Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

by **jackokie** » Wed Dec 21, 2022 5:14 pm

Thanks, @BAC.

by **BeAChooser** » Wed Dec 21, 2022 8:59 am

Good post, jackokie.

by **jackokie** » Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:41 am

@Maol @Cargo mcfc16 is almost certainly a guy I've run into on youtube comment threads over the past couple of years; I first encountered him using the handle @Bob Smith, then @Plasma Physics 101, then @ian w. His purpose is not a discussion or exchange of information, it is only to disrupt. He's pulled this stunt on the Gareth Samuels videos related to cosmic plasma, and he is all over Eric Lerner's BB / JWST videos and Brian Keating's responses. Review those comment threads and you will see that the last thing this mutt is after is learning anything. Up until the past few days, I thought the guy just has some kind of personality disorder, but now, from the comments on various youtube videos challenging the BB, I believe the JWST images are having such an adverse effect that some BBers are getting desperate. Desperate enough that polluting youtube's discussions isn't enough - sites that are attracting attention on discussions of the JWST and BB must be addressed. Sounds farfetched? Ridiculous? I agree. But why else would someone who has a record of belligerently attacking EU come over here to do so? As @BeAChooser reminds us, it's all about the money; there are future grants and monetized youtube channels to protect.

@Maol It's to your credit you are giving @mcfc16 the benefit of the doubt, but ask yourself: Is @mcfc16's conduct here that of someone interested in exchanging views? Would professors you've had tolerate it if he spoke this way in the classroom? Before you can judge @mcfc16's purpose here and @BeAChooser's responses you need to review the relevant Lerner and Keating videos comment threads. What @mcfc16 is attempting is called the Heckler's Veto. It's the same thing we've seen time and again on college campuses where the baying mob shuts down presentations and discussions. It deserves only contempt.

From time to time people do things that are so hard to believe that it beggars belief: The mild-mannered neighbor who turns out to be a wife-beater; the kind uncle who is revealed as an embezzler. @mcfc16's/ian w's conduct here is the same in the comment threads I mentioned above. On one of Brian Keating's comment threads, Keating praised ian w's comments and reminded him to be sure to join Keating's group. I don't know why I had trouble believing it when I saw it - the thuggish gatekeeping at the journals is no different.

by **Cargo** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:49 pm

Maol wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:25 pm
Cargo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:14 pm The dishonest hand-waving and outright lies from mfcf are enough to make a camel cry. They are clearly full of nonsense and was proven wrong many times.
Don't you see the insulting tone is repugnant to strangers who may come upon this forum?

Let him explain his point of view until he realizes it is invalid ... or not.

I was merely using mfc's own tone back at him because that's all he gave in response. He's literally dismissed everything out of a wavy hand with the word "nonsense". Did he not? I was hoping someone would see it. What do these strangers think of the that, please tell us.

by **BeAChooser** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:53 pm

Maol wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:25 pm Let him explain his point of view until he realizes it is invalid ... or not.

Yes, honey has worked so well in the past (sarcasm) and if it doesn't now, what?

by **Maol** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:25 pm

Cargo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:14 pm The dishonest hand-waving and outright lies from mfcf are enough to make a camel cry. They are clearly full of nonsense and was proven wrong many times.

Don't you see the insulting tone is repugnant to strangers who may come upon this forum?

Let him explain his point of view until he realizes it is invalid ... or not.

by **Cargo** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:14 pm

The dishonest hand-waving and outright lies from mfcf are enough to make a camel cry. They are clearly full of nonsense and was proven wrong many times.

by **Maol** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:51 pm

Instead of calling alternate theories "nonsense" and using other terms implying less than respect for each other, why can't you use words that don't carry pejorative connotations? I think this subject can be discussed without a hint of ad hominem if everyone agrees to maintain the dialog in a realm of polite discourse.

You gentlemen are so engrossed in hearing naught but the voices in your own heads you are ignoring the fact that there is an audience who can learn from the dialog, but perceive reading it to be repugnant because of the disrespect shown in the text.

by **mcfc16** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:48 pm

BeAChooser wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:41 pm
mcfc16 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 3:29 pm Peratt published it in his own journal, where he knew damned well nobody would see it.
I said I wasn’t going to debate you line by line any more, and that’s true, but when I notice a obvious lie from you, I’m going to point it out. Your statement above is such a lie and we all know it because even before the post you’re now responding to, I had already provided you inks to 2 papers published in a long established, peer reviewed, science journal that Peratt obviously did not control in any way. Furthermore, down in my last post, which you should have read before responding unless you’re an idiot (:D), I provided another link to a long established, peer reviewed, science journal with a paper, published by not only Peratt but a fellow scientist at LANL, talking about their work on rotation curves. On top of that, in my post above, I linked a post on the thread where Ziggurat made the comment you quoted that listed a half dozen or more papers by Peratt published in long established, peer reviewed, scientific journals. So as everyone can see, you are easily proven liar, once again, lan w.

mcfc16 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 3:29 pm Do you struggle with comprehension?
Actually I think it is you who struggles with comprehension, cupcake. Because I already showed in previous posts why Battaner, et al, were wrong about their conclusions regarding electromagnetism and plasma. They weren’t modeling the physics that Peratt included when he ran his simulations at LANL on verified, state of the art codes. No, they used a much more limited part of those physics … apples and oranges. Peratt’s physics allowed him to match laboratory experiments related to what he was proposing. Battaner couldn’t do that. You see, DM is still a gnome. That eventually led Battaner to a completely wrong conclusion. Battanar and his buddies were like the blind men trying to figure out what an elephant was but touching only parts of it.

