, expressed this very idea. He said that he knows of no valid argument against the reconstruction of history presented here, but that psychologically it is almost impossible to change views acquired in the course of decades of reading, writing & teaching


Reason number Two is our old friend the research grant, in these days of ever increasing specialization (a subject surely worthy of it's own thread somewhere here if not already hiding away) and "big science" where squillions are squandered looking for the Emperor's New Clothes the main thing is to protect your funding stream at any costs - we see this also with the whole "CO2 is burning up the planet" nonsense as well so for cosmological research to get funded it needs to be hunting for Dark Forces, be they physical or whatever (beginning to sound like yet another Star Wars sequel) or else looking into the milliseconds after the Big Bang.

So yes, it is depressing. But also remember to take the tiny difference this will make - it adds to the published body of material and is therefore another drip needed in the drip-drip method of getting the paradigm shift required. The new ideas will only prevail if we keep at it and even then it's an uphill struggle as we have to overcome decades of misconceptions currently being taught as fact. Don's paper here is a large drip and could one day become part of a torrent that will wear away at the foundations of the old ideas that are, let's be honest, getting wobblier almost by the month these days.

Great work, Don - this is an important paper.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Scott explains galaxy rotation patterns without dark mat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:55 am

You're certainly right that no single paper or idea is going to change the whole dynamic of astronomy overnight, but Dr. Scott's paper is major step forward in understanding galaxy rotation profiles, including (particularly) galaxies with bands moving in opposite directions. It also explains the threaded nature of spacetime and the alignment aspects of galaxies that occur along plasma filaments that span hundreds of millions of light years.

What's really amusing from my perspective is watching the reaction of the EU/PC hater posse over at ISF as they try to come to terms with Dr. Scott's paper. Selfsim is flailing around claiming that the whole thing would fly apart even though the math and the physics clearly say otherwise. I doesn't look like he even understands the paper at all. Jeantate and RC are unethically just "making sh*t up" again in terms of predictions which directly conflict with Scott's actual predictions, just like they did with Scott's solar neutrinos predictions. JonesDave seems to erroneously assume that stars have no relative charge with respect to their environment, which is directly at odds with Scott's anode solar model and Birkeland's cathode solar model as well.

It's clear that the EU/PC hater posse is utterly and completely clueless about virtually every aspect of EU/PC theory so they simply make stuff up, they build their own strawmen, and they burn them to the ground without ever actually grasping the ideas they're tying desperately to 'debunk". They're simply tilting at windmills of their own design.

In terms of change in science, and particularly change in astronomy, Max Planck was also quite prophetic:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.


The EU/PC hater posse will surely go to their graves believing in dark supernatural nonsense but those who have been raised in the internet age, and who have been exposed to EU/PC concepts will eventually replace them, and then real change will occur. Birkeland never lived to see the mainstream embrace any of his ideas, but slowly and surely its happening. It may be another century before the dark ages of astronomy are a distant memory, but if the progress of science has taught us anything, it has taught us that metaphysical nonsense is ultimately destined for the scrap heat, and eventually it will be replaced with real empirical understanding. Dr. Scott's new paper is a very important step in that direction.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests