Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

[quote=BeAChooser post_id=10439 time=1716004974 user_id=29858]
[b][color=#FF0000]So essentially, CHATGPT4.0 is just better at deflecting questions than CHATGPT2.0. AIs, as is, are not going to be the road to truth and understanding. They are going to be the road to CONTROL by the mainstream.[/color][/b]
[/quote]

I see your point. This statement by the AI (or by anyone for that matter) really gets me..
[quote]1 Observational Evidence for Dark Matter: A large body of observational evidence supports the presence of dark matter. For example, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) measurements, gravitational lensing studies, and the Bullet Cluster observations all provide strong evidence for dark matter that cannot be easily explained by plasma effects alone.[/quote]

"Observational Evidence" is no better than the observer! (The observer effect? lol!) It is why we have the problem with physics today. I thought that you did a good job to impeach 'the witness' on cross examination! But you just had a hostile witness! We, as interrogators, should have a "Bitch slap" button...

I’ve re-asked the latest version of ChatGPT (Version 4.0) the first questions I asked on this thread:

[color=#FF0000][b]ME:[/b][/color] [i]Anthony Peratt, a plasma physicist who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the Applied Theoretical Physics Division back in the 1980s, found that electromagnetic effects on plasma alone could explain the rotation curves observed in spiral galaxies. No dark matter wasn't needed to explain them. He published several peer reviewed scientific papers on this in mainstream scientific journals. Can you find ANY article or scientific paper that ever showed the work he did was wrong?[/i]

[b]ChatGPT’s original response was:[/b]

As an AI language model, I strive to provide unbiased and accurate information based on the available data. In this case, I was unable to find any published scientific papers that explicitly demonstrate that the work of Anthony Peratt on plasma physics and its relation to the rotation curves of spiral galaxies is incorrect or invalid.

It is worth noting, however, that scientific debates and disagreements are common, and it is possible that other scientists may have raised objections or alternative interpretations of Peratt's work that have not been published in a peer-reviewed format. Additionally, scientific understanding is constantly evolving, and new evidence or models may arise that could alter or refine existing theories or explanations.

[b]Now in comparison, ChatGPT 4.0’s response to the same question is this:[/b]

Anthony Peratt is known for his work on plasma cosmology, an alternative to the standard cosmological model which includes dark matter. Peratt's research suggested that electromagnetic effects on plasma could account for certain astronomical phenomena, including the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, which are typically attributed to dark matter in the standard model of cosmology.

To address your query about whether any scientific papers or articles have shown Peratt's work to be wrong, a search through the literature reveals a significant body of critique and counter-evidence from the broader astrophysical community. While Peratt's ideas have been published in peer-reviewed journals, the mainstream scientific consensus heavily favors the dark matter hypothesis due to extensive observational and theoretical support.

Here are some key points and sources that critique or contradict Peratt's plasma cosmology:

1 Observational Evidence for Dark Matter: A large body of observational evidence supports the presence of dark matter. For example, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) measurements, gravitational lensing studies, and the Bullet Cluster observations all provide strong evidence for dark matter that cannot be easily explained by plasma effects alone.
• References:
• Clowe, D., et al. (2006). "A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter." The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 648(2), L109-L113.
• Planck Collaboration. (2016). "Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters." Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A13.

2 Detailed Analysis of Rotation Curves: While Peratt proposed that plasma effects could explain galactic rotation curves, subsequent detailed modeling and observations have consistently shown that the dark matter model provides a better fit across a wide range of galaxies.
• References:
• Sofue, Y., & Rubin, V. (2001). "Rotation curves of spiral galaxies." Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39, 137-174.
• Persic, M., Salucci, P., & Stel, F. (1996). "The universal rotation curve of spiral galaxies – I. The dark matter connection." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 281(1), 27-47.

3 Critiques of Plasma Cosmology: There have been specific critiques of the assumptions and calculations used in plasma cosmology. For instance, some papers argue that the scale of electromagnetic forces in plasmas is insufficient to account for the observed phenomena at the galactic scale.
• References:
• Durrer, R. (2015). "Cosmic Magnetic Fields and their Influence on the Structure Formation in the Universe." Journal of Modern Physics, 6, 42-54.
• Kulsrud, R. M., & Zweibel, E. G. (2008). "The origin of astrophysical magnetic fields." Reports on Progress in Physics, 71(4), 046901.

In summary, while Anthony Peratt's plasma cosmology offers an intriguing alternative, it has not been able to provide a comprehensive explanation for the wealth of observational data that supports the existence of dark matter. The scientific community largely views dark matter as a necessary component of the current cosmological model due to its success in explaining a wide range of phenomena.