Keep in mind, one other thing, snowflake. E. Battaner and his associates were professors at mainstream, gnome believing colleges. Even back then it was career suicide to go against the establishment gnomes. Battaner may at first have wanted to do real science, but it’s no surprise if he let himself be led to the wrong conclusion if it kept him from being tossed on the street. In fact, thousands of astrophysicists since then have made the same financial calculation and reached the same conclusion ... that money is more important than good science. On top of that, the more recent astrophysicists have also have been brainwashed by a generation or two of mainstream gnomists who don’t even teach the physics Peratt learned any more. I imagine Battaner has brainwashed more than his share of baby astrophysicists by now. Professors will do anything to stay employed. Peratt, on the other hand, at least during the time he worked at LANL was under no such pressures. He could do real physics … and he obviously did.

Notice a few other things about Ian w’s latest response, folks. He wasn’t able to challenge my observation that gnome believing researchers haven’t found anything that actually benefits the people paying for that work ... not in 15 year, much less the 70 years they’ve been spending our money to search for their gnomes. Sure, there might be a few spinoffs from the technology they developed to conduct the search, but what they've learned about their gnomes hasn't benefited society in an material way.

Ian w also dismissed all the benefits the gnome researchers have gotten at our expense … their houses, cars, vacations, retirement plans, children’s educations, medical care and God knows what else. Money grows on trees in the world of people like mcfc16 (aka Ian w). And we have no rights to our own money. That's what woke people believe.

Plus, my observation that none of us taxpayers have been hurt (other than financially) by their failed search for gnomes led to Ian w talking about gravitational waves, event horizons, gravitational redshift, and binary neutron stars … not one of which has affected Joe Public's lives in ANY way. mcfc16 (aka Ian w) completely missed my point, didn’t he? Obtuseness seems to be characteristic of cultish gnome believers.

And then Ian goes on the attack, asking “What has your non-science brought us?” Well, first of all, the amount of taxpayer money spent on our “non-science” (LOL!) is infinitesimal compared to what you gnomers have been taking out of taxpayer pockets for generations. Second, as I’ve pointed out on many occasions, electromagnetic effects on plasma is something all of us have direct contact with every single day. Had the amount of money spent on mainstream astrophysics gnomes been devoted to our “non-science” instead, who knows what amazing stuff might have been discovered by now and be already in use? Why … we might already have controlled fusion. Plasma rocket engines based on double layers might already be in use. And maybe we’d have an explanaition for all those UFOs flying around our ships and doing seemingly impossible maneuvers? In fact, maybe we'd all be flying around doing maneuvers that you woke gnomers think impossible.

I could go on, but I won't. That’s all I’ll remark on here other than to point out that the troll apparently felt he needed to post his last long post twice to make his points stick. LOL! Well, let the troll have his fun. Keep pointing out his lies and I'm sure at some point he'll decide it's not fun. But in the meantime, notice that he still won’t come clean as to his posting history. I suspect that’s because he’s been a troll on forum after forum. I suspect that it’s because if we had the opportunity, like he *trying* to do with with me using the ISF thread, we could successfully embarrass him to no end.

Just saying …

Peratt was wrong. Get over it. Failed prediction = failed model. No mechanism for moving stars around = failed model. At least Peratt seems to have realised that, and given up on it.

electromagnetic effects on plasma is something all of us have direct contact with every single day.

But you don't have a single plasma physicist! Nor anyone with clue one about the subject. Alfven disagrees with your nonsense.

by **BeAChooser** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:41 pm

mcfc16 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 3:29 pm Peratt published it in his own journal, where he knew damned well nobody would see it.

I said I wasn’t going to debate you line by line any more, and that’s true, but when I notice a obvious lie from you, I’m going to point it out. Your statement above is such a lie and we all know it because even before the post you’re now responding to, I had already provided you inks to 2 papers published in a long established, peer reviewed, science journal that Peratt obviously did not control in any way. Furthermore, down in my last post, which you should have read before responding unless you’re an idiot (:D), I provided another link to a long established, peer reviewed, science journal with a paper, published by not only Peratt but a fellow scientist at LANL, talking about their work on rotation curves. On top of that, in my post above, I linked a post on the thread where Ziggurat made the comment you quoted that listed a half dozen or more papers by Peratt published in long established, peer reviewed, scientific journals. So as everyone can see, you are easily proven liar, once again, lan w.

mcfc16 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 3:29 pm Do you struggle with comprehension?

Actually I think it is you who struggles with comprehension, cupcake. Because I already showed in previous posts why Battaner, et al, were wrong about their conclusions regarding electromagnetism and plasma. They weren’t modeling the physics that Peratt included when he ran his simulations at LANL on verified, state of the art codes. No, they used a much more limited part of those physics … apples and oranges. Peratt’s physics allowed him to match laboratory experiments related to what he was proposing. Battaner couldn’t do that. You see, DM is still a gnome. That eventually led Battaner to a completely wrong conclusion. Battanar and his buddies were like the blind men trying to figure out what an elephant was but touching only parts of it.

Keep in mind, one other thing, snowflake. E. Battaner and his associates were professors at mainstream, gnome believing colleges. Even back then it was career suicide to go against the establishment gnomes. Battaner may at first have wanted to do real science, but it’s no surprise if he let himself be led to the wrong conclusion if it kept him from being tossed on the street. In fact, thousands of astrophysicists since then have made the same financial calculation and reached the same conclusion ... that money is more important than good science. On top of that, the more recent astrophysicists have also have been brainwashed by a generation or two of mainstream gnomists who don’t even teach the physics Peratt learned any more. I imagine Battaner has brainwashed more than his share of baby astrophysicists by now. Professors will do anything to stay employed. Peratt, on the other hand, at least during the time he worked at LANL was under no such pressures. He could do real physics … and he obviously did.

Notice a few other things about Ian w’s latest response, folks. He wasn’t able to challenge my observation that gnome believing researchers haven’t found anything that actually benefits the people paying for that work ... not in 15 year, much less the 70 years they’ve been spending our money to search for their gnomes. Sure, there might be a few spinoffs from the technology they developed to conduct the search, but what they've learned about their gnomes hasn't benefited society in an material way.

Ian w also dismissed all the benefits the gnome researchers have gotten at our expense … their houses, cars, vacations, retirement plans, children’s educations, medical care and God knows what else. Money grows on trees in the world of people like mcfc16 (aka Ian w). And we have no rights to our own money. That's what woke people believe.

Plus, my observation that none of us taxpayers have been hurt (other than financially) by their failed search for gnomes led to Ian w talking about gravitational waves, event horizons, gravitational redshift, and binary neutron stars … not one of which has affected Joe Public's lives in ANY way. mcfc16 (aka Ian w) completely missed my point, didn’t he? Obtuseness seems to be characteristic of cultish gnome believers.

And then Ian goes on the attack, asking “What has your non-science brought us?” Well, first of all, the amount of taxpayer money spent on our “non-science” (LOL!) is infinitesimal compared to what you gnomers have been taking out of taxpayer pockets for generations. Second, as I’ve pointed out on many occasions, electromagnetic effects on plasma is something all of us have direct contact with every single day. Had the amount of money spent on mainstream astrophysics gnomes been devoted to our “non-science” instead, who knows what amazing stuff might have been discovered by now and be already in use? Why … we might already have controlled fusion. Plasma rocket engines based on double layers might already be in use. And maybe we’d have an explanaition for all those UFOs flying around our ships and doing seemingly impossible maneuvers? In fact, maybe we'd all be flying around doing maneuvers that you woke gnomers think impossible.

I could go on, but I won't. That’s all I’ll remark on here other than to point out that the troll apparently felt he needed to post his last long post twice to make his points stick. LOL! Well, let the troll have his fun. Keep pointing out his lies and I'm sure at some point he'll decide it's not fun. But in the meantime, notice that he still won’t come clean as to his posting history. I suspect that’s because he’s been a troll on forum after forum. I suspect that it’s because if we had the opportunity, like he *trying* to do with with me using the ISF thread, we could successfully embarrass him to no end.

Just saying …

by **mcfc16** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 3:30 pm

BeAChooser wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:52 am Too bad you haven’t had any success finding a single scientific article, peer reviewed or not, that challenges Peratt’s work. LOL! Instead you have to rely on some nobody on an Internet forum who admits that Peratt actually did get his work published. An additional irony is that elsewhere on this forum you’ve been insisting that only if something is in a peer reviewed scientific publication is it worth your consideration. Yet you accept Ziggurat’s back of the envelop calculation?

Peratt published it in his own journal, where he knew damned well nobody would see it. That is why nobody bothered with his nonsense. Care to show Peratt's calculations for how he was moving charge neutral stars around? Or those from anyone else suggesting EM forces can explain rotation curves? You can't. Those calculations do not exist. And if Ziggurat was so wrong, how come Prof. Ted Bunn came to the same conclusion back in the 90s? Here is your chance to show where thy are wrong. Show us the calculations use by Peratt or Lerner used to calculate the acceleration of stars around galaxies. Get on with it.

And, by the way, read between the lines of that post and you’ll realize that Ziggurat was saying those codes LANL plasma physicists were using to model plasma phenomena in things like nuclear bombs didn’t work. He proved it with his back of the envelope calculation. LOL! But the best is still to come, folks. Click the thread link in the upper right corner of Ian w’s link and take a look at the rest of the long thread where Ziggurat made that post … just to get some context.

Yep, where you accused him of getting the maths wrong, when it was you who screwed it up!

Notice first of all, that when Ziggurat complained that I only supplied him with two papers by Peratt, and only one was published, I responded (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=76 ) by listing another eight papers and documents by Peratt. I pointed out a whole bunch that contained a complete description of his algorithms and computation parameters (one likely being the magnetic fields he couldn’t find).

And none of Peratt's papers explain how he is getting charge neutral stars to move around with EM forces. If you believe otherwise, post his calculations. Hint: they don't exist. Because it is impossible.

That post also listed another paper (not yet mention in my *debate* with Ian w) by Battener and Florido … http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503657 . This one from 2006, titled “Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?”. The abstract said this ... “Following the model of magnetically supported rotation of spiral galaxies, the inner disk rotation is dominated by gravity but magnetism is not negligible at radii where the rotation curve becomes flat, and indeed becomes dominant at very large radii. ... snip ... This magnetic alternative requires neither galactic dark matter (DM) nor modification of fundamental laws of physics ... snip ... Recent data about regular magnetic fields in spiral galaxies have been presented by Beck (2004b) in a recent review that clearly confirms what is to be expected in the magnetic scenario for rotation curves ... snip ... The magnetic alternative remains a serious, competitive theory. It requires neither the existence of DM nor the modification of classical laws (including General Relativity). It is based on MHD, a relatively recent chapter of Astrophysics, but one that has roots in classical electro-magnetism. ... snip ... the inclusion of magnetic effects, which is in any case necessary, could help to theoretically reproduce some unexplained, well known facts, for example, the rotation curve. Gravity alone does not explain the rotation curve very well, simply because magnetic fields cannot be ignored. ... snip ... The dynamic role of galactic magnetic fields is a matter that can no longer be ignored, neither at the small nor at the large scale."

Ouch! Guess Ian w was little too quick to dismiss their work as well. LOL!

Do you struggle with comprehension?

'DARK MATTER, MAGNETIC FIELDS, AND THE ROTATION CURVE OF THE MILKY WAY'
B. Ruiz-Granados, E. Battaner, J. Calvo, E. Florido, and J. A. Rubino-Martın (2012)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... /2/L23/pdf

"By assuming a bulge, an exponential disk for the stellar and gaseous distributions, and a dark halo and disk magnetic fields, we fit the rotation velocity of the Milky Way."

My bolding.

'MAGNETIC FIELDS AND THE OUTER ROTATION CURVE OF M31'
B. Ruiz-Granados, J. A. Rubino-Martın, E. Florido, and E. Battaner (2010)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... /1/L44/pdf

"Here, we propose an explanation of this dynamical feature based on the influence of the magnetic field within the thin disk. We have considered standard mass models for the luminous mass distribution, a Navarro–Frenk–White model to describe the dark halo, and we have added up the contribution to the rotation curve of a magnetic field in the disk..."

My bolding.

'Cold Dark Matter halos based on collisionless Boltzmann-Poisson polytropes.
Juan Calvo, Estrella Florido, Oscar Sanchez, Eduardo Battaner, Juan Soler and Beatriz Ruiz-Granados (2010)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Os ... aNycGzNDdE

"The aim of this work is to give some insight into the controversy between N-body simulations and observations of cold dark matter (CDM) halos by considering polytropic DM spheres associated to a collisionless gravitational Boltzmann-Poisson (BP) system. Our resulting polytrope model is used to make predictions on the behaviour of the CDM halos in those regions in which the numerical models cannot produce detailed results, i.e. near the center..."

My bolding.

Just consider the fact that it was conversation about Dark matter and Dark energy that took place 15 years ago … and they STILL haven’t found an explanation for either gnome. Think about that. They’ve spent billions trying to look for explanations since then and come up empty. But in the meantime they’ve added at least a dozen more gnomes. They call that progress.

And where have you dealt with the evidence for DM and DE in the peer-reviewed literature? Where has anyone? You have no alternatives. How do you explain the lensing observations of colliding galaxy clusters in your belief system? Weak lensing from galactic haloes? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect on the CMB photons, a prediction of DE models? The baryon acoustic oscillations, also strongly supporting DE? Supernovae 1a time dilation curves?
Word salad and polemic don't cut it. Shall I tell you how MOND deals with the first of those observations? They invoke 'some' DM! An hypothesis that was proposed to do away with DM and relativity now requires.....you guessed it..... DM and relativity! Which is why it is on its death bed. However, what they proposed was not scientifically impossible, and was published in the peer-reviewed literature in journals where it would be noticed.

And also, here we are 15 years later and have any of our lives been changed in a positive way by their efforts? Not that I can see. The only ones to benefit from all that spending are the searchers … and boy have they benefited from sticking hands in OUR tax paying pockets. We’ve bought them houses, cars, vacations, retirement plans, children’s educations, medical care and God knows what else.

Typical crackpot polemic. If you want to get rich doing science, you do it in the private sector. Funding simply means having enough money to pay people to do the research. And that pay is hardly going to get you a villa in the Bahamas!

Furthermore, have any of us been hurt (other than financially) because they failed to figure out those gnomes over the past 15 years?

You mean all the evidence they have found for their existence in that time? Not to mention detecting gravitational waves, imaging two event horizons, observing gravitational redshift of a star around Sgr A*, seeing predictions of binary neutron star orbital decay match relativistic predictions,.................. I could go on. What has your non-science brought us? What will it ever bring us? Not science, that's for sure.

And you’ll notice that even back in 2008, in a post to Olowkow (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=38 ), I noted that there were no peer reviewed papers (indeed there were no articles whatsoever) challenging the work of Peratt.

Because he deliberately published where he knew his nonsense wouldn't be seen. Just like with his plasma rock art woo. You may have missed the fact that the morphology of 'currents' that Peratt thought were passing through radio loud galaxies, are just AGN jets. They are going the wrong way! They are heading out on either side. His prediction of a 'spaghetti' of synchrotron from his impossibly large currents didn't show up. There is a reason he has done nothing with that 'model' in ~ 25 years. It failed.

Notice another post I made to Olowkow: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=41 . In it I cited a 1995 article by C. M. Snell and Anthony Peratt which I’ve not yet mentioned in my discussion with Ian w, titled “Rotation velocity and neutral hydrogen distribution dependency on magnetic field strength in spiral galaxies”. It was published in the SCIENTIFIC journal “Astrophysics and Space Science”. So much for Ian’s LIE that Peratt’s work only appeared in engineering journals. And quoting from the abstract of that paper … “The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show flat rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations. Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed." Oh my ... I bet Ian w is now wishing he’d never reminded me of this Ziggurat thread.

And nowhere does he show how he is moving charge-neutral stars around with EM forces. Because it cannot be done. Only gas and plasma. And stars are on the same flat rotation curves. He never explained it. Because he can't. There are three citations to that paper. One is from a conference, and therefore not peer-reviewed, with one citation. One is from Peratt, with zero citations. The other is from IEEE, with zero citations. Seems like he wasn't impressing anyone with his 'paper'.

Another irony of the thread is that poster sol Invictus announced that “DM detection experiments (at least the ones I know of) are extremely cheap.” I challenged his claim on that thread (for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=93) , listing a score of multi-million dollar projects. Peanuts, right? And where we are now, just 15 years later? They've spent BILLIONS of additional dollars on all manner of DM related experiments here on earth and in space. I sure hope those dollars came out of his pocket, not mine. But they didn't.

And most of those projects will be dual purpose, at least.

Notice another post I made, to arthwollipot, who defended spending on gnomes as long-sighted science. I pointed out to him that “Lee Smolin in his recent book ‘The Trouble With Physics’ made a good case, without realizing it, that string theorists have gone off the mathematical deep end, just like mainstream astrophysicists.” And guess what? Who hears anything about string theory these days? LOL!

Smolin had an axe to grind. And plenty of physicists don't like string theory, as they see it to make no predictions that can be verified. That is old news.

Reminds me a bit of Ian w!

Not me. And nothing to do with me. Don't take out your long held grudges against others on me. You were mostly ridiculed because you didn't understand the science.

Of course that thread was before I was banned for being … well … right? LOL!

You were never right about anything! You cannot explain stellar accelerations around galaxies, and you supported the equally impossible electric sun and electric comet nonsense. All of which are trivially shown to be impossible.

And one last comment. As you can see, I’m not perfect but I’ve no fear of anything I’ve posted on the internet. I’ll defend almost all of what I’ve written, except perhaps the dumb math mistakes or mis-quotes. But Ian w, on the other hand, seems to need to hide his past posting history. That might tell you something.

You aren't perfect because you don't understand the relevant science. And I'll defend anything I post on here. Want to start with why the solar wind cannot be a current, as per Alfven? Or why the electric sun is impossible? Be my guest.

by **mcfc16** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 3:29 pm

BeAChooser wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:52 am Too bad you haven’t had any success finding a single scientific article, peer reviewed or not, that challenges Peratt’s work. LOL! Instead you have to rely on some nobody on an Internet forum who admits that Peratt actually did get his work published. An additional irony is that elsewhere on this forum you’ve been insisting that only if something is in a peer reviewed scientific publication is it worth your consideration. Yet you accept Ziggurat’s back of the envelop calculation?

Peratt published it in his own journal, where he knew damned well nobody would see it. That is why nobody bothered with his nonsense. Care to show Peratt's calculations for how he was moving charge neutral stars around? Or those from anyone else suggesting EM forces can explain rotation curves? You can't. Those calculations do not exist. And if Ziggurat was so wrong, how come Prof. Ted Bunn came to the same conclusion back in the 90s? Here is your chance to show where thy are wrong. Show us the calculations use by Peratt or Lerner used to calculate the acceleration of stars around galaxies. Get on with it.

And, by the way, read between the lines of that post and you’ll realize that Ziggurat was saying those codes LANL plasma physicists were using to model plasma phenomena in things like nuclear bombs didn’t work. He proved it with his back of the envelope calculation. LOL! But the best is still to come, folks. Click the thread link in the upper right corner of Ian w’s link and take a look at the rest of the long thread where Ziggurat made that post … just to get some context.

Yep, where you accused him of getting the maths wrong, when it was you who screwed it up!

Notice first of all, that when Ziggurat complained that I only supplied him with two papers by Peratt, and only one was published, I responded (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=76 ) by listing another eight papers and documents by Peratt. I pointed out a whole bunch that contained a complete description of his algorithms and computation parameters (one likely being the magnetic fields he couldn’t find).

And none of Peratt's papers explain how he is getting charge neutral stars to move around with EM forces. If you believe otherwise, post his calculations. Hint: they don't exist. Because it is impossible.

That post also listed another paper (not yet mention in my *debate* with Ian w) by Battener and Florido … http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503657 . This one from 2006, titled “Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?”. The abstract said this ... “Following the model of magnetically supported rotation of spiral galaxies, the inner disk rotation is dominated by gravity but magnetism is not negligible at radii where the rotation curve becomes flat, and indeed becomes dominant at very large radii. ... snip ... This magnetic alternative requires neither galactic dark matter (DM) nor modification of fundamental laws of physics ... snip ... Recent data about regular magnetic fields in spiral galaxies have been presented by Beck (2004b) in a recent review that clearly confirms what is to be expected in the magnetic scenario for rotation curves ... snip ... The magnetic alternative remains a serious, competitive theory. It requires neither the existence of DM nor the modification of classical laws (including General Relativity). It is based on MHD, a relatively recent chapter of Astrophysics, but one that has roots in classical electro-magnetism. ... snip ... the inclusion of magnetic effects, which is in any case necessary, could help to theoretically reproduce some unexplained, well known facts, for example, the rotation curve. Gravity alone does not explain the rotation curve very well, simply because magnetic fields cannot be ignored. ... snip ... The dynamic role of galactic magnetic fields is a matter that can no longer be ignored, neither at the small nor at the large scale."

