Missing gamma-ray blobs shed new light on dark matter, cosmic magnetism

Missing gamma-ray blobs shed new light on dark matter, cosmic magnetism
Extended gamma-ray sources (circled areas) identified in data taken with the Large Area Telescope on NASA’s Fermi spacecraft. Credit: Matthew Wood/Fermi-LAT collaboration

When astrophysicists look at the gamma-ray glow from a galaxy outside our own, all they typically see is a small spot because the galaxy is extremely far away. So, when a galaxy appears as an extended blob, something extraordinary must be going on that could help researchers better understand the properties of deep space.

Now, scientists, including researchers from the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, have compiled the most detailed catalog of such blobs using eight years of data collected with the Large Area Telescope (LAT) on NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope. The blobs, including 19 gamma-ray sources that weren't known to be extended before, provide crucial information on how stars are born, how they die, and how spew out matter trillions of miles into space.

Intriguingly, though, it was the cosmic regions where they didn't find blobs that shed new light on two particularly mysterious ingredients of the universe: – an invisible form of matter six times more prevalent than regular matter – and the that pervades the space between galaxies and whose origin is unknown.

"These data are very exciting because they allow us to study some of the most fundamental processes in the universe, and they could potentially lead us to discover completely new physics," says NASA scientist Regina Caputo, one of the leaders of the recent study by the international Fermi-LAT collaboration, which was published in the Astrophysical Journal.

Clumps of dark matter

Missing gamma-ray blobs shed new light on dark matter, cosmic magnetism
The Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) is the second-largest satellite galaxy orbiting our Milky Way. The image superimposes a photograph of the SMC with one-half of a model of its dark matter. Lighter colors indicate greater density and show a strong concentration of dark matter toward the SMC's center. Credit: Regina Caputo/NASA; Axel Mellinger/Central Michigan University

One of the things the researchers looked for were gamma-ray blobs associated with companion galaxies orbiting our Milky Way. Since the faintest of these satellites contain very few stars, they are thought to be held together by dark matter.

Scientists believe dark matter could be made of particles called WIMPs, which would emit gamma rays when they collide and destroy each other. A gamma-ray blob signal coming from an ultrafaint satellite galaxy would be a strong hint that WIMPS exist.

"Our simulations of galaxy formation predict that there should be more satellite galaxies than those we've been able to detect in optical surveys," Caputo says. "Some of them could be so faint that we might only be able to see them if they produced gamma rays due to ."

In the new study, the Fermi-LAT researchers searched for gamma-ray blobs associated with those predicted . They didn't find any. But even the fact that they came up empty-handed is an important result: It will allow them, in future studies, to define the distribution of dark matter in Milky Way satellites and the likelihood that WIMPs produce gamma rays. It also provides new input for models of galaxy evolution.

Faint cosmic magnetism

Manuel Meyer, Humboldt fellow at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, explains a process involving the intergalactic magnetic field that could potentially make active galaxies known as blazars appear as extended gamma-ray sources in data taken with the Large Area Telescope onboard NASA’s Fermi mission. Credit: Manuel Meyer/Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology

The researchers also used their data to obtain more information on the strength of the magnetic field between galaxies, which they hope will be an important puzzle piece in determining the origin of the field.

For this part of the study, the team looked at blazars – active galaxies that spit high-speed jets of plasma far into space. The Fermi spacecraft can detect gamma rays associated with jets that point in the direction of the Earth.

Blazars appear as point-like sources, but a mechanism involving the intergalactic magnetic field could potentially make them look like extended sources, says Manuel Meyer, a Humboldt fellow at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC) and another lead author of the study.

The researchers didn't find any blobs associated with blazars. Again, this no-show was valuable information: It allowed the team to calculate that the magnetic field is at least a tenth of a millionth billionth as strong as Earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field's upper limit – a billion times weaker than Earth's field – was already known.

The intergalactic field is stronger than the researchers had expected, Meyer says, and this new information might help them find out whether it stems from material spilled into space in recent times or whether it was created in processes that occurred in earlier cosmic history.

The cosmic magnetism could also have ties to dark matter. In an alternative to the WIMP model, dark matter is proposed to be made of lighter particles called axions that could emerge from (and convert back into them) in the presence of a magnetic field. "For that to occur, the field strength would need to be closer to its upper limit, though," Meyer says. "It's definitely interesting to take this mechanism into account in our dark matter studies, and we're doing this right now within the Fermi-LAT collaboration."


Explore further

Fermi finds possible dark matter ties in Andromeda galaxy

More information: M. Ackermann et al. The Search for Spatial Extension in High-latitude Sources Detected by the Fermi Large Area Telescope, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacdf7
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Missing gamma-ray blobs shed new light on dark matter, cosmic magnetism (2018, October 16) retrieved 25 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-10-gamma-ray-blobs-dark-cosmic-magnetism.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
238 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 16, 2018
Baffled by the failure to verify Canadian physicist theory of mono atomic hydrogen as the 'missing' matter.

Oct 16, 2018
Amusing, DM fails again and they discover the magnetic fields are much stronger than they had guessed. The progenitors of those magnetic fields, cosmic electric currents, is the reason there is no need for faerie dust.

Oct 16, 2018
Canadian physicist theory of mono atomic hydrogen


You have any links for this theory?

Oct 16, 2018
Well, at least the magnetic fields are right up there in importance as the missing 'dark matter' in mainstream now. Had enough of the information show up that now they have to make serious adjustments to their models to include it properly, and they are still working on it.

Oct 16, 2018
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.

Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime.

Oct 16, 2018
@Steel
wtf? here is the draft paper: https://arxiv.org...8035.pdf

from the abstract
We also searched for halos around active galactic nuclei, which are predicted
from electromagnetic cascade...
this one line alone tells me that they've considered magnetic fields for far longer than you're claiming

the problem with accepting eu tenets, claims and arguments without doing your own research is that it makes you look like a fanatical religious acolyte - and I mean that literally

instead of getting your talking points from the eu pages, why not actually hit up the literature itself?

arXiv and google scholar are your friend in these cases
and they are still working on it
they never stopped. they even still test GR/SR, QM and the "established" facts.

that is the nature of science.

Oct 16, 2018
Amusing, DM fails again and they discover the magnetic fields are much stronger than they had guessed. The progenitors of those magnetic fields, cosmic electric currents, is the reason there is no need for faerie dust.


Lol. 3 x 10^-16 Gauss! That is 3 x 10^-20 Tesla. The IMF carried by the solar wind is ~ 5 x 10^-9 Tesla! That is ~11 orders of magnitude stronger than the IGMF. 11 orders of magnitude, for the mathematically illiterate, is 100 billion.

Oct 16, 2018
instead of getting your talking points from the eu pages, why not actually hit up the literature itself?

arXiv and google scholar are your friend in these cases


Indeed. Here is a paper from 1994 looking at the IGMF;

Extragalactic magnetic fields
Kronberg, P. K.
https://ned.ipac....aper.pdf


Oct 16, 2018
11 orders of magnitude, for the mathematically illiterate, is 100 billion

Don't anyone mention the EM force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force, that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger for the mathematically illiterate. There are lots of 100 billions in that ratio.

Oct 16, 2018
I knew it. Saw an article dealing with dark matter, and didn't even read it, but instead scrolled straight to the comments. Lo and behold, the same geniuses talking about "faerie dust" etc. What are you aiming at with your copy-paste comments? It's almost as if you believe repeating it for the nth time, someone will finally understand how super smart you are.

Oct 16, 2018
I am not trying to point out how super smart I think I am, only pointing out how super moronic the darkists are.

Oct 16, 2018
What creates the albeit 'very weak' galactic magnetic field? I think this question is just ignored.

Oct 16, 2018
@MrBojangles
It's almost as if you believe repeating it for the nth time, someone will finally understand how super smart you are
it's the eu misinterpretation of Berlyne's two-factor theory (Berlyn 1970) regarding repetition as they forgot entirely about positive habituation and initial stimulus exposures - they're attempting to limit time exposure to new ideas disrupting thought processes (Cacioppo and Petty 1979) by reintegrating their pseudoscience cult dogma in the comments while drowning out all factual science (gish-gallop, etc)

This allows for "thought reform" using the method of reiteration, occasional integration of misinterpreted factual data which can't be understood by a layman without higher education (but supplying an "authority" to establish the trustworthiness), desensitization to facts, denigration and mistrust of science as well as unrelated conspiracist ideation as supporting evidence

Oct 16, 2018
@old C
What creates the albeit 'very weak' galactic magnetic field? I think this question is just ignored.
good question

Unless Jones or DaS have more data, this is what I found
http://adsabs.har...19....1F

http://adsabs.har...43..760R

http://adsabs.har...42...74S

https://arxiv.org...2402.pdf

.

addendum for eu or interested parties

I would like to point out the dates on some of the relevant data for the eu adherents

just sayin'

Oct 16, 2018
@MrBojangles it's the eu misinterpretation of Berlyne's two-factor theory (Berlyn 1970) regarding repetition as they forgot entirely about positive habituation and initial stimulus exposures - they're attempting to limit time exposure to new ideas disrupting thought processes (Cacioppo and Petty 1979) by reintegrating their pseudoscience cult dogma in the comments while drowning out all factual science (gish-gallop, etc)


You just have it all figured out don't you? LOL

Maybe cantdrive's copy and paste of random segments that's been uttered in EU lectures isn't a reflection of the EU thoughts, regardless of how blasphemous it may be to the standard model.

You guys put waaaaay too much thought into retorting cantdrive's comments.

Oct 16, 2018
11 orders of magnitude, for the mathematically illiterate, is 100 billion

Don't anyone mention the EM force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force, that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger for the mathematically illiterate. There are lots of 100 billions in that ratio.


Dumb. And at galactic scales gravity totally dominates. And you won't find a scientist saying otherwise. The problem for EU wooists is that they fail to understand that EM forces are both attractive and repulsive, and cancel themselves out over fairly short distances. Gravity is purely attractive. You always hear this 10^39 crap from EUists. None of them understand EM though.

Oct 16, 2018
@Rossim
Maybe cantdrive's copy and paste of random segments that's been uttered in EU lectures isn't a reflection of the EU thoughts
considering there are no real "eu thoughts", this is entirely true

there is no one single source of eu material, let alone a foundational hypothesis or working theory. there definitely isn't a working theory as there is no validation or studies presented anywhere

that is actually the problem, though
blasphemous it may be to the standard model
I don't personally care about that
what I care about is evidence, which, as I pointed out, there is none
You just have it all figured out don't you? LOL
figuring out why people like cd or others who cling to claims that are proven to be false has benefits for more than just science or conversation

it's why it is being studied

Oct 16, 2018

You guys put waaaaay too much thought into retorting cantdrive's comments.


I've read a fair bit of EU's current dogma. It is the same crap being spewed by cantthink. Show me anything from Thornhill, Talbott or Scott that is not completely crazy, unscientific crap. I can't find anything. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Thunderdolts.info and hollowscience and everything's electric, etc. Everything on those sites is complete and utter crap. Where should I be looking?

Oct 16, 2018
@old C
What creates the albeit 'very weak' galactic magnetic field? I think this question is just ignored.
good question

Unless Jones or DaS have more data, this is what I found
http://adsabs.har...19....1F

.

addendum for eu or interested parties

I would like to point out the dates on some of the relevant data for the eu adherents

just sayin'


As far as intergalactic fields, there isn't a huge amount as we lacked the ability to measure it until recently. The paper I linked further up is from 1994. As for the difference between field strengths between galactic fields and intergalactic fields, the difference is huge. Galactic fields come in around 0.1 - 1 nT. Remember, the IMF in the solar wind is ~ 5 nT. The IGMF is 11 orders of magnitude weaker than the IMF, which does bugger all, except where it meets a planet, or another magnetic field, such as Earth's. It certainly doesn't affect orbits.

Oct 16, 2018

You guys put waaaaay too much thought into retorting cantdrive's comments.


I've read a fair bit of EU's current dogma. It is the same crap being spewed by cantthink. Show me anything from Thornhill, Talbott or Scott that is not completely crazy, unscientific crap. I can't find anything. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Thunderdolts.info and hollowscience and everything's electric, etc. Everything on those sites is complete and utter crap. Where should I be looking?


Whoops, forgot Don Scott's pile of fail;

https://electric-cosmos.org/

Oct 16, 2018
Since the "visible" portion of the Universe always centers around gravitational sources... Always.

And by "visible" I mean the entire EM spectrum.

Though squint as much as we can? Never seeing any aerher or far flung thundermugs!

The EU/Aether cultists need to plagiarize the data collected by GR/SR/QM based technology to prop up their theosophist nonsense.

Since none of you cultists have the intellectual capacity to understand the possibilities resulting from the Majoron particle as Dark Matter? Nor, of the possibility that the decay of tau and muon neutrinos releases an excess energetic phenomena I call Majorarcana i.e. Dark Energy?

You EU/Ae woowhooey nuts overlooked the opportunity to rustle a herd of evidence and rebrand the newest explanation of neutrinos as the aether mechanism for a Static Electrical Universe.

Gracious, you people are slow!


Oct 16, 2018
So gravity creates the galactic magnetic field? lol, Ugh...

rrgizbag: God you are such an arrogant buffoon. I asked a simple question, nothing to do with EU lunacy. Since you can't answer the simple question, you attack people for being EU, what a bonehead you are.

Oct 16, 2018
I love how certain folks will naysay and namecall, labeling people as EU Woo'ists, and then when the data just happens to say what us "EU " folks have been telling you for well over a decade, now you decide to flip sides and 'point out' that this information has been out there for some time...which is EXACTLY the Very Point I and several others here have been making.

We have been pointing out that magnetism and electricity is seen in actions from everything from chemistry to wind, dust, rain and storms, the static electricity formed by the movement of these particles gives rise to a number of different weather conditions.

It would be the height of folly to not further apply these same principles, plainly seen in many different processes here on Earth and near surrounds, and apply them to other systems using similar processes and principles, just different scales.

Electromagnetism has been Proven to be an ubiquitous process across all scales. Nothing else has.

Oct 16, 2018
@steel
and then when the data just happens to say what us "EU " folks have been telling you
calling bullsh*t on this one

considering there is absolutely no singular eu source of anything and that it is not only not recognized as a legitimate hypothesis, but it's also not legitimate science, then making the claim that *any* science is what eu folks have been saying is like saying that because some apples are red, and so are some firetrucks, then apples are legally capable of running code 3 and putting out fires

so, until you can point to a more cogent source than "we've been telling you all along ..." while not being able to supply a scientific hypothesis with published peer-reviewed papers at the very least, then "the eu" has not been telling anyone anything for any length of time

lastly, the eu is not science

period
full stop

and that is why it's not taken seriously by scientifically literate posters

the scientific method works
all else is speculation

Oct 16, 2018
@Steelwolf
You paint a picture of "us vs. them" which doesn't help your cause.

and then when the data just happens to say what us "EU " folks have been telling you for well over a decade, now you decide to flip sides and 'point out' that this information has been out there for some time


And I'll beat jonesdave to it... where is your evidence? xD wow this is easy.
...

Just like every argument in life where both sides never reach any understanding of the other, commenters who support EU and those who support mainstream are unkowingly fighting two different battles.

EU supporters aren't ignoring all of this science, they're just trying to look forward for a different explanation that more elegantly explains what we observe. This view isn't wrong (yet).

Mainstream supporters aren't ignoring EM physics in the cosmos, however, they are predicating all of their statements on only what has been written and published. This isn't wrong either (yet).

Oct 16, 2018
Putting a lower bound on the IGMF is a pretty good result. Since Earth's magnetic field is 25-65 uT, the IGMF is minuscule; between 25 and 65 aT at the strongest, and the weakest it can be is a million times smaller, for which there is no metric prefix; it's 10^-21 T, a very weak field indeed. Still, that's a pretty wide margin of error, a million times. Six orders of magnitude.

I'm less impressed with the dark matter results. WIMP annihilation doesn't have strong evidence to support it in the first place, so it's unsurprising to me that we've found evidence it doesn't occur.

Oct 16, 2018
@rossim
EU supporters aren't ignoring all of this science, they're just trying to look forward for a different explanation that more elegantly explains what we observe
sort of
and it strongly depends on the specific person

the bulk of the eu supporters have no grasp of the scientific method, let alone what constitutes evidence

but then again, most laymen are also in the same boat

also note, you are far more likely to find pseudoscience advocacy within the eu supporters than the mainstream (MS) as MS requires far more stringent constraints on evidence

when you're not specifically in the field you tend to rely upon either the authority of validated evidence or your basic education (which may not be up to the task of comprehending the science - see: QM)

so it is not really "us vs them", but it *is* pseudoscience vs science

Oct 16, 2018
Lol. 3 x 10^-16 Gauss!
@Jonsey, I got 3.5 x 10^-14 (actually I wrote 25 to 65 x 10^-15). Are you sure you didn't drop a couple decimal places?

Oct 16, 2018
Well, at least the magnetic fields are right up there in importance as the missing 'dark matter' in mainstream now. Had enough of the information show up that now they have to make serious adjustments to their models to include it properly, and they are still working on it.

says Steelwolf

Yes, and (according to the paper) they are willing to look for "new" physics, which is a clear indicator that these researchers, in particular, are not afraid of what is, as yet, unknown that they will gladly embrace, whether or not it fits into the Standard Model.

Adventure in Physics is what they seem to enjoy. Good for them.

Oct 16, 2018
Russian troll voting 1s without understanding what I'm saying. It's all out there, Russian troll farmer @Surveillance_Russian_Unit. You are transparent as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on its sweater and the broken cookie jar on the floor.

You of course don't get it because you can't do math... or for that matter count to two.

Oct 16, 2018
You know, @Surveillance_Russian_Unit, you could make cred if you could do math beyond "two."

Oct 16, 2018
Well, at least the magnetic fields are right up there in importance as the missing 'dark matter' in mainstream now. Had enough of the information show up that now they have to make serious adjustments to their models to include it properly, and they are still working on it.


Yes, and (according to the paper) they are willing to look for "new" physics, which is a clear indicator that these researchers, in particular, are not afraid of what is, as yet, unknown that they will gladly embrace, whether or not it fits into the Standard Model.

Adventure in Physics is what they seem to enjoy. Good for them.


An overlooked important point here, we know for sure electricity & magnetism are real thus there is a basis of reality for a foundation of scientific endeavor to work from, not the case for DM, they need to INFER the one selling point they use to concoct their hypotheses, GRAVITY. I've often wondered if any cosmologist has ever looked up the word INFER?

Oct 16, 2018
@Steelwolf
You paint a picture of "us vs. them" which doesn't help your cause.

and then(*)

...

Just like every argument in life where both sides never reach any understanding of the other, commenters who support EU and those who support mainstream are unkowingly fighting two different battles.

EU supporters aren't ignoring all of this science, they're just trying to look forward for a different explanation that more elegantly explains what we observe. This view isn't wrong (yet).

Mainstream supporters aren't ignoring EM physics in the cosmos, however, they are predicating all of their statements on only what has been written and published. This isn't wrong either (yet).
says rossim22

While I totally disagree with Talbott, I do recognise that at least SOME of EU theory has merit and should be more carefully considered first, and with evidence, before any of it is rejected/discarded outright. If there is enough evidence for it - then good for EU.

Oct 16, 2018
While I totally disagree with Talbott, I do recognise that at least SOME of EU theory has merit and should be more carefully considered first, and with evidence, before any of it is rejected/discarded outright. If there is enough evidence for it - then good for EU.
........about the same point I was also trying to make.

My biggest problem with sheets of electrons flowing around all over the place is the low flow of them to have much more of an effect than to help create auroras along with the effects of other ionizing particles.

Sure, we know there are magnetic lines all over the Universe & electrons can ride those fields, but I've never been able to figure out how EU theory uses this to create forces that make stars shine. I could be wrong, but I don't think EU thinks it's fusion, does it?


Oct 16, 2018
@Benni
@Steelwolf
Electricity and Magnetism are essentially the backbone of Physics and the two are everywhere, in concert with each other, while gravity is largely dependent on Mass, else it would have nothing to gravitate onto. These are serious attributes. Without them there would be no Universe.
So I don't see what the problem is with this battle over which has the reason to be accepted or rejected as the more important one.
Quite frankly, this whole tussle is boring and senseless. Scientists will find out the Truth, and then inform those of us who are interested in it.

Oct 16, 2018
Even the weakest of magnetic fields are orders of magnitude stronger and more significant on the plasma of the intergalactic/interstellar medium than any gravitational influence. Sadly the plasma ignoramuses resist this salient fact.

Oct 16, 2018
The fact of the matter is that the Standard Model; GR/SR are already established in the science community and are a trusted source. And yet, these scientists are unwilling to sit on their 'laurels' to forego looking at other possibilities, other incidences of evidence that some things are happening of which they are currently at a loss to explain. Their curiosity and desire to get to the bottom of these mysteries of the Universe is admirable, and I will back them all the way.

It is mankind's destiny - to learn as much in the time that is given to them, and to take that knowledge into the future for the good of all.

Oct 16, 2018
Even the weakest of magnetic fields are orders of magnitude stronger and more significant on the plasma of the intergalactic/interstellar medium than any gravitational influence. Sadly the plasma ignoramuses resist this salient fact.
says CD85

The problem with EU Theory is that whatever unequivocal and unassailable evidence there is for it doesn't appear to have been peer reviewed, widely published and disseminated in science journals for the consumption of the science community.
Without these 'tribunals', your EU cause is slowly committing suicide.

Your group/community needs to include some bona fide scientists to examine thoroughly the existing evidences for EU, else it will never be accepted as Truth. This is the way it is. And I suggest getting to work on it, forthwith.

Oct 16, 2018
Even the weakest of magnetic fields are orders of magnitude stronger and more significant on the plasma of the intergalactic/interstellar medium than any gravitational influence.


Qualifiers need to be inserted here with regard to STRENGTHS of magnetic fields versus gravity. Magnetic fields follow the Inverse Cube Law, gravity the Inv Square Law, big difference here.

Magnetic fields are more LOCAL than gravity fields. Magnetic fields are influentially powerful in the vicinity of the mass from it's source, but weakens sharply as the dipoles become more distant to each other when following a pathway along the magnetically weaker peripheral edges of the flux field, and eventually the magnetic lines just break & discontinue, unlike gravity flux fields which never break because gravity is not dipole dependent.

I wonder how many people even know that magnetic field lines are simply the lowest frequency of electro-magnetic waves ?


Oct 16, 2018
"I wonder how many people even know that magnetic field lines are simply the lowest frequency of electro-magnetic waves ?"

That's news to me. An inductor is a short to low frequencies, all I know.


Oct 16, 2018
".......and the magnetic field that pervades the space between galaxies and whose origin is unknown."


No discussion in the article about the strengths of these fields, in fact right here ends all the discussion after hyping it in the title of the article.

I was hoping the author was gonna try making a connection with magnetic field lines & presence of DM just so I could have lots & lots of fun for creating reams of entertainment with jonesy & schneibo in mind.

It seems every galaxy creates it's own dipole of magnetism, just like planets do, e.g. Earth's magnetic field, so naturally the magnetic field would extend far beyond the bounds of the galaxy itself but becomes weaker in accordance with the Inverse Cube Law.


Oct 16, 2018
The problem with EU Theory is that whatever unequivocal and unassailable evidence there is for it doesn't appear to have been peer reviewed, widely published and disseminated in science journals for the consumption of the science community.

There are papers, but there are very few published in astrophysical journals. The astrophysical journals referees are plasma ignoramuses and as such they will not publish paradigm altering science.

Oct 16, 2018
Magnetic fields follow the Inverse Cube Law, gravity the Inv Square Law, big difference here.

It depends on the currents creating the fields.

"The fundamental vector calculus definition of a force-free, field-aligned current in space is expanded in cylindrical coordinates to directly obtain the Bessel partial differential equation that specifies the magnetic field created by such a current...We show that: 1) both the axial and azimuthal magnetic and current density components cyclically reverse their directions with radial distance from the central axis of the current; 2) the magnetic field extends farther from the central axis within a force-free field than it would if produced by a current in a long straight conductor. The total magnetic field magnitude and current density are shown to vary inversely as the square root of r. For large r, outside the plasma, the azimuthal magnetic field is shown to vary as 1/r."
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF

Oct 16, 2018
Magnetic fields follow the Inverse Cube Law, gravity the Inv Square Law, big difference here.

It depends on the currents creating the fields.

"The fundamental vector calculus definition of a force-free, field-aligned current in space is expanded in cylindrical coordinates to directly obtain the Bessel partial differential equation that specifies the magnetic field
...
produced by a current in a long straight conductor. The total magnetic field magnitude and current density are shown to vary inversely as the square root of r. For large r, outside the plasma, the azimuthal magnetic field is shown to vary as 1/r."
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF

Depends on if you are measuring a cylindrical field following a line of current (ie - in a plasma) or a field generated by a planet (quasi spherical)

Oct 16, 2018
The EUdiots are capering again.

Sad.

Oct 16, 2018
Depends on if you are measuring a cylindrical field following a line of current (ie - in a plasma) or a field generated by a planet (quasi spherical)
That's actually a pretty deep insight, @Whyde. But keep in mind that the spherical field is made up of an infinity of cylinders. This is the key to the integral calculus.

Oct 17, 2018
" spherical field is made up of an infinity of cylinders"

This is purely a mathematical APPROXIMATION!

Oct 17, 2018

There are papers, but there are very few published in astrophysical journals. The astrophysical journals referees are plasma ignoramuses and as such they will not publish paradigm altering science.


Nope, the idiots, such as Scott, do not understand plasma physics (he's a retired EE!), and nor do they understand astrophysics. Which means that they are clueless when it comes to writing about such things. Hence why Scott either doesn't publish, or 'publishes' in crank pay-to-publish journals such as the one you linked. It is garbage, and wouldn't get past the editor in a real journal. This is the cretin who wants to expllain neutrinos by having fusion in the frigging chromosphere! The idiot is so stupid that he fails to realise that the gamma rays created by this fusion would be detected. Actually, no, they wouldn't - we wouldn't have evolved to detect them in the first place! The bloke is a moron.

Oct 17, 2018
No discussion in the article about the strengths of these fields,


Blind, as well as stupid, hmmmm?

It allowed the team to calculate that the magnetic field is at least a tenth of a millionth billionth as strong as Earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field's upper limit – a billion times weaker than Earth's field – was already known.


Quit commenting on things that you don't understand. That is, pretty much everything.


Oct 17, 2018
Your group/community needs to include some bona fide scientists....


Impossible. Real scientists can see the EU crap for what it is - neo-Velikovskian non-science. Hence why it only exists on crank sites and crank journals.

Oct 17, 2018
We have been pointing out that magnetism and electricity is seen in actions from everything from chemistry to wind, dust, rain and storms, the static electricity formed by the movement of these particles gives rise to a number of different weather conditions.


Which we already knew, and didn't need a bunch of scientifically illiterate, anti-science buffoons to point out. Yes? Have you loons got anything that isn't already known by real science?

Electromagnetism has been Proven to be an ubiquitous process across all scales. Nothing else has.


Wrong, idiot. Gravity dominates at large scales. How the hell is EM affecting planetary or stellar orbits? Either give us a mathematically quantified model, or STFU. Your cult is an irrelevance, and has not a single reputable relevant scientist in its ranks.

Oct 17, 2018
" spherical field is made up of an infinity of cylinders"

This is purely a mathematical APPROXIMATION!


Sorry? When you are working out how a magnetic field affects.....................whatever, then how do you personally do it, if you aren't using maths? Guess? Make it up, a la EUists? I'd be fascinated to know how you go about it.

Oct 17, 2018
Lol. 3 x 10^-16 Gauss!
@Jonsey, I got 3.5 x 10^-14 (actually I wrote 25 to 65 x 10^-15). Are you sure you didn't drop a couple decimal places?


No, I just used the lower bound from the paper's abstract;

This enables us to place limits on the flux of the extended source components, which are then used to constrain the intergalactic magnetic field to be stronger than 3 × 10^−16 G for a coherence length λ >~ 10 kpc, even when conservative assumptions on the source duty cycle are made.


The article places the upper limit as ~ 1 billion times lower than the Earth's field. So, the Earth's field is ~ 50 000 nT, which means the IGMF is ~ 5 x 10^-5 nT. Or, if you prefer, ~ 5 x 10^-14 T, as you point out.

In short, that ain't doing diddly on intergalactic scales in comparison to gravity.

Oct 17, 2018
It would be the height of folly to not further apply these same principles, plainly seen in many different processes here on Earth and near surrounds, and apply them to other systems using similar processes and principles, just different scales.


Word salad. Show us where this has been done. Indeed, tell us where you would like to apply......whatever it is you are talking about, and how you would like to apply it.
As usual with EUists, all you have is word salad, and philosophy, but no actual science, due to being mathematically illiterate, and not understanding much, if anything, about the relevant science. Might as well be astrology, for what use it is to real scientists.

Oct 17, 2018
Funny how the jonesdumb moron keeps harping on how magnetic fields affects orbits (it's electromagnetic fields moron, not just magnetic fields) while he does even understand how they are created. According to jonesdumb these fields are there by magic, the wave of the magical pen is all he'd needs.

Oct 17, 2018
In short, that ain't doing diddly on intergalactic scales in comparison to gravity.

Show the maths jonesdumb, what is the gravitational force felt by these partcles?

Oct 17, 2018
While I totally disagree with Talbott, I do recognise that at least SOME of EU theory has merit...


Really? Which parts of it? I have yet to find any, unless they are talking about stuff that was already known long before their cult came into existence.

Oct 17, 2018
It depends on the currents creating the fields.http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF


I read through the paper, felt like I was back in Electricity & Magnetism class again.

Again, I want to point out that the field effects under discussion here are LOCAL events, analyses limited to single bodies & single body events. And sure, it depends on the currents creating the magnetic fields, and those amperages can be highly variable, & because they are so variable it becomes hard to ascertain long term effects, those effects being so variable makes it hard to extract hard longterm data & transpose that to intergalactic fields.

I understand the concept of intergalactic magnetic fields that the author brought up in the title but made no discussion of in the article. We'll probably see more discussion of it in the future with better instrumentation aboard satellites that can measure intergalactic fields.

Oct 17, 2018
In short, that ain't doing diddly on intergalactic scales in comparison to gravity.

Show the maths jonesdumb, what is the gravitational force felt by these partcles?


Why? What do you think these 'particles' are doing that has any relevance to EU woo?

Oct 17, 2018
Funny how the jonesdumb moron keeps harping on how magnetic fields affects orbits (it's electromagnetic fields moron, not just magnetic fields)


Lol. And how are EM fields affecting the orbits of planets or stars? Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that it is anything other than gravity.


Oct 17, 2018
I understand the concept of intergalactic magnetic fields that the author brought up in the title but made no discussion of in the article. We'll probably see more discussion of it in the future with better instrumentation aboard satellites that can measure intergalactic fields.


If you are talking about the article above, then it is discussed in the paper. Why not read it? As for the 'paper' cantthink linked to, it is pure woo. The idiot has M2-9 as a z-pinch! Lol.


Oct 17, 2018
And as usual jonesdumb changes the subject. When challenged to show the gravitational maths he runs. When challenged for a mechanism which creates the magnetic fields he hides. Typically jonesdumb runs and hides behincc his logical fallacies and name calling, and there he is again.

Oct 17, 2018
I read through the paper, felt like I was back in Electricity & Magnetism class again.

Written by an EE professor who himself has written an EE textbook, old habits die hard for sure.
Again, I want to point out that the field effects under discussion here are LOCAL events, analyses limited to single bodies & single body events.

The fields in which galaxies are immersed are created by these Birkeland currents and it is because of these currents there is no need to invoke DM.
http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF

Oct 17, 2018
The fields in which galaxies are immersed are created by these Birkeland currents and it is because of these currents there is no need to invoke DM.


Nope, and not a single qualified scientist is saying that they are. It is pure woo. Zero evidence. Complete and utter nonsense that only appears in crank journals and on crank websites.


Oct 17, 2018
And as usual jonesdumb changes the subject. When challenged to show the gravitational maths he runs. When challenged for a mechanism which creates the magnetic fields he hides. Typically jonesdumb runs and hides behincc his logical fallacies and name calling, and there he is again.


Why should I, idiot? Nobody is suggesting that these trifling fields have anything to do with.....................well, whatever it is that you (aren't) suggesting. Tell us what you are suggesting that they are doing, and then it might be worth analysing. Until then, there is nothing to analyse, is there? Just more science-free word salad.

Oct 17, 2018
I read through the paper, felt like I was back in Electricity & Magnetism class again.

Written by an EE professor who himself has written an EE textbook

Again, I want to point out that the field effects under discussion here are LOCAL events, analyses limited to single bodies & single body events.


The fields in which galaxies are immersed are created by these Birkeland currents and it is because of these currents there is no need to invoke DM.


http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF

"The work being presented here demonstrates that the root cause of the now vast collection of observed "anomalous" galactic stellar rotation profiles is the electrical nature of the Birkeland Currents
on which those galaxies have been or are being formed."

Again, it is conjecture that Birkeland currents are more than just LOCAL events. I understand the concept they may even be intergalactic events due to recent discovery of hydrogen IGM.


Oct 17, 2018
ELECTRICITY and MAGNETISM

What is this insistence to obliterate two of the most powerful forces in the vacuum
Even our quiescent BH is effected by the electrons unique forces

Magnetically powered jets produced by blackholes
Blackholes within the central bulge have jets of gas spurting in opposite directions from the core. The hot ionized gas is propelled by the twisting magnetic fields of the rotating black hole, which can be as large as several billion suns.
https://phys.org/...s_1.html
what ever we do not believe concerning BHs there's no denying the humble electrons massive forces

Even when they neutrally come in Half's – a pun on the infamous half a neutron

Oct 17, 2018
https://phys.org/...ole.html

Above is a tad more insight just put up today that would be a good addendum to this article, but even this shows how sketchy the science is as to the consequential effects of magnetic fields. It's certainly opening up a whole new field of study.

Oct 17, 2018
Again, it is conjecture that Birkeland currents are more than just LOCAL events. I understand the concept they may even be intergalactic events due to recent discovery of hydrogen IGM.

Nobody is suggesting there is not conjecture involved, much of the space sciences is conjecture. Especially that of which we cannot directly measure. However, the advantage the Birkeland current has is it matches numerous phenomena and no faerie dust need be invoked.

Oct 17, 2018
However, the advantage the Birkeland current has is it matches numerous phenomena and no faerie dust need be invoked.


No it doesn't, and has never been shown to do so. A bunch of crap from the idiot Scott in a crank pay-to-publish journal is not evidence. He has zero evidence for his nonsense, and makes numerous errors and blunders, including positing a planetary nebula as a frigging z-pinch, no less! The bloke is a moron.

Oct 17, 2018
No it doesn't, and has never been shown to do so

Hand wavy response that "ain't worth sh!t". Show me the published paper which shows this to be incorrect.
He has zero evidence for his nonsense, and makes numerous errors

Be specific jonesdumb, show just one of his "numerous errors". Let's see if you can handle partial differential equations. LOL!

Oct 17, 2018
Hand wavy response that "ain't worth sh!t". Show me the published paper which shows this to be incorrect.


Why on Earth would anyone write a paper to dismiss a lunatic hypothesis that essentially doesn't exist within the scientific literature?

Be specific jonesdumb, show just one of his "numerous errors". Let's see if you can handle partial differential equations. LOL!


Try here, for starters. This is where the idiot Michael Mozina (who believes the Sun is a giant hollow iron shell) introduced Scott's crappy paper;

https://www.chris...72402122


Oct 17, 2018
So far we can find no evidence of what is creating gravity in any lab situation, so gravity is NOT being observed as the main force at atomic and subatomic levels.

At those levels charge is THE dominant force, magnetic forces are intrinsic to the situation as with Protons and Electrons, and even photons are an electromagnetic field carrier: spin vector traveling as a wave-packet at the only speed this universe allows.

Gravity appears to affect mostly large collections of mass, and with help from magnetic fields form accretion discs and their condensation into stars and planets, galaxies and black holes, especially seen in SMBHs.

But even all of them have large magnetic components to them at various points in their formation, and then, as seen in our own sun and Earth, they keep and propagate these fields for Billions of years.

I do Not discount the effects of gravity, fusion etc, but have been showing that electromag effects Are greater than previously thought.

Oct 17, 2018
........but have been showing that electromag effects Are greater than previously thought.


Really? And where did you do this? And how does any of it relate too EU woo? That is, electric stars, electric comets, electric cratering, electric volcanoes, electric woo being the explanation for galaxy rotation curves, etc, etc.
It appears to me that there are no scientifically valid EU hypotheses. What distinguishes EU from mainstream science, and where is it written up?

Oct 17, 2018
Try here, for starters. This is where the idiot Michael Mozina

I asked about errors you claim Scott to have made, not Mozina. Why change the subject, it should be easy enough for you to point out the errors. And Christian forum? Let's stick to the literature.
Why on Earth would anyone write a paper to dismiss a lunatic hypothesis

Because you said yourself, utterances "ain't worth sh!t" unless it's in the scientific literature. Dr Scott's is, where is yours?

Oct 17, 2018
I asked about errors you claim Scott to have made,


And I linked you to them. Are you blind? Mozina started the thread on Scott's paper. Sjastro (an actual physicist) demolished it in the post I linked, and others.

https://www.chris...72402122

Because you said yourself, utterances "ain't worth sh!t" unless it's in the scientific literature. Dr Scott's is, where is yours?


Scott's is not. It is in a crank journal, set up by cranks, for cranks. No real scientist is even going to see it, let alone bother to refute it. It is pure bollocks. And he ****s up the maths right from the start, so it is completely meaningless, uncited nonsense.


Oct 17, 2018
The big part of the above article is the last two paragraphs, where they point out that the IGMF is stronger than they had expected it to be, and that the scientists are 'finding it interesting' to add these effects to their simulations.

Which means they have been vastly Under Estimating the electromagnetic effects on various scales. Like today's article
https://phys.org/...tml#nRlv
and this one talking about high density regions connected by filaments of galaxies:
https://phys.org/...rse.html

It just keeps becoming more and more evident that the electromagnetic effects have been previously vastly underestimated, or not taken into account previously.

Recent studies keep pointing towards the entire electromagnetic field as being more active in celestial physics than it was thought even a decade ago, and even today's articles show researchers being surprised by these findings.

Oct 17, 2018
It just keeps becoming more and more evident that the electromagnetic effects have been previously vastly underestimated, or not taken into account previously.


More word salad. What the hell do you want to do with ~ 10^-14 T? Seriously? What do you think it is doing that has any relation to EU non-science?


Oct 17, 2018
How about the 20 trillion Tesla found for a neutron star recently? It is not a homogenous field, which is exactly the point, there are areas of different charge or polarity at all scales.

Areas of different charge will tend to try to equalize with surroundings, this gives rise to Flow, flow of any sort of ionized particle as we know, will create a magnetic field around the flow and help to propagate the flow. Basic magnetohydrodynamics. Magnetic fields are nearly ubiquitous in all regimes. They have just been severely under-modeled.

That very point, that they have been under-modeled, has been underlined in the details of this article and the other two articles I posted from today.

Maybe some don't see it, but it does not mean that it is not there, or that it is not real. However as I have been saying for Well over a decade; that electromagnetism has a much greater effect than previously modeled, it is now being proven out as truth.

Oct 17, 2018
How about the 20 trillion Tesla found for a neutron star recently? It is not a homogenous field, which is exactly the point, there are areas of different charge or polarity at all scales.


Lol. According to the EU nutjobs neutron stars don't exist!

....that electromagnetism has a much greater effect than previously modeled, it is now being proven out as truth.


Complete bollocks. What effects? Where is it written up? Where was it predicted by the EU non-scientists? Just more word salad.


Oct 17, 2018
JD, YOU are nearly the only real nutjob on this site. I do not agree with Tuxford, he has his own ideas that I do not consider EU, you keep pulling out strawmen and reference things that I never have and never will because it is BS. It is pretty damn obvious that I believe in neutron stars, and the article referencing the 20Trillion T is at:
https://phys.org/...ory.html

With the reference therein to be ""The magnetic field of the neutron star we studied is about 10 trillion times stronger than that of our own Sun, so for the first time ever, we have observed a jet coming from a neutron star with a very strong magnetic field." and the sun's magnetic field strength is right about 2 Tesla, so, 20 trillion Tesla is the correct answer.

Give it a break JD, you are so far out in left field now that even the new folks learn to automatically put you and CD on ignore. I only cared to answer you because you are so fudge faced over this all.

Oct 17, 2018
Give it a break JD, you are so far out in left field now that even the new folks learn to automatically put you and CD on ignore. I only cared to answer you because you are so fudge faced over this all.


No, all you have is word salad. No science. Of what frigging relevance is the magnetic field of a neutron star, and what has it got to do with anything other than mainstream science? Why are you trying to claim that you predicted such things? The only people doing this science are real scientists, not blowhards on comments sections trying to hijack their work and trying to claim that they predicted it! That is a sign of mental illness, or Dunning-Kruger syndrome, at the very least.


Oct 17, 2018
JD, YOU are nearly the only real nutjob on this site. I do not agree with Tuxford, he has his own ideas that I do not consider EU


I did not mention Tuxford. I mentioned the laughably bad non-science of EU. You claim to support EU. Or do you? I'm beginning to wonder. Here is the EU take on neutron stars;

According to Electric Universe proponents, this kind of contradiction is inevitable in the investigation of "neutron stars", because they do not exist. They were a theoretical invention based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the nature of stars, and hence of supernovae.


https://www.thund...star.htm

So, are you failing to toe the party line on the existence of neutron stars? Which parts of the non-science that is EU, do you actually agree with?


Oct 17, 2018
It is pretty damn obvious that I believe in neutron stars]


Which means that you reject a central tenet of EU dogma - electric stars. What is your take on other of their central tenets? Such as Earth formerly orbiting Saturn? Jupiter spitting out Venus? Electric comets? Electric cratering? Electric volcanoes? That pretty much covers EU. Do you agree with any of that woo?

Oct 17, 2018
@steel
However as I have been saying for Well over a decade; that electromagnetism has a much greater effect than previously modeled
sorry, but I have to challenge this yet again

predicted
adjective

Stated or estimated as likely to happen in the future; forecast. - OED
Recent studies keep pointing towards the entire electromagnetic field as being more active in celestial physics
of course, it should also be pointed out that in order to be more active in celestial physics it has to be able to be observed, which means equipment and methodology that is tested and validated (see above links I left)

your perspective and opinion on "It just keeps becoming more and more evident" is your personal confirmation bias as demonstrated by the above links as well

this is one problem with making assumptions about [x] before doing the research - it *literally* leads to confirmation bias as you don't seek all info, just what you want to see

Oct 17, 2018
@cant

Let's see if you can handle partial differential equations. LOL!

I thought that was Benni's trump card.

Oct 17, 2018
@steel cont'd
I do not agree with Tuxford, he has his own ideas that I do not consider EU
the problem is that you have voiced your personal support of eu

that is *the* central problem
why?

because there is no eu science - there are people who make up sh*t that they think applies (like cd, or hannes/reeve and his other socks), but there is no central core belief with a standard proven *anything*

even "plasma cosmology" has a firmer standing than eu, and eu steals from their camp on a regular basis - but they focus too much on a single attribute: plasma

the evidence is key to it all - one camp has none and the other ignores too much

this is the reason MS works - they don't have target fixation and they follow the evidence


Oct 17, 2018
I asked about errors you claim Scott to have made,


And here is a real plasma physicist's take on Scott's paper;

ow ow ow
the stupid in the scott paper, starting at the introduction (nasa calls it birkeland currents, no flux ropes!) and culmination in the section 2 title "force-free plasmas are field aligned" which physically makes no sense at all. And really, after 65 years Scott was the one to explain bessel funnctions to the world? section 2 is just bonkers, how can something like that get through review? (i guess it was not reviewed)

well it is bad, especially calculating the charge density from dividing current density by velocity, not taking into account that electrons and ions move n opposite directions. charge density should probably be quasi nuetral, but an electric engineer only thinks of moving electrons in a wire ...

enough for today


http://www.intern...ount=141

Oct 17, 2018
There is a distinct area of overlap in EU and Plasma theory, in fact, realistic plasma theory is an extension of EU and, as the evidence keeps piling up, explains more of how the universe works than 'just' gravity being the attracting force.

This does not include stars 'running like an electric lightbulb' but that very process happens in the solar promininces, where plasma is drawn up the magnetic fields and releases plenty of energy in the visible, UV and X-Ray spectrums (see solar flare).

This is in Addition To the effects of gravity, plasma, fusion and photon/neutrino propagation as well as heavier ion radiation.

What the previous referenced (just today even) articles ALL point out that they are seeing Magnetic Effects at a much higher level than they expected, that they are finding magnetic fields where they were not expected or at strengths that are beyond THEIR OWN Predictions and prior modeling showed. Which has been MY whole point and now Proven.

Oct 17, 2018
Whether you particularly like it or not, there are more and more articles that show No Results in their search for Dark Matter, and yet they not only keep finding more actual matter, they are also finding a lot more places where the electromagnetism is very much stronger than they had expected.

So, we have some scientists looking for an attractive force in certain regimes, and not finding it, at the same time, they are finding electromagnetism in more places than thought, and even the scientists are stating that They Have to change their models to include a stronger electromotive effect all across cosmology.

And this IS Mainstream Science, this IS a culmination of results in different fields, as too many scientists and researchers get too mono-focused into their specialty and do not allow for the increased knowledge in one area that would mean changes in the results of their own work.

Mainstream Science is finally catching on to this Reality.

Oct 17, 2018
And I linked you to them. Are you blind? Mozina started the thread on Scott's paper. Sjastro (an actual physicist) demolished it in the post I linked, and others.

I asked you, and no I didn't click on your link. I have no interest in Christian views dot org.
BTW, can you think for yourself? Are you capable of answering anything whatsoever in your own words and thoughts?

Oct 17, 2018
So, we have some scientists looking for an attractive force in certain regimes, and not finding it, at the same time, they are finding electromagnetism in more places than thought, and even the scientists are stating that They Have to change their models to include a stronger electromotive effect all across cosmology.


Utter nonsense. EM cannot explain anything that DM is used to explain. Absolutely nothing, and not a serious scientist on the planet is suggesting that it can. Do the maths. Show us the equations. What is the charge on a star? How is its motion being affected by EM woo? Just more word salad, a not an iota of science to back it up.


Oct 17, 2018
And WHY I go on about the magnetic field strength and galaxy formation is because, several years ago, I made a comment about a particular galaxy in the picture in the article as having the shape of a magnetic field, a clean bar-magnet like field around a bar-shaped elliptical galaxy in the Perseus Cluster.

I was told by either JD, Cpt Stump or Ira, at the time, that 'There was no proof of magnetic fields of that scale or strength'. I was going from science decades before that showed some elliptical galaxies had flared ends and that they appeared to be shaped by the magnetic fields of the galaxy and presumably formed a shell of gas and dust along the field lines outside of the main body of the galaxy.

And that is what I was seeing, but this being an older one that had stars formed along it's field lines at that particular shell strength of the magnetic field from that galaxy.

Since then I have pointed out the fallacy that 'magnetic fields don't get that big or strong'.

Oct 17, 2018
And I linked you to them. Are you blind? Mozina started the thread on Scott's paper. Sjastro (an actual physicist) demolished it in the post I linked, and others.

I asked you, and no I didn't click on your link. I have no interest in Christian views dot org.
BTW, can you think for yourself? Are you capable of answering anything whatsoever in your own words and thoughts?


In which case you'll never know how Scott f***ed up the maths, will you? Hint; do something to one side of an equation, and you have to do the same to the other side. Schoolboy error, rendering the paper even more meaningless than it already was. The guy is a moron. As pointed out by an actual real plasma physicist also.

Oct 17, 2018
There was no proof of magnetic fields of that scale or strength'


What strength? 10^-14 T? What do you want that to do? Lol. And galactic magnetic fields have been known about for a loooooong time. Want some links? Your typical galactic field is ~ 0.1 - 1.0 nT. What do you want to do with that? Show us the model.

Oct 17, 2018
There is a distinct area of overlap in EU and Plasma theory, in fact, realistic plasma theory is an extension of EU and, as the evidence keeps piling up, explains more of how the universe works than 'just' gravity being the attracting force.


No there is not! Ask any plasma physicist. And it existed long before the hideous EU cult was formed. And no plasma physicist is suggesting that EM has any relevance on those scales. + & -, remember? Which is why this nonsense doesn't exist as a coherent scientific hypothesis.


Oct 17, 2018
And every time I do so, one of the normal actors have to jump up and try to belittle me, use strawman arguments that are Not amongst my beliefs, yet they try to push a whole set of things and say 'if you believe EU then you Must believe X Y and Z Crap', when that is obviously (if you are able to take the time and actually read what I say) not what I said or even suggested.

There are several DIFFERENT Ranges Ideas that all fall within the EU sphere, of which Plasma Physics is a Part, that have been steadily showing that the effects of electromagnetism override that of gravity at certain scales.

Certainly there are people that have some wrong ideas on electrodynamic universe effects, but then again, we are living in a rather calm galaxy that is not exhibiting the extremes of an AGN so we do not have the effects of high end magnetism to study up close and so none of the extreme effects are PRESENTLY seen here. Does not mean those processes don't exist elsewhere.

Oct 17, 2018
JD, to rub your nose in it, this is the last two paragraphs of this article, do please actually Read and Understand it:

"The intergalactic field is stronger than the researchers had expected, Meyer says, and this new information might help them find out whether it stems from material spilled into space in recent times or whether it was created in processes that occurred in earlier cosmic history.

The cosmic magnetism could also have ties to dark matter. In an alternative to the WIMP model, dark matter is proposed to be made of lighter particles called axions that could emerge from gamma rays (and convert back into them) in the presence of a magnetic field. "For that to occur, the field strength would need to be closer to its upper limit, though," Meyer says. "It's definitely interesting to take this mechanism into account in our dark matter studies, and we're doing this right now within the Fermi-LAT collaboration.""
"IT IS DEFINITELY INTERESTING TO TAKE... INTO ACCOUNT"

Oct 17, 2018
..............of which Plasma Physics is a Part,...........


Nope. Not a single qualified plasma physicist in the EU ranks. And no plasma physicist backs their nonsense.

that have been steadily showing that the effects of electromagnetism override that of gravity at certain scales.


Word salad. What scales? Picometre? Femtometre? And where are the papers? Certainly not on solar system scales, let alone galactic or intergalactic scales. That is just dumb.


Oct 17, 2018
JD, to rub your nose in it, this is the last two paragraphs of this article, do please actually Read and Understand it:

"IT IS DEFINITELY INTERESTING TO TAKE... INTO ACCOUNT"


They were looking for evidence of WIMPS, which many scientists doubt. They didn't find any! And nowhere do they say that EM forces can explain the gravitational effects proposed for DM, merely that WIMPS might leave an EM signature. Which they didn't find.

Oct 17, 2018
Certainly there are people that have some wrong ideas on electrodynamic universe effects, but then again, we are living in a rather calm galaxy that is not exhibiting the extremes of an AGN


AGNs are black holes. EU doesn't believe in them! Is there any part of EU woo that you actually agree with? I see you have studiously avoided answering this question.


Oct 17, 2018
As long as you keep ascribing known fallacies from other, discredited sources, to what is a real and reasonable set of theorems, then everybody is going to be disagreeing with you and your pathetic garbage mouth.

I am at least presenting actual fact and how it matches up to other facts in the Universe, not sitting here daily trying to tear everyone else down just to make myself feel/look good, which is Quite Obviously ALL you are able to do, JD, with all of your 5 star sock puppets.

You surely do not have a Life JD, and for Stump, Yes, I Do mainstream science, which has apparently gone farther than your understandings: Of your 14000+ posts here over 90% are bashing others, never pointing out neat or intriguing facts that are similar in effects.

Nope, all you do is come here to bash others if they do not post in your perfect prescribed manner using YOUR defined terms.

And I would not talk about AGNs if I did not believe em, jdckass.

Oct 17, 2018
I am at least presenting actual fact and how it matches up to other facts in the Universe,


No you aren't. You are just making sh!t up, and making idiotic, baseless, vague assertions that are not backed up by either evidence nor science.

