Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D'rok said:
Tusenfem has put serious effort into reading and interpreting Birkeland's works. He has tried over and over on more than one thread to get you to talk to him about it. He even created an entire thread devoted to Birkeland just to do so.

Where were you?
Click to expand...

Evidently busy. Where's the thread?

This is a baldfaced, shameless lie.
Click to expand...

When you get T (or anyone else or anyone else, including you) to claim they've read his work cover to cover, then you can tell me that is a lie, and not one second before I hear them say it.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
To be serious, Birkeland actually did very well according to the knowledge of the time.
Click to expand...

Ya, in fact he did *A LOT* better that you did collectively even with 100 years of what you're calling 'scientific progress".

What the rather deluded people that cite him as support for their bizarre ideas forget is that science progresses.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it progresses, sometimes not. Chapman's ideas were considered "progress" for a time. They were not progress at all, and were in fact just wrong. That's true of all your "magnetic reconnection" theories too. Alfven rejected that whole claim in fact as pure "pseudoscience" (his own words).

That means that most of his ideas have been shown to be wrong.
Click to expand...

No they haven't. They've been shown to be *RIGHT* to some degree, WRONG occasionally, but so what? His basic model worked. It created "solar wind' (including positively charged particles). It created "coronal loops' which he filmed for you. It created "jets" which he wrote about and filmed. It created all the high energy types of solar atmospheric emissions we see today in modern satellite images. You can't get "magnetic reconnection" do to any of those things in a lab.

It was excusable to think galaxies were wisps of cloud or electrical phenomena inside the Milky Way before the 1920's. The measurement of their actual distances and the determination that they have stars in them rules out Birkeland's idea.
Click to expand...

These types of "errors" are completely irrelevant since they really were based on the best information of the time, and simply don't apply anymore. that doesn't mean that his basic concepts are flawed or that you can rule out his other work. You can't just toss out the baby with the bathwater.
 
Michael Mozina said:
When you get T (or anyone else or anyone else, including you) to claim they've read his work cover to cover, then you can tell me that is a lie, and not one second before I hear them say it.
Click to expand...

Firstly:
You claimed:
You folks *REFUSE* to read anything that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas.
Click to expand...
Unless you have evidence to support this statement then the stuff about whatever Birkeland did or did not say is irrelevant to whether you lied or not. Now: are you going to stick by that claim?
Secondly, all I asked for was a simple reference to where Birkeland made the claim you claim he made. In science when we attribute work to others we like to give a precise reference to where the details can be found. After all, the aim of presenting your work is such that it should be understandable to others such that, at least in principle, others can reproduce your work. Your refusal to provide such a simple reference suggests strongly to me that no such reference exists. I am happy to be proved wrong, but ranting about other people's laziness is incredibly hypocritical.
 
Michael Mozina said:
These types of "errors" are completely irrelevant since they really were based on the best information of the time, and simply don't apply anymore.
Click to expand...
So they're completely relevant. IF we were assesing whether Birkeland was a 'good scientist' or not they'd be irrelevant. But we're not, we're talking about whether Birkeland's results are relevant today or not. For that we need to compare his conjecture with modern results. And, unsurprisingly, most of Birkeland's work doesn't come out to well. That is NOT a dig on his character, it is merely recognition that science has moved on in the last 100 years.

that doesn't mean that his basic concepts are flawed or that you can rule out his other work.
Click to expand...
It means we can rule out anything which disagrees with more modern (repeated) measurements. That is how science progresses Michael.

You can't just toss out the baby with the bathwater.
Click to expand...
We're not tossing out the baby with the bathwater. We're tossing out the theories which are contradicted by overwhelming amounts of data.
 
Tubbythin said:
Firstly:
You claimed:

Unless you have evidence to support this statement then the stuff about whatever Birkeland did or did not say is irrelevant to whether you lied or not. Now: are you going to stick by that claim?
Click to expand...

Well, ok, I admit you read some things that don't jive with your preconceived ideas. It's not much IMO, but ok, that was "over the top" on my part. I doubt any of you have actually read Birkeland's whole volume of work however and I doubt any of you ever will. I doubt that the majority of critics in this thread have read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven too, and I'm sure I"ve read more of his books and papers than any critic here.

Secondly, all I asked for was a simple reference to where Birkeland made the claim you claim he made. In science when we attribute work to others we like to give a precise reference to where the details can be found.
Click to expand...

