The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

[mcfc16]

Has it ever occurred to anyone here that Lerner is a clueless amateur?

[BeAChooser]

Has it ever occurred to anyone here that Lerner is a clueless amateur?

Higgsy ... is that you? Would you like to discuss helically wound plasma filaments? Have you found your dark matter yet? No? Still missing, you say? Any new gnomes you'd like to personally introduce to explain that? Hmmmmmmm? Or perhaps you're one of the many *science communicators* who ran from debating that scientist you call a clueless amateur? Or who for some reason never heard of Anthony Peratt and the work he did 30 years ago proving that the mainstream has been LYING about DM being needed to explain galaxy rotation curves ever since? Hmmmmm, does that describe YOU, mcfc16?

[mcfc16]

Would you like to discuss helically wound plasma filaments?

What about them? Make sure you reference the peer-reviewed literature, not YT videos from amateurs like Lerner.

Have you found your dark matter yet?

You mean do we know what the particle is? No. Does the evidence strongly suggest it exists? Yes. I don't see you dealing with that evidence. You might want to start.

Or perhaps you're one of the many *science communicators* who ran from debating that scientist you call a clueless amateur?

Plenty of people responded to his nonsense, including the lead author of the 'Panic!' paper, to tell him that he was clueless. Amateur ramblings on YT do not count as science.

Or who for some reason never heard of Anthony Peratt and the work he did 30 years ago proving that the mainstream has been LYING about DM being needed to explain galaxy rotation curves ever since?

Except for the fact that Peratt was trivially wrong. He made a prediction. It failed. He has kept his mouth shut since. As any good scientist, who had made a wrong prediction, would. And is this the same Peratt who calls EU 'anti-science', and a 'cult'? That fella?

[jacmac]

mcfc16:

Has it ever occurred to anyone here that Lerner is a clueless amateur?

We were too busy following his ideas; we missed what his College tie looked like.

[BeAChooser]

What about them? Make sure you reference the peer-reviewed literature, not YT videos from amateurs like Lerner.

No problem. See my response here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... t=15#p8505 for starters. I issued a simple challenge to you regarding a helically wound filament the mainstream recently discovered? Let's see if you run from it like you did the Peratt challenge on that thread. By the way, jackokie is right about you beclowning yourself.

You mean do we know what the particle is? No. Does the evidence strongly suggest it exists? Yes. I don't see you dealing with that evidence.

Case in point … just use your browser. I've started scores of threads dealing with what you call DM *evidence*. But truth is, you've already demonstrated your inability to deal with my rebuttal of the most important piece of evidence claimed by your side, the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. You quite transparently ran from my Peratt challenge and everyone here can go see it on the above linked thread.

Plenty of people responded to his nonsense, including the lead author of the 'Panic!' paper, to tell him that he was clueless. Amateur ramblings on YT do not count as science.

LOL! Hate to tell you, newbie, but I already demolished the attacks of every one of those people you say responded, including the lead author of the Panic! paper ... and his superior, ON THIS THREAD. You don't know that because you didn't bother to read the thread before posting to it. You obviously looked only at the title. So read it now and and if want to challenge any of my rebuttals of any of the *science communicator* attacks on Lerner, let’s see you try. I can’t wait.

Except for the fact that Peratt was trivially wrong.

Beclown yourself some more, Ian w. You claim that Peratt was “trivially wrong”, yet anyone who reads my response to that claim (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... t=15#p8505) will see that you didn’t post ANY specifics about Peratt's work. You ran from my challenge because, as I predicted, you couldn’t find any gnome believing scientist who responded to his peer reviewed papers. And also you didn’t supply anything that appears to be applicable at all to that work. You supplied NO details as to why magnetism by itself, much less electromagnetism and current carrying filaments, can't explain the rotation the curves. You simply posted a quote claiming it isn't. Truth is that you’re nothing but hot air, Ian w, here to disrupt the forum. And everyone can see it now.

And is this the same Peratt who calls EU 'anti-science', and a 'cult'? That fella?

You think that’s an effective debate with me? Think again. Let me clue you in, cupcake, EU is not PC. PC is what I’m arguing for. Once again, you are not scoring any points by addressing the elephant in the room. You're running from it.

[mcfc16]

No problem. See my response here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... t=15#p8505 for starters. I issued a simple challenge to you regarding a helically wound filament the mainstream recently discovered? Let's see if you run from it like you did the Peratt challenge on that thread. By the way, jackokie is right about you beclowning yourself.

I am not interested in your response. As far as I know you are not qualified in anything relevant. Show me, in the peer-reviewed literature, where anyone thinks these filaments are currents. If the claim only exists on a website, it is worthless.

Case in point … just use your browser. I've started scores of threads dealing with what you call DM *evidence*. But truth is, you've already demonstrated your inability to deal with my rebuttal of the most important piece of evidence claimed by your side, the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. You quite transparently ran from my Peratt challenge and everyone here can go see it on the above linked thread.

I am not interested in your threads. Deal with the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature. I would no more look at your unpublished claims than I would those of flat earthers or creationists/ IDers (same thing). And why should I?

LOL! Hate to tell you, newbie, but I already demolished the attacks of every one of those people you say responded, including the lead author of the Panic! paper ... and his superior, ON THIS THREAD. You don't know that because you didn't bother to read the thread before posting to it. You obviously looked only at the title. So read it now and and if want to challenge any of my rebuttals of any of the *science communicator* attacks on Lerner, let’s see you try. I can’t wait.

Really? Where is your peer-reviewed paper showing this? Otherwise there is nothing to respond to. I did not see you replying to Leonardo Ferreira's post on Brian Keating's video, where the author essentially called Lerner 'clueless'.