Oct 17, 2018
Currents sheets within the vacuum

Since an electron has charge, it has a surrounding electric field, and if that electron is moving relative to an observer, it will generate a magnetic field. Electromagnetic fields produced from other sources will affect the motion of an electron according to the Lorentz force law. Electrons radiate or absorb energy in the form of photons when they are accelerated https://en.wikipe...Electron

Taking an electron
As in rotation in the vacuum
From whence does its magnetism arise?
When only in angular momentum
It is from its precessional momentum
The electron does not need currants sheets for to produce a magnetic field

Oct 17, 2018
And I would not talk about AGNs if I did not believe em, jdckass.


So you aren't an EUist? They don't believe in BHs, or neutron stars. They believe in Velikovsky, and electric stars, and electric comets etc. They are demonstrably scientifically illiterate. As are you. You have presented zero science, nor linked to any that is of any relevance to EU non-science. Word salad is your speciality. Science isn't. Eh?

Oct 17, 2018
The electron does not need currants sheets


How are you making sheets out of currants? Lol.

https://www.vesey...lake.jpg

Oct 17, 2018
There is no magnetic field. it only exists in electric field momentum

For an electron for to produce a magnetic field
It only possesses an electric field
An electron does not possess a magnetic field
It only possess's an electric field
from which the magnetic field
is from the electrons precessional momentum

Oct 17, 2018
There are several DIFFERENT Ranges Ideas that all fall within the EU sphere, of which Plasma Physics is a Part, that have been steadily showing that the effects of electromagnetism override that of gravity at certain scales.
......pretty much what I was saying earlier in different words:

Magnetic fields are more LOCAL than gravity fields. Magnetic fields are influentially powerful in the vicinity of the mass from it's source, but weakens sharply as the dipoles become more distant to each other when following a pathway along the magnetically weaker peripheral edges of the flux field, and eventually the magnetic lines just break & discontinue, unlike gravity flux fields which never break because gravity is not dipole dependent.



Oct 17, 2018
There are only two electron forces, the electric and gravitational field
So in the vacuum the electrons travels, their electric fields reaching from galaxy to galaxy in the ionised plasmas, in the dust and with that motion there electric field in motion produce magnetic fields from where ionised particles spiral the magnetic fields and so the galaxies are linked in the vacuum by these tenuous electrically magnetically fields because in the infinite vacuum there is only two forces the electron possesses. The electric field and the gravitational field

Oct 17, 2018
What is the theoretical problem of unifying these two forces?

And cometh the unity of forces, as there only two, the electric and gravitational field where the gravitational attracts electromagnetic photons in the vacuum, as the gravitational and electrical are intrinsically linked
What is the theoretical problem?
Of unifying these two intrinsically linked forces
Because lensing will not occur
Without the electromagnetic photon attracted to the electro gravitational electron

Oct 17, 2018
Benni, now back to my original observation
What was this insistence to obliterate two of the most powerful forces in the vacuum /
As just a few minutes doodling waiting for the rice pudding in the microwave to finish!
Were unifying forces

Oct 17, 2018
The galaxies 11 year magnetic solar cycle
Benni> It seems every galaxy creates it's own dipole of magnetism, just like planets do, e.g. Earth's magnetic field, so naturally the magnetic field would extend far beyond the bounds of the galaxy itself but becomes weaker in accordance with the Inverse Cube Law

Is not the magnet field of the galaxy the sum total of the stars magnetic fields in the galaxy, and as all stars have their 11 year solar cycle where the magnetic field flips , this suggest the galaxies magnetic field flips every 11 years which in 2trillion stars – is the average solar cycle!

Is this flipping dipole, a documented magnetic flipping study?

Oct 17, 2018
The electric universe

Or just like quasi neutral plasma which has localised currents, the galaxy is magneticaly quasi neutral which has localalised magnetic fields
Which explains the galaxies weak field because all the solar poles are in opposittion which means each suns dipole is magnetically linked north to south
so extrapolating this finding to all the galaxies , they are also dipole linked north to south for 15billions Lys
this is truley an electric universe

Oct 17, 2018
Is not the magnet field of the galaxy the sum total of the stars magnetic fields in the galaxy, and as all stars have their 11 year solar cycle where the magnetic field flips , this suggest the galaxies magnetic field flips every 11 years which in 2trillion stars – is the average solar cycle!


I Don't know about all stars being on an 11 year mag cycle, only that our Sun is. Magnetic fields causing this are deep in the sun and actually have a 22 year cycle due to polarity of the magnetism reversing at each 11 year cycle.The mag field is caused by a dynamo generator effect caused by the sun's rotation.

Oct 17, 2018
The electric universe

...
Which explains the galaxies weak field because all the solar poles are in opposittion which means each suns dipole is magnetically linked north to south
so extrapolating this finding to all the galaxies , they are also dipole linked north to south for 15billions Lys
this is truley an electric universe

You have an observational reference for this?

Oct 17, 2018
The electric universe

...
Which explains the galaxies weak field because all the solar poles are in opposittion which means each suns dipole is magnetically linked north to south
so extrapolating this finding to all the galaxies , they are also dipole linked north to south for 15billions Lys
this is truley an electric universe

You have an observational reference for this?


Create your own, throw some iron filings in the vicinity of a magnet & the dipoles will be obvious.

Oct 17, 2018
@steel
realistic plasma theory is an extension of EU ...explains more of how the universe works than 'just' gravity
for the first part: no

as for the explanation of the universe: there is science, and then everything else
Effects at a much higher level than they expected
see the definition of "prediction" above
Whether you particularly like it or not, there are more and more articles that show No Results in their search for Dark Matter
and this is where you and I differ: you assume that because [x]=0 then it must be [y], whereas I am willing to wait for [y] evidence
You jump to a conclusion because you have a vested interest in eu/magnetism etc

this is like saying that because it's a UFO, then it must be aliens while forgetting what the "u" stands for
I was told...that 'There was no proof of magnetic fields of that scale or strength'
1- links/references
2- scale
3- the evidence is king, not guesswork and supposition based upon preconceived notions

Oct 17, 2018
@steel cont'd
There are several DIFFERENT Ranges Ideas that all fall within the EU sphere, of which Plasma Physics is a Part
there is no eu sphere. eu is pseudoscience

plasma physics is plasma physics and is tightly constrained by the scientific method, which the eu doesn't conform to in any way

if you want to argue for eu, then you argue pseudoscience
if you want to argue plasma physics effects, that is actual science and not related in any way to eu
period
full stop
and for Stump, Yes, I Do mainstream science, which has apparently gone farther than your understandings
1- sometimes you do; sometimes not
if you support eu then you don't

2- there is a lot beyond my understanding, however, I also don't promote pseudoscience
Of your 14000+ posts here over 90% are bashing others
actually, they're for the purpose of studying people like you, and I've repeated that time and again for well over 10K posts

it works, like it or not

Oct 17, 2018
The electric universe

...
Which explains the galaxies weak field because all the solar poles are in opposittion which means each suns dipole is magnetically linked north to south
so extrapolating this finding to all the galaxies , they are also dipole linked north to south for 15billions Lys
this is truley an electric universe

You have an observational reference for this?


Create your own, throw some iron filings in the vicinity of a magnet & the dipoles will be obvious.

Well, when it's shown that this is happening on a stellar scale (much less galactic), then I'll be impressed...

Oct 17, 2018
Lol. 3 x 10^-16 Gauss!
@Jonsey, I got 3.5 x 10^-14 (actually I wrote 25 to 65 x 10^-15). Are you sure you didn't drop a couple decimal places?


No, I just used the lower bound from the paper's abstract;
A million billion is 10^-15. Powers add. Maybe I made a mistake but you haven't shown it so far.

If I made a mistake show me where.

Oct 17, 2018
Galileo was called Pseudoscience too Stump, Einstein was flunked from Math University, Darwin is still furiously debated and so, for you to go calling the general idea of electromagnetism and magnetic fields of having a greater effect than has been explained so far as Pseudoscience just means it is still being investigated. And, like most, you are on the back end of the learning curve since the latest stories are about scientists surprised about field strengths.

Dark matter has been given fewer and fewer possible places to hide, even with some wild math tricks, yet a little bit of plasma, known to be nearly everywhere, a little bit of charge, easily supplied by ionizing radiation, which space is rather well full of, especially near stars, and you have motion of solar or galactic winds and you WILL have current, and with current and magnetic fields comes both attraction and repulsion effects, again at different scales, and seems to work With gravity to a large degree.

Oct 17, 2018
Ahh, Stump, Thank you for Finally admitting that there are things beyond YOUR understanding.

Do realize that they may not be above MY level of understandings. I was understanding gravity and magnetism, as far as commonly understood at the time, at 6 yrs old, building crystal radio sets, closely followed the space program etc. I have also done a lot more study and science based things as I was training to be an industrial fabricator for space based facilities until the training collapsed with the Shuttle being limited and used mostly for Military Flights.

The big orbital construction jobs I had planned on in the 60's never came about, so I advanced studies in other areas instead. I was doing computer programming in Highschool in the 80-81 year, and had already been thru the top Chemistry, Physics and Biology sciences classes in the State. That was before going Navy and getting top honors there as well as the training I had wanted.

I may be Crazy, but I am Not Stupid!

Oct 17, 2018
I was doing computer programming in Highschool in the 80-81 year, and had already been thru the top Chemistry, Physics and Biology sciences classes in the State.


........and stumpo would say this proves why you are not qualified to be here commenting on Cosmology issues, well, let me rephrase that a tad........Pop-Cosmology issues.

Oct 17, 2018
In which case you'll never know how Scott f***ed up the maths, will you?

So jonesdumb admits he doesn't understand and requires it to be explained by others, got it.

It would certainly be embarrassing for a professor of EE of 30-years to make an error as simplistic as you claim. The irony is it's not Scott's maths, the Lundquist solution has been used for decades and cited numerous times. All Scott did was give the structure physical characteristics, define the magnetic fields, and the electric currents that drive the system. The predictions therein observed and confirmed in the lab, on the planetary, stellar, and galactic scales. jonesdumb refuses or is incapable of explaining where and how Scott is incorrect.

Oct 17, 2018
@steel
Galileo was called Pseudoscience too
equating the days of Galileo, religious influence and power with today, considering how recent the scientific method is, really isn't a rational thing to do
it suggests that you're not aware of the recent changes to the world
Einstein was flunked from Math University
not quite: he did flunk the entrance exam at Zurich Polytechnic when he first took it - when he was about 1 1/2 years away from graduating high school, at age 16
big difference
Darwin is still furiously debated
by religious fanatics
need I point out the similarities between most eu adherents and religion?
for you to go calling the general idea of electromagnetism and magnetic fields of having a greater effect than has been explained so far as Pseudoscience
actually, I said the eu was pseudoscience
shall I quote that to you?
...you are on the back end of the learning curve
just because I don't blindly accept your claims without evidence?
LOL

Oct 17, 2018
@steel cont'd
back end of the learning curve
so tell me - what is it called when someone makes a claim that can't be substantiated by evidence? http://www.auburn...ion.html

sorry, but that just isn't how science works
you're not presenting a hypothesis, you're making a definitive claim. that's different
the latest stories are about scientists surprised
all science really is full of the exact same stuff like this... or hadn't you noticed?
Thank you for Finally admitting
admission of ignorance is something everyone should do, including pseudoscience eu followers
it's the first step to education
I may be Crazy, but I am Not Stupid!
I'm not stupid either - though I may not brag as well as you, I do hold two baccalaureates degree's

I don't appeal to them because they're irrelevant
the evidence is what counts

just like I don't take claims as legit unless I check them (like Einstein flunking math)

Oct 17, 2018
@steel last
I am Not Stupid!
the difference between you and I is small, really
We both had excellent educations and were military, and we both experimented a lot with various stuff...

none of that really matters though, does it?
if we compare histories and education, that would be the appeal to authority, and there are no authorities in science... so that is a waste of time

the point being: You seem to have accepted eu talking points as legit because you want them to be legit
you think that because [x] sounds logical (to you) it must be true

now, consider this: QM
a lot of sh*t in QM is counterintuitive and thus doesn't sound logical to a lot of people
how do we determine what is correct?

yup - evidence!
testing, experimenting and validation

I don't have a belief that I am seeking to validate in physics, so I accept only that which has evidence

that really is how science works though
follow the evidence

it's just like being a detective

Oct 18, 2018
Oh to be a Darkest

A colloquially phrase to those of ardent spirit in the ethereal darkness in the vacuum
A dominating reason to describe the darketh of matter in the vacuum to increase the gravitational rotational orbital of spiral galaxies, when in all reality it is not the galaxy that rotateth but its compositional starry stars and Oh yes those of tender years our baby starlets, the reason of the darketh obsessionalith of thought as are starlets and adult stars are the ones in binary orbit as a total of 2trillion stars collectively in orbital take 250million years irrespective of size, mass, radius because as they are in binary orbit they posses gyroscopic motion and only require to make a 360 degree of rotation in 250million years as gyroscopes go by angular precessional momentum rules in the vacuum as in all totality is the gyroscopic binary orbital precessional stars that are the universal orbital period of 250million years for 15billion years, Sir Isaac Newton.

Oct 18, 2018
The gyroscopic dazzling Dragon Fly

For as we speak this dominating gyroscopes angular precessional momentum allows the gyroscope its positioning accuracy in the vacuum as its precessional period is precisely fixed as it remains precisely axially aligned in the vacuum so just as the galaxies are locked in their precessional period so is the x-ray Chandra observatory telescope is forever precisely locked on its starlets that exist 15billion Lyrs in the vacuum
This unique little known property of the humble gyroscope is all around us if we care to look as in the wings of the dazzling Dragon Fly utilises its two wings in oscillating gyroscope stabilising navigation as it has for billions of years, as Léon Foucault discovered it of late in the swinging pendulum
The Foucault pendulum
a simple device named after French physicist Léon Foucault and conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the Earth's rotation.

Oct 18, 2018
There is no incidence of nature utilises darkmatter on earth or in its starry galaxies!

Oh how it is to see the light in the gyroscopic dazzling Dragon Flys wings as it flits and darts and precisely hovers, an unobtainable feat no human machine yet manages, for in this dazzling Dragon Flys wings are the secret to why darkmatter is not the source of galactic rotation for as the dazzling Dragon Fly subconsciously knows natures secrets as we do tacitly, nature utilises axially oscillating limbs due to muscular attachments as it cannot axially spin.
Nature utilises properties that only exist in its starry creations and in its dazzling Dragon Fly, there is no incidence of nature utilises darkmatter on earth or in its starry galaxies, as BH themselves exist only on the feasting of nature's starry stars!

Oct 18, 2018
There is no incidence of nature utilises darkmatter on earth or in its starry galaxies!

Oh how it is to see the light in the gyroscopic dazzling Dragon Flys wings as it flits and darts and precisely hovers, an unobtainable feat no human machine yet manages, for in this dazzling Dragon Flys wings are the secret to why darkmatter is not the source of galactic rotation for as the dazzling Dragon Fly subconsciously knows natures secrets as we do tacitly, nature utilises axially oscillating limbs due to muscular attachments as it cannot axially spin.
Nature utilises properties that only exist in its starry creations and in its dazzling Dragon Fly, there is no incidence of nature utilises darkmatter on earth or in its starry galaxies, as BH themselves exist only on the feasting of nature's starry stars!


Ira just has to be so jealous.

Oct 18, 2018
jonesdumb refuses or is incapable of explaining where and how Scott is incorrect.


I already linked to where he made his schoolboy error. The special characters won't copy on here. Very simple mistake. Did something to one side of equations and didn't do it to the other side. Schoolboy error. Which is why his nonsense is an uncited piece of crap in a pay-to-publish crank journal, where nobody will see it.
Try this; 6 = 3 x 2. Correct? If I then multiply the LH side by 2, we get 2 x 6 = 3 x 2. Is that correct? No. I have to multiply the RH side by 2 as well; > 2 x 6 = 2 x 3 x 2. It is that simple. He screwed up big style,. Not to mention the idiocy pointed out by a real plasma physicist on ISF that I linked to. As mentioned, the bloke is an idiot, who simply doesn't understand astrophysical plasmas, having never studied them.

Oct 18, 2018
@DS,
If I made a mistake show me where.


I guess you are referring to the quote in the article above;

Again, this no-show was valuable information: It allowed the team to calculate that the magnetic field is at least a ***tenth*** of a ***millionth billionth*** as strong as Earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field's upper limit – a billion times weaker than Earth's field – was already known.


Which is 10^-16 x weaker. However, that appears to be a mistake. The Earth's field, as you point out, is 0.25 - 0.65 Gauss. The lower limit reported in the paper is 3 x 10^-16 Gauss. By my maths, that makes it 'only' ~ 10^ -15 times weaker. I'm guessing the article is wrong, and the paper correct. The ***tenth**** wasn't needed, and it should be millionth billionth, as you say.

Oct 18, 2018
Point out which equations? They are labeled in the paper jonesdumb. Stop trying to obfuscate, just point it out.

Oct 18, 2018
Point out which equations? They are labeled in the paper jonesdumb. Stop trying to obfuscate, just point it out.


I'm not obfuscating, you cretin. It is as plain as day in sjastro's post. Scott p!sses around with the LH side of equations (1) & (2), and forgets to do the same to the RHS of those equations. Any competent peer reviewer would have picked it up. Which is why Scott sent it to a crank journal. And, as Tusenfem, an actual plasma physicist, said on ISF, the idiot doesn't even understand the currents he's talking about! Which is not surprising, given that he has never been a plasma physicist.

Oct 18, 2018
Scott p!sses around with the LH side of equations (1) & (2), and forgets to do the same to the RHS of those equations.

LOL! Desperation of jonesdumb causes him to make himself look remarkably stoopid and or a liar. Equation one is not his, the citation included and the equation appears just as it does in the cited work.
Equation two, also not his with citation included. Cited from Peratt, a real plasma physicist unlike the hack on ISF. Try again jonesdumb.

Oct 18, 2018
Sorry, here is the paper for all to peruse;
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF

Oct 18, 2018
Scott p!sses around with the LH side of equations (1) & (2), and forgets to do the same to the RHS of those equations.

LOL! Desperation of jonesdumb causes him to make himself look remarkably stoopid and or a liar. Equation one is not his, the citation included and the equation appears just as it does in the cited work.
Equation two, also not his with citation included. Cited from Peratt, a real plasma physicist unlike the hack on ISF. Try again jonesdumb.


Dickhead. It is what he does to equations 1 & 2, which then become 3 & 4, that is the f*** up. This renders the rest of the paper meaningless nonsense. Idiot.

Oct 18, 2018
Scott has used the substitution B=(μ/α)j into equations (1) and (2) to obtain equations (3) and (4) respectively which are the current density in the z direction and θ.

This methodology is comprehensively wrong.

Scott has only made the substitution for the left hand side of the equations; the right hand side retains the Bz(0) term.


https://www.chris...72402122

Now, why don't you go post that on Dunderdolts, or email the idiot Scott, and ask him why he screwed up in his 'paper'? You could also refer the loon to the criticism from a real plasma physicist on ISF. Nobody is going to bother to reply to a non-event 'paper' in a crank journal, by a crank.

Oct 18, 2018
@Stump.
I have been posting on here since 07, the comments only go back to '14, so the comments that I had referenced concerning the structure of the galaxy has been removed from that section of our chat history. Otherwise I would gladly haul it out and rub YOUR nose in it.

"Mainstream Science' and the 'Standard Model' all have dark matter involved. The difference between my theories and the SM is that electrmagnetism is being found much more broadly than ever expected (astronomers keep showing surprise) and that the magnetic fields involved actually more extensive as well as stronger than were expected. People are realizing that they have to increase their electromagnetic component in their simulations and this relaxes the need for dark matter in their simulations as the electromagnetic components are shown to do much of the actual work attributed to DM, leading to the idea that maybe the magnetic/charged ionized plasma IS the 'dark matter' they have been looking for.

Oct 18, 2018
People are realizing that they have to increase their electromagnetic component in their simulations and this relaxes the need for dark matter in their simulations as the electromagnetic components are shown to do much of the actual work attributed to DM, leading to the idea that maybe the magnetic/charged ionized plasma IS the 'dark matter' they have been looking for.


Total crap. Just unscientific, baseless assertion. Trivially false. Start with galactic rotation curves. Explain how these trifling magnetic fields affect them. Show us the maths. Lol. The last part was rhetorical. We all know EUists are mathematically, as well as scientifically, illiterate. We can but live in hope though!


Oct 18, 2018
@steel
Otherwise I would gladly haul it out and rub YOUR nose in it.
so you claim
again, I would reiterate: what is it called when someone makes a claim that can't be substantiated by evidence?
http://www.auburn...ion.html

"Mainstream Science' and the 'Standard Model' all have dark matter involved
1- not all
2- so what?
The difference between my theories and the SM is...
sorry, but I have to correct you here; you have beliefs or hypothesis, not theories (in the context of science, not colloquial English)
leading to the idea that maybe the magnetic/charged ionized plasma IS the 'dark matter' they have been looking for
this makes grand assumptions starting with your confirmation bias

You've just made a statement equivocal to:
I don't know what that UFO is, and because I don't know what it is and aliens must have advanced technology to travel light years, then that UFO must be alien

Oct 18, 2018
"Mainstream Science' and the 'Standard Model' all have dark matter involved. The difference between my theories and the SM is that electromagnetism is being found much more broadly than ever expected (astronomers keep showing surprise) and that the magnetic fields involved actually more extensive as well as stronger than were expected. People are realizing that they have to increase their electromagnetic component in their simulations and this relaxes the need for dark matter in their simulations as the electromagnetic components are shown to do much of the actual work attributed to DM, leading to the idea that maybe the magnetic/charged ionized plasma IS the 'dark matter' they have been looking for.


Steely....beginning more & more to look this way. This along with the new discoveries of vast amounts of hydrogen intergalactic medium is sounding an increasing pace for a more rapidly increasing downhill snowball effect for the death of DM.

Oct 18, 2018


Steely....beginning more & more to look this way. This along with the new discoveries of vast amounts of hydrogen intergalactic medium is sounding an increasing pace for a more rapidly increasing downhill snowball effect for the death of DM.


Aaaaannnnddddd another clueless cretin with zero scientific knowledge!

Oct 18, 2018
It is what he does to equations 1 & 2, which then become 3 & 4, that is the f*** up. This renders the rest of the paper meaningless nonsense. Idiot.

And deeper into the lies we go with jonesdumb, clearly this is above his head.
Equation 3 is the Lorentz force equation, not his and curiously looks correct.
Equation 4 was given by Maxwell, again cited and confirmed.

Your desperate attempt are feeble at best. You have nothing jonesdumb except your hand wavy exclamations.

Oct 18, 2018
Show me the math that disproves it, using modern information on recently found field strengths and placements for the stellar objects as well as the plasma filled space between them.

Today's astrophysicists are saying they are having to increase the magnetic field strengths in their simulations in order to get it to match the observed actual cosmos. That alone should tell you something jd.

You spewing stuff like Unscientific, Baseless assertion and triviality just makes you sound like a super-Luddite who is ignoring the steam engine pulling the car down the track, with all the evidence right in your face, you ignore it because it does not fit your own preconceived notions.

I make adjustments to my models with new data, but so far nothing is disrupting them like those who search fruitlessly for DM when EM is sitting right there, patiently doing it's thing, right alongside gravity. Yet you ignore one half of the whole equation and claim to be a scientist?


Oct 18, 2018
Stumps on Fact, Opinion, False Claim, Untested Claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html

Opinion: I'm thirsty - since when has being thirsty been described as an opinion

Fact: statements proven by observation as facts, only science has facts – since when has science let a little thing concerning facts get in the way of some good scrumptious DARK crumbly matter topped with lashing soft of DARK cream topping

Empirical facts: verified observation - Geographers have measured the oceans,so to not put the dampeners on a good Empirical fact, but how often has a dimension been measured only to measure later on and find in our excited rush we have found it lacking so after the fanfare quietly brush our new Empirical facts quietly under the carpet

p.s. Let the first factual soul lay beneath stumps feet in factual belief stumps will not stumble shattering your dreams of entering that beauty contest!

Oct 18, 2018
@gran wizard
since when has being thirsty been described as an opinion...
the rest of that paragraph explained that example in plain English, along with explaining the rest of "fact" definitions

if that was not clear enough for you, try this: https://www.lawmi...e-claim/


Oct 18, 2018
Today's astrophysicists are saying they are having to increase the magnetic field strengths in their simulations in order to get it to match the observed actual cosmos. That alone should tell you something jd.


Nope. No sane scientist is modelling rotation curves and including EM. It is p!ss weak. Stars are essentially charge neutral. How is a galactic field of say 0.1 - 1.0 nT affecting the orbit of a star around the galactic centre? It isn't, which is why nobody is dumb enough to suggest such a thing. And why you are incapable of showing the requisite maths to prove it. Charge on Sun estimated at 77 Coulombs. I've given you the galactic field strength. Get out your abacus, and get to work.


Oct 18, 2018
It is what he does to equations 1 & 2, which then become 3 & 4, that is the f*** up. This renders the rest of the paper meaningless nonsense. Idiot.

And deeper into the lies we go with jonesdumb, clearly this is above his head.
Equation 3 is the Lorentz force equation, not his and curiously looks correct.
Equation 4 was given by Maxwell, again cited and confirmed.

Your desperate attempt are feeble at best. You have nothing jonesdumb except your hand wavy exclamations.


Wrong, dumbo. Maths not your thing, is it? Nor plasma physics, obviously. Same with Scott. Clueless.
Here is the Lorentz force equation: F = qE + qv × B. Lol. Where is that in Scott's abysmal nonsense?
And please link to where Maxwell gives Eq. 4. And quit lying. Scott is a moron, and screwed up big time. Get over it.

Oct 18, 2018
You spewing stuff like Unscientific, Baseless assertion and triviality just makes you sound like a super-Luddite who is ignoring the steam engine pulling the car down the track, with all the evidence right in your face, you ignore it because it does not fit your own preconceived notions.


You have zero evidence, you idiot. Just word salad an a total lack of mathematical abilities. You don't even understand the subject area. You are just another EU fanboy. EUists, by definition, are scientifically illiterate.


Oct 18, 2018
Show me the math that disproves it, using modern information on recently found field strengths and placements for the stellar objects as well as the plasma filled space between them.


Been there, done that. See the excellent post by Ziggurat, here;

http://www.intern...count=54

Use your considerable maths abilities to check his calculations. I checked. Looks good to me.
So, are you increasing the galactic field strength by 22 orders of magnitude, or the charge on the Sun? Lol.

Oct 18, 2018
Well, as they sing at football matches in the UK; "It's all gone quiet over there, oh it's all gone quiet, all gone quiet, all gone quiet over there."
EU loons have disappeared now that maths is required. Tell me, EU loons - what is it that attracted you to the maths-free world of EUism? Is it because you were sh!t at maths at school, and have a chip on your shoulders about it? Lol.
When was Earth orbiting Saturn again, you uneducated loons? Deary me.

Oct 18, 2018
Well, as they sing at football matches in the UK; "It's all gone quiet over there, oh it's all gone quiet, all gone quiet, all gone quiet over there."
EU loons have disappeared now that maths is required. Tell me, EU loons - what is it that attracted you to the maths-free world of EUism? Is it because you were sh!t at maths at school, and have a chip on your shoulders about it? Lol.
When was Earth orbiting Saturn again, you uneducated loons? Deary me.


Start to notice that you're just talking to yourself..........

Oct 18, 2018
@Benni I'm actually listening to jonesdave. He is the voice of reason here.

Oct 19, 2018
Wrong, dumbo. Maths not your thing, is it? Nor plasma physics, obviously. Same with Scott. Clueless.
Here is the Lorentz force equation: F = qE + qv × B. Lol. Where is that in Scott's abysmal nonsense?
And please link to where Maxwell gives Eq. 4.

Ummmm, equation 3, Lorenz force equation. Been there all day. Do you need glasses to go along with your dementia meds? BTW, you claimed it was wrong. By chance is the random vulgar blowhard named jonesdumb the one who made the schoolboy error? Obviously!
As far as equation #4;
https://archive.o...djvu.txt
You are wrong again jonesdumb and please rely on traditional definitions, not jonesdumb definitions. It's Lorenz, not "Lorenz". And Maxwell, not "Maxwell"....

Oct 19, 2018
@Benni I'm actually listening to jonesdave. He is the voice of reason here.

He is the voice of the Darkists, and reason is not in their darkened vocabulary.

Oct 19, 2018

You are wrong again jonesdumb and please rely on traditional definitions, not jonesdumb definitions. It's Lorenz, not "Lorenz". And Maxwell, not "Maxwell"....


I'm afraid you are the one that is blind, as well as thick. Here is Scotts Eq. 3, you blind b*stard:

jz(r) = αBz(0)/μ . J0(αr)

And Eq. 4;

j theta (r) = αBz(0)/μ . J0(αr)

Here again, for the hard of thinking, is the Lorentz force equation:

F = qE + qv × B.

It is a totally different thing altogether. You may also notice that Lorentz has a 't' in in, you illiterate oaf. You can lie to save your incompetent wooist all you like, but it is as plain as day in his crap paper;

http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF

And for the really hard of thinking;

http://www.imageb...05380794

He screwed up. Big style. He hasn't a clue about either astrophysics or plasma physics, just like the rest of you Velikovskian loons.


Oct 19, 2018
^^^^^Furthermore, cantthink linked to the wrong paper. He is getting confused with another of his hero's scientifically illiterate pieces of nonsense. Cantthink introduced the paper that is shown to be in error, with this remark, further up;

The fields in which galaxies are immersed are created by these Birkeland currents and it is because of these currents there is no need to invoke DM.
http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF


That is the paper I said was full of errors. And it is. The bloke is clueless.


Oct 19, 2018
The headline amusingly screams: "Missing gamma-ray blobs shed new light on dark matter, cosmic magnetism."

The article is a little more truthful: "In the new study...searched for gamma-ray blobs associated with those predicted.... They didn't find any..."

To be even more truthful, I'll state the obvious: the emperor has no clothes!

Another prediction associated with DM is down the drain.
How many more failures do we need before we give up on this nonsense?


Oct 19, 2018
How many more failures do we need before we give up on this nonsense?


And how many unqualified fruitloops will give their unqualified opinions on it, whilst having no answers of their own?


Oct 19, 2018
I'm afraid you are the one that is blind, as well as thick. Here is Scotts Eq. 3, you blind b*stard:

Gotcha, I was looking at the first paper, you the 2018 paper. Thanks for re-establishing the context. Now regarding the the equations, what exactly is wrong with them? Where are these errors? The problem you and the plasma ignoramuses have is they never consider the current density of the electric currents. The errors are your own.

Oct 19, 2018
I'm afraid you are the one that is blind, as well as thick. Here is Scotts Eq. 3, you blind b*stard:

Gotcha, I was looking at the first paper, you the 2018 paper. Thanks for re-establishing the context. Now regarding the the equations, what exactly is wrong with them? Where are these errors? The problem you and the plasma ignoramuses have is they never consider the current density of the electric currents. The errors are your own.


I linked you to the post where sjastro tears it apart. Go back and look. Ditto the comments made on ISF by a real plasma physicist, essentially saying Scott hasn't got a bloody clue. Why do you think this crap is in a crank journal? Solved the need for DM? A bloody retired EE who hasn't got a clue about astrophysics or plasma physics? Dream on.

Oct 19, 2018
Guys! Forget the old feuds/misunderstandings/claims! The DM now being found all over the placer; it's ORDINARY e-m AND grav interacting stuff in variously excited or ground states/variously massed (gas, plasma, dust, pebbles etc) which did not emit/reflect sufficient e-m signal strength/types for old telescopes/analyses to form a true estimations base.

We found sufficient ordinary mass making up the 'missing baryons' (recall the "Missing Baryons Problem' furphie due to old inadequate data for estimating same).

NOW we're finding even MORE ordinary mass in vast quantities (still only 'the tip of the iceberg') that will account for MOTIONS/ORBITS that were labeled 'observational anomalies' which some sort of DM would explain (which it DOES, because ORDINARY DM being found everywhere), in the quantities/distributions necessary for GR TO WORK....when properly applied accordingly, to Non-Keplerian as well as Keplerian situations.

The 'argument' over DM is over. Ordinary stuff!

Oct 19, 2018
Guys! Forget the old feuds/misunderstandings/claims! The DM now being found all over the placer; it's ORDINARY e-m AND grav interacting stuff in variously excited or ground states/variously massed (gas, plasma, dust, pebbles etc) which did not emit/reflect sufficient e-m signal strength/types for old telescopes/analyses to form a true estimations base.

We found sufficient ordinary mass making up the 'missing baryons' (recall the "Missing Baryons Problem' furphie due to old inadequate data for estimating same).

NOW we're finding even MORE ordinary mass in vast quantities (still only 'the tip of the iceberg') that will account for MOTIONS/ORBITS that were labeled 'observational anomalies' which some sort of DM would explain (which it DOES, because ORDINARY DM being found everywhere), in the quantities/distributions necessary for GR TO WORK....when properly applied accordingly, to Non-Keplerian as well as Keplerian situations.

The 'argument' over DM is over. Ordinary stuff!

Oct 20, 2018
I linked you to the post where sjastro tears it apart.

I did mention I had no intention of going to Christian.org. If you can't explain it in you own words, your claim of his "schoolboy error" which he did something to one side of equation but not the other is absolute bollocks. Your desperate attempts to make him look bad via the use of lies is deplorable.

Oct 20, 2018
Also, if the maths is incorrect as you claim, how does the model recreate the observed physical characteristics? How does the predicted counter rotation reveal itself to be correct in laboratory and planetary Birkeland currents. All you have to do is open your eyes, it is quite obvious.
https://youtu.be/Z69NfO6iY4c

Oct 20, 2018
Also, if the maths is incorrect as you claim, how does the model recreate the observed physical characteristics? How does the predicted counter rotation reveal itself to be correct in laboratory and planetary Birkeland currents. All you have to do is open your eyes, it is quite obvious.
https://youtu.be/Z69NfO6iY4c


He f***ed up. Get over it. He got absolutely nothing about it correct! He is crap at astrophysics, and he is crap at plasma physics. Neither of which he is qualified in. Sjastro is, I believe. And I've given you the link, and the special characters will not copy over to here. He made Eq, 1 into Eq 3, and Eq. 2 into Eq. 4, by substituting on the LHS only! You cannot do that. It is schoolboy algebra! If you don't believe me, take it to any physics forum of your choice. Or find a mathematician or plasma physicist and get them to check sjastro's work. Nobody is going to go into print over this, as it only exists in a crank journal.

Oct 20, 2018
^^^^Perhaps there are some neutral lurkers following this? Here is Scott's stuff up;

http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF

Eqs. 1-5.

Eq.1 becomes Eq. 3, and Eq. 2 becomes Eq. 4.

And here is sjastro's exposition of Scott's maths error;

https://www.chris...72402122

Heck, there is even a forum attached to the website, where I've seen plenty of very competent physicists and mathematicians post. Anybody that wanted to salvage Scott's (non-existent, in my view) reputation, should have the faith to test it somewhere like that.
Lest we forget, this is the same genius who tried to explain away neutrinos to salvage his electric sun woo, by suggesting they occur due to fusion in the chromosphere! From where Gamma rays would fry us all! He is not a scientist. He is a retired teacher of EE. He has not got rid of DM, unsurprisingly!

Oct 20, 2018
And here is sjastro's exposition of Scott's maths error

And sjastro doesn't have a clue, he obviously cannot read;

"Because the flow is assumed to be of unlimited extent in length and have a circular crosssection, the model assumes no variation of either B or j in the θ, or z directions."

His entire argument is a red-herring. And I saw your moronic post as well, "Reality Check"...

Oct 20, 2018
And here is sjastro's exposition of Scott's maths error

And sjastro doesn't have a clue, he obviously cannot read;

"Because the flow is assumed to be of unlimited extent in length and have a circular crosssection, the model assumes no variation of either B or j in the θ, or z directions."

His entire argument is a red-herring. And I saw your moronic post as well, "Reality Check"...


Wrong. He totally stuffed up algebraically. After that nothing makes any sense. If you don't believe me, take his pile of fail to a physics forum, and ask for a review. You will not do that because you know he is wrong, and you haven't got a clue why, due to being mathematically illiterate. It doesn't matter what the idiot said, you moron; you CANNOT substitute on one side of an equation and not do it to the other side! It is idiotic. He f***ed up. Which is what you will be told if you had the guts to post it on a physics forum.

Oct 20, 2018
And sjastro doesn't have a clue, he obviously cannot read;


Oh trust me, he does have a clue, as shown. And who the f*** are you to criticise, you idiot? You are demonstrably illiterate in both plasma physics and mathematics. As is Scott. Why do you think his trash sits uncited in a crank journal? Send or link that paper to any plasma physicist, physicist, mathematician, and they will tell you the same thing. You will not do that, because your idiotic beliefs are based purely on faith, and you do not want that faith tested.

Oct 20, 2018
@cantdrive85.
And I saw your moronic post as well, "Reality Check".
But perhaps (just like the 'one-eyed' types you argue against on the 'other side'), you 'kneejerked' before taking the time/consideration necessary for you to 'connected the (obvious) dots'?

Consider: the ordinary stuff being found all over in deep (galactic and intergalactic/cluster) space, is mostly ionized/plasmic, and hence aggregates via EM as well as GRAV dynamics, to create all those HYBRID phenomena features/structures/lensings etc which, in their local-region-determined spatio-temporal 'evolutionary trajectories', are only observed 'in parts' from 'here'.

In that increasingly observed reality, the (NO LONGER) 'dark' ORDINARY STUFF being found everywhere, at every stage, in vast quantities, now ALSO explains much of the GRAV lensing/motions/orbits; as well as the E-M emissions in EVERY wavelength which forms the WHOLE-SPECTRUM cosmic background radiation ...INCLUDING CMB WITHOUT BB. :)

Oct 20, 2018
@cantdrive85.
And I saw your moronic post as well, "Reality Check".

Check the link, it wasn't a post by you but jonesdumb posing as "Reality Check". It would seem as if jonesdumb has a hankering for ya.

And contrary to your claim, PC and EU fully consider gravity in their models, it's just insignificant on most scales.

Oct 21, 2018
Oh trust me, he does have a clue, as shown.

No, sjastro is a complete hack and clearly doesn't understand the expressions. His explanation clearly shows that he doesn't have a clue. This random nobody on the interweb claims to be a plasma physicist but makes such a moronic claim. No wonder you believe him, he is as dumb as you.

Oct 21, 2018
@cantdrive85.
Check the link, it wasn't a post by you but jonesdumb posing as "Reality Check". It would seem as if jonesdumb has a hankering for ya.
Oh, ok. Thanks for that clarification, mate; I thought you were alluding to MY post addressed to you above. :)
And contrary to your claim, PC and EU fully consider gravity in their models, it's just insignificant on most scales.
It's a hybrid forces universal dynamics, mate; chaotic, and full of feedback loops which also include gravitational effects at stages when masses aggregate via e-m to significant cumulative mass/gravity status, which then adds 'gravitational containment' against 'plasmoid instability/explosion' tendencies which may have compromised any initial plasmic/em 'self-containment'.

PS: As I explained to jonesy in another thread, my system can't check links today; but re that "Reality Check" (intentionally/unintentionally) 'posing' as ME (RealityCheck, no space): was it really jonesy? You sure?

Oct 21, 2018
It's a hybrid forces universal dynamics, mate; chaotic, and full of feedback loops which also include gravitational effects at stages when masses aggregate via e-m to significant cumulative mass/gravity status, which then adds 'gravitational containment' against 'plasmoid instability/explosion' tendencies which may have compromised any initial plasmic/em 'self-containment'.


You don't want to be lumped with the PseudoScienceCrowd?
Get real.

Oct 21, 2018
I gave up on @100LiarRC long ago, @Ojorf. It's a more subtle troll than many here but a troll nonetheless. And even after being caught lying 100 times it still posts here.

Its always got an excuse; this time it's "feedback loops" and "universal dynamics," which it can't provide any math for. WTH does "cumulative mass/gravity status" mean, for example? One equation could provide this "status" but no equations are presented here.

Oct 21, 2018
@Ojorf.
It's a hybrid forces universal dynamics, mate; chaotic, and full of feedback loops which also include gravitational effects at stages when masses aggregate via e-m to significant cumulative mass/gravity status, which then adds 'gravitational containment' against 'plasmoid instability/explosion' tendencies which may have compromised any initial plasmic/em 'self-containment'.
You don't want to be lumped with the PseudoScienceCrowd?
Get real.
I belong to neither 'side', Ojorf. As independent researcher/commenter I am free to dispassionately, without fear/favor to any 'side', connect the dots of new/reviewed mainstream discovery/re-interpretations, and call it as it is in the specific science/logics issue/aspect being discussed. I am not interested in 'pleasing' any side, just the objective science as it is evolving even as we speak. Don't be swayed by the trolls from either 'side'; good luck with your own evolving universal physics perspective, mate! :)

Oct 21, 2018
@100LiarRC, bring the math. Or admit you're incompetent and a liar.

Here's another 5 lies:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about galactic dynamics following visible matter: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about dark matter existing inside stars: https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about what Penrose and Steinhardt said about the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about fractals even though it claims to reject math: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about real infinity existing in physical reality again: https://phys.org/...rse.html

Oct 21, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about dark matter existing inside stars:
https://phys.org/...ion.html
Really, DS? Can you please point to where in that thread I said any such thing? Thanks. :)

Oct 21, 2018
I belong to neither 'side', Ojorf. As independent researcher/commenter I am free to dispassionately, without fear/favor to any 'side', connect the dots of new/reviewed mainstream discovery/re-interpretations, and call it as it is in the specific science/logics issue/aspect being discussed.


Once again, if there are two competing theories and one works according to all the known laws of nature and the other has to break a slew of them in order to even make the most tenuous sense and you give them equal value, you are being stupid, not objective.
You can't give equal value to fact and obvious BS, that is as anti-science as you can get. The great thing about science and what has made it so successful, is it's ability to sift fact from fiction.
Your discussions within the PseudoScienceCrowd are blatantly anti-scientific.


Oct 21, 2018
@Ojorf.
Once again, if there are two competing theories and one works according to all the known laws of nature and the other has to break a slew of them in order to even make the most tenuous sense and you give them equal value, you are being stupid, not objective.
I merely point out the mainstream discovery/review of ordinary (previously dark) matter now being found everywhere; and also pointing out that most of it is ionized gas and dust (much of it mixed as a 'dusty plasma') etc; and that, as mainstream is also acknowledging, BOTH e-m AND gravity effects/forces involved in various stages of aggregation/evolution of astronomical processes/features/bodies. There is only ONE REAL universal dynamics, and mainstream theory/model is reflecting BOTH the e-m AND grav aspects I pointed out now that ordinary ionized MASS explains a LOT of the former 'GR anomalies'. Science is king. And I am following the NEW/EVOLVING science, and NOT the OLD/NAIVE 'competing theories'. :)

Oct 21, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about dark matter existing inside stars:
https://phys.org/...ion.html
Really, DS? Can you please point to where in that thread I said any such thing? Thanks. :)

Oct 21, 2018
Oh trust me, he does have a clue, as shown.

No, sjastro is a complete hack and clearly doesn't understand the expressions. His explanation clearly shows that he doesn't have a clue. This random nobody on the interweb claims to be a plasma physicist but makes such a moronic claim. No wonder you believe him, he is as dumb as you.


Nope, he is obviously right. Scott is the poser. Not a plasma physicist, and not an astrophysicist, and sticks his error ridden crap in a crank journal. Got any balls, woo boy? Post a link to Scott's paper in a physics forum, and a link to sjastro's demolition of it. Want to bet on who is right? Want me to do it? Come on coward, let's see you try try it. You are more scientifically illiterate than the moron Scott. You have faith only. What do you say, woo boy? Pick a physics forum. Let me know which one. If sjastro is right, you never post here again. Deal?

Oct 21, 2018
@cantdrive85.
And I saw your moronic post as well, "Reality Check".

Check the link, it wasn't a post by you but jonesdumb posing as "Reality Check". It would seem as if jonesdumb has a hankering for ya.

And contrary to your claim, PC and EU fully consider gravity in their models, it's just insignificant on most scales.


Wrong, thicko. RC is a totally different poster at ISF and CF. Quit with the lying, nutjob. Yes I posted in that thread, but not as RC.
And PC and EU do not consider anything. They are scientifically illiterate idiots, with no valid hypotheses. Peratt never considered gravity in his initial heap of crap.

Oct 21, 2018
The Laws of Nature in the Vacuum
I belong to neither 'side' Ojorf As independent researcher/commenter I am free to dispassionately, without fear/favour to any 'side', connect the dots of new/reviewed mainstream discovery/re-interpretations, and call it as it is in the specific science/logics issue/aspect being discussed.
Ojorf> There are two competing theories and one works according to all the known laws of nature and the other has to break a slew of them in order to even make the most tenuous sense and you give them equal value, you are being stupid, not objective.
You can't give equal value to fact that is as anti-science as you can get. The great thing about science and what has made it so successful, is it's ability to sift fact from fiction.
Your discussions within the Pseudoscience Crowd are blatantly anti-scientific.

There are no science or pseudo science, there being only one science, that being the science of nature following The Laws of Nature!

Oct 21, 2018
Really, DS? Can you please point to where in that thread I said any such thing?
I did.

https://phys.org/...ion.html

Now you're lying about lying. Disgusting.

Oct 21, 2018
DS, YOU happen to be lying, NOWHERE in that link does RC state what you are accusing him of.

You argue before, you put him down all the time, but buddy, YOU are the big liar this time because he makes no mention whatsoever about dark matter in stars. Please rectify your rectocranial inversion immediately before you suffer further anoxia damage.

And get off his case, You, JD, CptStump, Ojorf along with certain obvious sock-bots happen to attempt to hold back the advancement of the actual understandings of the papers presented. Some of us extrapolate and take things further than experiment has YET found, yet our previously stated opinions happen to keep being shown as True Science, and thus our "need more electromagnetic effect to explain things here" IS Becoming THE Mainstream science, even as You deride US.

I do not subscribe to all CD says, he has his own Opinions, so dont pin them on me, RC has a lot of his ideas correct, not the debunked strawmen YOU say he does. You Lie.

Oct 21, 2018
In fact, RS happens to be stating exactly the opposite of what DS accuses him of pretty much EVERY TIME, so WHO is it with the 1000 lies, that is Da Schneib, which he sticks into every crevice he thinks he finds.

Used to have some attachment to real science, Sad, but onto the ingnore You go DS, have a nice trip in yer basket there, tis one way you know.

Oct 21, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Really, DS? Can you please point to where in that thread I said any such thing?
I did.

https://phys.org/...ion.html

Now you're lying about lying. Disgusting.
Can you please quote the post where I said what you claim I said in that thread, DS? Thanks. :)

Oct 21, 2018
Another five:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies that defining a black hole is "calling it black." https://phys.org/...ole.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about helium flash white dwarf detonations: https://phys.org/...arf.html

You lie like a rug, @100LiarRC.

Oct 21, 2018
And another five:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims cosmic voids were discovered in the 1950s: https://phys.org/...ogy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the Big Bang is "pretend:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims magnetic fields can create plasmas: https://phys.org/...ets.html
Thread where @100LiarRC denies math works again: https://phys.org/...low.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again that there's no need for DM due to "discoveries over the last few years:" https://phys.org/...les.html

Keep lying @100LiarRC, I will have everything I need for you.

Oct 22, 2018
@steel
And get off his case
before you get all high and mighty defending rc, perhaps you should peruse that *whole* list by DS

then, read the following: http://proxy9747....club.com

I highly recommend keeping the free proxy link at the beginning, but if you don't want to, skip to the last http and copy everything after the hash mark

when you're done reading that, take special notice of the reasons he has been ejected and perma-banned from every legitimate science forum on the web from SciForums (twice banned) to Sapo's Joint, the latter being quite malleable and forgiving usually

then read this (search for "cavalry"): http://phys.org/n...fic.html

he doesn't give two sh*ts about science

he only wants attention and people to think he's a real scientist, but he's a fraud, criminal, liar and more


Oct 22, 2018
RC, you don't have a leg to stand on.
What an arse.

Oct 22, 2018
Synchrotron magnetobremsstrahlung radiation
Synchrotron emission, electromagnetic radiation of electrons charge spiralling round magnetic field lines close to C. Electrons are changing direction effectively accelerating emitting photons with frequencies determined by the speed of the electron at that instant. The radiation emitted confined in narrow of cone pointing in the direction of electrons motion in a process called beaming is polarised in perpendicular plane to magnetic field, with the degree and orientation of the polarisation
The spectrum of synchrotron emission resulting of this summing emission spectra individual of electron spiralling round magnetic of field, emitting Synchrotron radiation in range of frequencies peaking at ν0, of critical frequency. In length of electron time in travel magnetic of field, in energy it loses narrowing of spiral it makes, in length the wavelength of critical frequency
http://astronomy....Emission

Oct 22, 2018
Synchrotron radiation is charge in motion

The particle in motion does not necessarily have to be protons or electrons Synchrotron radiation is emitted by charge in motion and therefore can be a dust in speck possessing a positive or negative charge in relative motion to the magnetic line of field where this dust speck spirals around this magnetic line of field

As what is this magnetic line of field in all reality?
As singularity of polarity dipole has never ever in the vacuum been isolated
But here we have in this vacuum a singular single lonely line of magnetism where a speck of dust happily around it spirals

So given 1.6x10-19J, the smallest quantum of charge in the vacuum
What is this magnetic line of force this charge spirals, what does it consist of as in its singularity encircling the electron as though in orbit like an accretion disk?

Oct 22, 2018
This Singularity of Magnetic line of Force

Encircling a current carrying conductor as a magnetic compass purports to show, it is a continuous singular line of field encircling electrons as charge in motion perpendicular to that charge!

So in this vacuum we inhabit
We do have a single circular line
Of magnetic field in smallest of quantum
Of field line in this vacuum
Before our very eyes

So why it is this speck of dust encircles this line we're observing as it is emitting Synchrotron radiation
Where this field line is singular in dipole only
Yet there it, is as we look at this emitting Synchrotron radiation as a dipole field line
Yet no matter how we try, we cannot isolate this dipole, as it is in all reality, it is a Dipole!

Oct 22, 2018
As it is in all reality, it is a Dipole

As this currant carrying conductor is in a continuous loop perpendicularly encircled by magnetic continuous field lines, where each field line is encircled by charged dust specks

As this currant carrying conductor is in a continuous loop, in 180degrees of rotation we have two diametrically opposed circular field dipole lines creating a magnetic dipole

So this is why no dipole in this vacuum has been isolated ever
And this is why no dipole in this vacuum will ever be isolated
Because this circular singularity of magnetic field is not the dipole it makes out to be, as in truth a dipole does not exist

This Magnetic field line is a monopole, as a dipole is orientation in mathematical trigonometry only!

Oct 22, 2018
@Ojorf.
@Da Schneib.
Really, DS? Can you please point to where in that thread I said any such thing?
I did.

https://phys.org/...ion.html]https://phys.org/...ion.html[/url]

Now you're lying about lying. Disgusting.
Can you please quote the post where I said what you claim I said in that thread, DS? Thanks. :)
DS has evaded a polite request for him to quote where in that thread I said what he claims I said. So, @Ojorf, before you again mindlessly 'believe' crap from that crapping troll gangmember's lying spam campaign, take the time to check out DS's claims. Here is what DS claimed....
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about dark matter existing inside stars:
https://phys.org/...ion.html]https://phys.org/...ion.html[/url]
....and here is my polite request for him to provide proof for his claim...
Can you [DS] please quote the post where I said what you claim I said in that thread, DS? Thanks. :)
Be objective, @Ojorf. :)

Oct 22, 2018
Be objective, @Ojorf. :)
.......is not the reason he's here.

Oct 22, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@steel
before you get all high and mighty defending rc, perhaps you should peruse that *whole* list by DS
The question for you, CS, is: why so SHY of asking DS for proof of HIS claims about me in the above instance? @Steelwolf just confirmed that DS LIED about me. But instead of acknowledging that DEMONSTRABLE FACT, you (again) ATTACK THE VICTIM, CS. Your SILENCE re DS's BLATANT LIES, CS; and YOUR shyness of DEMANDING HIS PROOF for HIS lying claims, are FURTHER indictments of YOUR personal animus/biases, CS. Readers can tell your/DS's 'list', 'claims' are 'worth' less than trollshite, CS.
read the following: http/earthlingclub.com
You say I "seek attention", CS. But I haven't linked to that site for a 'yonks' (it's YOU keeps linking it, CS. Thanks!) :)
(search for "cavalry"): http://phys.org