Ouch! Guess Ian w was little too quick to dismiss their work as well. LOL!

Do you struggle with comprehension?

'DARK MATTER, MAGNETIC FIELDS, AND THE ROTATION CURVE OF THE MILKY WAY'
B. Ruiz-Granados, E. Battaner, J. Calvo,

E. Florido

, and J. A. Rubino-Martın (2012)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... /2/L23/pdf

"By assuming a bulge, an exponential disk for the stellar and gaseous distributions, and a dark halo and disk magnetic fields, we fit the rotation velocity of the Milky Way."

My bolding.

'MAGNETIC FIELDS AND THE OUTER ROTATION CURVE OF M31'
B. Ruiz-Granados, J. A. Rubino-Martın, E. Florido, and E. Battaner (2010)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... /1/L44/pdf

"Here, we propose an explanation of this dynamical feature based on the influence of the magnetic field within the thin disk. We have considered standard mass models for the luminous mass distribution, a Navarro–Frenk–White model to describe the dark halo, and we have added up the contribution to the rotation curve of a magnetic field in the disk..."

My bolding.

'Cold Dark Matter halos based on collisionless Boltzmann-Poisson polytropes.
Juan Calvo, Estrella Florido, Oscar Sanchez, Eduardo Battaner, Juan Soler and Beatriz Ruiz-Granados (2010)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Os ... aNycGzNDdE

"The aim of this work is to give some insight into the controversy between N-body simulations and observations of cold dark matter (CDM) halos by considering polytropic DM spheres associated to a collisionless gravitational Boltzmann-Poisson (BP) system. Our resulting polytrope model is used to make predictions on the behaviour of the CDM halos in those regions in which the numerical models cannot produce detailed results, i.e. near the center..."

My bolding.

Just consider the fact that it was conversation about Dark matter and Dark energy that took place 15 years ago … and they STILL haven’t found an explanation for either gnome. Think about that. They’ve spent billions trying to look for explanations since then and come up empty. But in the meantime they’ve added at least a dozen more gnomes. They call that progress.

And where have you dealt with the evidence for DM and DE in the peer-reviewed literature? Where has anyone? You have no alternatives. How do you explain the lensing observations of colliding galaxy clusters in your belief system? Weak lensing from galactic haloes? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect on the CMB photons, a prediction of DE models? The baryon acoustic oscillations, also strongly supporting DE? Supernovae 1a time dilation curves?
Word salad and polemic don't cut it. Shall I tell you how MOND deals with the first of those observations? They invoke 'some' DM! An hypothesis that was proposed to do away with DM and relativity now requires.....you guessed it..... DM and relativity! Which is why it is on its death bed. However, what they proposed was not scientifically impossible, and was published in the peer-reviewed literature in journals where it would be noticed.

And also, here we are 15 years later and have any of our lives been changed in a positive way by their efforts? Not that I can see. The only ones to benefit from all that spending are the searchers … and boy have they benefited from sticking hands in OUR tax paying pockets. We’ve bought them houses, cars, vacations, retirement plans, children’s educations, medical care and God knows what else.

Typical crackpot polemic. If you want to get rich doing science, you do it in the private sector. Funding simply means having enough money to pay people to do the research. And that pay is hardly going to get you a villa in the Bahamas!

Furthermore, have any of us been hurt (other than financially) because they failed to figure out those gnomes over the past 15 years?

You mean all the evidence they have found for their existence in that time? Not to mention detecting gravitational waves, imaging two event horizons, observing gravitational redshift of a star around Sgr A*, seeing predictions of binary neutron star orbital decay match relativistic predictions,.................. I could go on. What has your non-science brought us? What will it ever bring us? Not science, that's for sure.

And you’ll notice that even back in 2008, in a post to Olowkow (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=38 ), I noted that there were no peer reviewed papers (indeed there were no articles whatsoever) challenging the work of Peratt.

Because he deliberately published where he knew his nonsense wouldn't be seen. Just like with his plasma rock art woo. You may have missed the fact that the morphology of 'currents' that Peratt thought were passing through radio loud galaxies, are just AGN jets. They are going the wrong way! They are heading out on either side. His prediction of a 'spaghetti' of synchrotron from his impossibly large currents didn't show up. There is a reason he has done nothing with that 'model' in ~ 25 years. It failed.

Notice another post I made to Olowkow: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=41 . In it I cited a 1995 article by C. M. Snell and Anthony Peratt which I’ve not yet mentioned in my discussion with Ian w, titled “Rotation velocity and neutral hydrogen distribution dependency on magnetic field strength in spiral galaxies”. It was published in the SCIENTIFIC journal “Astrophysics and Space Science”. So much for Ian’s LIE that Peratt’s work only appeared in engineering journals. And quoting from the abstract of that paper … “The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show flat rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations. Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed." Oh my ... I bet Ian w is now wishing he’d never reminded me of this Ziggurat thread.

And nowhere does he show how he is moving charge-neutral stars around with EM forces. Because it cannot be done. Only gas and plasma. And stars are on the same flat rotation curves. He never explained it. Because he can't. There are three citations to that paper. One is from a conference, and therefore not peer-reviewed, with one citation. One is from Peratt, with zero citations. The other is from IEEE, with zero citations. Seems like he wasn't impressing anyone with his 'paper'.

Another irony of the thread is that poster sol Invictus announced that “DM detection experiments (at least the ones I know of) are extremely cheap.” I challenged his claim on that thread (for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=93) , listing a score of multi-million dollar projects. Peanuts, right? And where we are now, just 15 years later? They've spent BILLIONS of additional dollars on all manner of DM related experiments here on earth and in space. I sure hope those dollars came out of his pocket, not mine. But they didn't.

And most of those projects will be dual purpose, at least.

Notice another post I made, to arthwollipot, who defended spending on gnomes as long-sighted science. I pointed out to him that “Lee Smolin in his recent book ‘The Trouble With Physics’ made a good case, without realizing it, that string theorists have gone off the mathematical deep end, just like mainstream astrophysicists.” And guess what? Who hears anything about string theory these days? LOL!

Smolin had an axe to grind. And plenty of physicists don't like string theory, as they see it have make no predictions that can be verified. That is old news.

Reminds me a bit of Ian w!

Not me. And nothing to do with me. Don't take out your long held grudges against others on me. You were mostly ridiculed because you didn't understand the science.

Of course that thread was before I was banned for being … well … right? LOL!

You were never right about anything! You cannot explain stellar accelerations around galaxies, and you supported the equally impossible electric sun and electric comet nonsense. All of which are trivially shown to be impossible.

And one last comment. As you can see, I’m not perfect but I’ve no fear of anything I’ve posted on the internet. I’ll defend almost all of what I’ve written, except perhaps the dumb math mistakes or mis-quotes. But Ian w, on the other hand, seems to need to hide his past posting history. That might tell you something.
[/quote]

You aren't perfect because you don't understand any relevant science. And I'll defend anything I post on here. Want to start with why the solar wind cannot be a current, as per Alfven? Or why the electric sun is impossible? Be my guest.

by **BeAChooser** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:52 am

mcfc16 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 4:25 am
Again. Provide a link
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=54

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=68

Thanks. Now I recall that conversation.

As everyone can see, like I said, I’ve been using the same screen name ever since I started posting on the internet.

You mcfc16 … or should I say Ian w?

Now then, were you a part of that ISF thread, Ian w? Is that why you recall it? If not, it sure was easy for you to find that obscure conversation nearly 15 years ago. Too bad you haven’t had any success finding a single scientific article, peer reviewed or not, that challenges Peratt’s work. LOL! Instead you have to rely on some nobody on an Internet forum who admits that Peratt actually did get his work published. An additional irony is that elsewhere on this forum you’ve been insisting that only if something is in a peer reviewed scientific publication is it worth your consideration. Yet you accept Ziggurat’s back of the envelop calculation? Hypocrite.

And, by the way, read between the lines of that post and you’ll realize that Ziggurat was saying those codes LANL plasma physicists were using to model plasma phenomena in things like nuclear bombs didn’t work. He proved it with his back of the envelope calculation. LOL! But the best is still to come, folks. Click the thread link in the upper right corner of Ian w’s link and take a look at the rest of the long thread where Ziggurat made that post … just to get some context.

Notice first of all, that when Ziggurat complained that I only supplied him with two papers by Peratt, and only one was published, I responded (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=76 ) by listing another eight papers and documents by Peratt. I pointed out a whole bunch that contained a complete description of his algorithms and computation parameters (one likely being the magnetic fields he couldn’t find).

That post also listed another paper (not yet mention in my *debate* with Ian w) by Battener and Florido … http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503657 . This one from 2006, titled “Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?”. The abstract said this ... “Following the model of magnetically supported rotation of spiral galaxies, the inner disk rotation is dominated by gravity but magnetism is not negligible at radii where the rotation curve becomes flat, and indeed becomes dominant at very large radii. ... snip ... This magnetic alternative requires neither galactic dark matter (DM) nor modification of fundamental laws of physics ... snip ... Recent data about regular magnetic fields in spiral galaxies have been presented by Beck (2004b) in a recent review that clearly confirms what is to be expected in the magnetic scenario for rotation curves ... snip ... The magnetic alternative remains a serious, competitive theory. It requires neither the existence of DM nor the modification of classical laws (including General Relativity). It is based on MHD, a relatively recent chapter of Astrophysics, but one that has roots in classical electro-magnetism. ... snip ... the inclusion of magnetic effects, which is in any case necessary, could help to theoretically reproduce some unexplained, well known facts, for example, the rotation curve. Gravity alone does not explain the rotation curve very well, simply because magnetic fields cannot be ignored. ... snip ... The dynamic role of galactic magnetic fields is a matter that can no longer be ignored, neither at the small nor at the large scale."

Ouch! Guess Ian w was little too quick to dismiss their work as well. LOL!

I also had to point out to Ziggurat that he was totally misrepresenting my views: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=77 . Maybe that he had to lie about them suggests a certain weakness in his views? Yes, indeed, there were a lot of gems in that thread.

Just consider the fact that it was conversation about Dark matter and Dark energy that took place 15 years ago … and they STILL haven’t found an explanation for either gnome. Think about that. They’ve spent billions trying to look for explanations since then and come up empty. But in the meantime they’ve added at least a dozen more gnomes. They call that progress.

And also, here we are 15 years later and have any of our lives been changed in a positive way by their efforts? Not that I can see. The only ones to benefit from all that spending are the searchers … and boy have they benefited from sticking hands in OUR tax paying pockets. We’ve bought them houses, cars, vacations, retirement plans, children’s educations, medical care and God knows what else.

Furthermore, have any of us been hurt (other than financially) because they failed to figure out those gnomes over the past 15 years? Not I. My point is that all their *work* is nothing more than counting angels on the heads of pins. It has had, and will have, no impact on our lives, now or into the somewhat distant future. We'll likely all be dead before it does. So we don’t need to their work product with any urgency … but we do need the resources that are being wasted on it. Ask almost anyone … besides them.

And you’ll notice that even back in 2008, in a post to Olowkow (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=38 ), I noted that there were no peer reviewed papers (indeed there were no articles whatsoever) challenging the work of Peratt. And his response was just to dismiss Peratt out of hand. Things sure haven’t changed. Maybe Ian w was Olowkow? Or perhaps sol Invictus, whose response to my noting that fact was “I don't know any peer-reviewed papers in astrophysics challenging the conclusion that Leos with Virgo ascendant are perfectionists, either”, is Ian w?

Notice another post I made to Olowkow: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=41 . In it I cited a 1995 article by C. M. Snell and Anthony Peratt which I’ve not yet mentioned in my discussion with Ian w, titled “Rotation velocity and neutral hydrogen distribution dependency on magnetic field strength in spiral galaxies”. It was published in the SCIENTIFIC journal “Astrophysics and Space Science”. So much for Ian’s LIE that Peratt’s work only appeared in engineering journals. And quoting from the abstract of that paper … “The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show flat rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations. Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed." Oh my ... I bet Ian w is now wishing he’d never reminded me of this Ziggurat thread.

Another irony of the thread is that poster sol Invictus announced that “DM detection experiments (at least the ones I know of) are extremely cheap.” I challenged his claim on that thread (for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=93) , listing a score of multi-million dollar projects. Peanuts, right? And where we are now, just 15 years later? They've spent BILLIONS of additional dollars on all manner of DM related experiments here on earth and in space. I sure hope those dollars came out of his pocket, not mine. But they didn't.

Notice another post I made, to arthwollipot, who defended spending on gnomes as long-sighted science. I pointed out to him that “Lee Smolin in his recent book ‘The Trouble With Physics’ made a good case, without realizing it, that string theorists have gone off the mathematical deep end, just like mainstream astrophysicists.” And guess what? Who hears anything about string theory these days? LOL!

And believe it or not folks, all that is in just the first 2 pages of a 19 page thread at ISF … and look at what’s happened to the point that Ian w was desperately trying to make here? Poof.

How about the third page. More of the same. Plenty of debate between me and Ziggurat, and others, that doesn’t turn out at all like Ian w has tried to portray. And plenty of other gems.

sol Invictus falsely accused me (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=110) of being a 9/11 Truther (which was ludicrous given my long posting history at JREF debunking 9/11 Truthers) and of using sock puppets (another outright lie). The coward made his accusations post to another poster … not to my face. One of his evidentiary links was nothing more than a slanderous attack on me by a mob of far leftists who really didn’t like me (as you can well imagine given my frowned upon political postings here) because I was a thorn in their side. This was on a left-leaning political forum (freedom4um) that for a time allowed me to post, strangely enough, You can see what I mean by being a thorm just by reading my responses to that mob (and particularly a weasel named Ferret Mike). You might say I destroyed him and all the others. Enjoy. In any case, I responded to sol Invictus’ lies on the ISF thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=114 . Notice that he didn’t bring those lies up again on the thread or any other thread at ISF (formerly JREF). This example shows how dishonest he was and he was typical of the depths to which astrophysics gnome believers would stoop to defend their gnomes. Reminds me a bit of Ian w!

In any case, that's as far as I’ll delve into the ISF thread that Ian w kindly linked for us. However, the rest of you might find additional gems in pages 4 and on. More examples of me identifying lies, misinformation, and gnomes by the mainstream believers on that forum. More interesting linked articles. Plenty more posts demolishing Ian w’s stalking horse, Ziggurat. I made well over a hundred more posts. It was lots of fun and I was posting to end of the thread on all sorts of topics related to PC and EU. Of course that thread was before I was banned for being … well … right? LOL!

And one last comment. As you can see, I’m not perfect but I’ve no fear of anything I’ve posted on the internet. I’ll defend almost all of what I’ve written, except perhaps the dumb math mistakes or mis-quotes. But Ian w, on the other hand, seems to need to hide his past posting history. That might tell you something.

by **Cargo** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:15 am

The JREF Strikes Back. Times must be desperate. We're doing well.
I would ask for a pray the the StickManStone.com Store be stocked better. https://www.stickmanonstone.com/shop/p/ ... f-the-atom
In fact I want to Mail AOL-Styhle the Thunderbolts Tutorial DVD to about 1 million people. That would be much more valued to mankind instead of gravity wavy higgsly project$.

by **mcfc16** » Tue Dec 20, 2022 4:25 am

BeAChooser wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 8:18 pm
mcfc16 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 4:43 pm And also that provided by Ziggurat to you on ISF years ago. Which you never dealt with.

Again. Provide a link
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=54

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=68

Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...

Re: Hope and a prayer … and another gnome ...