Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

I've been curious about why it's so hard to get hold of the landmark PC papers by Thornhill, W. W. that Zeuzzz has referenced several times. You'll readily recall his style: sweeping generalisations about paradigm-shattering discoveries, followed by some quotes that don't seem to say anything much and many links. If you follow the links and read the papers (if you can), keeping Zeuzzz' posts on hand so you know the context, you'll be nearly always in turn frustrated, disappointed, and amused; Zeuzzz' case is, in almost all his posts, a strange mixture of waffle, ignorance, and cynical deception.

Here's a good example:

Blah blah....

Shortly after Zeuzzz introduced 'electric stars' as yet another part of 'plasma cosmology', I asked this simple question: "Q: In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"?

After several exchanges of posts, filled with vintage Zeuzzz waffle, word salad quotes, and ignorance, I asked the question again, with a rider:

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so."

Zeuzzz' reply is yet more classic Zeuzzz.

And my final attempt to get an answer, here, is where Zeuzzz ran away.

But why didn't he simply answer the question?

I think the reason is his cynical deception (or perhaps his ignorance) ...

I did answer the question. More than once infact. It just be one of those dark postings that no one can see or detect.

You keep claiming that i've run away, but I've never run away. Here I am And I keep coming back no matter how many times you say that I've "run away".

Whatever you think I ran away from, please bring it up. I'll be happy to respond.

Take The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars, for example, from which he quoted in an earlier post.

This document is quite difficult to get hold of (or it was for me), which is perhaps just as well, given how awful it is.

I did offer to mail it to anyone that pm'd me. Guess you couldn't bring yourself to ask me. Weird. Would've certainly saved you the time and effort.

It does, as Zeuzzz stated, contain a section on the HR diagram ("X. Hertzsprung-Russell

---

Diagram"), and another five directly related to it.

It also does, as Zeuzzz stated, relate the HR diagram to the (or an) "electric star model".

---

So the above questions you have been repetitively reposting I did actually answer before when I listed this paper the very fist time you asked, and every time afterwards.

However, contrary to what you'd expect to find for an academic, technical paper in a physics journal, there are no equations, no numbers, ... and no model!

You cant simply dismiss an entire scientific publication just for the reason that the material addressed does not have equations in it. I could list plently of papers that talk in detail about various conceptual models, and have no need for specific numbers and limitations in the paper in question.

The publication in question seems primarily to be setting a ground for future work to be done on this relatively new model. It was received well by the IEEE, as they tend to be more open to new theories than other astro journals are, which tend to take a similar line of thought to you DRD, denounce them as crackpot and not adhering to what we know is the 'truth' in space. A position I feel is most unscientific.

Worse, Thornhill includes a figure (two actually) that even undergrad students would get an "F" for ... it has a grossly misleading axis label*.

Hardly, thats why its in brackets. The axis can represent two things, the old model, and the new interpretation.

I could go through a publication that you endorse and use the same reasoning in reverese and say "This author has used misleading SI units on the X axis of his graph." Yes. That is true. But somehow, in your mind, this statement equates to "This author has used misleading SI units on the X axis of his graph, so therefore the entire paper is compromised and does not deserve discussion"

Talk about picking out the fine minutia and being pedantic.

In short then, Thornhill's paradigm-shattering "model" is a waffly word-salad supported by a sloppy figure. Oh, and his list of references includes a couple of articles from KRONOS, several press releases, articles in Scientific American, New Scientist, some popsci books, commentary (not papers) in Science ... and Scott's crackpot book!

Crackpot book? nice. Do you have any reason to assume this? Have you read the book? or you just following the crowd and guessing what is in the book? A lot of respected astronomers have endorsed Scotts book, and I have to say that its very interesting, with much completely new and intriguing material.

One can only wonder who the reviewers of this so-called paper were.

The same ones that review the transactions on plasma science like every other publication. In this edition, Peratt and Eastman were the directors, and other very prominent scientists reviewed Thornhills paper, along with all the other publications in the journal.

