Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

We have been over this ground before. Of course mainstream theories are very testable, as I have explained before ...

Ok Tim, I'll pilfer your mathematical constructs related to inflation, dark energy and dark matter and call them "divine breath", "magic energy" and "magic matter". How will you falsify the existence of any of these things?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, you get real. Better yet, get honest.

Ok Tim, let's *BOTH* be honest.

I don't think you are at all capable of an intellectually honest exploration of any topic in science

Birkeland was an "intellectually honest" scientist Tim. He didn't just point at aurora and claim: "Oh look, dark energy did it". He didn't just say "electricity did it" and slap on some math either. He built actual laboratory experiments to test his theories and he compared them to the in-situ measurements he took at great personal physical peril.

Intellectual honesty begins by noting that you cannot tell the difference between dark energy and magic energy based on math formulas alone. A label with math attached will often not accurately reflect nature. We can only know if it does match nature by actually *experimenting* and finding out. That requires a control mechanism as well, particularly if we are going to be "intellectually honest" about it.

because you are rigid & blind, totally incapable of seeing beyond the limited horizon of your own preconceptions.

Empirical physics doesn't give a damn about my preconceptions nor yours. I can "preconcieve" any idea I might like about "gravity", but I guarantee you I won't fly off into the sunset just by jumping up. Nature is *empirical* and physically real with real physical effects. It has "rules" that don't care one iota about individual human opinions. Gravity will pull me back to earth, regardless of any preconceived ideas I might have about it.

Electrical currents have a similar effect on human beliefs. That lightning bolt that releases gamma rays in the atmospheres of Earth and the solar atmosphere is going to fry you if you get in it's way, regardless of your preconceived ideas about it.

that Quite simply, you don't & can't understand what science is. So naturally, you are on the losing side.

Tim, I actually have some respect for you, at least enough to clue you in here. You're going to go down in history as one of the last "flat Earthers" at the rate you're going. Evidently you had a run in with Dr. Scott somwhere back in time and somehow you've managed to convince yourself that electricity does not play a vital role in events in space. That is absolutely false Tim. That solar wind that constantly accelerates toward the heliosphere is driven by electrical currents, in fact they are a form *OF* electrical currents because they are charged particle moving at over a million miles per hour.

I don't know how you might open your mind to reality, but I hope for your own sake that you do so soon. The events in space are simply too similar to all the experiments here on Earth to simply be a coincidence. It was not a coincidence that Birkeland *predicted* high speed solar wind Tim. He *created it* in his lab as well. Get a clue. You're the one on the wrong side of history my friend and it's not going to be that long before the tide begins to turn. There are too many new technologies coming on line for you to hide your head in the sand forever.

You point Rhessi at Earth and see gamma rays from electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. You point the same satellite at the solar atmosphere, observe gamma rays there too, and claim "magnetic reconnection faeries did it". Let's be intellectually honest here Tim. What *physically demonstrated force of nature" releases gamma rays in the atmospheres of bodies in space?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nice to see all the cranks on one place !

Step one of the guide to BB mythology:
When confronted with empirical fact, call the individual a "crank", and hope it sticks. If not, repeat this intellectually dishonest tactic as often as necessary.

Michael Mozina is here to dump his dumb "only things that we can test here on Earth are science" idea on us once more.

No, I'm here to point out the fact that you can't even *tell the difference* between empirical physics and religion.

EU theory is (in Michael Mozina jargon) *NOT* lab tested.

Birkeland "lab tested" every single idea he proposed. What exactly was he "wrong about" in your opinion?

Newtonian dynamics, Maxwell's equations and General Relativity are "lab tested".

Many parts of GR remain to be "tested" in an empirical sense. The rest are in fact "lab tested" in great detail, as are parts of GR.

So lets see if he tell us why the evidence for dark matter is wrong.

Because you can't produce a gram of the stuff! Come on. This is why your industry is loosing credibility by leaps and bounds in the internet age. You can't produce a single gram of this stuff. You've probably never bothered to read Peratt's experiments nor begin to comprehend how they might apply. All you know is what you were *told*, not what you were "shown" empirically. Your beliefs are based upon "religious acts of faith", not empirical evidence. Show me one single gram of dark matter that shows up in a controlled experiment.

 

[Reality Check]

Step one of the guide to BB mythology:
When confronted with empirical fact, call the individual a "crank", and hope it sticks. If not, repeat this intellectually dishonest tactic as often as necessary.