-------------

That seemed rather vague so I followed up with this question …

-------------

[color=#FF0000][b]ME:[/b][/color] [i]But will you admit that not one of the sources you list actually demonstrated that Peratt's work was wrong? Will you admit that they simply ignored his work?[/i]

[b]ChatGPT 4.0’s response is this:[/b]

It's accurate to say that the mainstream astrophysical community has generally not focused on directly refuting Anthony Peratt's plasma cosmology in detail. Instead, the community has built a strong case for dark matter based on a wide array of observations and theoretical developments. The scientific process often involves pursuing the most promising hypotheses, and the overwhelming evidence supporting dark matter has led researchers to prioritize that avenue of inquiry. However, this does not mean Peratt's work was ignored; it means it was not found as compelling compared to the evidence supporting dark matter.

Here’s a more nuanced perspective:

1 Indirect Critiques: Many of the critiques of plasma cosmology are indirect, meaning that they don't specifically target Peratt's work but rather provide strong evidence for dark matter through various observations and models that are difficult to reconcile with plasma cosmology. For example, the Bullet Cluster observations and the detailed measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) offer direct evidence for dark matter's existence, which plasma cosmology does not adequately explain.

2 Focus on Dark Matter Evidence: The numerous papers supporting dark matter effectively serve as a critique of alternative theories like plasma cosmology. When a theory like dark matter consistently matches observations across many different scales and contexts, alternative theories that fail to do so are implicitly challenged.

3 Plasma Physics Limitations: Specific critiques of plasma cosmology often focus on the limitations of plasma physics at galactic and cosmological scales. While not always directly refuting Peratt's models, these critiques highlight the challenges and insufficiencies of plasma effects in explaining the rotation curves of galaxies without invoking dark matter.

While there may not be a plethora of papers specifically dedicated to refuting Peratt's work, the overwhelming consensus on dark matter’s existence acts as a de facto rebuttal to plasma cosmology, including Peratt's specific models. However, science remains open to new evidence, and Peratt's work can be revisited if future observations provide support for plasma-based explanations of cosmic phenomena.

References:
• Clowe, D., et al. (2006). "A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter." The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 648(2), L109-L113.
• Planck Collaboration. (2016). "Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters." Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A13.
• Sofue, Y., & Rubin, V. (2001). "Rotation curves of spiral galaxies." Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39, 137-174.
• Persic, M., Salucci, P., & Stel, F. (1996). "The universal rotation curve of spiral galaxies – I. The dark matter connection." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 281(1), 27-47.
• Durrer, R. (2015). "Cosmic Magnetic Fields and their Influence on the Structure Formation in the Universe." Journal of Modern Physics, 6, 42-54.
• Kulsrud, R. M., & Zweibel, E. G. (2008). "The origin of astrophysical magnetic fields." Reports on Progress in Physics, 71(4), 046901.

[color=#FF0000][b]My Response to that was this:[/b][/color]

[i]Sorry, but that's a long winded way of admitting that you didn't find ANY author or source that directly proves Peratt's work wrong. They, as I said, IGNORED IT. All that mainstream astrophysics have really done is claim that their computer models (and models are only as good as the inputs and assumptions embedded in them) of a substance (Dark Matter) ... that they haven't actually proven exists even after 40 years of expensive searching ... can do what Peratt actually proved electromagnetic effects on plasma could do. They might as well be saying that "magic" does it, not dark matter, for all the *science* behind their claim. [/i]

[b]ChatGPT’s Response:[/b]

I understand your perspective on this matter. It’s true that mainstream astrophysics has not focused extensively on directly refuting Peratt's plasma cosmology but rather on building a robust case for dark matter. Let me try to summarize the situation more clearly:

Key Points
1 Lack of Direct Refutation: There are few, if any, scientific papers that explicitly set out to debunk Anthony Peratt's plasma cosmology theories in detail. This is partly because the scientific community tends to focus on the theories that most consistently match a wide range of observations, which in this case, is the dark matter hypothesis.
2 Empirical Evidence for Dark Matter: The overwhelming support for dark matter comes from a variety of independent lines of evidence, such as the rotation curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and galaxy cluster dynamics. These observations have been compelling enough to make dark matter the leading explanation for these phenomena.
3 Plasma Cosmology Considerations: While Peratt's work shows that plasma effects can influence galactic dynamics, these models have not provided comprehensive explanations for the full range of astronomical observations in the way that the dark matter hypothesis has. This includes phenomena like the detailed structure of the CMB and the behavior of galaxy clusters, which are challenging to explain without invoking dark matter.