Your question was actually rhetorical since he had no idea (nor did anyone else) that there were multiple galaxies in the universe. His basic premise however about he movement of charged particles and their relationship to cathode suns wouldn't change in such an instance. Positive ions would still follow one of three paths as they left the galaxy, out and back, out an away to never return, or into orbit around the galaxy. There's no difference in how the basic premise he described in the Times article would be applied. He talks all about this flow pattern of particles in the NY Time article and yet RC is still denying that he suggested the sun was a cathode! Come on.

After all, the aim of presenting your work is such that it should be understandable to others such that, at least in principle, others can reproduce your work. Your refusal to provide such a simple reference suggests strongly to me that no such reference exists. I am happy to be proved wrong, but ranting about other people's laziness is incredibly hypocritical.
Click to expand...

In your specific case, my statements were in fact speculative. In terms of his actual solar theories, they are not, they are well documented fact.
 
Tubbythin said:
So they're completely relevant. IF we were assesing whether Birkeland was a 'good scientist' or not they'd be irrelevant. But we're not, we're talking about whether Birkeland's results are relevant today or not. For that we need to compare his conjecture with modern results. And, unsurprisingly, most of Birkeland's work doesn't come out to well. That is NOT a dig on his character, it is merely recognition that science has moved on in the last 100 years.


It means we can rule out anything which disagrees with more modern (repeated) measurements. That is how science progresses Michael.


We're not tossing out the baby with the bathwater. We're tossing out the theories which are contradicted by overwhelming amounts of data.
Click to expand...

When you start tossing out his solar theories, I know you're going "too far". You have not and cannot produce the solar atmospheric effects that I mentioned with "magnetic reconnection". Alfven rejected that whole claim as "pseudoscience". Even still, you all still somehow perceive MR theory as"progress" of some sort, in spite of the fact you've *NEVER* reproduced *ANY* of the effect Birkeland created in the lab, not aurora, not loops, not jets, not sustained full sphere solar wind, nothing! That isn't empirical scientific "progress". That BS.
 
Last edited:
Michael, without using terms like "mythical sky-deity" and such, could you please describe what the terms "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" refer to, as the scientific community understands the terms? I know you have a habit of redefining terms but I think it would be very enlightening if you could explain what you think that current physicists define these things as.

And if everyone including the members here who actually do physics and astronomy/cosmology for a living, tell you that your definition of both is wrong, and point out the correct definition as they use it, will you accept it?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Well, ok, I admit you read some things that don't jive with your preconceived ideas. It's not much IMO, but ok, that was "over the top" on my part. I doubt any of you have actually read Birkeland's whole volume of work however and I doubt any of you ever will. I doubt that the majority of critics in this thread have read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven too, and I'm sure I"ve read more of his books and papers than any critic here.
Click to expand...
That may be true. It's not really relevant to the topic at hand though.

Your question was actually rhetorical since he had no idea (nor did anyone else) that there were multiple galaxies in the universe. His basic premise however about he movement of charged particles and their relationship to cathode suns wouldn't change in such an instance. Positive ions would still follow one of three paths as they left the galaxy, out and back, out an away to never return, or into orbit around the galaxy. There's no difference in how the basic premise he described in the Times article would be applied. He talks all about this flow pattern of particles in the NY Time article and yet RC is still denying that he suggested the sun was a cathode! Come on.
Click to expand...
In other words, Birkeland did not male the claim that you claim he made.

In your specific case, my statements were in fact speculative. In terms of his actual solar theories, they are not, they are well documented fact.
Click to expand...
When your statements are your own speculation, you should not attribute them to other people.
 
nvidiot said:
Michael, without using terms like "mythical sky-deity" and such, could you please describe what the terms "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" refer to, as the scientific community understands the terms.
Click to expand...

The would refer to "missing mass" and "cosmic acceleration" respectively. Of course there is no empirical cause/effect relationship between "dark matter" and "missing mass", nor is there any empirical connection between "acceleration' and dark energy". They simply 'assume" some connection.

I know you have a habit of redefining terms but I think it would be very enlightening if you could explain what you think that current physicists define these things as.
Click to expand...

