Thunderbolts of the Gods

[iantresman]

Sorry about that, missed them first time around.

Here they are again (with preamble):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Assuming that we - collectively - are studying the Sun (not any other topic related to Thunderblots of the Gods, or the Electric universe, or ...), I would like to ask those who've actively contributed to this thread the following simple questions:

How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?

What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?

What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?

What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?

.
The scope depends on the context... who is asking, where the answer is going to be seen. If I was writing for a mainstream publication, then it's hard science all the way. But the science may be biased depending on the nature of the publication. I expect that an astronomy journal may have a slightly different perspective to a plasma science journal.

The objective are to discover and explain.

The criteria of legitimate evidence varies. Some evidence is more weighty than others. Observations are great evidence as they should be reproducible. Of course we should not be confused theories that may try to explain the evidence. I can observe gravity (and I can tell you how to too), and see a relationship with mass, but I'm darned if I know what causes it.

The methods of analysis. I don't think I'm very good at describing the differences between induction, empiricism, etc, and don't think there is a good answer. In practice, while we may be familiar with these tools, I don't think we necessarily adhere to them. There is no doubt that scientists are often inspired by a "hunch" or "intuition", or see a vague pattern somewhere. But I've never see a "hunch" in a refereed paper... scientists subsequently formalize there scientific method.

It's an interesting set of questions, and an exam might require a more formal set of answers. As Einstein said (appeal to authority):

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.", and, "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."​

 

[iantresman]

Hmm, Thunderbolts of the Gods (the DVD) is for sale. I wonder if there is profit involved in that?

.
Not when you can watch it on Google Video for free.

 

[BeAChooser]

Brilliant. I'd never have expected profit to come into a discussion about one of the least commercially useful sciences there is.

You don't think the institutions that engage in science and the scientists themselves profit?

 

[edd]

If the scientists were that motivated by profit they'd not be doing science. Not with the salaries round here.

(sorry, which is a bit of a derail. I see what you're getting at but I don't think it's the problem you think it is)

 

[Dancing David]

All I sense is that science is not going to be advanced by ignoring challenges to dearly held gnomes when they are peer reviewed and published in reputable journals. Opposing scientists need to directly and honestly deal with those works ... or science won't function as we'd want.

I'm also deeply skeptical of a cosmology/astrophysics with so many deductively based gnomes which even after 30 years of searching remain essentially gnomes. The problem is that science is now big business ... and as we've seen in any business, profit comes first.

I think you can do better than this, try to answer, please?

 

[Zeuzzz]

How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?

What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?

What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?

What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?

The scope would be physics, mainly plasma physics and astrophysics, but any other science that is relevant ot the situation at hand. Chemistry for example could make contributions, especially nuclear chemistry, or other areas.

The objectives are to find which physics system has the highest degree of internal self consistency, science can not give you truth, especially in astronomy and cosmology.

The criteria, Any relevant observation in space by scientists, or any science paper published in a journal, or written by a competent scientist

The analysis should be making a direct comparison of the two separate theories. Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In other words, if two competing theories have equal explanatory power, the simplest theory is more theoretically appealing than the more complicated one.

 

[BeAChooser]

If the scientists were that motivated by profit they'd not be doing science. Not with the salaries round here.

But if you've spent your entire life pushing the notion of dark matter (so you're now a dark matter expert), your job (and mortgage) likely depends on dark matter continuing to be the focus of research. If someone comes along and suggests that focus should now be something that doesn't include dark matter and requires a different sort of expertise, you're liable to see that as a threat to your job (and mortgage ... not to mention keeping the wife happy). Furthermore, the folks who run the institutions that you work for also might see anything that potentially rocks the funding boat as a threat to their careers. As well as all the folks who have very expensive experiments planned to investigate dark matter. Don't kid yourself into thinking there aren't some very big motivations to keep things as they are.

And I haven't even mentioned power and prestige and the threat to that.

 

[sol invictus]

If the scientists were that motivated by profit they'd not be doing science. Not with the salaries round here.

(sorry, which is a bit of a derail. I see what you're getting at but I don't think it's the problem you think it is)

Scientists are not motivated by profit, period. The suggestion is absurd, especially for astrophysicists. They get tenure after 6 years or so, so there isn't even any danger of losing their job if they turn out to be wrong.