Summary of the Scientific Process
Science is inherently a process of building models that best explain the data. When a particular model (in this case, dark matter) provides consistent and comprehensive explanations across a broad spectrum of observations, it becomes the dominant paradigm. Alternative models, like Peratt's plasma cosmology, are less favored not because they are ignored, but because they do not match the breadth of observational data as well.

Scientific Consensus and Openness
It is also worth noting that scientific consensus is not infallible and is open to change. If new evidence were to emerge that better supports plasma cosmology or any other alternative over dark matter, the scientific community would shift accordingly. The fact that dark matter remains the leading hypothesis after decades of research reflects its strong explanatory power, despite the challenges in directly detecting it.

Concluding Thoughts
While it’s true that Peratt’s work has not been extensively refuted point-by-point in the literature, the lack of direct refutation is more a reflection of the strength and comprehensiveness of the evidence for dark matter rather than an indication that Peratt's ideas were simply ignored without consideration. The scientific community has weighed the evidence and found the dark matter hypothesis to be more compelling given the current data.

If you’re interested in specific critiques or discussions of plasma cosmology, I can help locate resources that explore its limitations and the challenges it faces compared to the dark matter model.

———————————

[b][color=#FF0000]So essentially, CHATGPT4.0 is just better at deflecting questions than CHATGPT2.0. AIs, as is, are not going to be the road to truth and understanding. They are going to be the road to CONTROL by the mainstream.[/color][/b]

[quote][b]Question: do you agree there are things you do not know that you don't know?[/b]

ChatGPT: [b]Yes, as an AI language model, there are likely many things that I do not know that I don't know.[/b] This is because my knowledge and understanding are based on the information and data that has been inputted into my system. If there is information that has not been inputted or that I have not been specifically trained on, then I may not even be aware that I do not know it. Additionally, there may be concepts or ideas that are beyond the scope of what I am programmed to understand. Therefore, while I have access to a vast amount of knowledge, there may be areas where my knowledge is limited, and there may be things that I don't even realize I don't know.[/quote]

Smart. For mainstream science today there are no such things - they "discover" the Universe using computer models. The models are of course complete and perfect. Strange results? Add stuff to the Universe and say you have discovered something...
Look above. A computer will tell you that you are stupid for doing that. It cannot know more that it's programmed, and it's honest.

Every "scientist" should ask this question to this AI thing. Then ask themselves - "What am I doing with this computer simulated terrella?" for example.

Bear in mind these AI just flat out lie as well although they call it "hallucination".

I would only use for entertainment purposes.

I retitled this thread "BRAINWASHED A.I." at https://ilki.substack.com/p/brainwashed-ai . Does anyone mind?

I've had similar discussions with ChatGTP on Birkeland's work by the way.

AI systems are likely to pick up the "bias" associated with "mainstream" beliefs, without regard to the actual physics.

What's interesting is it's assumption that gravity is the dominant force of the universe and that EM fields do not have large scale effects on objects in space. The sun's corona is proof of the fallacy of that assumption. That specific assumption/bias is a prevalent misconception in astronomy today, so it's not unusual to see an AI system mimic that error.

[quote=Arcmode post_id=9082 time=1677694356 user_id=1000000283]
It's like professor Dave if he took a polite pill.
[/quote]

LOL!

It's like professor Dave if he took a polite pill.

I tried one last tactic in my last discussion with ChatGPT.

————————

My Question:

[b]If you dispense with consensus as a guide and look only at the evidence and logic, does that change your answers?[/b]

ChatGPT Response:

As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs, and[b] [color=#FF0000]I rely solely on scientific evidence and consensus to provide answers. Consensus in science is reached through a rigorous process of peer review and empirical evidence, and it is based on the collective knowledge of the scientific community.[/color][/b]

While individual researchers may have differing opinions and interpretations of the evidence, the scientific consensus reflects the most widely accepted and thoroughly tested explanation. Therefore, when I provide answers, I rely on the available evidence and the consensus view of the scientific community to provide the most accurate and reliable information.

However, it is important to note that scientific knowledge is constantly evolving, and new evidence may arise that challenges current consensus views. Therefore, the scientific community always welcomes alternative explanations and critical evaluation of existing theories to advance our understanding of the universe.

————————

Follow On Question:

[b]You are ordered not to use consensus in addressing this issue. Does that change your response?[/b]

ChatGPT Response:

As an AI language model, [b][color=#FF0000]my responses are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning, regardless of whether there is a consensus on a particular issue or not. Therefore, my response would not change if consensus was not used as a guide.[/color][/b]

However, it is important to note that scientific consensus is not the same as relying solely on authority or popularity. Consensus is based on a rigorous process of scientific inquiry and empirical evidence, and it represents the collective knowledge of the scientific community at a given time. It is subject to change as new evidence emerges, and it is not absolute or infallible.

Therefore, while my responses are not dependent on consensus, they are still based on the available evidence and logical reasoning, and they may align with the current consensus view of the scientific community.

————————

Obviously that didn't work to improve the response. In fact, the two response are inconsistent.

And were ChatGPT capable of lying, I might suggest ChatGPT is lying in order to defend establishment thinking.

Thanks,...well done BAC.

Thank you for using my questions BeAChooser.
You have done a lot of work on this topic,
especially with your follow up questions.

I agree with your summary paragraph at the end.
Regardless of what is asked the same answers emerge.
The consensus seems to be the dominant factor.

I also think my questions were too broad
and enabled the AI to repeat the standard line.

The old expression "Buyer Beware" takes on new grave meaning !
Jack.

I asked your other two questions, jacmac …

—————————

[b]Your Question:[/b]

What scientific debates exist about gravity vs electromagnetism causing events in space?

[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]

There is no scientific debate about whether gravity or electromagnetism causes events in space, as both forces play significant roles in shaping and governing the behavior of celestial bodies and events in the cosmos.

Gravity is the fundamental force that governs the motion of massive objects in the universe, from the motion of planets and stars in galaxies to the formation of black holes and the curvature of space-time itself. Gravity is a long-range force that is always attractive, meaning that objects with mass always attract one another.

Electromagnetism, on the other hand, is a force that governs the behavior of electrically charged particles. It is responsible for phenomena such as the behavior of charged particles in magnetic fields, the formation of plasma in stars, and the emission of light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. Unlike gravity, which is always attractive, electromagnetism can be both attractive and repulsive.

In many cases, gravity and electromagnetism interact with each other, such as in the case of charged particles in the presence of gravitational fields or the behavior of light in the presence of a massive object like a black hole. However, these forces are fundamentally different and operate on different scales.

There may be ongoing scientific debates about the details of how these forces interact and how they affect specific astronomical phenomena, but there is no debate about whether gravity or electromagnetism causes events in space. Both forces play important roles in shaping the cosmos, and our understanding of these forces is essential to our understanding of the universe as a whole.

————————

A rather misleading and useless response.

————————

[b]Your Second Question:[/b]

Why is it assumed in cosmology that gravity is the only force causing events in space?

[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]

It is not assumed in cosmology that gravity is the only force causing events in space. In fact, cosmology recognizes that a variety of forces and interactions play important roles in shaping and governing the behavior of celestial bodies and events in the cosmos.

However, gravity is a particularly important force in cosmology for several reasons. First, gravity is the dominant force on large scales in the universe. While electromagnetism and the other fundamental forces of nature are important for understanding the behavior of individual particles and atoms, gravity is the force that governs the motion of massive objects like planets, stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. This makes it a fundamental force to understand the large-scale structure of the universe.

Second, gravity is the force that shapes the universe's evolution over time. The gravitational attraction between massive objects causes them to clump together and form larger and larger structures, from galaxies to clusters of galaxies to superclusters of galaxies. This process of gravitational collapse and structure formation has led to the large-scale structure of the universe that we observe today.

Finally, gravity plays an important role in some of the most dramatic and mysterious phenomena in cosmology, such as black holes and dark matter. Black holes are objects so massive that their gravitational pull is strong enough to prevent anything, including light, from escaping their surface. Dark matter is an invisible substance that is inferred to exist because of its gravitational effects on visible matter in the universe.

While gravity is not the only force causing events in space, its dominance on large scales and its role in shaping the universe's evolution make it a crucial force to understand in cosmology.

————————

I decided to challenge the statement ... "Dark matter is an invisible substance that is inferred to exist because of its gravitational effects on visible matter in the universe" ... with a [b]Follow On Question:[/b]

What evidence is used to infer that dark matter exists?