Missing mass and cosmic acceleration would be appropriate terms, but they can't claim "dark energies" make up 3/4th of the universe. :)

And if everyone including the members here who actually do physics and astronomy/cosmology for a living, tell you that your definition of both is wrong, and point out the correct definition as they use it, will you accept it?
Click to expand...

Would you personally accept the word of a 'Priest" that told you that "God did it"? If not, why not?
 
Michael Mozina said:
When you start tossing out his solar theories, I know you're going "too far".
Click to expand...
When I toss out solar theories that disagree completely with vast amounts of experimental dat then I'm going to far?

You have not and cannot produce the solar atmospheric effects that I mentioned with "magnetic reconnection".
Click to expand...
Hardly surprising since I'ne never tried.

Alfven rejected that whole claim as "pseudoscience".
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less. And this is a thread about LCDM.

Even still, you all still somehow perceive MR theory as"progress" of some sort, in spite of the fact you've *NEVER* reproduced *ANY* of the effect Birkeland created in the lab, not aurora, not loops, not jets, not sustained full sphere solar wind, nothing!
Click to expand...
We can't make a working model of the Sun in a lab? So what? We have overwhelming amounts of data from the real thing. We don't need some little model that bares little resemblance to the real thing.

That isn't empirical scientific "progress". That BS.
Click to expand...
Throwing out theories that disagree with observations in favour those which agree isn't scientific progress?
 
Tubbythin said:
That may be true. It's not really relevant to the topic at hand though.
Click to expand...

You don't *KNOW* that! That's my whole complaint! Birkeland *PREDICTED* that most of the mass of the universe would NOT be found in suns or even slow moving plasma. You can't find most of the mass of the universe. His model PREDICTS and *EXPLAINS* a method of particle acceleration. You observe "acceleration". How you know these things are "unrelated"? You don't! You *ASSUME* they are unrelated.

In other words, Birkeland did not male the claim that you claim he made.
Click to expand...

His theory would still apply! You can't blame me for extending his basic concept one step further based on what we have learned since his death.

When your statements are your own speculation, you should not attribute them to other people.
Click to expand...

His statements about the flow pattern of particles is not "speculation". It's based on "direct empirical experimentation" and it's been "lab demonstrated". All I am doing is extending the particle movements one size larger and I'm following the same basic logic he used to describe suns, planets, "dark asteroids" (I think he only knew of "hundreds" of them) and applying to to a larger scale. There's nothing unique about what I'm doing that he didn't do himself in relationship to solar events.

What most amazes me that is your 'dark matter" is mostly located right where Birkeland's theories predict "rings of matter" to form. That "acceleration" is most likely due to EM fields too. You don't want to hear it, but that is a fact. The EM field is *THE* most likely culprit if we're trying to explain an acceleration of a plasma universe.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The would refer to "missing mass" and "cosmic acceleration" respectively. Of course there is no empirical cause/effect relationship between "dark matter" and "missing mass", nor is there any empirical connection between "acceleration' and dark energy". They simply 'assume" some connection.

Missing mass and cosmic acceleration would be appropriate terms, but they can't claim "dark energies" make up 3/4th of the universe. :)
Click to expand...

So Dark Matter is defined as "missing mass" but there is no connection between "dark matter" and missing mass. :confused:

What mass are they referring to and why is it "missing"?

And Dark Energy is "cosmic acceleration" but there is no empirical connection between "Dark Energy" and "cosmic acceleration. :confused:

What "cosmic acceleration" are they referring to?

Would you personally accept the word of a 'Priest" that told you that "God did it"? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Your lack of answering the question is telling, and your analogy fails miserably.

Were I a theist, (which I'm not) and I was asking a priest for a definition of "sin" for instance, and he told me that "sin" has a very specific descriptive definition, and that every other priest used that definition the same way, and he showed me numerous texts and papers and pointed me to other priests who said the same thing, then I would be inclined to listen to the guy if I had a mistaken impression that "sin" meant something completely different, like "pleasing god".

Answer the question directly please. If you think these terms means one thing, or describes one thing, and you are the ONLY person who thinks this, and those who do physics and cosmology ALL tell you that it doesn't mean that at all and you have made a fundamental definitional error, why wouldn't you listen?
 
D'rok said:
That's because they're synonyms.
Click to expand...

In terms of empirical physics, they are "unrelated" synonyms. Dark energy doesn't "accelerate" anything in a lab. So far I've seen nothing in a lab that confirms the existence of any exotic forms of matter.
 
nvidiot said:
So Dark Matter is defined as "missing mass" but there is no connection between "dark matter" and missing mass. :confused:
Click to expand...

This is telling me that "God is defined as missing mass" and you somehow are confused that I don not accept that the missing mass is related to God? Really? Show me the "connection"' in terms of empirical physics.

What mass are they referring to and why is it "missing"?
Click to expand...

Maybe because our technology is limited? I don't know why they can't find it.

And Dark Energy is "cosmic acceleration" but there is no empirical connection between "Dark Energy" and "cosmic acceleration. :confused:
Click to expand...

When did "dark energy" ever "accelerate" even one single atom?

You've shown no "cause/effect" connection between missing mass and "exotic forms of matter". You've shown no cause/effect connection between acceleration and 'dark energy'. You simply 'made up' both terms and you started pointing at the sky and claiming your dark entities did it.

Your claim is no different than pointing at the sky and claiming 'dark gods did it'.
 
Michael Mozina said:
In terms of empirical physics, they are "unrelated" synonyms. Dark energy doesn't "accelerate" anything in a lab. So far I've seen nothing in a lab that confirms the existence of any exotic forms of matter.
Click to expand...
You really do struggle with definitions, don't you? If the universe is filled with matter that cannot be directly detected, then it is by definition both exotic and dark.

Also, is it getting about time for me to repost your past advocacy in favour of dark matter and energy? There might be some new lurkers here who are labouring under the misapprehension that you are honest.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You don't *KNOW* that! That's my whole complaint! Birkeland *PREDICTED* that most of the mass of the universe would NOT be found in suns or even slow moving plasma. You can't find most of the mass of the universe.
Click to expand...
The missing mass is dark. Birkeland's missing mass would be very much visible. Therefore it is trivially obvious to conclude that whatever Birkeland predicted does not match with what is observed.

His model PREDICTS and *EXPLAINS* a method of particle acceleration. You observe "acceleration". How you know these things are "unrelated"? You don't! You *ASSUME* they are unrelated.
Click to expand...
No. No assumption involved. The dynamics of the situation from observations rule out anything to do with EM forces.

His theory would still apply! You can't blame me for extending his basic concept one step further based on what we have learned since his death.
Click to expand...
Have you got a proof that his theories are completely scalable? If not, it's wild speculation and nothing to do with Birkeland.

His statements about the flow pattern of particles is not "speculation". It's based on "direct empirical experimentation" and it's been "lab demonstrated".
Click to expand...
WI couldn't give a monkeys about lab demonstration which are completely at odds with the experimental evidence from the real-world physics. Which bit of this do you not get?

All I am doing is extending the particle movements one size larger and I'm following the same basic logic he used to describe suns, planets, "dark asteroids" (I think he only knew of "hundreds" of them) and applying to to a larger scale. There's nothing unique about what I'm doing that he didn't do himself in relationship to solar events.
Click to expand...
You're making claims he never made. Stop attributing those claims to him.

What most amazes me that is your 'dark matter" is mostly located right where Birkeland's theories predict "rings of matter" to form.
Click to expand...
You've jjust told us that Birkeland didn't know about galaxies and now you're claiming he predicted exactly where dark matter in the galaxies he didn't know about was located.

That "acceleration" is most likely due to EM fields too.
Click to expand...
No, it cannot possibly be due to EM fields.

You don't want to hear it, but that is a fact.
Click to expand...
No, its not a fact. Its your unsupported claim which goes entirely against mountains and mountains and mountains of observational evidence.

The EM field is *THE* most likely culprit if we're trying to explain an acceleration of a plasma universe.
Click to expand...
a) The universe is not a plasma.
b) No, the acceleration cannot possibly be explained by EM forces (remember Gauss' law and all that).
 
Micheal what does "definition" mean? You seem to have trouble with the term...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Um, which "specifics" were you looking for again? Why *exactly* are you looking for them? Why must *I* personally provide them to you?
Click to expand...

Whenever we ask where Birkeland claims something according to you, you always fail to give any reasonable answer apart from "read his book".

If you would go to my thread then you find how you can discuss Birkeland's work correctly, with paper names and links and page numbers etc. etc.

The specifics that we want to know should be obvious to you after more than 4000 posts in this thread and the uncountable other posts in the multitude of different threads where you make Birkie claims.
 
