Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
BeAChooser
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by BeAChooser » Mon Dec 19, 2022 7:33 am

mcfc16 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:47 pm No he didn't. He wrote a bunch of nonsense in an engineering journal, fully aware that nobody would see it there.
So, obviously you were not able to find any article by mainstream scientists anywhere directly challenging the work of Anthony Peratt back in the 80s. I predicted that would be the case. Which leaves you nothing but handwaving as your response. And misinformation. As I will now demonstrate.

Peratt published his papers in the peer reviewed, IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, which is not just an “engineering” journal. Notice the word “science”? And it’s quite respected. It’s been around of a long time, and its aim and scope its stated as “all aspects of the theory and application of plasma science.” Again, notice the word science, newbie? And note that they themselves state that includes, among other areas, magnetohydrodynamics, basic plasma phenomena, electron/ion/plasma sources, space plasmas, intense electron/ion beams, plasma chemistry, plasma heating, plasma for controlled fusion research, and plasma waves and instabilities. All of those are topics I believe relevant to understanding what we see going on out there in the universe … one would think. One would also think that ANYONE with an interest in plasma (and that SHOULD certainly include astrophysicists given that they themselves describe the universe as 99.99 percent plasma) would read every issue of such an important journal. But you’re claiming they didn’t? How odd!

I suppose it is possible that the gravity-only, gnome loving astrophysics community might have DELIBERATELY chosen not to read the Transactions or Peratt’s papers (i.e., put on blinders in order to prevent internal dissonance), but there’s no way they didn’t hear about Peratt’s work and see his articles, especially given the fact they were discussed and referenced in Eric Lerner’s book, which they clearly did read and discuss. So I’m sorry, mcfc16. but your handwaving that nobody knew about Peratt’s work is nothing less than a transparent and quite desperate lie. But if that’s all you got …

And as for your implication that Peratt didn’t know what he was talking about, he was a plasma physicist who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the Applied Theoretical Physics Division at the time … not some hodunk university professor needing to please some gnome believing tenure committee. He used their best particle in cell simulation codes to model the interaction of large current carrying plasma filaments using well known laws of physics, and he obtained results that passed peer review and that showed electric currents, electromagnetic physics, and their influence on plasmas could not only explain the rotation curves found in spiral galaxies without invoking ANY dark matter, but also explain the initial formation and evolution of galaxies from interacting plasma filaments. That mainstream astrophysicists took no interest in such work defies rationality … defies believability. That they then didn’t even respond to Peratt’s papers defies good scientific method. It suggests they deliberately ignored it.

Keep in mind, folks, that Peratt’s papers were published at a time when most in the gnome believing mainstream astrophysics community were denying that the universe was filled with plasma filaments AND denying that electric currents (much less HUGE electric currents) existed in intergalactic space, even though it was OBVIOUS to anyone outside the gnome believing community that both might be true. And years of telescopic observations have now proven without a doubt that both assertions were true … yet Peratt's work is still being ignored.

In fact, it was recently discovered by the mainstream that there are huge, rotating plasma filaments stretching between galaxies. I discussed that in this thread: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... ?f=3&t=522 , predicting at the time this announcement was made that it would be quietly swept under the rug by the mainstream with no further rational explaination (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =522#p5263) … and I was right. In fact, the only article I was able to later find on this (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =522#p7962 ) noted that their models predicted ZERO rotation of filaments. So they introduced a new gnome (“special” dark matter … dark matter vortices) to explain it. And of course the article didn’t even mention plasma or electromagnetism. The mainstream community is just deaf, dumb and clueless, with an imagination run wild.

But I tell you what. Since you failed my first challenge so miserably, let’s see if you can find an article where the mainstream RATIONALLY explains the rotating filaments between galaxies without resorting to yet another gnome. Bet you fail this challenge, too.
mcfc16 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:47 pm Others, with a bit more of a clue, tried to explain rotation curves using EM in more relevant journals, where they did get noticed. And debunked. Battaner & Florido, ring a bell. Let me have a butcher's........ Ah, yes;
Early claims were made by Nelson (1988), Battaner et al. (1992), Battaner (1993), and Binney (1992) that there exists a very strong magnetic field which could speed up the interstellar gas (but not the stars), to the point of reproducing the flat curve of rotational velocity against galactic radius. These claims were investigated and found unsupportable.
Cosmic magnetic fields – as observed in the Universe, in galactic dynamos, and in the Milky Way
Vallee, J. P. (2004)
New Astronomy Reviews.

