tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post7505233158557549242..comments2023-11-19T19:19:12.773-05:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave BackgroundW.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-84226591025205739652010-07-23T20:21:45.052-04:002010-07-23T20:21:45.052-04:00Siggy_G:
I've responded to this claim here: E...Siggy_G:<br /><br />I've responded to this claim here: <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/07/electric-universe-everything-i-needed.html" rel="nofollow">Electric Universe: Everything I needed to know about science I learned from watching Star Trek?</a>.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-11802196901732122672010-07-13T11:41:11.474-04:002010-07-13T11:41:11.474-04:00Is it to be assumed that electrons within a Birkel...Is it to be assumed that electrons within a Birkeland current move in circular and spiraling motions? A circular motion at least, would indicate that the internally induced magnetic fields are more important than the ones driving the Birkeland current in the first place. Now, the Birkeland currents are per definition initially field alligned, and the additional induced magnetic fields (a collective cylindrical one), would be surrounding the Birkeland current, seen from a classical point of view. However, it is the Debye shielding that prevents the effect you propose are happening (that otherwise would produce cyclotron radiation). For this reason, it seems likely that Birkeland currents can be in "dark mode" until they interact with considerable densities of plasmas or gases, seen as glow mode in various wavelengths (double helix above Milkyway centre?) or as auroras.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Siggy_G<br />(EU proponent)Siggy_Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-20439585558372154212009-07-30T09:18:51.515-04:002009-07-30T09:18:51.515-04:00S.J. Crothers: the first is, indeed, about WMAP. ...S.J. Crothers: the first is, indeed, about WMAP. However, the second is about COBE, and the third about Planck. All are from the journal "Progress in Physics". In light of your earlier comment elsewhere (in response to one of mine), may I ask if you consider this journal to be a scientific forum? If so, why?<br /><br />Turning to the documents themselves. Your comment suggests that you think the content is sound ("<i>which reveal</i>"), do you? If so, would you be prepared to defend it, on an open internet discussion forum?<br /><br />FWIW, I think all three reveal nothing more than the author's lack of understanding of the subject (but I'd be happy to discuss further).<br /><br />NereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-8107657029094635192009-07-12T22:18:13.155-04:002009-07-12T22:18:13.155-04:00On the outside chance that the WMAP data is not co...On the outside chance that the WMAP data is not cosmological, it is clearly not evidence for the Peratt model either. Peratt's own estimates of the current streams microwave emission mean they should be visible even before the background subtractions are performed.<br /><br />I've added these papers to my list. Maybe I'll get a chance to read them.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-53448076169556868662009-07-08T02:32:07.112-04:002009-07-08T02:32:07.112-04:00The WMAP data does not support the claim that the ...The WMAP data does not support the claim that the CMB is cosmic. Here are a number of papers which reveal the significant shortcomings in WMAP:<br /><br />http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF<br /><br />http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-02.PDF<br /><br />http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-11-11.PDF <br /><br />The WMAP people have misled all and sundry.S.J.Crothersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-12328132415535656122009-06-18T07:27:55.807-04:002009-06-18T07:27:55.807-04:00There are quite a few, quite separate, sets of inc...There are quite a few, quite separate, sets of inconsistencies between Peratt's model - as published in papers he authored - and well-established astronomical observations.<br /><br />In later comments I'll go through some of these in detail (if any reader is interested), and also give links to open discussions of (some) of these in internet fora.<br /><br />In no particular order, and not in any way intended to be a complete list (!):<br /><br />* mismatch between galaxy types (spiral vs elliptical etc), the ages of the stellar populations, and their relative number<br /><br />* in spirals, rotation curves for stars, neutral gas, and ionised plasmas are the same (with some possible exceptions a long way out); in Peratt's model this cannot happen (many reasons)<br /><br />* few, if any, spirals have a 'double bulge' morphology; in Peratt's model, nearly all should<br /><br />* a great many aspects of the characteristics of what we today call AGNs are misaligned, or completely inconsistent, with Peratt's model (this is partly due to the enormous advance in our understanding of AGNs since 1986 ... Peratt's publications since then have conspicuosly failed to incorporate this new understanding).<br /><br />NereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com