They are motivated by pride, desire for fame, desire to discover, the pursuit of truth. The older ones become attached to the work they did in the past, and are motivated to protect it.

Not so the younger ones - quite the contrary. Knocking down an old paradigm is a great way to establish yourself if you can pull it off. That give and take (the old protecting their ideas from the young) is extremely healthy, in my opinion.

 

[edd]

But if you've spent your entire life pushing the notion of dark matter (so you're now a dark matter expert), your job (and mortgage) likely depends on dark matter continuing to be the focus of research. If someone comes along and suggests that focus should now be something that doesn't include dark matter and requires a different sort of expertise, you're liable to see that as a threat to your job (and mortgage ... not to mention keeping the wife happy). Furthermore, the folks who run the institutions that you work for also might see anything that potentially rocks the funding boat as a threat to their careers. As well as all the folks who have very expensive experiments planned to investigate dark matter. Don't kid yourself into thinking there aren't some very big motivations to keep things as they are.

And I haven't even mentioned power and prestige and the threat to that.

Flat out untrue. There's a sizeable but respected minority of people working on alternative theories of gravity to explain the same stuff as dark matter, as you well know because you've mentioned some of their research yourself. They're funded by the same organisations and are part of the same community.

The same applies to dark energy, if not even more strongly.

And ask yourself this - why is a sizeable proportion of the budgets being put into experiments to determine the value of w if any value other than -1 upsets what is the 'status quo'?

The same applies to other studies. You design them to be able to upset the applecart if the applecart can be upset. And as I've said before, most of us would be delighted if it did get upset because it'll tell us something new and interesting. It's just that your incessant kicking of the applecart's wheels isn't making so much as a visible wobble.

 

[BeAChooser]

Flat out untrue.

Perhaps a little historical perspective will help.

From http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...SC+research+narlikar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us "OPPOSITION TO NEW IDEAS IN SCIENCE, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, Transcript of the speech delivered on 23rd May 2000":

"today you have got what I call ‘fundamentalism in science’ — which comes about in the following way. Suppose you have been promoting a very popular theory. Any research work today requires a lot of money and the money for it usually comes from government coffers. So you have to make a proposal for funding your research.... And if you have established credibility already — you have worked on, say, Big Bang cosmology, then others will say this is a safe kind of proposal; let us fund it. But if you send a proposal saying that we would like to question some of the established doctrines, say, some of the results of Big Bang cosmology, then they would say that this a very contentious proposal, we don’t know what will come out of it, so let us not waste money on it; let us not fund it. A proposal which Geoffrey Burbidge sent 3-4 years back to NSF for work on this cosmology, was turned down by one referee saying that this is such a scatter-brained idea, that no research student or post-docs, should be allowed to work on it. Another referee wrote that this is really an unsafe and scatter-brained idea and it is proved by the fact that there are no post-docs and research students working on it. So you see there is a vicious circle! How will you get research students and post-docs working on it unless you have the proposal funded.

I wrote a millennium essay in Nature this year where I gave an example which I had heard from the late Professor Chandrasekhar: He mentioned that when the 200-inch telescope at Mt. Palomar was funded in the late 1930s and it was going to be built, there was a press conference in which both Hubble and Eddington were present. And they were asked: “Sir, if you build this telescope what do you expect to find with it?” They replied that if you know the answer there is no purpose in building it. It was a perfectly legitimate and open-minded answer. But today if you have a proposal for building a telescope you have to give a detailed reasoning; what do you expect to find with that telescope. That means you already have made up your mind what you are going to find. And it is based on what you already believe in. So you are not going to discover anything new except by sheer fluke. This is a very unfortunate direction in which science is going. Because a lot of money is involved, scientists like to play safe. So today there is no such thing like venture funding in science. I made a case that a certain fraction of the money should be available for venture ideas. Howsoever crazy you think it is, if the proposer has established credibility, if he has done good work in the past, and if he is saying that we should explore this, we should support it. And I feel that that is the only way we can rescue science from being bogged down into a completely conformist exercise which is not the way it should be."

By the way, that link presents a very interesting, insider's historical perspective on the development of Steady State, Big Bang and Quasi-Steady State Cosmology. Well worth reading although I have to warn you that it's not flattering to the Big Bang cosmology.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Perhaps a little historical perspective will help.