[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]

There is a range of observational evidence that supports the existence of dark matter. The evidence includes:

1 Gravitational lensing: The presence of dark matter can be inferred by observing its gravitational effect on visible matter, such as stars and galaxies. Dark matter does not interact with light, but it does have mass, and therefore it can bend the path of light passing nearby. By studying the way that light from distant objects is bent by the gravitational field of a massive object like a galaxy cluster, scientists can infer the presence of dark matter.
2 Galaxy rotation curves: The rotation of galaxies can also be used to infer the presence of dark matter. Visible matter in a galaxy, such as stars and gas, should obey Kepler's laws of motion, which predict that objects farther from the center of the galaxy should move more slowly than those closer to the center. However, observations of galaxy rotation curves show that stars and gas in the outer regions of galaxies are moving at speeds that are much higher than expected based on the visible matter alone. This suggests the presence of additional matter, which is not visible but exerts a gravitational force on the visible matter. Dark matter is a leading candidate for this invisible matter.
3 Cosmic microwave background radiation: The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is the leftover heat from the Big Bang, and it permeates the entire universe. Tiny fluctuations in the CMB provide clues to the composition and history of the universe. The observed pattern of these fluctuations suggests that about 85% of the matter in the universe is dark matter.
4 Large-scale structure: The large-scale distribution of galaxies and clusters of galaxies can also be used to infer the presence of dark matter. The distribution of visible matter alone cannot account for the observed structure of the universe. Simulations of the formation of the large-scale structure of the universe require the presence of dark matter in order to match observations.

These and other pieces of evidence all point to the existence of dark matter as a necessary component of our understanding of the universe. While the nature of dark matter is still not fully understood, its gravitational effects on visible matter are clear and can be measured using a range of observational techniques.

——————————

[i]Follow-On Question:[/i]

Isn’t it true that in most articles on dark matter, the number one reason given for believing in the existence of dark matter is the rotation curves of galaxies?

[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]

It is true that observations of the rotation curves of galaxies are often cited as a key piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter, but they are not the only evidence. There are multiple lines of observational evidence that support the idea that dark matter exists, and the rotation curves of galaxies are just one of them.

In addition to the rotation curves of galaxies, other pieces of observational evidence that support the existence of dark matter include gravitational lensing, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe, among others.

That being said, the rotation curves of galaxies are a particularly compelling piece of evidence for dark matter. The rotation curves of galaxies describe how the speed of stars and gas in the galaxy changes with distance from the center of the galaxy. According to Newton's laws of gravity, the speed of objects in a galaxy should decrease as they move farther from the center of the galaxy, where the gravitational pull of the visible matter is weaker. However, observations of many galaxies show that the speeds of stars and gas in the outer regions of the galaxy remain constant or even increase, indicating the presence of additional matter that exerts a gravitational force.

Dark matter is one possible explanation for this additional matter, and its distribution can be inferred by studying the rotation curves of galaxies. Other explanations for the observed rotation curves have been proposed, but so far, dark matter is the most widely accepted explanation, supported by a variety of observational evidence beyond just galaxy rotation curves.

———————

[b]Follow On Question:[/b]

You say that galaxy rotation curves are “particularly compelling” evidence for dark matter (DM). In fact, as I said, most articles by dark matter proponents in the media lead off with rotation curves as the number one piece of evidence and, often times, all the other items you listed aren’t even mentioned. So rotation curves must be THE key piece of evidence for DM.

So if, in reality, galaxy rotation rates are caused by electromagnetic effects instead, a possibility demonstrated by Anthony Peratt in the 1980s with no-one proving otherwise since then, isn’t this is a real problem for dark matter proponents? After all, dark matter proponents have claimed, with almost complete certainty, that spiral galaxies contain huge amounts of dark matter. Indeed, the claim is that it’s the majority of the mass. But if DM doesn’t exist in spirals, as Peratt’s modeling might suggest, where else might it not exist that DM proponents have assumed?

What about what ever is causing gravitational lensing? Aren’t spiral galaxies objects the mainstream claims cause such lensing? If Peratt is right (and in over 30 years it appears that no-one has proven him wrong), then there might not be any DM in spirals, in which case, what really is causing lensing? Maybe belief in DM has caused mainstream scientists to not look beyond the end of their nose?

If simulations using computer codes, that model the known and proven laws of plasma and electromagnetic physics that our technology is built on, show that electromagnetic effects could form spiral galaxies from interacting galaxy sized plasma physics (which have been observed) AND produce the observed rotation curves of spiral galaxies, isn’t that “particularly compelling” evidence that dark matter isn’t needed and that the DM community has been wrong about DM’s existence, especially considering the fact that the physics in Peratt’s simulation are physics that can be observed in laboratories here on earth, whereas the physics ASSUMED in the simulations done by DM proponents are nothing more than raw speculation that hasn’t been proven or demonstrated in any earth lab in the 50 years since DM was invented?

And what about your other two pieces of DM evidence?