Beclown yourself some more, Ian w. You claim that Peratt was “trivially wrong”, yet anyone who reads my response to that claim (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... t=15#p8505) will see that you didn’t post ANY specifics about Peratt's work. You ran from my challenge because, as I predicted, you couldn’t find any gnome believing scientist who responded to his peer reviewed papers. And also you didn’t supply anything that appears to be applicable at all to that work. You supplied NO details as to why magnetism by itself, much less electromagnetism and current carrying filaments, can't explain the rotation the curves. You simply posted a quote claiming it isn't. Truth is that you’re nothing but hot air, Ian w, here to disrupt the forum. And everyone can see it now.

I am not interested in your response. Peratt is trivially wrong. As is Lerner. Here's a hint for those with little to no knowledge of plasma physics; magnetism does not affect charge neutral objects. Stars are charge neutral objects. And nobody responded to his silly papers because nobody involved in astrophysics and cosmology is going to have an engineering journal on their watch list! As Vallee said, magnetic fields cannot explain stellar orbits. And Peratt never even attempted to show how they could. And Peratt hasn't even bothered with his silly model in ~25 years. And if you want an explanation of why magnetism canot explain rotation curves, I invite you to point out the flaws in the calculations of Prof. Emory ' Ted' Bunn from decades ago on a newsgroup;

https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/bunn_on_plasma.txt

Good luck with that!

You think that’s an effective debate with me? Think again. Let me clue you in, cupcake, EU is not PC. PC is what I’m arguing for. Once again, you are not scoring any points by addressing the elephant in the room. You're running from it.

That's strange! You are defending Peratt on a forum hosted by the people that he calls 'anti-science' and a 'cult'! Not sure he'd be impressed. Ditto with Lerner, who also wants nothing to do with EU.

[jacmac]

mcfc16, your requirement of a peer reviewed published article to even enter this discussion speaks for itself.
That is a big part of the problem with current cosmology. The peer reviewers and authors just listen and speak to each other.
Many years ago, before the EU even existed, I did not believe in the big bang. It is complete nonsense.
If gravity is the primary cause of all that we see in the universe how did gravity fail in such a large way and allow the big bang to happen ?
O, never mind, don't even read this. I'm not peer reviewed.
Jack

[ForumModerator]

That's strange! You are defending Peratt on a forum hosted by the people that he calls 'anti-science' and a 'cult'! Not sure he'd be impressed. Ditto with Lerner, who also wants nothing to do with EU.

And yet here you are! Do you consider the Thunderbolts Project to be anti-science and a cult? If so, what are you here for?

[BeAChooser]

I am not interested in your response.

There you have it, folks. If that's the case, why is he here at all?

I am not interested in your threads.

There you have it, folks. If that's the case, why is he here at all?

I did not see you replying to Leonardo Ferreira's post on Brian Keating's video

There you have it, folks. Maybe he's deaf, dumb AND blind?

I am not interested in your response.

There you have it, folks. There is really no point in debating since debate is not possible with Ian w.

You are defending Peratt on a forum hosted by the people that he calls 'anti-science' and a 'cult'! Not sure he'd be impressed. Ditto with Lerner, who also wants nothing to do with EU.

There you have it, folks. There's no point in trying to debate someone who just won't listen. My pointing out that PC and EU are not the same thing obviously went in one ear and other. And just for the record, I really suspect that neither Peratt or Lerner have any problem whatsoever with my defending their reputation from the likes of Ian anywhere I chose to post. Just saying ...

[jackokie]

Moderators: How long are we expected to tolerate @mcfc16 and his personality disorder disrupting sincere discussions?

[mcfc16]

Moderators: How long are we expected to tolerate @mcfc16 and his personality disorder disrupting sincere discussions?

You mean that you can't deal with the science? Want to discuss why the electric sun is trivially shown to be impossible? How Lerner is trivially wrong? And Peratt? Give it a go. I can think of only one reason why you wouldn't want a scientific discussion.

[mcfc16]

That's strange! You are defending Peratt on a forum hosted by the people that he calls 'anti-science' and a 'cult'! Not sure he'd be impressed. Ditto with Lerner, who also wants nothing to do with EU.

And yet here you are! Do you consider the Thunderbolts Project to be anti-science and a cult? If so, what are you here for?

I agree with Peratt on this one point. Not on much else, though! And practically every science forum and comment section dealing with real science seems to be infested with EUists pushing their impossible nonsense. If they dismiss real science, why are they on those forums/ comment sections?

[Cargo]

Show me, in the peer-reviewed literature, where anyone thinks these filaments are currents

Well let's get down to it..
Google my signature, have you tried that. Or maybe use DuckDuckGo or even DogPile some time.s

[jacmac]

It seems to me , mcfc16, that if there are cylindrical double layers of charged particles, that make up the solar wind
it might be true that at any cross section of a cylinder (filament) the charges might be a total of zero; and therefore,
the total charge of the filament could be said to be a net zero. But that is a MATH addition of the charges and does not mean
the charge particles are not there. Isn't that why the solar wind is said to be a QUASI neutral stream of charges ??
So, is this all about terminology rather than what is really happening in space ???

[mcfc16]

There you have it, folks. There's no point in trying to debate someone who just won't listen. My pointing out that PC and EU are not the same thing obviously went in one ear and other. And just for the record, I really suspect that neither Peratt or Lerner have any problem whatsoever with my defending their reputation from the likes of Ian anywhere I chose to post. Just saying ...

EU and PC are definitely not the same thing, as the proponents of the former want nothing to do with the proponents of the latter. Nor do they believe in the electric sun, electric comets, Earth orbiting Saturn in the recent past, giant, impossible, interplanetary thunderbolts, etc, etc. Thing is, you do advocate some EU stuff. At least you did on ISF. Changed your mind since then, have you?