So, Peratt's explanation failed.
LOL! That’s all you got, newbie? You only proved I was right about Peratt’s work being totally ignored. Vallee apparently ignored it too. And that quote doesn’t provide one detail as to why Peratt was wrong or who said the other researchers were wrong. What they proposed and what Peratt proposed could be apples and oranges for all we know. So go ahead … explain the details so that we know what they said pertains to Peratt’s work as well. Don’t think you can wave your hand and make this challenge go away.

And while you delve into that, let me point out there’s a more recent article by Battaner and Florido that for some reason Vallee didn’t cite (sort of like he forgot to mention Peratt, eh?). Here it is (https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0010475.pdf ) published in 2000. It starts by saying “We review the topic of rotation curves of spiral galaxies emphasizing the standard interpretation as evidence for the existence of dark matter halos.”

Let examine their “review”. First, in section 2.3, they mention the work of Bosma and Caringnan who found “a trend for the gas distribution to have the same shape as DM distribution”, saying “this correlation between gas and DM is puzzling and if real, has no easy explanation in the light of present CDM models. Not only is there a general trend, but several individual features found in the rotation curve seems to correspond to features in gas circular velocity.” I mention this because by gas they actually mean *plasma*.

This is a significant oversight as the behavior of gas and plasma are very different in the presence of electromagnetism. In fact, oddly enough, the paper doesn’t even mention the word plasma at all, which makes me suspect they don’t understand the significance. The section goes on to say “This fact has inspired a theory … snip … identifying the dark matter with an as yet undetected dark gas. The magnetic hypothesis would provide another explanation, as the rotation curve is due in part to magnetic fields, which are generated by gas”. The first theory is nothing more than a gnome while the latter is plasma physics and electromagnetism, which Peratt needed only simulate in existing codes to obtain a match to observations.

Now Section 4.4 is titled “the magnetic hypothesis” and it states “the rotation curve of spiral galaxies may be explained by the action of magnetic fields in the disk. If this hypothesis is correct, the cosmological implications would be very important.” Later, in asking whether magnetic fields are important, the authors conclude “The figures in the above tables are worrying. It can be concluded that
interpreting rotation curves, while ignoring the influence of magnetic fields may be completely unrealistic. It is therefore remarkable that a fact that may be so far-reaching concerning our cosmological beliefs has been object to such scarce attention.

Yes, folks, that fact has indeed been ignored by the mainstream, but for other reasons than what mcfc16 is now trying to suggest. The paper goes on to say “The magnetic hypothesis takes this fact into consideration and tries to determine whether magnetic fields alone, without requiring any dark matter, and without modifying our physical laws, are able to explain the observed flat and fast rotation curves.” Good question, but mind you, these DM doubting Thomases were only going to get the right answer if they included the right physical laws. And unfortunately they didn't.

The authors admit right away that “Observations are probably still too scarce to reveal the magnitude and distribution of extragalactic magnetic fields.” This is very important because later the authors use extragalactic fields in one of his arguments against dynamos. The paper does say that “Typical values of intergalactic magnetic field strengths are in the range 1-3 μG” which are larger than previously thought, then goes on to note even stronger observed magnetic fields. Inner disk fields of 10 μG have been measured, they say. They “assume that magnetic fields vanish, or have very small strengths in the large-scale voids”, “but are much higher in the filaments of matter (∼100 Mpc long, ∼10 Mpc thick) characterizing the large scale structure. “ That is a very important statement, but why that is seems to have eluded the authors.

The article then goes on to look at various “magnetic models” with no DM. The more complicated 2-D one confirms that “moderate magnetic field strengths can have a decisive influence on the rotation curve” and the resulting flaring, densities and velocities are all in agreement with observations. Hmmmm. You don’t suppose. The authors then mention Persic and Saluki, and I have to wonder if they might be the source of your quote, mcfc16. They apparently considered the magnetic hypothesis as “neither necessary nor sufficient”. Battaner and Florido respond to that by saying “Setting aside the question of how a theory can be “not necessary”, they argued that galaxy pairs need dark matter, but we have seen that galaxy pairs admit other interpretations, in particular that of common halos.” They also observe that S ́anchez-Salcedo (1996) “considered the possibility that a relation found by Bosma (1978, 1981, 1993) between HI and dark matter density could be explained under the magnetic hypothesis. On qualitative grounds this would be reasonable, because the higher the gas density, the higher the magnetic strength that could be amplified.”

But then, after all that, they get into discussing “mechanisms producing magnetic fields in the outermost disk” and here they make the fatal mistake of dismissing the dynamo theory on the basis of a comparison between the strength of current magnetic fields in galaxies compared to the field strength of a primordial frozen-in magnetic field. They say that using classic dynamo theory, “the field is amplified e-times in each rotation. Suppose that the galaxy has rotated about 20 times since its birth. Then, the field has been amplified by a factor of about e20 ≃ 5 × 108. Therefore, the initial strength would have been about 10−15G” and this they say contradicts measured μG fields for quasars and newborn galaxies. They state “if new-born galaxies were so highly magnetized, the αΩ dynamo would have amplified these initial fields to a present value of about 500 G, in astonishing disagreement with observations. Even if, before reaching this value, some saturation mechanism had appeared, the classical dynamo is incompatible with pregalactic μG-strengths. Therefore, the topic is now free for speculation and the search for alternative scenarios.”

