Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

Quite possibly the stupidest comment I have ever read from you. And I have read plenty of stupid things you have said.

Not at all, its fact. The fusion process thought to ocur in the sun has never yet been achieved continuosly on Earth.

Care to share some of this amazing energy with us then if you know something that most scientists dont?

All the individual steps in the reaction have been achieved, but continous hydrogen / helium fusion has never been reproduced in the lab;

1. 1H + 1H → 2H + e+ + νe
2. e+ + e− → 2γ + 1.02 MeV
3. 2H + 1H → 3He + γ + 5.49 MeV
4. From here there are three possible paths to generate helium isotope 4He.

all stages 1, 2, 3, 4 have individually been tested, but they have never been able to create the continual reaction hypothesized in the sun.

The problem is that it's not self-sustaining in tests on Earth like is thought to be occuring in the sun. This is due to the fact that the hypothesised reactions will only occur at very high temperature and pressure. You need to be able to generate sufficient pressure to keep this from happening, and so far this has not been done.

In the laboratory, you have to expend a huge amount of energy to generate this pressure; making continual fusion, as hypothesised as occuring in the sun, currently unattainable. The closest we've got is the atomic bomb, and thats an instantaneuos release of energy, and not controllable like the fusion in the sun is claimed to be; quite different.

What basis you you have for ruling out all the other types of confinement/focus based fusion that have been achieved in plasma on a continual basis? I think that these are all very strong contendors, and they were only known very recently.

 

[Tubbythin]

Not at all, its fact. The fusion process thought to ocur in the sun has never yet been achieved continuosly on Earth.

Your comment I was responding to was

Nuclear fusion still has never been achieved.

For the past 6 months I have been analyzing data from a fusion-evaporation experiment. In this the recoil implantation rate is of the order of kHz. That is, thousands of fusion events occuring every second. Simply saying fusion has never been achieved is plain and simply wrong.

Care to share some of this amazing energy with us then if you know something that most scientists dont?

You do know fusion reactions don't have to be exothermic?

All the individual steps in the reaction have been achieved, but continous hydrogen / helium fusion has never been reproduced in the lab;

And? What do we learn from that statement?

1. 1H + 1H → 2H + e+ + νe
2. e+ + e− → 2γ + 1.02 MeV
3. 2H + 1H → 3He + γ + 5.49 MeV
4. From here there are three possible paths to generate helium isotope 4He.

all stages 1, 2, 3, 4 have individually been tested, but they have never been able to create the continual reaction hypothesized in the sun.

And if we did at the current time we'd completely falsify our model. Do you have any idea how tiny the cross-section is for step 1?

The problem is that it's not self-sustaining in tests on Earth like is thought to be occuring in the sun. This is due to the fact that the hypothesised reactions will only occur at very high temperature and pressure. You need to be able to generate sufficient pressure to keep this from happening, and so far this has not been done.

Try googling the Lawson criterion.

In the laboratory, you have to expend a huge amount of energy to generate this pressure; making continual fusion, as hypothesised as occuring in the sun, currently unattainable. The closest we've got is the atomic bomb, and thats an instantaneuos release of energy, and not controllable like the fusion in the sun is claimed to be; quite different.

Erm. You think that people claim we can control fusion in the Sun?

What basis you you have for ruling out all the other types of confinement/focus based fusion that have been achieved in plasma on a continual basis? I think that these are all very strong contendors, and they were only known very recently.

What basis do I have for ruling them in?

 

[Dancing David]

Anything else?

Can you point to any organization that has given plasma cosmology funding? Apart from LANL that Peratt and colleagues works with, hardly any. I would say that what they have achieved so far is quite good for the comparitive funding they get.

Do you really think Guth was paid to develop inflationary theory?

Do you really think that Gell-Mann was paid to develop quark theory while he sat in the basement of the Illini Union at the University of Illinois, while John Bardeen was paid to build a cyclotron and develop more transistors. How much money did string theorists expend on chalk when they showed that the numbers worked out and that it was not an automatic rule out?

I am sure that there is plasma research going on,what does that have to do with my point?

The break throughs in cosmology required how much funding?

I agree that there is not enough funding for anything, but cosmology is different, it is primarily theorhetical physics, which is mainly brain power.

How much did it cost Einstein to develop the theory of relativity?

Again Fermilabs was not built to investigate modern astrophysics nor was CERN or Stanfords accelerator.