From http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=us "OPPOSITION TO NEW IDEAS IN SCIENCE, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, Transcript of the speech delivered on 23rd May 2000":

"today you have got what I call ‘fundamentalism in science’ — which comes about in the following way. Suppose you have been promoting a very popular theory. Any research work today requires a lot of money and the money for it usually comes from government coffers. So you have to make a proposal for funding your research.... And if you have established credibility already — you have worked on, say, Big Bang cosmology, then others will say this is a safe kind of proposal; let us fund it. But if you send a proposal saying that we would like to question some of the established doctrines, say, some of the results of Big Bang cosmology, then they would say that this a very contentious proposal, we don’t know what will come out of it, so let us not waste money on it; let us not fund it. A proposal which Geoffrey Burbidge sent 3-4 years back to NSF for work on this cosmology, was turned down by one referee saying that this is such a scatter-brained idea, that no research student or post-docs, should be allowed to work on it. Another referee wrote that this is really an unsafe and scatter-brained idea and it is proved by the fact that there are no post-docs and research students working on it. So you see there is a vicious circle! How will you get research students and post-docs working on it unless you have the proposal funded.

I wrote a millennium essay in Nature this year where I gave an example which I had heard from the late Professor Chandrasekhar: He mentioned that when the 200-inch telescope at Mt. Palomar was funded in the late 1930s and it was going to be built, there was a press conference in which both Hubble and Eddington were present. And they were asked: “Sir, if you build this telescope what do you expect to find with it?” They replied that if you know the answer there is no purpose in building it. It was a perfectly legitimate and open-minded answer. But today if you have a proposal for building a telescope you have to give a detailed reasoning; what do you expect to find with that telescope. That means you already have made up your mind what you are going to find. And it is based on what you already believe in. So you are not going to discover anything new except by sheer fluke. This is a very unfortunate direction in which science is going. Because a lot of money is involved, scientists like to play safe. So today there is no such thing like venture funding in science. I made a case that a certain fraction of the money should be available for venture ideas. Howsoever crazy you think it is, if the proposer has established credibility, if he has done good work in the past, and if he is saying that we should explore this, we should support it. And I feel that that is the only way we can rescue science from being bogged down into a completely conformist exercise which is not the way it should be."

By the way, that link presents a very interesting, insider's historical perspective on the development of Steady State, Big Bang and Quasi-Steady State Cosmology. Well worth reading although I have to warn you that it's not flattering to the Big Bang cosmology.

A fine excerpt, this is the crux of the issue.

Science is not always right, history has proven that and modern science is no exception to this rule. The scientific system is not designed anymore for new discoveries, it it setup as if we know nearly everything already, and there are only a few bits of data that need to be collected, a few models tidied up, and then everything will be finished. That is very unlikely, the history of science says something completely different.

For science to accept that large areas of their discipline are likely incorrect they would have to radically change many things. Millions of textbooks would have to be re-written, thousands of uni courses would have to be abandoned, billions of dollars would have to stop being given to areas that have been largely falsified (magnetic reconnection springs to mind) and it would lead to a lot of top scientists looking very foolish. That is the reason why mainstream science is not accepting of these new ideas, there is not a 'conspiracy' as such, scientists that dismiss it genuinely believe that it is wrong due to the faith they put into science, but they continually fail to come up with any scientifically valid reasons to dismiss it. As usual, its money, capitalism and business that is stopping progress.


The physicists who taught people like Einstein and Maxwell at school were essentially teaching them a load of rubbish, which was proved to be incorrect later by their very own students. People often forget that. And that is what is happening now for some areas of science.

 

[sol invictus]

... billions of dollars would have to stop being given to areas that have been largely falsified (magnetic reconnection springs to mind) and it would lead to a lot of top scientists looking very foolish.

You've just been shown an explicit solution to Maxwell's equations (the very same equations you claim prohibit it) that exhibits reconnection. You've been given a link to an experiment that has produced well over 20 papers studying it in plasma. And yet you still make statements like that, and claim "mainstream" scientists are the ones ignoring data.

Your hypocrisy would be breathtaking if it wasn't already obvious you have zero intellectual honesty.

 

[edd]

BeAChooser - the converse perspective on what you say is that when a question is largely considered to be settled we shouldn't waste money reinvestigating those questions because an extremely small minority refuse to accept the conclusions. The funding is largely controlled by the same people that use the funding and I don't see how you can criticise this as they're both the best qualified people to make such decisions and this is exactly the thing you keep demanding of criticisms to all your hogwash - namely that they be peer reviewed.
You can't demand on the one hand that criticisms of your position be peer reviewed and at the same time criticise peer review in making research decisions.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You've just been shown an explicit solution to Maxwell's equations (the very same equations you claim prohibit it) that exhibits reconnection. You've been given a link to an experiment that has produced well over 20 papers studying it in plasma. And yet you still make statements like that, and claim "mainstream" scientists are the ones ignoring data.

Once i see the actual data from experiments that clearly shows the magnetic field lines reconnecting, not the just the mathematics of the theory, i will reconsider my opinion. So far i have not.

And yes, there are plenty of papers on 'reconnection'. Restricting ADS' search to just Astronomy, and just 2006 to 2008, and to only papers with the words 'magnetic reconnection' in their titles yields >2000 hits! Of course, some will be irrelevant, and many relate to indirect observations associated with various magnetic effects.

The main experiment to test mag' reconnection is at a small laboratory in Princeton, Magnetic Reconnection Experiment: "The goal of MRX is to investigate the fundamental physics of magnetic field line reconnection, an important process in magnetized plasmas in space and in the laboratory." Now they give a very detailed explanation about how the energy is created, and the mechanics of the equiptment and many other things. But the one quite amazing omission from any of those papers is any experimental evidence of magnetic field lines actually 'reconnecting' to create this effect.

The simple reason for that is that things that dont exist in the real world cant reconnect. A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field, it has no substance and so can have no properties. Field lines can be used to map out fields, but the actual lines do not exist.

Here you have to separate the actual data about what is known from the interpretation of it. I am not saying that 'magnetic reconnection' (or whatever you want to call it) does not occur, there obviously is a process that releases this energy that we can detect, but i dispute that we have to invoke completely new and unknown charteristics of magnetic field lines to explain this. The data is the key, however people interpret it in different ways.

The data is reliable, i am not questioning that. However not every interpretation of the data is equally reliable. I trust their data completely, but I distrust their interpretation of the data because it is at odd with how we previously thought all magnetic fields function.

When modelling with field lines you alwatys have to take into account that these field lines do not 'exist' as such, they are put in by us to understand what is happeneing, so the lines themselves can not 'do' anything, other than inform us of field strengths. You have to distinguish between 1) conceptual constructs that are convenient tools for thinking about and visualizing a process, and 2) the physical process itself. The former (the concept) exists only in one’s mind. It does not exist in three-dimensional space. The latter (the process) concerns the movement or interaction of things that really do exist in our world.

Magnetic field lines can not connect, get tied in 'knots' or get tangled up any more than lines of latitude and longitude can reconnect or get tied into knots.

If you can find the experiment that actually shows and verifys the magnetic lines as they 'reconnect', and how the energy is created by this 'reconnection', please post it here. So far i have found none. In my opinion it flies in the face of the all we know about the established sciences of electrical engineering and magnetics

 

[robinson]

I have to take issue with your contention that field lines "do not exist". I believe they do, based on my own experiments. As to these lines "breaking, and reconnecting", I agree that it certainly violates known physics.

Which takes us to one of the foci here. We don't know everything about the Universe. We certainly know very little about electricity and magnetism in large extraterrestrial systems.

What happens to magnetism, gravity, electricity, ions, matter and energy, at extreme pressure, temperature and radiation loads, is certainly not an area of science we know much about. The problem being the difficulty of conducting experiments. And can't observe what goes on inside.

This magnetic reconnection thing has become fascinating. We know something is happening, and it certainly involves electromagnetism and gravity, as well as nuclear reactions, and a whole lot of energy.

This back and forth was amusing, interesting, educational, even inspiring at times. I'm not sure whether to call for peace, or poke the combatants with a pointy stick.

I'm getting ready to do some new experiments. And this fight over "reconnection" has inspired a new one. I will post videos. Life is good.

 

[Cuddles]

Once i see the actual data from experiments that clearly shows the magnetic field lines reconnecting, not the just the mathematics of the theory, i will reconsider my opinion.

So having claimed that magnetic reconnection violates theory, you don't care about being shown that it doesn't actually violate theory? What exactly is your opinion based on? Theory says that reconnection is possible. Why do you think theory is wrong, given that there is exactly no data to suggest it is?

 

[sol invictus]

Once i see the actual data from experiments that clearly shows the magnetic field lines reconnecting, not the just the mathematics of the theory, i will reconsider my opinion. So far i have not.

Then you haven't read any of the papers with the data from the experiments (which I linked to earlier). Look here for example:

http://mrx.pppl.gov/

But the one quite amazing omission from any of those papers is any experimental evidence of magnetic field lines actually 'reconnecting' to create this effect.

Totally false. Read their papers.

The simple reason for that is that things that dont exist in the real world cant reconnect. A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field, it has no substance and so can have no properties. Field lines can be used to map out fields, but the actual lines do not exist.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Here you have to separate the actual data about what is known from the interpretation of it. I am not saying that 'magnetic reconnection' (or whatever you want to call it) does not occur, there obviously is a process that releases this energy that we can detect, but i dispute that we have to invoke completely new and unknown charteristics of magnetic field lines to explain this.

You were give an EXPLICIT SOLUTION to Maxwell's equations - one of many, actually - which exhibits reconnection. No one other than you is invoking new and unknown characteristics of field lines. The relevant equations have been known for 150 years.

In my opinion it flies in the face of the all we know about the established sciences of electrical engineering and magnetics

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So having claimed that magnetic reconnection violates theory, you don't care about being shown that it doesn't actually violate theory?

I couldn't find the post you are referring to. Is it in this thread? who posted it?

What exactly is your opinion based on?

The well established properties of magnetism and electromagnetics.

Why do you think theory is wrong, given that there is exactly no data to suggest it is?

The data does not indicate that field lines can 'reconnect', it has established that a process can release a certain amount of energy from a high energy plasma, but it falls short of actually validating that reconnection is what caused it.

Magnetic recconection is also based on some assumptions that are not 100%
accurate. It relies on ideal magnetohydrodynamics where magnetic field lines are 'frozen' into the plasma, making it infinitely conductive, so magnetic fields get “frozen into” it. In reality this never happens, and electrical engineers are well aware of it. That is why you will not get a paper published by an electrical engineering journal which includes magnetic reconnection, it seems to be used purely in astronomy. For a long time magnetic reconnection has been generally described through the standard MHD theory, which is based on the assumption that electrons and ions move together as one fluid (or gas) even in the presence of internal current. But we now know that the charges do separate to a certain extent, and the sun is a dynamic plasma, not a gas.

And another reason that i think it is wrong is that many experts in electromagnetics also think it is wrong.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4287080&isnumber=4287017

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
Scott, D.E.
Massachusetts Univ., Amherst;

This paper appears in: Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Publication Date: Aug. 2007
Volume: 35, Issue: 4, Part 1
On page(s): 822-827

Abstract:

A majority of baryons in the cosmos are in the plasma state. However, fundamental disagreements about the properties and behavior of electromagnetic fields in these plasmas exist between the science of modern astronomy/astrophysics and the experimentally verified laws of electrical engineering and plasma physics. Many helioastronomers claim that magnetic fields can be open ended. Astrophysicists have claimed that galactic magnetic fields begin and end on molecular clouds. Most electrical engineers, physicists, and pioneers in the electromagnetic field theory disagree, i.e., magnetic fields have no beginning or end. Many astrophysicists still claim that magnetic fields are frozen into electric plasma. The magnetic merging (reconnection) mechanism is also falsified by both theoretical and experimental investigations.[....]

 

[sol invictus]

I have to take issue with your contention that field lines "do not exist". I believe they do, based on my own experiments. As to these lines "breaking, and reconnecting", I agree that it certainly violates known physics.

It does not! What is wrong with you people??

We know what the laws of E&M are, and they DO NOT imply that magnetic field line cannot reconnect!

Look - the only law that MIGHT have implied that this couldn't happen is Gauss' law for magnetism, which says that the divergence of the magnetic field is zero. However it's perfectly possible to have a point in space where the magnetic field vanishes and where lines cross and/or reconnect. Zig gave a explicit example of such a field.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Then you haven't read any of the papers with the data from the experiments (which I linked to earlier). Look here for example:

http://mrx.pppl.gov/

Thats pretty much the same link that I used in my previous post to show the work on 'magnetic recconection' at princeton. Did you even read my post? Obviously not.

I say again, show me the data where they prove that magnetic field lines are reconnecting, not a series of papers about the energy release recorded in high energy plasma experiments that has been hypothesised to be caused by this 'reconnection'.