An obvious problem with this conclusion is that it’s based on ASSUMING (incorrectly, if plasma cosmologists and Peratt’s modeling are right) that spiral magnetic fields only come from amplification of some primordial *frozen-in* seed field … and the mainstream’s assumption about the meaning of redshift. If those are wrong, then dynamos cannot be ignored as the source of rotation curves. Given the fact that their paper ... and I suspect all the other papers they cite … don’t mention the word plasma, and don’t address the fact that electric currents flow through filaments, cause filaments to interact, and produce magnetic fields in the process, I don’t think it’s safe to say anyone mentioned debunked anything, mcfc16.

In fact, I think they and the mainstream citing their work clearly have blinders on and no real understanding of plasma and electromagnetic effects. That conclusion is further supported by what the authors state later in the paper in the section “Large scale structure and magnetic fields.” In that, they simply ignore the fact that filaments are carrying current, that current carrying filaments produce magnetic fields, that the filaments have been observed to be rotating, and are helically wound to boot … just like plasma cosmologists predicted. Plus, observations show that some of their predictions (remember, this was written in 2005) about cosmic filaments are clearly totally wrong. Perhaps that’s because they assume they derive from “preexisting magnetic fields” “create[d] at Inflation, as predicted and explained in the superstring theory”. In other words, they use two still unproven gnomes to explain a third unproven gnome. One can only laugh!

In the end, the authors say “we can summarize the present crossroads of the problem of rotation curves of spiral galaxies by emphasizing that, if we accept the hypothesis of common virialized halos, with no substructure, for all types of clustered visible galaxies, then there are only two alternatives”. One alternative is to say that “hierarchical CDM models are wrong, for instance, DM is baryonic … snip … , in which case we would need a theory of galaxy formation.” “Or they are basically valid, in which case, another explanation of the rotation curve is needed. … snip … Given the success of current theoretical CDM hierarchical models in other related topics, we favour this latter possibility.” In other words, DM doesn't explain the rotation curves.

So it looks to me like Battaner and Florido haven’t been debunked at all, but are fighting back, yet still missing the obvious. They are trying to pacify the CDM/Big Bang/DM believers, while still insisting that rotation curves of spiral galaxies … the primary evidence cited by DM advocates for DM … are NOT due to DM but to some other explanation. In fact, their conclusion is to first offer an origin story based on the CDM scenario that completely ignore magnetic fields, relying on mysterious dark matter and gravity alone to make any sense of things, then outline an “another alternative history” ... a “magnetic interpretation of the rotation curve” … which depends on frozen-in, primordial magnetic fields, and redshift being ONLY due to Doppler effects. But these assumptions are still highly debatable. You'll find lots of debate about that on this forum. In contrast, the results of Peratt’s simulations follow solely from well understood and proven physics used by nuclear weapon makers (in other words, well verified codes). In that sense, Peratt's results aren’t debatable ... which may be why the mainstream has never tried to debate them even once that I can find.