You meet the criteria for a crank (or crackpot) such as your obsession with redefining what science actually is and so you are a crank.

No, I'm here to point out the fact that you can't even *tell the difference* between empirical physics and religion.

No, we are here to tell you that you do not know what "empirical" or even what science means.

Birkeland "lab tested" every single idea he proposed. What exactly was he "wrong about" in your opinion?

Nothing was wrong with Birkeland's original lab work. He did propose several ideas based on his lab work that have been proved wrong, e.g. using the mimilarities between his images and Saturn's rings to suggest an electrical origin.
The real problem is EU crackpots thinking that science stopped with Birkeland.

Many parts of GR remain to be "tested" in an empirical sense. The rest are in fact "lab tested" in great detail, as are parts of GR.

What parts of GR would they be? And how much is "many", i.e. what % do these parts make?

Because you can't produce a gram of the stuff! Come on. This is why your industry is loosing credibility by leaps and bounds in the internet age. You can't produce a single gram of this stuff. You've probably never bothered to read Peratt's experiments nor begin to comprehend how they might apply. All you know is what you were *told*, not what you were "shown" empirically. Your beliefs are based upon "religious acts of faith", not empirical evidence. Show me one single gram of dark matter that shows up in a controlled experiment.

I have shown you billions of tons of dark matter in controlled experiments (controlled by the universe):

• galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity)

You just cannot read. All of these are empirical experiments (you have probably seen and ignored this many times before, so be a good crackpot and ignore it again).

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1] A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically." "Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Empirical data are data that are produced by experiment or observation

...snip...
You've probably never bothered to read Peratt's experiments nor begin to comprehend how they might apply.
...snip...

I know a lot more "Peratt's experiments" than you seem to be since I have read as many of his papers as I have been able to access. I happen to know the prime reason that his model is fatally flawed (something that any one with a basic knowledge of astronomy can see).

A small test for you, Michael Mozina:

• What were the names of the software that Perrat used in his simulation?
• How many particles were simulated?
• What was the distribution of particles in the various simulations?

Try answering those questions before looking at: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

 

[Dancing David]

Hi M. Mozina. Welcome back.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You meet the criteria for a crank (or crackpot) such as your obsession with redefining what science actually is and so you are a crank.

The word crank has a meaning, yes your right. So does the world ****. They are both still derogatory terms, that and ultimately based on peoples subjective opinions and personal scientific preferences. I dont ever see michael using such words, take a leaf from his book. The same goes for any derogatory ad hominem term, thats why you generally dont hear in any respectable scientific journal 'because now Mr Blogs original model has some evidence against it he's a complete crackpot'. They will just state what the evidence is which is a much more respectable position to take. And avoids any emotive overtones.

 

[Reality Check]

The word crank has a meaning, yes your right. So does the world ****. They are both still derogatory terms, that and ultimately based on peoples subjective opinions and personal scientific preferences. I dont ever see michael using such words, take a leaf from his book. The same goes for any derogatory ad hominem term, thats why you generally dont hear in any respectable scientific journal 'because now Mr Blogs original model has some evidence against it he's a complete crackpot'. They will just state what the evidence is which is a much more respectable position to take. And avoids any emotive overtones.

Ok - you do not like the word "crank".
I am basing my evaluation of MM as a crackpot from his statements in this forum and his "Iron Sun" model.

ETA:
Forgot about a link to MM's web site which should give lurkers a laugh: The surface of the Sun: The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere...
And it is not only his theory, Professor O Manuel: The Sun is a ball of Iron!
Enjoy

 

[GeeMack]

Only an idiotic individual would fail to note that this *THEORY* has already been lab tested by Birkeland and mathematically quantified by Alfven and Bruce and Peratt and many others.

No, it hasn't. And every time you're asked to actually show it has, you pussy out.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it hasn't. And every time you're asked to actually show it has, you pussy out.

Have you actually read Birkeland's work, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You meet the criteria for a crank (or crackpot) such as your obsession with redefining what science actually is and so you are a crank.

This is intellectually *DISHONEST* behavior from beginning to end. You can't actually produce a single gram of "dark matter", but it's my fault I don't believe in the stuff? You literally "make up" dark energy out of thin air, and I'm a "crank"? You guys dreamed up "inflation", a literally "supernatural" form of energy, and I'm a crackpot for preferring empirical physics over metaphysical myth making?

No, we are here to tell you that you do not know what "empirical" or even what science means.

"Empirical" things show up in *CONTROLLED* experiments. Your mythos is not "science" it is "religion" that requires leaps of faith in at least three different forms of magic. You require faith in magic inflation, faith in magic energy and faith in magic matter. Other than that, sure it is almost actually like "pure science".

Nothing was wrong with Birkeland's original lab work. He did propose several ideas based on his lab work that have been proved wrong, e.g. using the mimilarities between his images and Saturn's rings to suggest an electrical origin.

How do you know there there are no electromagnetic influences related to the placement of the material in these rings again?

The real problem is EU crackpots thinking that science stopped with Birkeland.

That "crackpot" claim sounds just plain stupid and ironic coming from a guy who believes in three forms of metaphysical BS.

What parts of GR would they be?

The part where gravity is *ATTRACTIVE* and not repulsive for one. How about demonstrating that repulsion trick you guys do with Lambda-Gumby theory in a lab in a controlled experiment? Oh ya, you can't. You made up that one.

And how much is "many", i.e. what % do these parts make?

How about just demonstrating gravity actually does repulsive tricks? You keep stuffing GR theory with repulsive magical entities. What's that about?

I have shown you billions of tons of dark matter in controlled experiments (controlled by the universe):

Obviously you don't comprehend what a *CONTROL MECHANISM* actually is. You can't "control" galaxies. All you've demonstrated is that you can't explain rotation curves with GR and the matter you can identify. At worst case you found "missing mass", not some new exotic form of "dark matter". Sheesh, you guys are pitiful.

I know a lot more "Peratt's experiments" than you seem to be since I have read as many of his papers as I have been able to access. I happen to know the prime reason that his model is fatally flawed (something that any one with a basic knowledge of astronomy can see).

Your models are also "fatally flawed", which is why you are forced to stuff them with 96 percent metaphysics, and only 4% actual physics. *PLEASE* don't even thing about lecturing an EU proponent about "fatal flaws". Dark energy was was only the last made up thing you stuffed into your otherwise dead and falsified theory. You wouldn't know a fatal flaw if it hit you in the head.

A small test for you, Michael Mozina:

How about a test for you? How about you or anyone else on this forum actually show your "expertise" and *explain* the first LMSAL RD image and Kosovichev's Doppler (tsunami) image on my website? You won't do it. You'll run like hell from the real "science" because it scares the hell out of you and you can't explain those images with your useless theories.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ok - you do not like the word "crank".
I am basing my evaluation of MM as a crackpot from his statements in this forum and his "Iron Sun" model.

ETA:
Forgot about a link to MM's web site which should give lurkers a laugh: The surface of the Sun: The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere...
And it is not only his theory, Professor O Manuel: The Sun is a ball of Iron!
Enjoy

Why don't you show us how a "real pro" would explain that first RD image from LMSAL and that Doppler image from Kosovichev?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Why don't you show us how a "real pro" would explain that first RD image from LMSAL and that Doppler image from Kosovichev?

Let's count the number of logical fallacies used by MM, shall we?

This one is "false dichotomy" (textbook solar physics cannot explain {X}*, THEREFORE my idea MUST be right!)

*in this case, of course, the MM claim is both wrong and dishonest.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Have you actually read Birkeland's work, yes or no?

Logical fallacy #2: appeal to authority.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ok Tim, I'll pilfer your mathematical constructs related to inflation, dark energy and dark matter and call them "divine breath", "magic energy" and "magic matter". How will you falsify the existence of any of these things?

Logical fallacy #3: strawman.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Only an idiotic individual would fail to note that this *THEORY* has already been lab tested by Birkeland and mathematically quantified by Alfven and Bruce and Peratt and many others. [...]

EU theory is lab tested. You folks recognized the value of Birkelands work as it relates to aurora and you utterly ignore *EVERYTHING* else he "predicted" in his work. [...]

And the (astrophysical, cosmological) theories of Birkeland, Alfvén, Bruce, and Peratt (and others) have been subject to empirical tests (i.e. are they consistent with multiple, independently obtained *quantitative* observations?), ... and they have failed all such tests.

Are you saying, MM, that astrophysical/cosmological theories built on controlled lab experiments should NOT be assessed by determining how consistent they are with astronomical observations?

 

[Reality Check]

This is intellectually *DISHONEST* behavior from beginning to end. You can't actually produce a single gram of "dark matter", but it's my fault I don't believe in the stuff? You literally "make up" dark energy out of thin air, and I'm a "crank"? You guys dreamed up "inflation", a literally "supernatural" form of energy, and I'm a crackpot for preferring empirical physics over metaphysical myth making?

This is intellectually *DISHONEST* behavior from beginning to end.
The existence of dark matter or not has everything to do with the evidence for and against it. It has little to do with whether you are are crackpot (other than your insistence on ignoring the empirical evidence for dark matter).

You are a crackpot because of your ignorance of basic physics, e.g the weeks it took you to come up with the standard text book definition of pressure and your inability to understand that that definition means that negative pressure exists. Anyone who reads the Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not? thread can see this.

You are a crackpot because you have a crackpot web site.

You are a crackpot because you believe that empirical measurements can only come from human-controlled experiments. You thus believe that all astronomical measurements are not empirical just because it is the universe that controls them. There is also the other areas in science where you would throw away empirical measurement because they are not "controlled": biology, geology, etc.

"Empirical" things show up in *CONTROLLED* experiments. Your mythos is not "science" it is "religion" that requires leaps of faith in at least three different forms of magic. You require faith in magic inflation, faith in magic energy and faith in magic matter. Other than that, sure it is almost actually like "pure science".

Your mythos is not "science" it is "religion" that requires a certain level of delusion and the ability to ignore the real universe.

How do you know there there are no electromagnetic influences related to the placement of the material in these rings again?

There are electrostatic influences "related to the placement of material in there rings again" - the seasonal spokes. The actual structure of the rings is gravitational.

That "crackpot" claim sounds just plain stupid and ironic coming from a guy who believes in three forms of metaphysical BS.

Science has evidence for the "three forms of metaphysical BS". You just have a delusion that you are right and every one else is wrong.

The part where gravity is *ATTRACTIVE* and not repulsive for one. How about demonstrating that repulsion trick you guys do with Lambda-Gumby theory in a lab in a controlled experiment? Oh ya, you can't. You made up that one.

How about just demonstrating gravity actually does repulsive tricks? You keep stuffing GR theory with repulsive magical entities. What's that about?

Of course gravity is attractive. Where did you get the dumb idea that it is not? Your ignorance is showing again Michael Mozina

Obviously you don't comprehend what a *CONTROL MECHANISM* actually is. You can't "control" galaxies. All you've demonstrated is that you can't explain rotation curves with GR and the matter you can identify. At worst case you found "missing mass", not some new exotic form of "dark matter". Sheesh, you guys are pitiful.

Sheesh, Michael Mozina's delusions are pitiful. And your ignorance is showing again Michael Mozina. The "missing" mass is not missing. It has actually been measured.

• galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, direct measurements of the separation of dark and normal matter)

On the one hand he believes that Peratt's computer simulation is an empirical experiment (and ignores that is comes up with totally wrong results).
On the other hand he believes that the Lambda-CDM computer simulation is not an empirical experiment (and ignores that it comes up with verified results)!

Your models are also "fatally flawed", which is why you are forced to stuff them with 96 percent metaphysics, and only 4% actual physics. *PLEASE* don't even thing about lecturing an EU proponent about "fatal flaws". Dark energy was was only the last made up thing you stuffed into your otherwise dead and falsified theory. You wouldn't know a fatal flaw if it hit you in the head.

I can read and know that this thread is about EU.

I know that anyone who cannot comprehend that the mass in spiral galaxies is not distributed in a spiral is ignorant of basic astronomy.

I know that anyone who cannot comprehend that the mass in double-lobe radio galaxies is not distributed in a double lobe is ignorant of basic astronomy.

Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

I know that a computer smulation that comes up with mass distributions of galaxies that do not match the actual mass distributions of galaxies is fatally flawed.


I know that a model that starts with two ex nihilo arguments is bad:

• The first ex nihilo argument is that the galactic plasma filaments are assumed to come into existence (and to form bundles of parallel filaments) at some point in the past to begin the formation of the galaxies.
• The second ex nihilo argument is the electric current through each filament that starts from nothing and goes to nothing.

I know that a model that explictly assumes that gravity has no effect in galaxy formation is fatally flawed.

I know that a model that predicts galactic plasma fliaments (with a width of 35 kiloparsecs (100,000 light years) and a length of from 35 megaparasec to 3.5 gigaparasec (an average length of 350 megaparasec or 1 billion light years)) that are cannt be detected either electromagnetically or gravitationaly is fatally flawed.

I know that an author who published astronomy theories in journals that few astonomers read or took seriously is not serious about astromony (or wanted to avoid serious scientific review).

How about a test for you? How about you or anyone else on this forum actually show your "expertise" and *explain* the first LMSAL RD image and Kosovichev's Doppler (tsunami) image on my website? You won't do it. You'll run like hell from the real "science" because it scares the hell out of you and you can't explain those images with your useless theories.

You first.

 

[Reality Check]

Why don't you show us how a "real pro" would explain that first RD image from LMSAL and that Doppler image from Kosovichev?

Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle by Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev is actually quite interesting. They are of course talking about the standard gas model of the Sun:

This transition layer is located here approximately at 0.99R⊙ and it is linked to changes in the upper convective zone caused by magnetic fields.​

​

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Let's count the number of logical fallacies used by MM, shall we?

This one is "false dichotomy" (textbook solar physics cannot explain {X}*, THEREFORE my idea MUST be right!)

*in this case, of course, the MM claim is both wrong and dishonest.

ETA: My characterisation "dishonest" is inappropriate; apologies.

There is abundant, objective, empirical evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis that MM understands neither the physics of, nor the mathematics that forms the foundation of, standard models of the Sun, helioseismology, Doppler imagery, etc, etc, etc (and no objective, empirical evidence to the contrary).

Therefore MM's comments on such topics cannot be called 'dishonest'.

A more appropriate characterisation would be "reflects gross ignorance", with a footnote to the effect that the gross ignorance seems to be wilful (MM seems to be well aware of his gross ignorance, is proud of it, and has no intention or desire to do anything about it).

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is intellectually *DISHONEST* behavior from beginning to end.
The existence of dark matter or not has everything to do with the evidence for and against it. It has little to do with whether you are are crackpot (other than your insistence on ignoring the empirical evidence for dark matter).

There is no "empirical evidence" for:
A) inflation
B) dark energy
C) dark matter

You evidently cannot tell the difference between "empirical evidence" and "subjective interpretation of an uncontrolled observation". In short, you're clueless. The terms "crackpot" and "crank" are ironic when coming from a cult that relies upon no less than *THREE* different forms of metaphysical "fudge factor bandaids" to make the theory hold together. Your characterization of my beliefs is meaningless.

You are a crackpot because of your ignorance of basic physics, e.g the weeks it took you to come up with the standard text book definition of pressure and your inability to understand that that definition means that negative pressure exists.

I'm not going to rehash that BS. Basic physical processes show up in a lab, and no experiment on earth ever created "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". Guth made up that notion, just like he "made up" inflation in his head. You can't "physically" demonstrate any of your core beliefs.

You are a crackpot because you have a crackpot web site.

You're a scared little child because you won't even address the actual images and data that lead to that website. You can't and won't address the actual "science" related to that website, starting with that RD and Doppler image. You'll run because you are afraid and incapable of offering a "better" explanation. You don't have a Birkeland type set of "controlled" experiments showing the merit of any of your core beliefs. I do.

Of course gravity is attractive. Where did you get the dumb idea that it is not? Your ignorance is showing again Michael Mozina

Except you have Lambda-Gumby theory doing push-me-pull-you tricks with "dark energy" and inflation.

You first.

I already offered you my explanation of these images. You're next. You won't touch them because you're not an actual "scientist", you're a sleaze artist with no real ability to "analyze" anything. All you can do is parrot what you were taught and you cannot even think for yourself.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle by Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev is actually quite interesting. They are of course talking about the standard gas model of the Sun:
[/LEFT]

Really? Which *specific* "standard theory" actually "predicted" the existence of a "stratification" subsurface located at around .995R?

In fact that "stratification subsurface" can be seen in Doppler and RD images of the solar atmosphere.

We can actually observe that stratification subsurface in the tsunami image as the wave passes over the photosphere.

How about you "experts" step up to the plate and show us which standard model predicted these "rigid subsurface features" (crust) which we observe in these RD and Doppler images?

In fact this region is supposed to be an open convection zone according to standard theory.