Now yes there is some money being spent on nutrino detection and gravity waves, but most cosmology is done on the fly, on the chalk board or piggy backed on other people already existing data.

Where is the huge budegt being spent on cosmology in mainstream astrophysics? Please elaborate where these expenditures are.

Again high energy particle physics is not cosmology, don't conflate them.

What does this google page indicate about plasma research?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=plasma+research

 

[Dancing David]

Wait! You mean to say that in the outer regions of the disk where the rotation curve doesn't behave like it should if only the gravity of the matter that we can see is affecting it, the rotation curve is determined primarily with a substance (some would call it plasma) that is affected by ... uh ... electromagnetism?

Do you knowwhat primarily means?

It means that those rates can also be judged from the motion of the stars.

Duh.

 

[Dancing David]

Quite possibly the stupidest comment I have ever read from you. And I have read plenty of stupid things you have said.

Haven't you heard that there was a gnome that blew up Eniwetok?

says BOOM!

 

[Zeuzzz]

Your comment I was responding to was

For the past 6 months I have been analyzing data from a fusion-evaporation experiment. In this the recoil implantation rate is of the order of kHz. That is, thousands of fusion events occuring every second. Simply saying fusion has never been achieved is plain and simply wrong.

You do know fusion reactions don't have to be exothermic?

And? What do we learn from that statement?

And if we did at the current time we'd completely falsify our model. Do you have any idea how tiny the cross-section is for step 1?

Try googling the Lawson criterion.

Erm. You think that people claim we can control fusion in the Sun?

So you still havent cracked it quite yet? eh? Even if it was achieved on Earth in a continual reaction in the near future, I still think that other fusion mechanisms are possible contendors.

What basis do I have for ruling them in?

I take this to mean that you have no reason to dismiss them occuring as the source of the suns energy output then, or you would have listed them.

This is your only answer to my statement of fact that astrophysicists have never given close and careful examination to any alternative energy source for the Sun, since Eddington’s proclamation that it simply had to be nuclear fusion.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Do you really think Guth was paid to develop inflationary theory?

Do you really think that Gell-Mann was paid to develop quark theory while he sat in the basement of the Illini Union at the University of Illinois, while John Bardeen was paid to build a cyclotron and develop more transistors. How much money did string theorists expend on chalk when they showed that the numbers worked out and that it was not an automatic rule out?

I am sure that there is plasma research going on,what does that have to do with my point?

The break throughs in cosmology required how much funding?

I agree that there is not enough funding for anything, but cosmology is different, it is primarily theorhetical physics, which is mainly brain power.

How much did it cost Einstein to develop the theory of relativity?

Again Fermilabs was not built to investigate modern astrophysics nor was CERN or Stanfords accelerator.

Now yes there is some money being spent on nutrino detection and gravity waves, but most cosmology is done on the fly, on the chalk board or piggy backed on other people already existing data.

Where is the huge budegt being spent on cosmology in mainstream astrophysics? Please elaborate where these expenditures are.

Again high energy particle physics is not cosmology, don't conflate them.

What does this google page indicate about plasma research?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=plasma+research

I agree with your points, there are many examples you can give that did not require lots of funding to become accepted. Infact, most new ideas in science start like this.

Many astronomers agree with my view of uneven amounts of funding for the Big Bang, without considering any viable alternatives.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry. [....]

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

and see how many scientists have now signed this letter; http://www.cosmologystatement.org/. I'm certainly not alone in my opinion of inordinant funding of the dominant paradigm hindering alternatives, no matter what you say.

 

[Tubbythin]

So you still havent cracked it quite yet? eh? Even if it was achieved on Earth in a continual reaction in the near future, I still think that other fusion mechanisms are possible contendors.

Huh. I haven't cracked what? What do you think I'm trying to crack?
You can think what you like.

I take this to mean that you have no reason to dismiss them occuring as the source of the suns energy output then, or you would have listed them.

That would be wrong. If you want to propose an alternative to the mainstream then the burden of proof is on you. Provide a clear, consistent theory of how your alternative theories work and how they match the observational evidence and I'll examine them. Until then for all I know, your theory is as worthless as the "the Sun is made of coal" theory.

This is your only answer to my statement of fact that astrophysicists have never given close and careful examination to any alternative energy source for the Sun, since Eddington’s proclamation that it simply had to be nuclear fusion.

Evidence?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks! I wasn't trying to argue against DM, just curious about this one paper. Looking on arXiv (once you'd suggested it) lead me to this, which says that observations of Planetary Nebulae in M31 and M33 appear to confirm that flat rotation curves apply to stars too, ruling out the possible magnetic explanation in those cases.

... snip ...

Sorry, and I didn't mean to imply that you were (or did).

It may be worthwhile taking a look at that paper, and its predecessors and others like it, from a broader perspective (while still focussing on whether PC is woo or not).

Whatever shortcomings the Battaner and Florido paper (etc) may (or may not) have, it got published in a peer-reviewed astronomy/astrophysics journal. However selective the authors were in citing papers in the discussion section*, as long as the core part of the paper was sound when it was written (the presentation of theory, of observations, of analyses, etc), I think it should NOT be counted as woo.

The same goes for Peratt's paper(s) on spiral galaxy formation (etc): if he'd submitted it to one of the usual astronomy/astrophysics journals, no doubt the reviewers would have had quite a bit of advice (or something stronger), and maybe the editors would have chosen to not publish**, but unless the core content of the papers are seriously flawed, they should NOT be counted as woo.

But none of this makes PC 'woo'.

However, none of this is 'Plasma Cosmology' in any scientific sense - merely models and papers.

Where the woo comes in, in great quantities and in a very pure form, is elsewhere.

Take the material BAC posted in the 'pulsar' thread, recently, here and here.

Whatever Peratt's contribution to ideas on how the pulses observed from pulsars are generated, or what sort of environment there is around them, they have nothing to do with PC, nor are they woo. There are, perhaps, a dozen if not a hundred models, ideas, etc concerning pulsar halos (Peratt's term), magnetospheres, wind nebulae, mechanisms for pulse generation, pulse propagation, pulse shape, role of accretion disks, magnetic fields, ... all of them involving plasma physics.

The PC woo comes from material (which BAC cites and Zeuzzz strongly hints at) proposing that a) there is no dense, ~sol-mass object, and b) the energy source is giant inter-stellar currents. As far as I can tell, none of these ideas are much more than 'look at these images!', there are certainly no actual published papers!

Further, the reasons given for why this PC woo (I mean, idea) is right seem to be a strange mixture of false dichotomy ('mainstream astronomers can't explain {insert pulsar phenomena here}, therefore PC MUST BE RIGHT!!!), falsehoods ('mainstream astronomers don't use plasma physics for pulsar models!!'), and just plain crazy logic ('because mainstream astronomers believe in the Big Bang, their ideas about pulsars must be wrong') - in all cases these are my paraphrases.

Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the woo is the 'our side vs your side' one. As both BAC and Zeuzzz have characterised it, many times, it's 'our side' = 'apply plasma physics to understand astronomical phenomena' and 'your side' = 'reduce all explanations of astronomical phenomena to 'gravity rules, OK?''. In the case of studies of pulsars (magnetars, neutron stars, ...), this is amusing because almost all the differences in ideas, models, etc are between various applications of plasma physics!

May I repeat my question?

What more, dear reader, could you ask for, in terms of a convincing case that 'PC is woo'?

* and they were very selective re observational evidence for DM in ellipticals!

** among other things, Peratt seems to have left ambiguous (or not mentioned at all) several things that should have been very easy to include and that would have been very relevant to astronomical observations.

 

[Dancing David]

Not at all, its fact. The fusion process thought to ocur in the sun has never yet been achieved continuosly on Earth.

Care to share some of this amazing energy with us then if you know something that most scientists dont?

All the individual steps in the reaction have been achieved, but continous hydrogen / helium fusion has never been reproduced in the lab;

.

Poor form Zeuzzz and dishonset moving of the goal post, you said that nuclear fusion has not been obtained on earth.

Now you say the bit about continuos. Please fool yourself somemore!

 

[Dancing David]

I agree with your points, there are many examples you can give that did not require lots of funding to become accepted. Infact, most new ideas in science start like this.

Many astronomers agree with my view of uneven amounts of funding for the Big Bang, without considering any viable alternatives.




and see how many scientists have now signed this letter; http://www.cosmologystatement.org/. I'm certainly not alone in my opinion of inordinant funding of the dominant paradigm hindering alternatives, no matter what you say.

Oh, just like the Discovery Institute!

So when asked to provide "What big spending project are there into the BIG BANG?" , You Respond With Nothing! So you haven't demonstrated your assertion yet.

Where is big money being spent on big bang research?

More of the it looks like a bunny sort of stuff?

No substance man, just yor imaginations.

Where are the big dollars going into big bang cosmology? Prove the theory before you assert it anymore, show me where there is this huge outlay of money on big bang cosmology research research?

Hmm, just like the rest of your beloved PC, will you put the numbers on the table?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Poor form Zeuzzz and dishonset moving of the goal post, you said that nuclear fusion has not been obtained on earth.

Now you say the bit about continuos. Please fool yourself somemore!

No. I'm not stupid, I know what an A-bomb is, surely everyone knows that? Its you thats fooling yourself. I say again, the type of nuclear fusion hypothesised to be occuring in the sun has never been created on Earth. Period. If it had, we might as well give up all the other attempts at sustainable creating energy, it would be one hell of an energy output. Its up to you to decide what I meant, I know exactly what I meant, and what I said originally is true. Why take the perjorative position? Doesn't really achieve much.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Oh, just like the Discovery Institute!

So when asked to provide "What big spending project are there into the BIG BANG?" , You Respond With Nothing! So you haven't demonstrated your assertion yet.

Where is big money being spent on big bang research?

More of the it looks like a bunny sort of stuff?

No substance man, just yor imaginations.

Where are the big dollars going into big bang cosmology? Prove the theory before you assert it anymore, show me where there is this huge outlay of money on big bang cosmology research research?

Hmm, just like the rest of your beloved PC, will you put the numbers on the table?

Why accusing me personally? Have you read the link? http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ You are also accusing all the people listed there of making this up by belittling me. And given the status of most of them, I cant believe that they are all just making this up for a second. I think its a perfectly valid position to take.

 

[The Man]

No. I'm not stupid, I know what an A-bomb is, surely everyone knows that? Its you thats fooling yourself. I say again, the type of nuclear fusion hypothesised to be occuring in the sun has never been created on Earth. Period. If it had, we might as well give up all the other attempts at sustainable creating energy, it would be one hell of an energy output. Its up to you to decide what I meant, I know exactly what I meant, and what I said originally is true. Why take the perjorative position? Doesn't really achieve much.

I would have to argue with that assertion. The type of fusion in the first H-bomb is the same as in the sun deuterium-deuterium fusion (deuterium – tritium fusion is more common in most modern H-bombs) also the same type of fusion and same confinement method (inertial confinement) as used in the Sandia National Labs Z machine. Your only argument seems to be how long that fusion is sustained. So what is the minimum length of time that would meet your requirements, and remember you have already said

What basis you you have for ruling out all the other types of confinement/focus based fusion that have been achieved in plasma on a continual basis? .

So they must have already fulfilled your time constraint.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In post #296, where I quote from the following of Zeuzzz' post, I asked: "May I ask what the source of this, and subsequent, material (in the parts of you post I'm quoting) is?"

As far as I know, Zeuzzz did not answer, so I went looking for myself.

Here's what I found.

I'm not sure what Zeuzzz means by writing this in italics, but it is a nearly word-for-word copy of Section 3 of Lerner's paper "Plasma model of microwave background and primordial elements: an alternative to the Big Bang" (ADS reference; it's also available from Lerner's own website, under the title "Plasma Model An Alternative To The Big Bang"). My comparisons are with the PDF document on Lerner's webpage.

This is a re-write of the first sentence to Section 4 of that paper ("The abundance of helium and heavy elements"), replacing "We" with "You".
This seems to be additional text.
This is a similarly minor re-write of the next parts of Section 4 ("we have" -> "you get")
Ditto ("We assume that the incoming filaments" -> "Incoming filaments", "so we can consider the situation simply along a single radial slice." -> "so the situation simply along a single radial slice can be considered.")

The re-write here, to section 4.2 ("Helium abundance") are a little more extensive; perhaps most egregious is the omission of the source ("Adouze & Tinsley 1976"). The other edit is "From stellar evolution theory we know" -> "For the He, we know from stellar evolution theory".

Two sentences are omitted.
Again, only a small re-write ("Studies by Beck " -> "Studies by Beck and others "; "From Beck's results, we can derive the empirical relationship I = 1.5 x 10-4V2G-1." -> "From these results, the empirical relationship I = 1.5 x 10-4V2G-1 can be derived"))

Parts of Lerner's paper are omitted; however, this is an almost word-for-word copy ("For the Milky Way, we find that" -> "Using this for the Milky Way," "Mg" -> "Mg" "Ms" -> "Ms" (three times) "Rm" -> "Rm" "values into (9) and (10)" -> "values into the previous relationships" "we get" -> "you get")

Parts of Lerner's paper are omitted; however, this is a word-for-word copy (apart from the converting of subscripts)

This comes from section 4.3 ("Carbon abundance"), with the copying starting with "Integrating" (the phrase in brackets ("with a bit more work in between") is added). However, the formulae are copied incorrectly (the subscript "i" is dropped from "n").


Apart from the phrase order switch at the beginning ("Using the same calculation for oxygen," -> "For the Oxygen abundance, using the same calculation,") and a "we" -> "you", there are two curious differences to this otherwise word-for-word copy of the first part of section 4.4 ("Oxygen abundance"):

"0.018" -> "~0.018"

and omission of the following (after "0.018"): "which is somewhat high compared with observed values of 0.012 but is within the uncertainties generated by stellar evolution theory, especially for pure hydrogen stars, which we are here assuming."
Parts of the rest of section 4.4 are omitted; however, this is an almost word-for-word copy ("However this does not contradict the model since it is clear that" -> "It should also be noted that")

This rather strangely worded sentence seems to be a mangling of the original in Lerner's paper, from the last part of section 4.5 ("Deuterium abundance"): "If about 1 Gev of energy is used for each deuterium production, 1/2 of the energy goes into the production of deuterium and the current abundance should be in the area of 2 x 10-5."

This is from the last part of section 4.5 ("Deuterium abundance"), apart from some minor editing ("we find" -> "you find" "cosmic rays. This yields" -> "cosmic rays, which yields")

I wonder if there is an "innocent explanation" for this apparent plagiarism (or, if you prefer, an omission of attribution)? Perhaps "Zeuzzz" is really "E. J. Lerner"?

Anyway, I'm curious to know a) whether other material posted by Zeuzzz is of a similar character, and b) what readers of this thread think of what I have found (and posted above).

I couldn't quote the whole thing, a quote that size would have been instantly taken down, so I had to add it as normal text. And the version that I copied is not from the version on Lerners site (I dont think that you can even copy text from that? and where is that text? if i had known that i would have just linked to it! its not listed here with his others; http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/index.html), its from a later reprint of the Laser and Particle Beams edition, not the "Alfven special edition" version, under the title "Plasma model of microwave background and primordial elements: an alternative to the Big Bang", which is a slightly different version, and presumably intended for a slightly different audience. I have it on file, along with all my other sources, not from online. I added in a few sentences, and the latex code for one equation, and changed a few words to put it in a suitable tense. Yes. Your point?

Maybe i should have put it all in italics, and indiacted this more clearly, but Its the same scientific material no matter who you thought wrote it. And I'm flattered that you thought it was me that came up with all of this You seem to hold me in much higher regard than even I do!

I dont write the science I quote myself (surely you have gathered this by now?) I just point out material that has already been written by other scientists that tends to be ignored.

And, does it really matter that it was copied? I could take a look at the equations that you have posted and accuse you of copying them from somewhere, but, since the equations are the same no matter where you get them from, it really doesn't matter. Or do you want to spend more posts accusing me of being someone, and talking about things not relevent to the subject at hand? Or do you want to actually discuss the material that I took the time to post here?

(emphasis added)

It matters a great deal actually.

There's the small matter of the JREF forum's Membership Agreement, which states, in part (emphasis added):

The JREF has adopted a policy of considering all published material copyrighted, including articles, images and other media, it is not the responsibility of the JREF to determine whether or not the work is in the public domain or if the work may be republished without explicit permission of the copyright holder. Copyrighted content may be posted within the doctrine of "fair use" therefore quoting of brief portions of articles, books, emails, or bulletin board messages, relevant to discussion, is permitted. All quoted material should be credited to the original author or publisher and a link provided (when available) to the original work.

.

Beyond that, within the scientific community there is an additional convention: if it's not your own idea, don't claim it as such (even implicitly), and ALWAYS credit the person(s) who came up with it first (or from where you are sourcing it).

No doubt this convention is much stronger in that community than it is in the general community; I'd say it's also a convention that many of those who post here try very hard to adhere to.

So it's good to know that much of what you write isn't, in fact, your own words.

Earlier I asked you whether the "Thornhill, W.", the author of a paper you cited, is, in fact, Wallace Thornhill ... the same Wallace Thornhill who co-authored Thunderbolts of the Gods (with David Talbott)? and who is 'Executive Editor" of the Thunderbolts website (along with Talbott)?

I'm curious to know ... and if any other reader of this post can offer evidence that this is the same person ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I meant that in very general terms the older any grad level textbook on galactic astronomy (and much more besides), the greater the chances are that it will not contain things of considerable interest to today's astrophysicists (as well as a non-zero chance it will contain stuff now known to be wrong).

But don't you find it strange that a text book from 1981-1987 doesn't even mention plasma and electromagnetic effects ... even though plasma cosmology voices were quite vocal back in that time period? And had a number of very big names on their side. It's not like scientists didn't already know that most of the observed matter was plasma ... even back then. Or that plasma is affected by electromagnetic effects. Or that thinks like Birkeland currents and plasma pinches exist. Why there were even peer reviewed scientific papers that were going unchallenged by the mainstream community that supported the Plasma Cosmology viewpoint. And yet the textbooks that are supposed to train the next generation of astronomers and astrophysicists COMPLETELY ignored these things? Odd.

Er ... no.

I would appreciate it if you would take the trouble to read what I wrote ... carefully.

For the particular audience these texts are intended, "{gas} is fully ionised" means "it is a plasma" - and these texts have a great many references to, and discussions of, the ISM (inter-stellar medium) and its phases (most of which are at least partially ionised gas, plus some dust).

"electromagnetic effects": I don't know what you understand by this term, but no astronomy is possible without it (see my post earlier), and a great deal of the grad-level texts on galaxies is about "electromagnetic effects".

And so the rest of your post becomes irrelevant ... except for the part about PC and published papers (which I also dealt with, at length, in an earlier post - pay particular attention, please, to 'falsehoods').

 

[Zeuzzz]

(emphasis added)

It matters a great deal actually.

There's the small matter of the JREF forum's Membership Agreement, which states, in part (emphasis added):.

Beyond that, within the scientific community there is an additional convention: if it's not your own idea, don't claim it as such (even implicitly), and ALWAYS credit the person(s) who came up with it first (or from where you are sourcing it).

What a load of rubbish. I never claimed that it was my material, since when did I myself write scientific papers? you implied that yourself. I could quote many of the things that you have written and say 'I have seen this elsewhere, its not your own idea, so you have copied it', but that would be stupid, you couldn't add anything here that already exists. That one post I agree, as I fully admitted myself, I should have indicated where it came from, but that is the only one post that I have written you could possibly say that about. And use your common sense, I'm not a science writer, I'm a science reader.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I would have to argue with that assertion. The type of fusion in the first H-bomb is the same as in the sun deuterium-deuterium fusion (deuterium – tritium fusion is more common in most modern H-bombs) also the same type of fusion and same confinement method (inertial confinement) as used in the Sandia National Labs Z machine. Your only argument seems to be how long that fusion is sustained. So what is the minimum length of time that would meet your requirements, and remember you have already said

I think that the Z-pinch fusion at Sandia National Labs Z machine could be a contendor, or one of the other types of fusion. As I say, I dont have to choose one over the other, I just think that all possibilities should be considered openly, but as soon as people mention that the power source of the sun could not be H-fusion the usual reaction is as if you have just said the Sun could be powered by an ernormous pulsating space cow. I think people should consider alternatives, anything that goes on where we cant directly study it is still a hypothesis. And the reaction in the H bomb is not containable, it is an instantaneous reaction that has not been able to produce energy as is proposed to be occuring in the sun. If you look at the nuclear fusion page in wiki it says "Research into controlled fusion, with the aim of producing fusion power for the production of electricity, has been conducted for over 50 years. It has been accompanied by extreme scientific and technological difficulties, but resulted in steady progress.", so it seems that there are issues with the hydrogen fusion process, even if they are marginal problems. I just think that other types of energy release should be considered as well as the original assumption that it has to be H-fusion.

 

[Tubbythin]

No. I'm not stupid, I know what an A-bomb is, surely everyone knows that? Its you thats fooling yourself. I say again, the type of nuclear fusion hypothesised to be occuring in the sun has never been created on Earth. Period.

But this is not your original statement. Your original statement was:

Nuclear fusion still has never been achieved.

This is completely, totally and utterly wrong.

 

[Zeuzzz]

But this is not your original statement. Your original statement was:

This is completely, totally and utterly wrong.

Okay, maybe I should have clarified my position more clearly. Sorry if you misinterpretted what I meant.