Finally, one of the most ironic statements in the 2005 Battaner and Florido paper is found in the conclusion when they say “we are beginning to understand galaxy formation.” JWST results and the mainstream’s reaction to them seem to dispute that. LOL!
mcfc16 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:47 pm
BAC: And now they are ubiquitous ... just like plasma cosmologists predicted.
Really? Where? You mean the cosmic web?
Don’t be obtuse. I mean everywhere. Everywhere you look, from that thunderstorm outside your window to as far as our telescopes can see, we see plasma filaments. Isn’t that the very definition of ubiquitous?
mcfc16 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:47 pmAnd its morphology was predicted by LCDM. And simulated. It matches the LCDM model.
If that was a prediction by gnomers, how come gnome believers on forums such as JREF were still denying the existence of filaments in space two decades ago? No, LCDM is an hoc construct cobbled together using a half dozen or more unproven gnomes … which you folks LAUGHABLY say you simulate. Hate to tell you, but all that your so-called models have are imaginary knobs you can turn to get any picture that fits what you see. But the people building those models don’t haven’t a clue what the knobs really are in terms of real physics because 70 years after the invention of those knobs you still can’t prove those gnomes actually exist. And you’ve spent billions of dollars pursuing them. And now that the waste of that is becoming obvious to more and more of the public, you now want to rewrite history and claim that LCDMer’s predicted the filamentary nature of the universe. No, the ones who predicted it were plasma cosmologists and that’s because filamentation is inherent to the way plasma behaves.
mcfc16 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:47 pmMore typical crackpot word salad. No science.
I know you don’t want to address it, but what you label “word salad” is a clear statement of the situation. You folks most certainly have wasted tens of billions of dollars on nothing more than imaginary nonsense. There is nothing to show for all that money, other than a fairytale that you’ve got a pyramid of people promoting … a fairytale that doesn’t have one speck of real value to the real world. Not a thing you folks have imagined and spent all that money on is going to benefit a single person on earth today or tomorrow, other than the people in that pyramid that are now totally dependent on the continued existence of that fairytale to fund their relatively luxurious lives far into the future. So people like the folks on this forum and scientists like Peratt, Lerner and Talbot are an existential threat to your financial plenty. Hence, you’re here to defend it any way you can.
mcfc16 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:47 pmWhat failures? And which 'facts'? You don't seem to have any. Just screeds of word salad and polemic.
No facts? Hate to tell, cupcake, but anyone can use the browser and find hundreds of threads I’ve started noting your sides failures and the facts that prove that. And I’m not the only one identifying them. Ian w or Higgsy or whoever you are, you using the same tactic your side has been employing for 40 years as you’ve kept the scam going. Don’t think for a moment that it’s going to work here.
mcfc16 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:47 pm
So now it's put or shut up time, mcfc16 ... newbie of the forum. You say that Peratt was proven wrong. Well then it should be easy to cite the publications that challenged the work of Anthony Peratt and showed that.
Already done. Not to Peratt, as his nonsense would never have been seen in the journal he published in. As he well knew. But to similar.
As I already said, you didn’t prove a thing. You only proved I was right about Peratt’s work being totally ignored. You provided not one detail as to why Peratt was wrong. You threw out a quote that had absolutely no details in it … and from what I can gather, had nothing to do with what Peratt modeled . Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. It just shows I was totally right about you.
mcfc16 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:47 pmIf Peratt is all you've got
It isn’t and you’d know that if you spent even one moment perusing my many posts on this forum. |n fact, I’ve already given you another challenge above. Let’s see if you run from that one as well. I predict you do.

mcfc16
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by mcfc16 » Mon Dec 19, 2022 5:46 pm

BeAChooser wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 7:33 am
So, obviously you were not able to find any article by mainstream scientists anywhere directly challenging the work of Anthony Peratt back in the 80s. I predicted that would be the case. Which leaves you nothing but handwaving as your response. And misinformation. As I will now demonstrate.
There is zero evidence in favour of his 'model'. And it does not explain the acceleration of charge neutral stars. Based on Peratt's own predictions, his 'model' failed.
Peratt published his papers in the peer reviewed, IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, which is not just an “engineering” journal.
Which is not going to be on the watch list of astrophysicists and cosmologists. Nor plasma physicists involved in those areas. That is why it was ignored.
I suppose it is possible that the gravity-only, gnome loving astrophysics community might have DELIBERATELY chosen not to read the Transactions or Peratt’s papers (i.e., put on blinders in order to prevent internal dissonance), but there’s no way they didn’t hear about Peratt’s work and see his articles, especially given the fact they were discussed and referenced in Eric Lerner’s book, which they clearly did read and discuss. So I’m sorry, mcfc16. but your handwaving that nobody knew about Peratt’s work is nothing less than a transparent and quite desperate lie. But if that’s all you got …
Why would anyone read Lerner's book? He is also trivially wrong. As Ted Bunn showed. Lerner explains precisely nothing.
He used their best particle in cell simulation codes to model the interaction of large current carrying plasma filaments using well known laws of physics
And those currents are not there. He made a prediction that they would be seen by COBE. They weren't. He hasn't done anything with that 'model' in decades.
Keep in mind, folks, that Peratt’s papers were published at a time when most in the gnome believing mainstream astrophysics community were denying that the universe was filled with plasma filaments AND denying that electric currents (much less HUGE electric currents) existed in intergalactic space.
And where are these HUGE currents? The best you'll get is from AGNs, which are not travelling between galaxies. They are produced in a galaxy, and the current returns to the galaxy. And they were first suggested and modelled in the 1970s.

In fact, it was recently discovered by the mainstream that there are huge, rotating plasma filaments stretching between galaxies. I discussed that in this thread: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... ?f=3&t=522 , predicting at the time this announcement was made that it would be quietly swept under the rug by the mainstream with no further rational explaination (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =522#p5263) … and I was right. In fact, the only article I was able to later find on this (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =522#p7962 ) noted that their models predicted ZERO rotation of filaments. So they introduced a new gnome (“special” dark matter … dark matter vortices) to explain it. And of course the article didn’t even mention plasma or electromagnetism. The mainstream community is just deaf, dumb and clueless, with an imagination run wild.
Yep, the cosmic web. Which is mostly cold, neutral gas. It is not a current, and nobody is claiming otherwise. And it was predicted, as the UT article says;
From Universe Today;

Before this study, other scientists have theorized that these filaments spin. For example, Dr. Mark Neyrinck, a Fellow at the Department of Theoretical Physics at the University of the Basque Country, Spain, is known for theorizing on this. He’s also known for developing the “origami” description of cosmic structure formation. In a 2016 article in The Paper he said, “…if galaxies rotate (and they do), so must filaments sticking out of them. Furthermore, galaxies joined by a filament should rotate mostly together, like objects attached to the ends of a rod. In fact, this is consistent with astronomical observations; nearby galaxies tend to be spinning in the same direction.”

Dr. Neyrinck’s work was an important starting point for the team behind this paper.
And as the article further points out;

"“It’s fantastic to see this confirmation that intergalactic filaments rotate in the real Universe, as well as in computer simulation.”

And those sims include dark matter. Without it, the models of the cosmic web fail. And Neyrinck's work also involved proto-haloes of DM to predict the spin.
But I tell you what. Since you failed my first challenge so miserably, let’s see if you can find an article where the mainstream RATIONALLY explains the rotating filaments between galaxies without resorting to yet another gnome. Bet you fail this challenge, too.
Show me the peer-reviewed papers that claim that the cosmic web is composed of currents! Nobody is claiming it, so why would anyone deal with it?

LOL! That’s all you got, newbie? You only proved I was right about Peratt’s work being totally ignored. Vallee apparently ignored it too. And that quote doesn’t provide one detail as to why Peratt was wrong or who said the other researchers were wrong. What they proposed and what Peratt proposed could be apples and oranges for all we know. So go ahead … explain the details so that we know what they said pertains to Peratt’s work as well. Don’t think you can wave your hand and make this challenge go away.
Errr, because magnetic fields cannot explain stellar velocities around galaxies!
And while you delve into that, let me point out there’s a more recent article by Battaner and Florido that for some reason Vallee didn’t cite (sort of like he forgot to mention Peratt, eh?). Here it is (https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0010475.pdf ) published in 2000. It starts by saying “We review the topic of rotation curves of spiral galaxies emphasizing the standard interpretation as evidence for the existence of dark matter halos.”
'On a unified theory of cold dark matter halos based on collisionless Boltzmann–Poisson polytropes'
J.Calvo, E.Florido, O.Sánchez, E.Battaner, J.Solera & B.Ruiz-Granados (2009)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3710900168

'On the sociology and hierarchy of voids: a study of seven CAVITY nearby galaxy voids and their dynamical CosmicFlows-3 environment'

Multiple authors, including Florido, E. (2022)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.16388.pdf
Galaxies are not evenly distributed in space. Instead, they probe the underlying inhomogeneous dark matter distribution.
So it looks to me like Battaner and Florido haven’t been debunked at all, but are fighting back, yet still missing the obvious. They are trying to pacify the CDM/Big Bang/DM believers, while still insisting that rotation curves of spiral galaxies … the primary evidence cited by DM advocates for DM … are NOT due to DM but to some other explanation.
Nope. They are now proposing that just the outermost curves of the disks may need to accommodate magnetic as well as DM effects.
Don’t be obtuse. I mean everywhere. Everywhere you look, from that thunderstorm outside your window to as far as our telescopes can see, we see plasma filaments. Isn’t that the very definition of ubiquitous?
Where?

If that was a prediction by gnomers, how come gnome believers on forums such as JREF were still denying the existence of filaments in space two decades ago? No, LCDM is an hoc construct cobbled together using a half dozen or more unproven gnomes … which you folks LAUGHABLY say you simulate. Hate to tell you, but all that your so-called models have are imaginary knobs you can turn to get any picture that fits what you see. But the people building those models don’t haven’t a clue what the knobs really are in terms of real physics because 70 years after the invention of those knobs you still can’t prove those gnomes actually exist. And you’ve spent billions of dollars pursuing them. And now that the waste of that is becoming obvious to more and more of the public, you now want to rewrite history and claim that LCDMer’s predicted the filamentary nature of the universe. No, the ones who predicted it were plasma cosmologists and that’s because filamentation is inherent to the way plasma behaves.
Sorry, but crackpot polemic doesn't cut it.
I know you don’t want to address it, but what you label “word salad” is a clear statement of the situation. You folks most certainly have wasted tens of billions of dollars on nothing more than imaginary nonsense. There is nothing to show for all that money, other than a fairytale that you’ve got a pyramid of people promoting … a fairytale that doesn’t have one speck of real value to the real world. Not a thing you folks have imagined and spent all that money on is going to benefit a single person on earth today or tomorrow, other than the people in that pyramid that are now totally dependent on the continued existence of that fairytale to fund their relatively luxurious lives far into the future. So people like the folks on this forum and scientists like Peratt, Lerner and Talbot are an existential threat to your financial plenty. Hence, you’re here to defend it any way you can.
And more word salad and polemic. And Talbott is no sort of scientist. Peratt went quiet decades ago, and Lerner's nonsense is trivially shown to be such.