Oh and btw, just to rub in your misunderstanding of terms a bit more, I have no empirical (as you use the term, not how everyone else does) evidence for the existence of Jupiter. I have not seen a Jupiter in the lab, I cannot touch one, I cannot even reasonably recreate a model of Jupiter which explains it's behavior on any kind of reasonable scale on earth. Does Jupiter exist?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
reality check said:
The solar wind is neutral overall.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It carries "current".
Click to expand...

Oh for crying out loud MM, and you claim to be knowledgeable about plasma physics?

The solar wind is neutral, as in, in a cubic whatever measure you want to take, there is exactly as much positive as negative charge. Check the data from ACE, Wind, STEREO, Geotail, Cluster, THEMIS .......

The fact that in the solar wind there is also a current, e.g. the heliospheric current sheet has NOTHING to do with the fact wheter the solar wind is neutral or not. In a (quasi)neutral plasma currents, thank goodness, can flow.

charge density: ρe = Σk nk qk

current density: j = Σk nk vk qk

where k runs over all species.

(although you talk about "current" so whether or not that is a current as used in normal plasma physics depends to be seen)

Please show how j ≠ 0, implicitely implies that ρe ≠ 0.
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
Oh for crying out loud MM, and you claim to be knowledgeable about plasma physics?

The solar wind is neutral, as in, in a cubic whatever measure you want to take, there is exactly as much positive as negative charge. Check the data from ACE, Wind, STEREO, Geotail, Cluster, THEMIS .......
Click to expand...

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

Last time I checked your supposedly "neutral" plasma dumped five hundred thousand billion joules of energy into the Earth:

Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That's equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake .
Click to expand...

Holy cow! You can't even tell a "current carrying" plasma from a "neutral" plasma, you're worshiping at the feet of something Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience", and you have the nerve to question *MY* grasp of plasma physics?
 
Last edited:
nvidiot said:
Micheal what does "definition" mean? You seem to have trouble with the term...
Click to expand...

Only when your definition is meaningless. My reaction to your "dark matter" is the same exact reaction you would have to me claiming that "missing mass" is somehow related to "God matter" and I started pointing at the sky to locate all the "God matter" I could find. :) There's no link between 'missing mass' and "dark matter" except in your head. Ditto on the connection between acceleration and dark energy thingies.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

Last time I checked your supposedly "neutral" plasma dumped five hundred thousand billion joules of energy into the Earth:



Holy cow! You can't even tell a "current carrying" plasma from a "neutral" plasma, you're worshiping at the feet of something Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience", and you have the nerve to question *MY* grasp of plasma physics?
Click to expand...

Right Michael, keep on dreaming, you just proved that you have not got the foggiest about plasma physics. Well, we already knew that of course, but one can always hope for the best and get the worst.

Where exactly does it say that the plasma is not neutral????????????
Maybe you think that a neutral plasma consists of neutral atoms?????????
 
D'rok said:
You really do struggle with definitions, don't you? If the universe is filled with matter that cannot be directly detected,......
Click to expand...

You mean with our limited technologies?

then it is by definition both exotic and dark.
Click to expand...

Er, no. Then by definition we are "ignorant" and there's no point in pretending that we *KNOW* that exotic matter exists "somewhere out there".

Also, is it getting about time for me to repost your past advocacy in favour of dark matter and energy?
Click to expand...

I have only ever advocated "missing mass", and acceleration, not "dark matter' or "dark energy". Don't confuse "observation" with "cause".

There might be some new lurkers here who are labouring under the misapprehension that you are honest.
Click to expand...

I think it is *COMPLETELY* dishonest of you to claim that I have ever advocated "dark" anything. I'm the universes biggest critic of "dark" stuff.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Um, no, it's called "direct experience". I've been yacking at this group for over 7 years and I guarantee you that not one of these critics has read Birkeland's work cover to cover. I can tell by the question you folks ask and the statements that you make that you haven't bothered. There 'might" be one or two of them that have read 'Cosmic Plasma" by Alfven, but I guarantee you that I've read more of his papers and books than any critic PC/EU theory in this thread.
Click to expand...


However, your qualifications to communicate in a sane and intelligent manner on any issue related to science, or for that matter to actually understand anything at all that you claim to have read, have been challenged, and you still refused completely to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. So since there is zero evidence that you actually understand anything you read, your claim to have read any relevant material is wholly unsupported.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Holy cow! You can't even tell a "current carrying" plasma from a "neutral" plasma, you're worshiping at the feet of something Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience", and you have the nerve to question *MY* grasp of plasma physics?
Click to expand...

tusenfem said:
Right Michael, keep on dreaming, you just proved that you have not got the foggiest about plasma physics. Well, we already knew that of course, but one can always hope for the best and get the worst.

Where exactly does it say that the plasma is not neutral????????????
Maybe you think that a neutral plasma consists of neutral atoms?????????
Click to expand...
:D

From a previous post:
tusenfem said:
Oh for crying out loud MM, and you claim to be knowledgeable about plasma physics?

The solar wind is neutral, as in, in a cubic whatever measure you want to take, there is exactly as much positive as negative charge. Check the data from ACE, Wind, STEREO, Geotail, Cluster, THEMIS .......

The fact that in the solar wind there is also a current, e.g. the heliospheric current sheet has NOTHING to do with the fact wheter the solar wind is neutral or not. In a (quasi)neutral plasma currents, thank goodness, can flow.

charge density: ρe = Σk nk qk

current density: j = Σk nk vk qk

where k runs over all species.
Click to expand...
We had already established that
Michael Mozina doesn't know the difference between E and J, so why should we act surprised when he doesn't know the difference between ρ and j?

The distinction between charge and current is high school physics, so I wouldn't expect Michael Mozina to understand it.
 
tusenfem said:
Right Michael, keep on dreaming, you just proved that you have not got the foggiest about plasma physics. Well, we already knew that of course, but one can always hope for the best and get the worst.

Where exactly does it say that the plasma is not neutral????????????
Click to expand...


NASA's Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission observed the dynamics of a rapidly developing substorm, confirmed the existence of giant magnetic ropes and witnessed small explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field.
Click to expand...

Here is Alfven's definition of a "magnetic rope' from Cosmic Plasma:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."
Click to expand...

Notice that reference to "currents"? Hoy.

Maybe you think that a neutral plasma consists of neutral atoms?????????
Click to expand...

No, I think a "current carrying " plasma is a current carrying plasma, and a Bennett Pinch is caused by "current flow" and magnetic field constriction caused by that "current flow". I have no idea why you believe a "magnetic rope" is a "neutral plasma".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. Then by definition we are "ignorant" and there's no point in pretending that we *KNOW* that exotic matter exists "somewhere out there".
Click to expand...
Except, of course, for all the independent lines of observational evidence that shows that there is matter "out there" affecting matter that we can see. We don't know where it is exactly, therefore it is missing. We can't see it directly, therefore it is dark. We have never been able to study it directly, therefore it remains exotic.

Or are you denying that there is missing matter at all?

Now, on to your pathetic lying...

I have only ever advocated "missing mass", and acceleration, not "dark matter' or "dark energy". Don't confuse "observation" with "cause".

I think it is *COMPLETELY* dishonest of you to claim that I have ever advocated "dark" anything. I'm the universes biggest critic of "dark" stuff.
Click to expand...
Wow Michael. It was in this very thread that I already posted this. But, if you insist, here it is again.

All this ranting about dark matter/energy is hilariously ironic. Michael was quite the dark energy advocate back when he thought it could account for the measurement discrepancy between the actual density of the sun and how dense he needed it to be for it to have a solid iron surface.

I don't think you are grasping the tenuousness of the density measurements, or the lack of accounting for any of the known forces of our universe in these calculations. For instance, where is there any evidence of "dark energy" being factored into density calculations?

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/...chpage=2#78835
Click to expand...
"Known forces" eh, Michael? I guess you no longer know what you used to know.

Now we've determined that the dark energy could affect things in either direction, and we've also demonstrated that these ideas have NOT been factored into density calculations. We therefore cannot use a density calculations that is known to be missing some key components as some sort of "dispoof" of what we see in satellite images, and hear in heliosiesmology, and see in nuclear chemical data.

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/...chpage=3#78837
Click to expand...
"Key components" eh, Michael?

This goes on for page after page in that thread.

Pretty sad, IMO.
 
Michael Mozina said:
He answers all of your objections in that NY Times article RC! He even explained that the rotation *direction* of the planets was related to the fact that positively charged particles were emitted and he explained that he had *experimentally reproduced them too*. Did you even read that link? Everything is addressed. You simply ignored his statements entirely! The whole rotation direction is directly linked to the charge of the sun and the charge of the particle being emitted! Hoy!
Click to expand...


He, Birkeland, doesn't answer anything in that article. A reporter wrote it. And apparently you don't even know which reporter. Maybe the reporter was a liar. It doesn't seem like a bunch of those scientists at the lecture rushed home and started working on planet spewing projects. Maybe they all thought Birkeland was out of his gourd, and they went to the pub after the lecture to drink and laugh and ridicule the little guy. We don't really know, do we?

Also, the reporter, if he/she wasn't lying, seems to believe that Birkeland had this crackpot notion that stars spew atoms into space which coalesce into planets. I'm sure you'd agree that no such thing is possible since, after all, nobody ever made a planet out of spewed atoms in a lab right here on Earth. Or do your ridiculous standards of scientific exploration only apply to your own crackpot notions, Michael?

:dl:​
 
D'rok said:
Except, of course, for all the independent lines of observational evidence that shows that there is matter "out there" affecting matter that we can see. We don't know where it is exactly, therefore it is missing. We can't see it directly, therefore it is dark. We have never been able to study it directly, therefore it remains exotic.

Or are you denying that there is missing matter at all?
Click to expand...

The only thing I'm "denying" is that there is any empirical link between "missing mass" and 'dark matter", or that any of it is necessarily "exotic" in any way.

Now, on to your pathetic lying...
Click to expand...

You mean on to your pathetic personal attacks. Yawn....

Wow Michael. It was in this very thread that I already posted this. But, if you insist, here it is again.

All this ranting about dark matter/energy is hilariously ironic. Michael was quite the dark energy advocate back when he thought it could account for the measurement discrepancy between the actual density of the sun and how dense he needed it to be for it to have a solid iron surface.
Click to expand...

That's preposterous since I've never claimed that A) the sun was "solid iron", or B) that that there is anything wrong with the calculated mass of the sun in *ANY* solar theory. I have no idea why you think the two ideas are even related. If you want to discuss that topic, so so in the other thread please, lest I be seen as trying to skirt around the moderators of the solar thread. For purposes of this thread I don't even know why you believe the two topics are related.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Notice that reference to "currents"? Hoy.
Click to expand...

And where exactly is Alfvén claiming that the plasma is NOT neutral?

Hoy indeed

Please quote me from Cosmic Plasma or from Cosmic Electrodynamics where Alfvén claims that current carrying plasmas cannot be neutral. I dare you!

Maybe that only holds for a Mozplasma?
 
D'rok said:
"Known forces" eh, Michael? I guess you no longer know what you used to know.

"Key components" eh, Michael?

This goes on for page after page in that thread.

Pretty sad, IMO.
Click to expand...

IMO you're taking a couple of lines *COMPLETELY* out of context. For purposes of conversations I will in fact use those terms but it doesn't mean I "believe in them". I use the term "photosphere" too, but that doesn't mean I actually believe it is "opaque" (GM definition) to every wavelength. I think you're reading more into that statement than was meant by it.

FYI, if you're trying to paint me as a "believer" that "dark" stuff is the "cause of" anything, you're definitely barking up the wrong tree.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That's preposterous since I've never claimed that A) the sun was "solid iron", or B) that that there is anything wrong with the calculated mass of the sun in *ANY* solar theory. I have no idea why you think the two ideas are even related. If you want to discuss that topic, so so in the other thread please, lest I be seen as trying to skirt around the moderators of the solar thread. For purposes of this thread I don't even know why you believe the two topics are related.
Click to expand...
Fail again. The topic was your past advocacy for dark matter/energy. There it is. In your own words. For the whole world to see. Pages and pages of it. Despite your emphatic denial that you ever did so.

Why do you lie so much?
 
tusenfem said:
And where exactly is Alfvén claiming that the plasma is NOT neutral?
Click to expand...

He makes that claim every single time he uses the term "circuit" in reference to them.

Hoy indeed

Please quote me from Cosmic Plasma or from Cosmic Electrodynamics where Alfvén claims that current carrying plasmas cannot be neutral. I dare you!

Maybe that only holds for a Mozplasma?
Click to expand...

So by your definition a lightening bolt is a "neutral" plasma too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom