Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[GeeMack]

What would definitively disprove an "electric universe" concept that you advocate Michael? What one piece of evidence that is conceived, tested, observed and repeated that would bring you to say "I was wrong about all of this"?

In terms of solar theory and perhaps even EU theory in general, I suppose that a recreation of Birkeland's empirical experiments and "predictions" using "magnetic reconnection" would probably do it. Anything other than a physical demonstration of concept isn't likely to impress me much. The mainstreams sky entities are more impotent than the average sky deity. Even Zeus presumably controlled the EM field and he definitely preferred "current flow" over "magnetic reconnection" when doing his dirty work.

You see, in order for Michael to admit he's wrong, someone would have to recreate the very experiments which he claims are the proof that he's right. Now there's one serious disconnect from reality, absolutely the antithesis of how a legitimate scientist would go about falsifying a theory. It's also one more strong piece of evidence to support the notion that Michael doesn't have the scientific qualifications of a typical ten year old child. But nobody seems to dispute that, even Michael.

And the icing on the cake? Invoking the name of Zeus to construct his argument from authority!

​

 

[edd]

Emphasis mine. Holy cow! I knew I wouldn't be on this weekend so I felt compelled to give the children a heads up and let them know that sol was *WAY* off base. Not a single one of you corrected his mistake. If it were up to you the kids would all electrocute themselves to death!

Not one of you has a clue about "current flow" because to you it's just a "neutral" wire/plasma, when in reality it's a "current carrying" plasma/wire. That's basically your problem in a nutshell.

Michael... I doubt this will help, but current has a direction - the direction in which it flows. Charge doesn't.

 

[temporalillusion]

Well, since you're giggling at your own strawmen, I'd say it's the beer.

So the charge isn't alternating then? If it's not alternating, what is the charge doing hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

IMO it's rather amusing that not one of you actually answered my question (black is hot). Not only can you not tell the difference between a "neutral" plasma and a "current carrying" one, you also evidently can't tell an electrically neutral wire from a current carrying wire either.

Your question was a red herring (even if you didn't understand it to be), but maybe that's just my degree in electronics lying to me.

Tell me, if the wire has a charge how in the world do they get all the electrons into the wire to give it a charge, then suck some out to get it neutral again, then take even more out to give the wire the opposite charge, then put them back in again, 50 or 60 times a second, across vast distances.. The whole wire, all tens or hundreds of km of it.

That pure lack of understanding (willful misunderstand is more like it) seems to be your problem in a nutshell.

Here's an interesting question, one that might get you thinking along the right lines.

How fast does an electron in a copper wire move? EDIT: In a circuit I mean, not just a copper wire sitting there. Say the electrons in the copper wire leading to your light bulb, or the electrons in the copper wire connected to the fan in your computer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael... I doubt this will help, but current has a direction - the direction in which it flows. Charge doesn't.

The problem edd is that your industry (as a whole) refuses to acknowledge the current, and fixates exclusively on charge. It simply thinks in terms of "charge" and ignores the voltages, and it ignore the current flow entirely.

Note that sol didn't say that the wire was *CHARGE* neutral he claimed it was *ELECTRICALLY* neutral.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You see, in order for Michael to admit he's wrong, someone would have to recreate the very experiments which he claims are the proof that he's right.

Yep. Have you got a problem with that for some reason? I know what already works in a lab. I know your stuff won't work in a lab without *current flow*.

Now there's one serious disconnect from reality, absolutely the antithesis of how a legitimate scientist would go about falsifying a theory.

Huh? Why? If we have a *KNOWN* force of nature (current flow) that has *ALREADY* been shown to create these effects, why should I believe anything else is required? Now of course if you could replicate everything Birkeland did with his terellas and do it *WITHOUT* current flow and a cathode sun, well, that would actually have an effect on my position. It's an honest answer and one you said I would not provide. You lied about what I would or would not do, and now you're unhappy even when I provided an answer. Complain much?

It's also one more strong piece of evidence to support the notion that Michael doesn't have the scientific qualifications of a typical ten year old child. But nobody seems to dispute that, even Michael.

Yawn. You're definitely a one trick personal attack pony.

And the icing on the cake? Invoking the name of Zeus to construct his argument from authority!

Holy impotent dark hades. Zeus could have kicked the hell out of all three of your impotent sky entities with one hand tied behind his back. Your sky entities are even more impotent and more pathetic than even the oldest religious sky deities. "Zeus did it with electricity" is a more "scientific" argument than the impotent sky entities you're peddling. At least Zeus might strike me dead for my doubting insolence, but your impotent sky entities will *NEVER* have any effect on me.

 

[Reality Check]

The problem edd is that your industry (as a whole) refuses to acknowledge the current, and fixates exclusively on charge. It simply thinks in terms of "charge" and ignores the voltages, and it ignore the current flow entirely.

• What industry do you think edd works in?
• What industry involved with electric currents do you think ignores voltages?

Electricians certainly do not ignore voltages.
Astronomers certainly do not ignore voltages (except maybe inside your head).
Physicists certainly do not ignore voltages.

Note that sol didn't say that the wire was *CHARGE* neutral he claimed it was *ELECTRICALLY* neutral.

Note that sol did not say this. What he said was

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.

Note that *ELECTRICALLY* neutral is that same as *CHARGE* neutral in the middle paragraph's context and so sol was right.

 

[Tubbythin]

Huh? Why? If we have a *KNOWN* force of nature (current flow) that has *ALREADY* been shown to create these effects, why should I believe anything else is required?

Erm. Current flow is not a force of nature.

 

[tusenfem]

Emphasis mine. Holy cow! I knew I wouldn't be on this weekend so I felt compelled to give the children a heads up and let them know that sol was *WAY* off base. Not a single one of you corrected his mistake. If it were up to you the kids would all electrocute themselves to death!

Not one of you has a clue about "current flow" because to you it's just a "neutral" wire/plasma, when in reality it's a "current carrying" plasma/wire. That's basically your problem in a nutshell.

Ah, children are easy to make anew....

Noted that MM does not answer my question:

Can you please read Alfvén's books, or Peratt's and can you please show me the exact pages where they claim that a current carrying plasma is not neutral?

Why would, in a plasma, current flow and charge neutrality be mutually exclusive?

Michael, you are supposedly the expert on all the works Alfvén ever wrote, so it should not be difficult to actually quote the old master verbatim.

 

[edd]

The problem edd is that your industry (as a whole) refuses to acknowledge the current, and fixates exclusively on charge. It simply thinks in terms of "charge" and ignores the voltages, and it ignore the current flow entirely.

Note that sol didn't say that the wire was *CHARGE* neutral he claimed it was *ELECTRICALLY* neutral.

Thought experiment: I take a ring of superconducting material which has a current flowing around it. If a piece of this ring is not electrically neutral, what is it?

Will you give up now?

 

[GeeMack]

Can you please read Alfvén's books, or Peratt's and can you please show me the exact pages where they claim that a current carrying plasma is not neutral?

Why would, in a plasma, current flow and charge neutrality be mutually exclusive?

Michael, you are supposedly the expert on all the works Alfvén ever wrote, so it should not be difficult to actually quote the old master verbatim.

Indeed. A straight answer, for once, would be appreciated. Michael has never been able to point to the publication, page, and paragraph that he believes support his various idiotic positions, simply because those specific references do not exist. When he claims they do, he is 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?​

He can't provide specific references for the same reason he can't answer to the challenges to demonstrate his scientific qualifications exceed those of a typical ten year old child. It's likely he knows he's lying. He must know he's not qualified. Otherwise when asked, he would answer the direct questions instead of compounding the lies, insulting all of legitimate science, scientists, and other participants in these discussions, and throwing childish tantrums. There are explanations other than intentional dishonesty, of course. There are crackpots in this world who are truly, demonstrably mentally ill.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you please read Alfvén's books, or Peratt's and can you please show me the exact pages where they claim that a current carrying plasma is not neutral?.

Is a lightening bolt neutral plasma?

 

[D'rok]

Is a lightening bolt neutral plasma?

That doesn't look like a page number to me.

 

[GeeMack]

Is a lightening bolt neutral plasma?

That doesn't look like a page number to me.

No kidding. Like I said, Michael won't point to specific references. He can't. He's lying.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Is a lightening bolt neutral plasma?

That doesn't look like a page number to me.

But it might be a "page number", or a "page" number, or a page "number"!

 

[D'rok]

But it might be a "page number", or a "page" number, or a page "number"!

What about a *PAGE NUMBER*?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No kidding. Like I said, Michael won't point to specific references. He can't. He's lying.

Lying about *WHAT*?!?!? Please quote me and point me to the exact post that contains the "lie" that I told.

 

[GeeMack]

Lying about *WHAT*?!?!? Please quote me and point me to the exact post that contains the "lie" that I told.

You're lying about your sources. You're lying about Birkeland's work supporting your cockamamie notions. You're lying about Alfvén's work supporting your ridiculous conjectures. You're lying when you claim to be qualified to understand math. You're lying when you claim to be qualified to understand science.

You were asked by tusenfem to cite your resources, specifically here...

ACan you please read Alfvén's books, or Peratt's and can you please show me the exact pages where they claim that a current carrying plasma is not neutral?

Why would, in a plasma, current flow and charge neutrality be mutually exclusive?

Michael, you are supposedly the expert on all the works Alfvén ever wrote, so it should not be difficult to actually quote the old master verbatim.

But you didn't because you can't. And rather than answering directly, which you can't because you aren't qualified to understand science at any level, or having the honesty to admit that you can't, you got all smart-mouthed and threw a tantrum like a five year old child. Your dishonest evasion is in itself, of course, the equivalent of another lie.

Now how about knocking off the derail, stopping the lying, setting aside the tantrums, and answering tusenfem's question, or being honest enough for once in all these years to admit that you can't.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You were asked by tusenfem to cite your resources, specifically here...

Can you please read Alfvén's books, or Peratt's and can you please show me the exact pages where they claim that a current carrying plasma is not neutral?

And when did I claim that Alfven or Peratt said anything on this topic?

The only liar here is you GM. The fact you can't quote me is a clear indication of *your* lie and it demonstrates that you will stoop to any low to "kill the messenger" rather than to deal with the topic at hand.

I have no idea what you folks even mean by "neutral" at this point since you are *ENTIRELY* inconsistent, just like with that "negative pressure" BS. You cannot claim that the black wire is ELECTRICALLY neutral, although you might squeak away with claiming it's "charge neutral" by your own terms. You aren't even consistent with your own terms.

Either way you look at it, it is *YOU FOLKS* that absolutely refuse to acknowledge the "current flowing" through the plasma and the wire. That's basically your problem in a nutshell. You'd all electrocute yourselves in space too.

 

[Reality Check]

Lying about *WHAT*?!?!? Please quote me and point me to the exact post that contains the "lie" that I told.

I can do beter than one post or one lie.
Here is half a dozen lies that you have told about Birkleand's book and half a dozen other points.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
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.

MM - Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms
First asked 28 December 2009
​

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.

1. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
   
   

   7th July 2009​
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

 

[ben m]

This thread continues to boggle the mind.

Another nice example of a charge-neutral, high-current system---which may work better for someone with no understanding of conductors, voltage, field, capacitance, etc---is a particle collider. Go to LEP (an e+ e- collider) or HERA (e- and p+). Send 1.6x10^19 positively-charged particles clockwise around the beampipe at v=10^8 m/s; send 1.6x10^19 negatively-charged particles counterclockwise around the beampipe at v=10^8 m/s. The beampipe now contains exactly equal amounts of + and - charge---i.e. it's electrically neutral, you can count the charges---and carrying 2 amperes of current.