No facts? Hate to tell, cupcake, but anyone can use the browser and find hundreds of threads I’ve started noting your sides failures and the facts that prove that. And I’m not the only one identifying them. Ian w or Higgsy or whoever you are, you using the same tactic your side has been employing for 40 years as you’ve kept the scam going. Don’t think for a moment that it’s going to work here.
I'm not interested in your layman's interpretations. Find me peer-reviewed science that hasn't long since been shown to be wrong.
As I already said, you didn’t prove a thing. You only proved I was right about Peratt’s work being totally ignored. You provided not one detail as to why Peratt was wrong. You threw out a quote that had absolutely no details in it … and from what I can gather, had nothing to do with what Peratt modeled . Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. It just shows I was totally right about you.
Ziggurat showed you why it was wrong years ago on ISF. You ran away. As does Ted Bunn. Want to deal with the maths?

BeAChooser
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by BeAChooser » Mon Dec 19, 2022 7:47 pm

mcfc16 wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 5:46 pm
BeAChooser wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 7:33 am So, obviously you were not able to find any article by mainstream scientists anywhere directly challenging the work of Anthony Peratt back in the 80s. I predicted that would be the case. Which leaves you nothing but handwaving as your response. And misinformation. As I will now demonstrate.
There is zero evidence in favour of his 'model'.
Sooooo, you still haven’t found an article you can source showing Peratt was wrong. As predicted. And if the results of verified computer codes that model the physics Peratt and other plasma cosmologists have identified as important to the evolution of the universe is what you call “zero evidence”, then the maybe the results of the countless simulations by DM enthusiasts … using codes and gnomes that have never been verified … is less than zero evidence. You can’t have both ways, cupcake. You only further highlight the hypocrisy of your side of the aisle in this matter.

Now I’m sorry, but at this point I have no intention of engaging you further, especially line by line. It would be a waste of MY time and a frustrating experience for everyone here. It would be like to trying to convince a 911 Truther that he’s wrong to think there were bombs in the towers. It would be like talking to an AGWalarmist who says the world will end in ten years unless we stop eating beef.

It would be like talking to someone still pushing Covid-19 *vaccines* despite all the evidence of harm they’ve done and evidence of their ineffectiveness. They, like you, call rational doubters like me anti-science, when it’s they who have abandoned science and politicized an issue for private gain. It would be like debating a controlled fusion promoter who has sold his pet project to save us from dreaded CO2 using a pack of lies and misinformation.

It would be like ... well, I'd better stop right there, because that would be too political for this forum to withstand. 8-)

So, I’m going to follow in jackokie’s wake and leave it to others to have some fun with you if they want. I’ve already proven you’re a dishonest blowhard several times over. And any other blather you might spout at this point has probably already been disproven on one or more of the many other threads I started … or others started. A case in point is your response to my second challenge. You obviously didn’t even read my posts about that before responding since your response regurgitated a claim I had already debunked in one of my previous posts. Readers need only go read the thread to see what I mean.
mcfc16 wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 5:46 pmZiggurat showed you why it was wrong years ago on ISF. You ran away.
Don’t be so mysterious. Give us a link to whatever conversation you’re alluding too because I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve been BeAChooser on every forum I’ve ever been on, so it will be easy to see if you’re actually talking about a conversation I had with someone … or making something up again.

You, on the other hand, appear to be studiously hiding your posting identity elsewhere on the internet. I looked and found no indication of an mcfc16 talking about physics or Big Bang or dark matter or anything astrophysics related anywhere. Do you change your screen name every few months as some of us now suspect? It does make one wonder what you’re hiding, Ian w.