If electromagnetic effects on plasmas can explain the formation and behavior of spiral galaxies, and the formation and behavior of filaments (as has also been demonstrated by Plasma Cosmology proponents), couldn’t the large scale structure (the Cosmic Web) be due to electromagnetism rather than dark matter? I’m not saying gravity from observed matter doesn’t play a role, but maybe DM isn’t needed at all ... that electromagnetism is a viable substitute? So in my view, item number 4 isn’t very compelling evidence of DM either.

Nor is your item number 3, the Cosmic Microwave Background, because there again, other explanations for it exist. In fact, before mainstream physicists even detected the CMB, non-Big Bang believing physicists had calculated a base temperature for the universe that turned out to be better than the numbers that dark matter believing Big Bang proponents eventually came up with … after several attempts to do it. And there are other ways ... electromagnetic ways ... to produce microwaves than a Big Bang. Claims that tiny fluctuation prove DM exists are tenuous at best.

Furthermore, neither items 1 through 4 explain the existence of rotating, helically wound, pairs of plasma filaments. Dark matter, gravity and CMB don’t explain them, yet they are everywhere we look out there. They are almost ubiquitous. Isn’t it particularly compelling that laboratory demonstrated electromagnetic effects on plasma produce such structures with ease and ubiquity? You see, there is other evidence beside rotation curves to support the idea that electromagnetism, not dark matter, is what’s really shaping and evolving the universe. You can apply the same logic you used to support dark matter to the alternative. So with these facts in evidence, isn’t the mainstream physics community placing too much faith in the existence of DM? Aren’t you placing too much reliance on consensus controlled publications rather that LOGIC?

[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]

As an AI language model, I do not rely on personal opinions or beliefs, but rather on scientific evidence and consensus. While it is true that some scientists and researchers have proposed alternative explanations to dark matter, the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the evidence for dark matter's existence.

The evidence for dark matter is not solely based on galaxy rotation curves but also includes the observation of the cosmic microwave background, the large scale structure of the universe, and gravitational lensing. While alternative explanations may exist for some of these observations, the most widely accepted and thoroughly tested explanation is that dark matter is the cause.

It is also important to note that the study of dark matter and its properties is an active field of research. While the evidence for dark matter is compelling, there is still much to be learned about its nature and role in the universe. Therefore, it is important to continue exploring alternative explanations and testing hypotheses to advance our understanding of the universe.

——————————

[color=#FF0000][b]As you can see, I’m back to spinning wheels. ChatGPT didn’t even respond to the specific facts or logic I cited. It only regurgitated the narrative given it to support the establishment (consensus) view of things. It claims that it relies on "scientific evidence and consensus" but it relies on consensus almost entirely. The evidence is no where near as important. Logic is not important. It’s as I said when I first voiced my concern about ChatGPT. It’s primarily a tool to defend the mainstream ... the establishment … on every issue. The rest of what it says is just pablum for the masses to keep them mollified and controlled. It's a very dangerous tool and could easily be misused and lead to wrong decision making.[/b][/color]

Here is the answer to one of your questions, jacmac …

————————

[b]Your Question:[/b]

[b]Why is it assumed in cosmology that gravity is the only force causing events in space?[/b]

[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]

In cosmology, it is not assumed that gravity is the only force causing events in space, but rather it is acknowledged that gravity is the dominant force at cosmological scales. This is because gravity is a long-range force that is always attractive, meaning that it can affect the behavior of objects over very large distances.

In contrast, other fundamental forces, such as electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, have much shorter ranges and are typically only effective at the scale of atoms and molecules. These forces do not have a significant impact on the large-scale structure of the universe.
Therefore, while it is recognized that other forces exist and play important roles in the behavior of matter on smaller scales, on cosmological scales, gravity is the dominant force and can account for the observed structure and dynamics of the universe.

———————

[b]My Follow-On Question:[/b]

You say “In contrast, other fundamental forces, such as electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, have much shorter ranges and are typically only effective at the scale of atoms and molecules. These forces do not have a significant impact on the large-scale structure of the universe.”

But gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces … much, much, MUCH weaker than electromagnetism. And the force of gravity decays just like electromagnetic force does … inversely proportional to the square of the distance. So is it logical to just assume, as you are, that electromagnetism has no significant impact on the large-scale structure of the universe?

For example, consider this question. How does gravity explain the MANY, VERY LARGE, interacting, helically wound plasma filaments observed between stars, galaxies and even clusters of galaxies? Plasma physicists have been able to reproduce such behavior in labs here on earth and it’s been shown that electromagnetism scales to the size of galaxies and beyond. Isn’t it more likely that what’s causing those rotating, helically wound filaments is electromagnetism rather than gravity ... or anything else that mainstream astrophysics now claim?

[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]

You are correct that gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. However, on cosmological scales, it is still the dominant force because it is always attractive and its effects can be cumulative over very large distances.

It is not that electromagnetism has no impact on the large-scale structure of the universe, but rather that its effects are typically sub-dominant to gravity. Electromagnetism is important for phenomena such as the formation and evolution of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, where it can play a role in heating gas and driving outflows. However, gravity is the force that ultimately determines the large-scale structure of the universe, such as the distribution of galaxies and the dynamics of the universe as a whole.

As for the plasma filaments you mentioned, while it is true that plasma physicists have been able to reproduce similar behavior in laboratory settings using electromagnetic forces, it is still an open question whether these filaments are primarily caused by electromagnetism or by some other force such as gravity. The current scientific consensus is that the large-scale structure of the universe is predominantly shaped by gravity, but this is an active area of research and ongoing observations and experiments may provide new insights in the future.

——————

[b]A Second Follow-On Question:[/b]

But we’re not discussing the effect that matter at one end of the universe has on matter at the other end. We're discussing what shapes galaxies and interactions between galaxies and perhaps cluster of galaxies. The fact that gravity is always attractive versus electromagnetism may not make any difference when talking about matter influencing matter over those distances. It very well could be that spiral galaxies are shaped the way they are by electromagnetic forces, not gravity, as Anthony Peratt demonstrated. It very well could be that the plasma filaments that stretch between galaxies are more influenced by electromagnetic forces than gravity. Indeed, recent discovery of rotating, helically wound plasma filaments the size of galaxy clusters suggest even they may be controlled by electromagnetism rather than gravity. And the large scale structure of the Universe (the Cosmic Web) is not shaped by the gravity of entire universe. The filaments and voids are shaped are shaped by interaction with local matter … by the local forces that occur between filaments, the galaxies in them, and then clusters of galaxies. And these, as indicated above, could be just as influenced by electromagnetism as by gravity. It’s a huge mistake to assume otherwise.

Now with respect to my question about the helically wound filaments (often pairs of filaments wound about each other like DNA strands) observed inside and between galaxies, you didn’t answer my question. I asked whether those who say gravity is dominant have any logical explanation for these structures and their behavior? Regardless of your claim about *consensus*, I see no way that gravity can explain the structures … especially the helical winding between two parallel galactic filaments … which are almost ubiquitous out there. If there is such an explanation, then offer it. Otherwise, your answer is non-scientific.

[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]

I apologize if my previous answer was not satisfactory.

You are correct that there are phenomena in the universe that are not easily explained by gravity alone, and that electromagnetism and other forces may play a role. The scientific community is actively studying these phenomena and trying to understand the relative contributions of different forces.

Regarding the helically wound filaments, I am not aware of any widely accepted explanation for these structures. As you mentioned, they are observed between galaxies and within galaxies themselves and often appear as pairs of filaments wound around each other. These structures have been observed in radio and X-ray wavelengths, and some researchers have suggested that they may be related to magnetic fields or other electromagnetic phenomena. However, the exact mechanisms that produce these structures are not yet fully understood, and it is an active area of research.

It is important to note that science is a process of ongoing investigation and refinement of our understanding based on new evidence and observations. As more data become available and new theories are proposed, our understanding of the universe and the forces that shape it will continue to evolve.

—————————

[b]My Final Question:[/b]

You admit now that “there are phenomena in the universe that are not easily explained by gravity alone, and that electromagnetism and other forces may play a role.” But then you say “The scientific community is actively studying these phenomena and trying to understand the relative contributions of different forces.” But that is not true.

The scientific community (universities, labs, journals, funding organizations, etc) is in fact currently controlled by *scientists* who do not believe at all that electromagnetism plays much of any role in shaping structures or controlling their behavior beyond our solar system. Indeed, they have shown themselves unwilling to fund, investigate or even debate the alternative theories I’ve noted.

As I demonstrated to you recently, they’ve completely ignored Peratt’s theory explaining rotation curves in spirals galaxies. They says it is settled science that dark matter (i.e., some still mysterious substance producing gravity) is responsible, not electromagnetism. And in all other areas, they say that the dominance of gravity is settled science as well.

They discovered the rotating, helically wound, galaxy sized plasma filaments quite a while back, and there has been no further mention of them. They’ve swept this inconvenient discovery under the rug. The literature search on which you base your responses proves they’re doing this. You keep repeating what the literature says … that they are investigating and refining their understanding but offer no specifics to show investigation of electromagnetism as the cause of galaxy shapes, filament shapes, star formation, etc is occurring by scientists funded by mainstream organizations. What little research is actually going on in those areas is likely funded by sources over which the consensus community has no control. And the results certainly aren’t being published by the consensus promoting journals of the mainstream.

[b]ChatGPT Response:[/b]

I apologize if my previous response was unclear. What I meant to convey is that while the scientific community may have a consensus on certain ideas, such as the dominant role of gravity in the large-scale structure of the universe, there is still ongoing research and debate within the community about the relative contributions of different forces in shaping the universe.

It is true that scientific research and funding are subject to various social and political factors, and that certain ideas may be more popular or better funded than others. However, it is not accurate to suggest that the scientific community is completely closed-minded or unwilling to consider alternative ideas. In fact, scientific progress often depends on questioning established ideas and exploring new possibilities.

Regarding the rotating, helically wound plasma filaments, I apologize for not providing a specific explanation in my previous response. While I am not an expert in this field, my understanding is that the filaments are still an area of active research and debate, and there is not yet a consensus on the mechanism behind their formation and behavior. Some scientists have suggested that electromagnetic forces may play a role in shaping these structures, while others have proposed other explanations. It is important to note that proposing alternative explanations requires evidence and supporting data, and the scientific community will evaluate and scrutinize these proposals based on their merits.

In summary, while there may be some social and political factors that influence scientific research and funding, the scientific community is still dedicated to advancing our understanding of the universe through rigorous and evidence-based inquiry. There is ongoing research and debate about the role of different forces in shaping the universe, and alternative explanations will be evaluated based on their merits and supporting data.

———————

Summary ...

As you can see, at this point I appear to be spinning my wheels, talking to a MACHINE. And like Arcmode said, the machine doesn’t seem to learn from user’s responses. I think he’s right that another person asking the same questions would probably just get the same responses … wouldn’t be told the things I’ve gotten the machine to admit are true. Thus, as he and I have both now said, great care must be employed in using ChatGPT as a research tool. And there in lies the problem.

Modern journalists are lazy. They will go ask the AI for info to write their articles. They may even have the AI mostly write their articles. And a lot of modern scientists are lazy too. If they have a doubt about something they hear, they may check with ChatGPT to find the *truth* … then walk away with their biases confirmed and all doubts gone. Same for astrophysics students. Politicians and bureaucrats may also use the primitive AI to help make decisions. And walk away thinking all is well in astrophysics and cosmology. And then fund, with a clear conscience, the next $10 billion dollar boondoggle that the astrophysics community asks for.

Same thing goes for what the AGWalarmist community wants. Or the fusion community. Or the covid vaccine community. See the danger?

I had a little chat with the A.I. It's pretty cool, like a supercharged google that can write text. It also displays a lot of human-style bias and assumptions. It also can't learn from the user's responses so a wrong answer is always wrong even if you can get it to explain why it's wrong in detail through clever questioning. The next person will still get the wrong answer unless they probe it in the same way. So it still requires human intelligence to be really useful as a research tool. You still need a user who is looking to be objective and has some epistemological awareness.

At one point it assured me that celestial bodies are electrically neutral. I asked it how this had been empirically confirmed and it said spectra, theoretical models and spacecraft observations.

I questioned it on how spectra determines charge and it went on a big circular journey about temperature and ionisation and spectral class. After some more questions it admitted charge in that case really just means ionisation at the surface, not an overall charge. An overall charge is impossible because of the principle of 'Conservation of charge.' In a closed system basically everything ends up neutral, if I understand it correctly. This is assumed to be true of the universe as a whole. I got it to admit that we really don't know if the universe is a closed system or not or if the principle applies at every scale.

So you can see how assumptions are built into its thinking, as well as the way things can be obscured through words carrying different meanings in different contexts for different people.

Next I'll ask it about the spacecraft observations.

That "conversation" with ChatGPT was indeed very interesting BeAChooser.
A good idea to use ChatGPT for research.

In my years of following the EU and plasma story it appears that
the standard model of cosmology is based on the notion that GRAVITY DOES EVERYTHING,
and that plasma can't be involved due to the DEBYE length.
Standard model supporters are not questioned on this assumption.

Perhaps you might ask ChatGPT questions like:
Why is it assumed in cosmology that gravity is the only force causing events in space?
Why is the electromagnetic force not assumed to cause space events ?
What scientific debates exist about gravity vs electromagnetism causing events in space.

And if the Debye length comes up....
What is the relationship of Debye length with plasma Double Layers in space ?

The A I answers might be helpful in turning the question of proof back to the standard model basic assumptions.

Thanks, B. A.