• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
You know, I've been burned many times in the past by *assuming* that you folks actually knew something about a specific topic. I think before I do that again, I would like to take a quick poll.

In a typical 110 volt extension cord or a box of Romex, there are three wires , a green (or bare) wire, a black wire and a white wire. Which of the these three wires (If any) is *NOT* neutral with respect to ground?

Don't be bashful. Let's hear your answer before we continue.
Click to expand...


Actually, Michael, you missed the main point of sol's comment. Here, read this part again...

sol invictus said:
You pretend to care about physics, but it's just another of your lies. You've proven over and over and over that all you care about is getting attention. Grow up.
Click to expand...


Make special note of the word "lies". Do you wonder why everyone thinks you're a liar? Wouldn't you like to try a different approach to forming and presenting your arguments and remedy that problem of yours? I can help you with that.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You know, I've been burned many times in the past by *assuming* that you folks actually knew something about a specific topic. I think before I do that again, I would like to take a quick poll.

In a typical 110 volt extension cord or a box of Romex, there are three wires , a green (or bare) wire, a black wire and a white wire. Which of the these three wires (If any) is *NOT* neutral with respect to ground?

Don't be bashful. Let's hear your answer before we continue.
Click to expand...

Your question reveals that not only do you not understand the difference between charge and current, you don't understand the difference between charge and voltage. In other words you know nothing whatsoever about electricity.

For the lurkers: all three wires are very close to electrically neutral. They will not be exactly neutral due to the build up of static charge, the capacitance of the wires (relevant if the extension cord is unpugged), and possibly some other such small effects.

The phrase "neutral with respect to ground" refers to voltage, not charge. Michael doesn't know the difference - which is much like not understanding what pressure is, come to think of it.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
No, you're not. Birkeland never knew about dark matter. Stop claiming your beliefs are somebody elses.
Click to expand...

That's baloney. I've even quoted him on the topic. He specifically does a few calculations involving high speed iron atoms (what we would call cosmic rays today), and claims that if you added up all the matter in the stars and the nebula, it would only amount to a tiny fraction of the total mass found in the universe. In other words he already knew you guys would be perplexed the moment you started adding up the mass of the visible universe and tried to compare that to the movements of matter in the universe.
 
sol invictus said:
Your question reveals that not only do you not understand the difference between charge and current, you don't understand the difference between charge and voltage. In other words you know nothing whatsoever about electricity.

For the lurkers: all three wires are very close to electrically neutral. They will not be exactly neutral due to the build up of static charge, the capacitance of the wires (relevant if the extension cord is unpugged), and possibly some other such small effects.

The phrase "neutral with respect to ground" refers to voltage, not charge. Michael doesn't know the difference - which is much like not understanding what pressure is, come to think of it.
Click to expand...

Are you going to answer my question, yes or no?
 
Michael Mozina said:
That's baloney. I've even quoted him on the topic. He specifically does a few calculations involving high speed iron atoms (what we would call cosmic rays today), and claims that if you added up all the matter in the stars and the nebula, it would only amount to a tiny fraction of the total mass found in the universe. In other words he already knew you guys would be perplexed the moment you started adding up the mass of the visible universe and tried to compare that to the movements of matter in the universe.
Click to expand...

Iron atoms are not dark matter (and few cosmic rays are iron atoms). So no, it's not baloney.
 
Michael - we can measure directly gas fractions in the intracluster medium from X-ray emission, we can measure directly gas fractions in the intragalactic medium in other ways, we can measure how cosmic rays and thereby cosmic ray density in the local medium, and high energy particles by definition won't stay in one place long enough to act the way we need dark matter to, so I don't see where there's any space left for the majority of matter to be in that form, even if there were a plausible mechanism by which you could generate such phenomenally large amounts of the stuff.
You can't get cosmic rays to account for dark matter.
 
D'rok said:
There are three paragraphs in Sol's post. Are you planning to read past the first?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. It's actually a very simple question, but I have no confidence that any of these guys can wire up an electrical outlet in their own house, let alone that they have any clue about plasma physics. I'd like to see how much they actually know about AC wiring before I get into plasma physics.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. It's actually a very simple question, but I have no confidence that any of these guys can wire up an electrical outlet in their own house, let alone that they have any clue about plasma physics. I'd like to see how much they actually know about AC wiring before I get into plasma physics.
Click to expand...
There are three paragraphs in Sol's post. Are you planning to read past the first?
 
Michael Mozina said:
You know, I've been burned many times in the past by *assuming* that you folks actually knew something about a specific topic.
Click to expand...

And you've demonstrated many times in the past that you don't even know the definition of common terms. So we can't assume that you do. Case in point:

In a typical 110 volt extension cord or a box of Romex, there are three wires , a green (or bare) wire, a black wire and a white wire. Which of the these three wires (If any) is *NOT* neutral with respect to ground?

Don't be bashful. Let's hear your answer before we continue.
Click to expand...

Switzerland is neutral. Is that a statement about Switzerland's electric charge?

When you can ground "neutral", and say that other wires are not neutral, is this a statement about charge, or about voltage? And do you know the difference between charge and voltage?

Don't be bashful. Let's hear your answer before we continue. Because I asked you if you knew the difference between charge and voltage before you posed this question, and the question itself suggests that you DON'T know the difference.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Tubbythin said:
No, you're not. Birkeland never knew about dark matter. Stop claiming your beliefs are somebody elses.
Click to expand...

That's baloney. I've even quoted him on the topic. He specifically does a few calculations involving high speed iron atoms (what we would call cosmic rays today), and claims that if you added up all the matter in the stars and the nebula, it would only amount to a tiny fraction of the total mass found in the universe. In other words he already knew you guys would be perplexed the moment you started adding up the mass of the visible universe and tried to compare that to the movements of matter in the universe.
Click to expand...


Jesus H. Christ, Michael, if Birkeland knew about dark matter, point us to the source, page, and paragraph where he said that. If you can't, it can safely be assumed that you're lying. From this post...

When someone asks you to direct them to the reference source, page, and paragraph that you claim supports something you say, why not simply point them to it instead of whining and moaning? When someone points out that you have been lying, why not just stop the lying instead of whining some more about being busted? When someone asks you to make yourself clear on some point that you've babbled about, why not use the terminology of the science that you claim to want to discuss so that people can actually understand what the hell you're trying to say?​

So do you intend to stop whining and lying? Or do you intend to just troll forums and talk all sciency and never actually present your argument in a way that others find understandable?
 
sol invictus said:
For the lurkers: all three wires are very close to electrically neutral.
Click to expand...

For the unsuspecting lurkers that might try wiring up an electrical outlet over the weekend: At least one of the wires is not electrically neutral and will shock the hell out of you! :)
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. It's actually a very simple question, but I have no confidence that any of these guys can wire up an electrical outlet in their own house, let alone that they have any clue about plasma physics. I'd like to see how much they actually know about AC wiring before I get into plasma physics.
Click to expand...


Your qualifications to understand science at any level have been challenged, and you have been wholly unable to show that you possess any such qualifications. You don't understand science, any of it. You aren't qualified to communicate intelligently or rationally on the subject. You aren't qualified to understand the supporting math. You aren't even qualified to understand the terminology. You simply are not qualified to "get into plasma physics".
 
Michael Mozina said:
For the lurkers. At least one of them is not electrically neutral and will shock the hell out of you! :)
Click to expand...


Do you suppose you're making your case to the lurkers? Do you think any lurkers find your lying, tantrums, arguments from incredulity and ignorance the least bit compelling? Seriously.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ditto. Care to answer the question?
Click to expand...


Sure. Right after you work your way through this list...

Reality Check said:
Yet another bit of stupidity from you:
The corona was first described on December 22 968 during a eclipse of the Sun and verified as part of the Sun in 1724.
​
The corona is not the solar wind. Birkeland did correctly predict the composition of the solar wind. I do not know if he was the first person who thought that the Sun gave off particles. Some of the citations in his book suggests not.
He got "how it worked" totally wrong since no cathode-ray pencils travelling at near the speed of light have ever been observed from the Sun.
This is just a tiny bit of the persistent delusions that you have about Birkeland's work as described in his book, along with several outright lies.
I have listed the delusions and lies below with the dates that these were first pointed out here. I suspect that in other forum your lies about Birkeland have been exposed for years.​
  2. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
    7th July 2009
  3. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
    7th July 2009
  4. Is Saturn the Sun?
    14th July 2009
  5. Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
    14th July 2009
  6. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
    28 December 2009
  7. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
    27th April 2010
  8. Are galaxies electrical discharges from magnetized iron spheres (Birkelands "nebulae model")?
    3rd May 2010
  9. Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?
    12th May 2010
  10. Why is the iron crust iron and not Birkeland's brass?
    14th May 2010
Click to expand...


Oh, and without your typical lying, whining, arrogant insults, arguments from incredulity and ignorance please. You know, straight up, direct, rational answers like real scientists do.
 
GeeMack said:
Sure. Right after you work your way through this list...




Oh, and without your typical lying, whining, arrogant insults, arguments from incredulity and ignorance please. You know, straight up, direct, rational answers like real scientists do.
Click to expand...


Translation: You couldn't wire up an electrical outlet in your own house, let alone have a clue about plasma physics.
 
Michael. Let me explain how it looks from the lurker's point of view. I see you making very basic mistakes in all manner of subjects. I then see people taking great pains to give you detailed explanations of where you went wrong and how. Then, without fail, I see you getting nasty with people and then disregarding everything they've told you without going into details regarding why they show you were wrong. You seem to be incapable of learning, and your entire rebuttal process seems to be comprised entirely of stamping your foot, getting angry, then flailing about wildly all over the topic (and other unassociated topics) in the hopes that you'll find a weak point.

There aren't any weak points, Michael. It's evident, even to an armchair layman like myself, that these guys have a deep understanding of the subject, and that you do not. Additionally, I don't think you're here to learn, or have any intention whatsoever of learning anything. You have your hypothesis, however wrong it is, and you seem to think that you can will your ideas into reality if you just believe hard enough.

That's not how reality works. Nor science.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Translation: You couldn't wire up an electrical outlet in your own house, let alone have a clue about plasma physics.
Click to expand...


You missed this part of my post...

Oh, and without your typical lying, whining, arrogant insults, arguments from incredulity and ignorance please. You know, straight up, direct, rational answers like real scientists do.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom