Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

Er ... no.

On that same page there is quite a bit of material on fractal scaling, much of which looks like it was copied (with minor edits) from somewhere (i.e. you didn't write it yourself).

In a later post is an equation, with undefined terms, and a couple of references, neither of which contains that equation (or perhaps I missed it).

In this post, I asked you about some other material you posted; my questions, and your reply, are as follows:

I have a vague recollection of reading a list much like this elsewhere - if this is other than entirely your own work, would you mind telling us what your source(s) are Zeuzzz?

I'm also curious to know what your source is for the spindown expression ... it is (I guess) from someone or other's model, no doubt published in some paper somewhere (perhaps repeated now in some standard astrophysics text too).

Of course its reported in some standard physics texts. PC is not re-writing the entire scientific method! And a few of the points are from; Astrophysics: A new Approach, which is a book, so isn't available online unfortunately.

Note that this reply does not say anything about your source(s) of the list itself.

And there's more, quite a lot more ... shall I list some of them?

How much else have you copied, with minor edits, without attribution Zeuzzz?

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

Here you mentioned Z-pinch and fusion on the surface of the Sun. At the time I queried how such a mechanism could possibly lead to the star being in hydrostatic equilibrium. I received no answer from you. Perhaps I could have one now?
If this mechanism does not lead to hydrostatic equilibrium then the theory is as dead as a Do-do.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Why did you change your original position and then get all snoitty with Tubbythin, I responded in kind, you got nasty, you are fooling yourself.

You are the one who moved your goalk post and the got snotty.

That is what the pejorative is about,

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

You poseted that when you changed the goal post, did you not?

To quote you:

Doesn't really achieve much

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Ah, appeal to authority.

So without evidence you say that money is being spent to investigate big bang cosmology.

That is a position without evidence based upon the opinion of some people. You do know this is a sceptic's forum don't you.

I am saying that i would like to see the funding for big bang cosmology, I agree that perhaps plasma research doesn't recieve the funding it should.

But that does not mean that there is money being spent in large amounts on big bang cosmology.

yes I did read the letter.

Did you read my post or just not understand it.
If the pope and the council of cardinals declare that more research needs to be done on angels I am supposed to just agree?

After all: And given the status of most of them, I cant believe that they are all just making this up for a second.

And I did not say they are making it up, I am saying it is an unsupported assertion.

Does that hurt your feelings, i am sorry for that.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

So if the Pope and Cardinals ask for more funding for angel research i am supposed to agree.

i am saying and you are ignoring,

Where is the big money being spent on big band cosmology?

Or are they conflating things.

I am sorry if I personalised it , but you are making an unsupported assertion.

I am asking, where are the numbers? Where is the money being spent.

I am not belittle-ing you.

You have a habit of saying

"Such and such can do this." nut then when asked for numbers and figures you lack them, now you are saying "There is big money spent on the Big Bang cosmology" and I am asking "Yeak, where and when?"

And you point to some other people.

i am sorry for hurting your feelings, but perhaps you are engaging in political banter without merit.

CERN is not big bang cosmology, COBE is not big bang cosmology. Although COBE could have disproved BBT and shown Perrat to be right, does that make it a Plasma Cosmological Experiment?

I am sorry for hurting your feelings but i am not going to believe that abstinence only sex education has any effect because GWB says so, i am not going to believe in angels because the Pope and Cardinals says so.

I don't see where the money is being spent.

So where is it?

 

[Dancing David]

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

maybe you should have said what you meant, my psychic interpreter is on the fritz.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Zeuzzz: Can you state the PC postion on the source of the energy sustaining stars?

We can then discuss this rather than your position that fusion may not power stars.

 

[The Man]

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.

I have no problems considering any alternatives, but that is the issue “considering them” not just accepting them because they are alternatives in spite of glaring inconsistencies both internally and externally. If there comes a point when the concept just doesn’t work within it own tenets (self inconsistent) then it no longer becomes a viable alternative. Should the concept survive that phase (internal) of the consideration then comes the next phase (external). Is the concept consistent with the observational data as well as other established physical concepts? Very few alternatives survive that first phase and even fewer survive the second, what is left are the both self and generally consistent alternatives that physicists explore every day.


ETA: Can you tell me what force or forces the “force free configuration” you refer to is considered to be free from?

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz:
Here is a method of constructing the conventional theory of fusion powered stars (probably not in this order historically):

1. Start with fundamental theories of physics.
2. Conduct experiments that produce fusion in laboratories. The fusion is not continuous.
3. Scale the fusion up to stellar sizes.
4. Construct a model of stellar fusion that makes falsifiable predictions, e.g. the value of the neutrino flux from a star like the Sun.
5. Test the predictions, e.g. observe the neutrino flux from the Sun and see whether it agrees with the model.

Does this remind you of any other theory (hint: it is to do with galaxy formation)?
The problem with that other theory is that it has falsifiable predictions that have been proved to be false. Thus that theory is wrong (as is any other theory that depends on it).

 

[sol invictus]

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.

Once again you illustrate your utter and total ignorance of the most basic physics at issue here. A-bombs are NOT powered by fusion; H-bombs are. Just like JEROME, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

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 ...

Quoting my own post, which is part of a sub-thread on Zeuzzz' plagiarism (or, if you prefer, copying with minor edits but not providing attribution).

IF "Thornhill, W." (co-author of a document on the IEEE webserver to which Zeuzzz earlier provided a link) and "Wallace Thornhill" (co-author of Thunderbolts of the Gods (with David Talbott) and "Executive Editor" of the Thunderbolts website (along with David Talbott)), then I think there is a strong, prima facie case for Thornhill being (intellectually) dishonest, and having his name on a document for which there is strong evidence of fraud.

Such a case is closely related to Zeuzzz' self-admitted plagiarism, but considerably more serious, for several reasons. Further, the response of the 'Plasma Cosmology community' to being told about this apparent fraud suggests that this kind of plagiarism, (intellectual) dishonesty, and (apparent) fraud is quite acceptable to them, in terms of how that community conducts their (alternative) version of science.

In later posts to this thread I will present evidence for this prima facie case. It goes without saying that members of the JREF forum are welcome to discuss and comment on this case ...

 

[BeAChooser]

DRD ...

You wrote that "in the outer parts of spiral galaxy disks, the rotation curves are often traced primarily with components of the ISM". If this is true, then couldn't electromagnetic effects, not gravity from dark matter, be responsible for the flatness of the rotation curve in the outer regions of those galaxies?

 

[Dancing David]

DRD ...

You wrote that "in the outer parts of spiral galaxy disks, the rotation curves are often traced primarily with components of the ISM". If this is true, then couldn't electromagnetic effects, not gravity from dark matter, be responsible for the flatness of the rotation curve in the outer regions of those galaxies?

Yes, if that was the only means of measuring such velocities, they can also eyeball the relative motion of stars.

 

[Dancing David]

Quoting my own post, which is part of a sub-thread on Zeuzzz' plagiarism (or, if you prefer, copying with minor edits but not providing attribution).

That is of course very poor form and not quite right. However, i am not sure it is any thing other than ppalgarism, unless Zeuzzz just doesn't want to aknowledge that he is the authorr. he could also be someone who has tread som much stuff that he can recreate it at will. A common phenomena, you have to look at word counts and the sentence structure to see if it is actauly plagarism, punctutaion will almost always be a dead giveaway. But many people have soaked up so much material they can reacreate it without trying.

IF "Thornhill, W." (co-author of a document on the IEEE webserver to which Zeuzzz earlier provided a link) and "Wallace Thornhill" (co-author of Thunderbolts of the Gods (with David Talbott) and "Executive Editor" of the Thunderbolts website (along with David Talbott)), then I think there is a strong, prima facie case for Thornhill being (intellectually) dishonest, and having his name on a document for which there is strong evidence of fraud.

Such a case is closely related to Zeuzzz' self-admitted plagiarism, but considerably more serious, for several reasons. Further, the response of the 'Plasma Cosmology community' to being told about this apparent fraud suggests that this kind of plagiarism, (intellectual) dishonesty, and (apparent) fraud is quite acceptable to them, in terms of how that community conducts their (alternative) version of science.

In later posts to this thread I will present evidence for this prima facie case. It goes without saying that members of the JREF forum are welcome to discuss and comment on this case ...

Do teel, is this the guy who co-wrote the Electric Sky.


Zeuzz what is your stance on the whole "the sun is not pwoered by fusion but by Birkeland currents"?

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure, i'm an agnostic when it comes to this aspect. I think that fusion is a very real possibility, but not traditional nuclear fusion, likely plasma fusion techniques, magnetic confienment fusion, Z-pinch fusion, dense plasma focus fusion, etc, etc.

This doesn't answer my question. I'm not asking you what you think supports this theory or which one you subscribe to, specifically. I want to know what MADE you doubt the currently-accepted model in the first place. You know, the initial spark of doubt.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

DRD ...

You wrote that "in the outer parts of spiral galaxy disks, the rotation curves are often traced primarily with components of the ISM". If this is true, then couldn't electromagnetic effects, not gravity from dark matter, be responsible for the flatness of the rotation curve in the outer regions of those galaxies?

There's at least four parts to this BAC; I'll take them one by one.

First, if the rotation curve is traced solely by ionised parts of the ISM, then magnetic fields may indeed be responsible for the flatness of the curve in the parts so traced. Note there are four qualifiers here; all are important. Let's look at one ('may') in more detail.

Second, a bazillion things may "be responsible for the flatness of the rotation curve in the outer regions" (mischievous gnomes, to take a ridiculous example, zipping around those parts of a galaxy on space scooters with tractor beams); what's important in doing any scientific study is to quantify, measure, test, refine and revise, re-test, etc. A key part in this is the formation of one or more hypotheses about the "may". In order to test any such hypothesis it is (nearly always) necessary to quantify it (i.e. write equations and estimate the values of parameters in those equations).

Third, you can estimate what the "gravity from dark matter" should be, in terms of the expected motions of such tracers ... after all, the expected distribution of that dark matter can be constrained fairly well from a wide range of observations (independent of the ionised parts of the ISM in the outer parts of spirals), over many distance scales, and several kinds of objects. A blob of plasma will move in a way that reflects the net effects of all the forces acting on it, whether they are gravity (due to the plasma's mass), magnetic fields (due to plasma's charge carriers), photons (due to many effects), and so on. If you find an inconsistency - the observed motions of the blobs of plasma are quite different than what they should be, based on the estimated gravity from dark matter and electromagnetic effects - then you have the basis for several very interesting research projects!

An example of this last (research projects): the paper cited earlier refers to a finding that certain elliptical galaxies seem to have little or no DM, based on observations of some tracer objects in their outer parts. The original research paper* has now been cited >100 times ... and the resolution of the inconsistency seems clear (an assumption early in the logic chain turns out to be, very likely, wrong).

Fourth, while there is a tendency to treat objects studied as representative of broad classes (e.g. M31 as representing spiral galaxies, other than dwarf spirals), and while some effort goes into checking that this is at least plausible, on everyone's mind is the possibility that the class is, in fact, heterogeneous, or that the specific behaviour being studied spans a much broader range than previously suspected. There are many, many, many examples of this in astronomy; perhaps the most famous is the one responsible for the big change in the Hubble constant in the 1950s, when the Cepheids were found to be two quite distinct kinds of star. In the case of what force dominates the motion of ionised part(s) of the ISM in the outer parts of spiral galaxies, it would not be all that surprising to discover that there is more than one answer; in fact, it is already well-known that in many (smaller) galaxies which happen to be near (bigger) galaxies there is 'tidal truncation' of the outer parts.

* if any reader would like references to the relevant papers, just ask!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Wallace Thornhill, a case of apparent (intellectual) dishonesty and (academic) fraud - background remarks.

Before presenting this case, I need to be very clear on what I mean by some key terms, and also on the background.

The scientific community has developed a set of conventions and standards regarding what is acceptable and what is not re the 'doing' of science.

Many of the conventions address communication, specifically what is acceptable in communicating scientific findings (results of experiments, details of observations, development of models and theories, etc) within the community and what is not. Many of these conventions are similar to those of other, broader communities - for example, if you quote something, you should give the source; if you use others' work, you should attribute your use properly; if you say you did such-and-such an experiment, you should have actually done it. However, I think these conventions are both more fixed and much more strict in the scientific community, so much so that deliberate, persistent breaking of the conventions almost always earns the offender the title '(academic) fraud', and there are serious consequences (such as being fired).

(Intellectual) dishonesty is also, I think, in general a much bigger issue in the scientific community than outside it; of course, one can adhere to the (scientific) conventions regarding communication while at the same time being (intellectually) dishonest in what one communicates.

Communication among scientists happens via many media and in many ways. There's an informal hierarchy to the perceived value and rigour of different forms: publication in a peer-reviewed journal is at the top (the most exacting standards, the greatest opprobrium for violating the conventions), followed by conference papers, (conference) posters, and conference presentations. Preprints, such as can be found on arXiv, occupy a rather unique position - the authors nearly always aim (or, sometimes, hope) to get them published (in a relevant, peer-reviewed, journal), and have generally tried to follow the conventions for such publication, but implicitly acknowledge that the preprint may contain errors, mistakes, omissions, and so on.

Of course, even for published papers, mistakes etc are sometimes made ... and as you'd expect, there are conventions about what to do when they are discovered. (Aside: Interestingly, there are (it seems to me) not so many (if any) clearly stated conventions about what to do if a paper is later discovered to be fraudulent (in the academic sense)).

re 'fraud': in no shape or form do I intend to use this term (or related ones, such as 'fraudulent') in a legal sense; my intent is the normal, everyday meaning ('deliberate misrepresentation' or 'intentional twisting of the truth to gain something of value' or similar) and/or as a shorthand for 'academic fraud'.

 

[leonAzul]

DRD ...

You wrote that "in the outer parts of spiral galaxy disks, the rotation curves are often traced primarily with components of the ISM". If this is true, then couldn't electromagnetic effects, not gravity from dark matter, be responsible for the flatness of the rotation curve in the outer regions of those galaxies?

Why do we need to invent "dark matter," when matter in the plasma state is a known fact?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That is of course very poor form and not quite right. However, i am not sure it is any thing other than ppalgarism, unless Zeuzzz just doesn't want to aknowledge that he is the authorr. he could also be someone who has tread som much stuff that he can recreate it at will. A common phenomena, you have to look at word counts and the sentence structure to see if it is actauly plagarism, punctutaion will almost always be a dead giveaway. But many people have soaked up so much material they can reacreate it without trying.

"internet fora are nice that way", to quote sol invictus ... "When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts [...]"

When confronted with a detailed, word for word comparison, Zeuzzz freely admitted to copying (with (very) minor edits) without attribution:

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. [...] 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? [...] 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 [...] And, does it really matter that it was copied?

... snip ...

Do teel, is this the guy who co-wrote the Electric Sky.

... snip ...

No, that would be Donald E. Scott (sole author).

 

[robinson]

Why do we need to invent "dark matter," when matter in the plasma state is a known fact?

That is a very good question.