With regard to my calling you that name, I discovered in my search that mcfc16 has something to do with Manchester City soccer. Now that’s very interesting because Nathan Adams, who was the second author listed in the “Panic! At The Disks” paper that Lerner referenced in his “The Big Bang didn't happen” article, is an astronomer at the University of Manchester. What a strange coincidence that an Ian w showed up on the Keating Youtube thread to voraciously defend Adams and attack Lerner. You wouldn’t happen to be Nathan, would you? Coincidently, Karthid Vinod, one of the other science communicators who attacked Lerner over his article and who I debunked (https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... ster#p7634), also happens to be a baby astrophysicist right out of the University of Manchester. So maybe that’s who you are? Hmmmmmm? :D

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by jackokie » Mon Dec 19, 2022 8:54 pm

@BAC And here's a potential clue as to why the University of Manchester faculty is throwing shade at Thunderbolts and Dr. Lerner:

University of Manchester PhD Project Application deadline 12 January, 2023

Unveiling Cosmic Dawn with the Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array

Sponsor: Prof Phil Bull

Details
Cosmic Dawn - the time when the first stars and galaxies switched on - remains shrouded in mystery. While challenging to observe using optical and near-infrared telescopes due to the rareness and obscuration of bright sources, a series of radio telescopes (like HERA, the Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array, in South Africa) are being constructed that have the sensitivity to detect the presence of large amounts of neutral hydrogen during this epoch, via the 21cm emission line. This will allow us to map the neutral gas surrounding the first bright sources and understand how rapidly they reionised the Universe.

Prior project: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.02263

Looks like a typical "verdict first, trial later" farce from the Big Bangers. Can they really be so spooked by the JWST results they'd get down and dirty to try to sabotage presentations and discussions of the BB's problems?
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

Cargo
Posts: 695
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by Cargo » Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:24 am

the first bright sources
In which direction would that be I wonder. Can they point to it in 3D space?

I love Radio Telescopes, we always seem to go back to them. Cue my Signature twice in one night. Terrific.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

mcfc16
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by mcfc16 » Tue Dec 20, 2022 4:20 pm

BeAChooser wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 7:47 pm
Sooooo, you still haven’t found an article you can source showing Peratt was wrong. As predicted


It is trivially shown to be wrong. As I have already posted. Where is his calculation for the EM force on a charge-neutral star? Without it, his 'model' is toast. Where is his 'spaghetti of synchrotron'? Failed prediction = failed 'model'.
And if the results of verified computer codes that model the physics Peratt and other plasma cosmologists
And where do they model how stars are affected by EM? Which part of the ancient code is that? His sims do not even look like spiral galaxies.

It would be like talking to someone still pushing Covid-19 *vaccines* despite all the evidence of harm they’ve done and evidence of their ineffectiveness.
Typical anti-science crackpot.

It would be like ... well, I'd better stop right there, because that would be too political for this forum to withstand. 8-)
Yeah, seems like they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for posters these days. Perhaps it was the utter failure of the electric comet nonsense, or maybe Wal's electric gravity that made them all disappear!

So, I’m going to follow in jackokie’s wake and leave it to others to have some fun with you if they want. I’ve already proven you’re a dishonest blowhard several times over.
No, you haven't.

With regard to my calling you that name, I discovered in my search that mcfc16 has something to do with Manchester City soccer. Now that’s very interesting because Nathan Adams, who was the second author listed in the “Panic! At The Disks” paper that Lerner referenced in his “The Big Bang didn't happen” article, is an astronomer at the University of Manchester. What a strange coincidence that an Ian w showed up on the Keating Youtube thread to voraciously defend Adams and attack Lerner. You wouldn’t happen to be Nathan, would you? Coincidently, Karthid Vinod, one of the other science communicators who attacked Lerner over his article and who I debunked (https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... ster#p7634), also happens to be a baby astrophysicist right out of the University of Manchester. So maybe that’s who you are? Hmmmmmm? :D
Lol. You really are desperate, aren't you? No, I never went to U of M. Plenty of people did. Including Prof. Brian Cox. And I didn't need to attack the clown Lerner. Ferreira told him he was clueless and why. Lerner had no response. As Ferreira said, he doesn't know enough to be not even wrong. Which is obviously true. His tired light equation is a joke, and he has no explanation for the CMB. One of his papers was so bad, that others had to write a whole appendix to point out their errors. He's a joke.

ForumModerator
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by ForumModerator » Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:15 pm

Moderator note:
On this forum users are permitted to opt for a pen name/handle. There is no reason for anyone to attempt to publicly reveal (correctly or incorrectly) any participant's real life identity. Many members choose to reveal their ID's in their Username many do not, that is the User's option and it should be respected when posting on this forum.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by BeAChooser » Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:54 pm

ForumModerator wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:15 pm Moderator note:
On this forum users are permitted to opt for a pen name/handle. There is no reason for anyone to attempt to publicly reveal (correctly or incorrectly) any participant's real life identity. Many members choose to reveal their ID's in their Username many do not, that is the User's option and it should be respected when posting on this forum.
Ah ... so blatant trolling and outright lying (as I've now proven he does) are ok, but talking about the effect of politics on astrophysics research is not? Well, in any case, let me make it clear that I'm not expecting Ian to divulge his real identity and I'll not hounding him on that further. But I would like to see his posting history (his other pen name/handles), so I can more fully respond to his attempt to smear me using my posting history (which didn't turn out quite the way he hoped). I (and others) suspect he may not be the upstanding poster you would want to encourage to remain on this forum.

Maol
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by Maol » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:15 pm

BeAChooser wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:54 pm
ForumModerator wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:15 pm Moderator note:
On this forum users are permitted to opt for a pen name/handle. There is no reason for anyone to attempt to publicly reveal (correctly or incorrectly) any participant's real life identity. Many members choose to reveal their ID's in their Username many do not, that is the User's option and it should be respected when posting on this forum.
Ah ... so blatant trolling and outright lying (as I've now proven he does) are ok, but talking about the effect of politics on astrophysics research is not? Well, in any case, let me make it clear that I'm not expecting Ian to divulge his real identity and I'll not hounding him on that further. But I would like to see his posting history (his other pen name/handles), so I can more fully respond to his attempt to smear me using my posting history (which didn't turn out quite the way he hoped). I (and others) suspect he may not be the upstanding poster you would want to encourage to remain on this forum.
Are you afraid you may not be able to convey the knowledge necessary for others, such as this adversary you have chosen for yourself, to understand the EU model? Let him express his point of view, but help him learn as he paints himself into a corner. If the past is any indication of the future, truth will prevail.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by BeAChooser » Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:08 pm

Maol wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:15 pm Are you afraid you may not be able to convey the knowledge necessary for others, such as this adversary you have chosen for yourself, to understand the EU model? Let him express his point of view, but help him learn as he paints himself into a corner. If the past is any indication of the future, truth will prevail.
What past proves that, Maol? In case you haven't noticed, we're the ones in an ignored corner of the internet, thanks in large part to the truth NOT prevailing ... thanks to our side of the argument being deliberately suppressed by the mainstream (as in my example about Peratt's papers). Are you really ok with letting a a troll like him clutter up this forum with post after post after post filled with obfuscations and lies, not to mention ad hominem attacks? All he's doing is putting so much chaff on the forum that no-one from outside will be able to separate the wheat from it.

You should have noticed by now that no matter what is posted in response to him, he just dismisses it out of hand and posts more garbage. He's already explicitly told me that he doesn't care at all what I post or what threads filled with data I link. He's not even going to look at them. I suspect he feels the same about everyone else here, including you. And he's doing all this on thread after thread, making posts that have NOTHING to do with the OPs of those threads, with clear purpose. Maybe you need wake up to what's really going on here before you find no one posting on this forum.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Time For A New Tactic By Our Side ...

Unread post by BeAChooser » Thu Dec 22, 2022 6:19 pm

Back to the OP thesis ...

If you want a clue of how much money is being spent on astrophysics that is and will have ZERO impact on anyone’s lives for generations to come at least, take a look at this link … https://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph.GA/recent . You can see all the papers on the astrophysics of galaxies submitted just the last 5 days. Twenty-one (21) today. And by the looks of it, at least 190 scientists took part in those 21 studies. Twenty-seven (27) yesterday with another 250 plus authors. Another 35 papers the day before. All told, 115 papers in just 5 days, involving somewhere in the neighborhood of a 1000 authors (presumably astrophysicists)!

Now consider the amount of time that went into creating each paper ... likely hundreds and hundreds of man/woman hours. Consider the cost of all the observations supporting each study. Then look at the titles and try to convince me that ANY of them have any relevance or will ever have any relevance to the people who were FORCED to fund them through tax payer dollars. Who had no say on how that money was spent. And how many of the papers are gnome centric, making them even more useless? Try to convince me that ANY of that work will have an iota of beneficial effect on the lives of those tax payers or their children. I couldn’t find one title that promised that.

So what is really the purpose of all this ... activity? Simple curiousity on the part of those involved? That's what they'll claim if asked. But it’s a great gig if you can get it. A quite comfortable life in a time when many do NOT have that … with little to no risk of injury and no consequences if you're wrong. With lots of prestige associated with it, so the average astrophysicist gets paid in the neighborhood of $90,000 a year, plus benefits, not to mention the high salaries of all the technicians and engineers building all the equipment that supports their endeavors. Plus huge material costs. And don't forget the cost of reporting all that *activity* to the public ... over and over and over. It's adds up to real money.

So why do we taxpayers allow this to continue without check ... without oversight? Isn't this just another sign of the failure of the greatest experiment of all that Cargo introduced for discussion here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =263#p8578 ? I think so.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest