Thanks. Now I recall that conversation.
As everyone can see, like I said, I’ve been using the same screen name ever since I started posting on the internet.
You mcfc16 … or should I say Ian w?
Now then, were you a part of that ISF thread, Ian w? Is that why you recall it? If not, it sure was easy for you to find that obscure conversation nearly 15 years ago. Too bad you haven’t had any success finding a single scientific article, peer reviewed or not, that challenges Peratt’s work. LOL! Instead you have to rely on some nobody on an Internet forum who admits that Peratt actually did get his work published. An additional irony is that elsewhere on this forum you’ve been insisting that only if something is in a peer reviewed scientific publication is it worth your consideration. Yet you accept Ziggurat’s back of the envelop calculation? Hypocrite.
And, by the way, read between the lines of that post and you’ll realize that Ziggurat was saying those codes LANL plasma physicists were using to model plasma phenomena in things like nuclear bombs didn’t work. He proved it with his back of the envelope calculation. LOL! But the best is still to come, folks. Click the thread link in the upper right corner of Ian w’s link and take a look at the rest of the long thread where Ziggurat made that post … just to get some context.
Notice first of all, that when Ziggurat complained that I only supplied him with two papers by Peratt, and only one was published, I responded (
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=76 ) by listing another eight papers and documents by Peratt. I pointed out a whole bunch that contained a complete description of his algorithms and computation parameters (one likely being the magnetic fields he couldn’t find).
That post also listed another paper (not yet mention in my *debate* with Ian w) by Battener and Florido …
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503657 . This one from 2006, titled “Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?”. The abstract said this ... “Following the model of magnetically supported rotation of spiral galaxies, the inner disk rotation is dominated by gravity but magnetism is not negligible at radii where the rotation curve becomes flat, and indeed becomes dominant at very large radii. ... snip ... This magnetic alternative requires neither galactic dark matter (DM) nor modification of fundamental laws of physics ... snip ... Recent data about regular magnetic fields in spiral galaxies have been presented by Beck (2004b) in a recent review that clearly confirms what is to be expected in the magnetic scenario for rotation curves ... snip ... The magnetic alternative remains a serious, competitive theory. It requires neither the existence of DM nor the modification of classical laws (including General Relativity). It is based on MHD, a relatively recent chapter of Astrophysics, but one that has roots in classical electro-magnetism. ... snip ... the inclusion of magnetic effects, which is in any case necessary, could help to theoretically reproduce some unexplained, well known facts, for example, the rotation curve. Gravity alone does not explain the rotation curve very well, simply because magnetic fields cannot be ignored. ... snip ... The dynamic role of galactic magnetic fields is a matter that can no longer be ignored, neither at the small nor at the large scale."
Ouch! Guess Ian w was little too quick to dismiss their work as well. LOL!
I also had to point out to Ziggurat that he was totally misrepresenting my views:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=77 . Maybe that he had to lie about them suggests a certain weakness in his views? Yes, indeed, there were a lot of gems in that thread.
Just consider the fact that it was conversation about Dark matter and Dark energy that took place 15 years ago … and they STILL haven’t found an explanation for either gnome. Think about that. They’ve spent billions trying to look for explanations since then and come up empty. But in the meantime they’ve added at least a dozen more gnomes. They call that progress.
And also, here we are 15 years later and have any of our lives been changed in a positive way by their efforts? Not that I can see. The only ones to benefit from all that spending are the searchers … and boy have they benefited from sticking hands in OUR tax paying pockets. We’ve bought them houses, cars, vacations, retirement plans, children’s educations, medical care and God knows what else.
Furthermore, have any of us been hurt (other than financially) because they failed to figure out those gnomes over the past 15 years? Not I. My point is that all their *work* is nothing more than counting angels on the heads of pins. It has had, and will have, no impact on our lives, now or into the somewhat distant future. We'll likely all be dead before it does. So we don’t need to their work product with any urgency … but we do need the resources that are being wasted on it. Ask almost anyone … besides them.
And you’ll notice that even back in 2008, in a post to Olowkow (
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=38 ), I noted that there were no peer reviewed papers (indeed there were no articles whatsoever) challenging the work of Peratt. And his response was just to dismiss Peratt out of hand. Things sure haven’t changed. Maybe Ian w was Olowkow? Or perhaps sol Invictus, whose response to my noting that fact was “I don't know any peer-reviewed papers in astrophysics challenging the conclusion that Leos with Virgo ascendant are perfectionists, either”, is Ian w?
Notice another post I made to Olowkow:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=41 . In it I cited a 1995 article by C. M. Snell and Anthony Peratt which I’ve not yet mentioned in my discussion with Ian w, titled “Rotation velocity and neutral hydrogen distribution dependency on magnetic field strength in spiral galaxies”. It was published in the SCIENTIFIC journal “Astrophysics and Space Science”. So much for Ian’s LIE that Peratt’s work only appeared in engineering journals. And quoting from the abstract of that paper … “The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show flat rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations. Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed." Oh my ... I bet Ian w is now wishing he’d never reminded me of this Ziggurat thread.
Another irony of the thread is that poster sol Invictus announced that “DM detection experiments (at least the ones I know of) are extremely cheap.” I challenged his claim on that thread (for example,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=93) , listing a score of multi-million dollar projects. Peanuts, right? And where we are now, just 15 years later? They've spent BILLIONS of additional dollars on all manner of DM related experiments here on earth and in space. I sure hope those dollars came out of his pocket, not mine. But they didn't.
Notice another post I made, to arthwollipot, who defended spending on gnomes as long-sighted science. I pointed out to him that “Lee Smolin in his recent book ‘The Trouble With Physics’ made a good case, without realizing it, that string theorists have gone off the mathematical deep end, just like mainstream astrophysicists.” And guess what? Who hears anything about string theory these days? LOL!
And believe it or not folks, all that is in just the first 2 pages of a 19 page thread at ISF … and look at what’s happened to the point that Ian w was desperately trying to make here?
Poof.
How about the third page. More of the same. Plenty of debate between me and Ziggurat, and others, that doesn’t turn out at all like Ian w has tried to portray. And plenty of other gems.
sol Invictus falsely accused me (
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=110) of being a 9/11 Truther (which was ludicrous given my long posting history at JREF debunking 9/11 Truthers) and of using sock puppets (another outright lie). The coward made his accusations post to another poster … not to my face. One of his evidentiary links was nothing more than a slanderous attack on me by a mob of far leftists who really didn’t like me (as you can well imagine given my frowned upon political postings here) because I was a thorn in their side. This was on a left-leaning political forum (freedom4um) that for a time allowed me to post, strangely enough, You can see what I mean by being a thorm just by reading my responses to that mob (and particularly a weasel named Ferret Mike). You might say I destroyed him and all the others. Enjoy. In any case, I responded to sol Invictus’ lies on the ISF thread here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=114 . Notice that he didn’t bring those lies up again on the thread or any other thread at ISF (formerly JREF). This example shows how dishonest he was and he was typical of the depths to which astrophysics gnome believers would stoop to defend their gnomes. Reminds me a bit of Ian w!
In any case, that's as far as I’ll delve into the ISF thread that Ian w kindly linked for us. However, the rest of you might find additional gems in pages 4 and on. More examples of me identifying lies, misinformation, and gnomes by the mainstream believers on that forum. More interesting linked articles. Plenty more posts demolishing Ian w’s stalking horse, Ziggurat. I made well over a hundred more posts. It was lots of fun and I was posting to end of the thread on all sorts of topics related to PC and EU. Of course that thread was before I was banned for being … well … right? LOL!
And one last comment. As you can see, I’m not perfect but I’ve no fear of anything I’ve posted on the internet. I’ll defend almost all of what I’ve written, except perhaps the dumb math mistakes or mis-quotes. But Ian w, on the other hand, seems to need to hide his past posting history. That might tell you something.