Heres a couple;

>>>Anthony L. Peratt - Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy, see this recent webpage for more: Anthony L. Peratt, MD Inducted into Cambridge Who's Who Executive, Professional and Entrepreneurial Registry

>>>Timothy Eastman - Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups, Director of Plasmas international, see his other qualifications and awards on the last page of this document; http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Editorial-IEEETPSAug07-CosmicPlasma.pdf

>>>Carl-Gunne Fälthammar - Succeeded Hannes Alfvén as Professor of Plasma Physics, and became Director of the Department of Plasma Physics at the Royal Institute of Technology. Professor Emeritus. See last page on here for more; http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/IEEE.GuestEditorialDec03.pdf

>>>Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and its Director since its establishment in 1998 until January of 2007. Previously he was director of the Geophysical Institute since 1986. See his wiki page for more; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu

>>>Gerrit L. Verschuur - Professor in the Physics Department, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN. Consulting Chief Scientist for the WSPackaging Group, Algoma, WI. Written eight books including The Invisible Universe: The Story of Radio Astronomy (Springer, 2007), Impact: The Threat of Comets and Asteroids (Oxford University Press, 1996), Interstellar Matters (Springer Verlag, 1989); and Hidden Attraction: The History and Mystery of Magnetism (Oxford University Press, 1993). Author of numerous popular articles on astronomy and some 100 papers in refereed journals in astronomy and limnology.

I could list more of the reviewers, but I think you get the point.

Really wierd that they didn't come to the conclusion you came to considering their expertise. They seemed to find Thornhills publication an interesting perspective that was worthy of inclusion in their journal.

They are all considered world leading authorities in plasma and space physics, who are you to speak so disparagingly of them? What are your qualifications?

I guess the most charitable interpretation you could give to this is that for Thornhill 'science' is done quite differently; certain requirements on rigour and precision are optional (to take just one aspect).

If it were just Thornhill, who cares?

What's more distressing is that this awful paper got published in "IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science" - do the editors not care? Or did Peratt somehow 'help'?

(to be continued)

"do the editors not care?" About What?

So your not going to comment on one single thing actually discussed in the paper?

oh, I think that he missed a closing bracket on page 11. Surely this makes the entire rest of the publication wrong, means Thornhill is a fraud, and not even worthy of consideration

 

[Zeuzzz]

But he must know that the fusion model of stars not only matches that actual obsevations of the Sun (e.g. the measured neutrino flux) but also provides the mechanism behind stellar evolution and the HR diagram.

People keep saying this. The best way to test a theory is by the predictions it has made. Can you show me the prediction that the nuclear model made about the neutrino flux, and where it was confirmed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino I haven't been able to so far, but I haven't been looking too hard.

Or any of the other sucessful predictions of the nuclear model?

Or as DeiRenDopa would say: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the prediction made by the nuclear model before neutrino's were observed, and quantitatively address the neutrino oscillations, various flavors, subsequent antiparticles, masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'nuclear' model (or theory, or ...).

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.



The neutrino issue seems to me to be a posteriori, merely curve fitting of observed data. If we see certain oscillations in data you can always model them to fit a mathematical curve to the data by least squares fit, or some other method. But then saying that this proves conclusively what is occuring in the sun, where no observation has been made or is possible, is logically unsupportable. Other fusion processes could be producing the observed neutrino flux; nuclear fusion at the suns core is not an unique solution to the neutrino data.

 

[Tubbythin]

The neutrino issue seems to me to be a posteriori, merely curve fitting of observed data. If we see certain oscillations in data you can always model them to fit a mathematical curve to the data by least squares fit, or some other method.

Could you tell us why you think this? But first can you tell us what understanding do you have of neutrino production, neutrino oscillations, neutrino flavours, neutrino energies, neutrino cross sections etc?

But then saying that this proves conclusively what is occuring in the sun, where no observation has been made or is possible, is logically unsupportable.

This statement is based on the neutrino issue being a posteiori fitting. It isn't

Other fusion processes could be producing the observed neutrino flux;

Go on then... enlighten us all. Are any of them even remotely consistent with Occam's razor?

nuclear fusion at the suns core is not an unique solution to the neutrino data.

Its the only one consistent with Occam's razor. (Unless you can give us an alternative model.)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

People keep saying this. The best way to test a theory is by the predictions it has made.

Indeed.

And, as we are discussing, in this thread, Plasma Cosmology, when may we see some (predictions, that is)?

Can you show me the prediction that the nuclear model made about the neutrino flux, and where it was confirmed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino I haven't been able to so far, but I haven't been looking too hard.

Or any of the other sucessful predictions of the nuclear model?

Back to the future!

Or, spin on, baby, spin on.

Or ...

Tell me Zeuzzz,

{'nuclear model' has not made 'sucessful predictions'} THEREFORE Plasma Cosmology is PROVEN CORRECT!

Is this how it works in the alternate PC universe? Or is PC required to do its own making of 'sucessful predictions'?

Or as DeiRenDopa would say: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the prediction made by the nuclear model before neutrino's were observed, and quantitatively address the neutrino oscillations, various flavors, subsequent antiparticles, masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'nuclear' model (or theory, or ...).

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

I would?

Isn't that what you call 'parody'?

The neutrino issue seems to me to be a posteriori, merely curve fitting of observed data. If we see certain oscillations in data you can always model them to fit a mathematical curve to the data by least squares fit, or some other method. But then saying that this proves conclusively what is occuring in the sun, where no observation has been made or is possible, is logically unsupportable. Other fusion processes could be producing the observed neutrino flux; nuclear fusion at the suns core is not an unique solution to the neutrino data.

Ah yes, I see ...

Tell me Zeuzzz, in the special EU school where you train, do they give you extra gold stars for particularly creative word salad parodies?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So your not going to comment on the nonsense? Just declare it as such without a reason.

And why on Earth does your search prove anything? you should have just used the link that I myself provided previously, where you can see many variable stars, here; http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/

From what I've seen only ad hoc theories and new physics have been invented to explain these enigmatic variable stars.

Really?

Like the superb work of science fiction that Scott wrote?

Or the one Thornhill wrote?

Often with completely different causes for each one. The fact is that they are direct observations that conflict with the long time life span needed for stars using the billion year nuclear cycle. So an alternative interpretation of the HR diagram that would enable the spectra to vary this quickly in such a short time period would be supported by Each variable star observed, as no new theory needs to be invoked to explain each of them.

Ah, I remember now ...

{insert parody of something misunderstood about modern astronomy here}, THEREFORE Scott's scifi about electric stars MUST BE RIGHT!

Sorry, I keep forgetting that, in the alternative PC universe Scott (Thornhill, etc) ideas/hypotheses/models/theories are not required to:

a) be shown to be internally consistent ... quantitatively
b) be shown to be consistent with the rest of physics, whether plasma physics or General Relativity, or ... quantitatively
c) be shown to match all relevant observations and experimental results ... quantitatively.

And there are many. I only listed a couple, the one you searched for is the most well known.

Right ... of the ~500 million (or it 500 billion?) stars in the relevant databases, you take Scott's word that the behaviour of a couple (or a handful) are anomalous wrt standard stellar models and evolution theory ... and from that conclude that all 500 million+ stars MUST be powered by giant electric currents?!?

No, that can't be right ... what am I missing Zeuzzz?

And indeed, your search comes up with a very interesting paper in relation to variable stars, which seems to add further evidence for their spectra not being a direct indication of the nuclear cycle, but related to surface phenomenon.
A complex planetary nebula surrounds the weird star FG Sagittae The nebula makes the star appear fuzzy, and this is a well known effect in other variable stars.

Most variable stars have odd surrounding nebulae, implying that the spectra of these stars is affected by external factors. Which certainly adds credence to Thornhills model

What model is that Zeuzzz?

Can't the one in the IEEE paper, "The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars" now can it?

Why not?

Because that so-called paper does not contain any models .... period.

that the spectra could be related to other events, such as the current density on the stars surface, which can vary suddenly and unexpectedly depending changes in the stars local environment and the density on its surface, such as moving into an area of dense nebula.

Oh, silly me ... how could I have forgotten!

Um ... can you remind me please Zeuzzz, what is the "current density on the stars surface"? Let's start with the Sun, then move on to a typical M dwarf, go up the Main Sequence, and then out to the various giants and supergiants.

Oh, and no dancing or word salad please ... values, in Amps/m² if you please.

http://www.weblore.com/richard/fg_sagittae.htm



Or the rapid brightening could be due to local changes in the current density on the stars surface.

Instead of inventing new standalone theories like 'helium shellflashes', or any of the other things usually used to explain these observations, the alternative explanation of the HR diagram can explain these observations with no problem, no new theories and epicycles needed. Thats why I think that this approach could have merit over the usual one.

Indeed.

But wait!

No one, not Scott, not Thornhill, not even Zeuzzz eye-poppi) has given anything other than what would earn a C in a creative writing class on "this approach"!

Thanks Zeuzzz ... the very definition of woo indeed.

 

[Tubbythin]

Data for what? Do you understand what agnosticism is? I dont have to quantify an alternative, I just dont have to fully belive the nuclear one is set in stone.

Correct. But if you go around questioning the work and integrity of people who've dedicated their lives to the study of whichever thing you're agnostic about whilst being completely clueless to the science involved, you should expect a backlash.

 

[Tubbythin]

Instead of inventing new standalone theories like 'helium shellflashes', or any of the other things usually used to explain these observations, the alternative explanation of the HR diagram can explain these observations with no problem, no new theories and epicycles needed. Thats why I think that this approach could have merit over the usual one.

Please explain to us why you think helium shellflashes constitute epicycles.

 

[Zeuzzz]

People keep saying this. The best way to test a theory is by the predictions it has made.

Indeed.

And, as we are discussing, in this thread, Plasma Cosmology, when may we see some (predictions, that is)?

Avoid the question.

Do I have to list them again? Or were all my previous posts on the predictions one of those dark matter postings?

Heres one prediction to add to the list while i'm here (hopefully this post is not as dark as the other predictions i've posted here): The current belief that blackbody radiation is independent of the nature of the medium, a belief that has survived for 150 years, is false. It is based on assigning to a graphite particle a strictly catalytic role and ignoring its absorptive characteristics. However, given the nature of graphite and its importance in the blackbody problem, such an assumption simply can no longer be supported by experimental fact.

This is just one example of where empirical experimental observations have falsified some of the assumptions that modern cosmology/astronomy relies so heavily on. And there are many other areas.


IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 31, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2003

The universality of blackbody radiation has been overstated. It is imprudent to speak in terms of “blackbodies” without noting, as Kirchhoff did, the constraints of the enclosure [13], [14], [20]. It is also imprudent to ignore the realities of the “graphite particle” and extend the formulation of blackbody radiation to perfectly reflecting enclosures. Such enclosures fail to produce the required result without the addition of graphite (or a similar thermalyzer). Kirchhoff’s law holds only when Kv ~ 1

The underlying physical cause of thermal radiation must not be ignored and this includes the internal structure of matter. Yet Einstein’s derivation of Planck’s law, though masterful, has led some to ignore Kirchhoff, thermal equilibrium, and the physical realities involved in thermal emission. After more than a century since their formulation, both Kirchhoff’s law and Planck’s law remain imperfectly understood and unlinked to the physical world. Einstein never addresses either the physical species making the transition or the physical setting. Our inability to link Planck’s equation to physical reality is based in large part on the assumption that the perfect reflector was able to produce blackbody radiation. This erroneous assumption has reinforced the belief that virtually any object can produce a blackbody spectrum. Planck’s equation lacks physical constraints as a direct result. Consequently, astrophysics can currently have recourse to Planckian arguments without being limited by the experimental realities of the laboratory. Everything, it seems, hinges on the role of the graphite particle. A new role for this particle (as an absorber, not a catalyst) will bring a new physical reality in thermal emission. This reality is likely to have profound implications in the study of space and the cosmos. [...]

For instance, the sun cannot be in thermal equilibrium with an enclosure and clearly does not meet the requirements for setting a temperature based on Planckian arguments. Unlike experimental blackbody cavities, the solar surface is not in equilibrium with a rigid graphite based cavity. The sun is operating far out of thermal equilibrium. Its convection currents alone tell us that the solar surface cannot be considered to be a blackbody. [...]

This also has implications for the CMB that is often used to prove the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson made the assumption that their signal was thermal in origin and inferred that the source could be treated as an ideal blackbody. Without acknowledging the strict requirements involved in setting a blackbody temperature, discussed in the publication above. They used the laws of thermal radiation, obtaining a temperature of 3.5±1.0K.

can you show me the prediction that the nuclear model made about the neutrino flux, and where it was confirmed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino I haven't been able to so far, but I haven't been looking too hard.

Or any of the other sucessful predictions of the nuclear model?

Back to the future!

Or, spin on, baby, spin on.

Or ...

Tell me Zeuzzz,

{'nuclear model' has not made 'sucessful predictions'} THEREFORE Plasma Cosmology is PROVEN CORRECT!

Is this how it works in the alternate PC universe? Or is PC required to do its own making of 'sucessful predictions'?

What are you talking about? I never mentioned plasma cosmology, I was asking for the predictions of the nuclear model. Avoidance of very simple question noted.

Ah yes, I see ...

Tell me Zeuzzz, in the special EU school where you train, do they give you extra gold stars for particularly creative word salad parodies?

Anything that I can reply to in this post without engaging in an argument? No, I didn't think so.

I'm really quite tired of this sort of post now DRD, if you have anything valid to add past personal comments about me then please post it. This is the science section afterall, not the psychoanalysis of Zeuzzz section.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I've been curious about why it's so hard to get hold of the landmark PC papers by Thornhill, W. W. that Zeuzzz has referenced several times. You'll readily recall his style: sweeping generalisations about paradigm-shattering discoveries, followed by some quotes that don't seem to say anything much and many links. If you follow the links and read the papers (if you can), keeping Zeuzzz' posts on hand so you know the context, you'll be nearly always in turn frustrated, disappointed, and amused; Zeuzzz' case is, in almost all his posts, a strange mixture of waffle, ignorance, and cynical deception.

Here's a good example:

Blah blah....

Shortly after Zeuzzz introduced 'electric stars' as yet another part of 'plasma cosmology', I asked this simple question: "Q: In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"?

After several exchanges of posts, filled with vintage Zeuzzz waffle, word salad quotes, and ignorance, I asked the question again, with a rider:

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so."

Zeuzzz' reply is yet more classic Zeuzzz.

And my final attempt to get an answer, here, is where Zeuzzz ran away.

But why didn't he simply answer the question?

I think the reason is his cynical deception (or perhaps his ignorance) ...

I did answer the question. More than once infact. It just be one of those dark postings that no one can see or detect.

I guess so ... because not one of the references in any of the posts which quote my question - in any form - contain explicit discussion of the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).

But, you may be right ... which dark posting of yours does contain such references?

You keep claiming that i've run away, but I've never run away. Here I am And I keep coming back no matter how many times you say that I've "run away".

Whatever you think I ran away from, please bring it up. I'll be happy to respond.

Sure thing ...

In a later post, I'll provide post numbers, and links thereto, which contain questions that you have consistently failed to answer, or (in many cases) even acknowledge.

I would also like to invite other regulars in this thread to do the same ... IIRC, you have run away from many, many posts (and questions) by others too ...

... snip ...

It does, as Zeuzzz stated, contain a section on the HR diagram ("X. Hertzsprung-Russell

---

Diagram"), and another five directly related to it.

It also does, as Zeuzzz stated, relate the HR diagram to the (or an) "electric star model".

---

So the above questions you have been repetitively reposting I did actually answer before when I listed this paper the very fist time you asked, and every time afterwards.

---

Um ... er ... did you coach a certain Mr Clinton (he of, allegedly, "depends on what the definition of "is" is")?

(stay tuned dear reader, it gets much better ...)

However, contrary to what you'd expect to find for an academic, technical paper in a physics journal, there are no equations, no numbers, ... and no model!

You cant simply dismiss an entire scientific publication just for the reason that the material addressed does not have equations in it.

... snip ...

I suggested, earlier, that if ever you choose to go work as a spin-meister for a polly, you have only to link to your posts in this thread ... they serve as brilliant examples of how good you are at your craft.

Meanwhile, back in the world of science ...

Zeuzzz, here are some words I wrote: "Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...)."

So, instead of saying "there are no such papers", you serve up the so-called Thornhill paper ... and later bleat about how good it is, as science, all the while confirming that it does not provide what I asked for?

What's this called? chutzpah?

The publication in question seems primarily to be setting a ground for future work to be done on this relatively new model.

{insert appropriate expletive here}

Zeuzzz, the luminosities, masses, colours, estimate surface gravities, etc, etc, etc of many thousand (million?) stars are available, in the literature, for free (all that's required is a proper citation).

The spectra of thousands (millions?) are also available, equally free, for use.

The relevant physics (Stark effect, Zeeman effect, etc) necessary to quantify the 'electric star model' in the so-called Thornhill paper can be found in any number of standard undergrad physics textbooks ... even those Thornhill himself no doubt used at the University of Melbourne.

And so on.

Yet neither Thornhill nor Scott (who WT quotes) seems to have bothered even citing any of this vast cornucopia, let alone actually using it.

If you've got some science you want to share with us, by all means do so.

If all you have is fairy stories, please, refrain from wasting bandwidth and electricity ...

It was received well by the IEEE, as they tend to be more open to new theories than other astro journals are, which tend to take a similar line of thought to you DRD, denounce them as crackpot and not adhering to what we know is the 'truth' in space. A position I feel is most unscientific.

... snip ...

Here, for once, you have a good point.

Having got the Thornhill 'papers', I contacted some IEEE members, referred to the papers, and asked some innocent questions.

It will come as no surprise to many readers (but may to you Zeuzzz) to learn that they were horrified that such garbage was going out under the IEEE name.

So, has that part of the IEEE gone to sleep and allowed crackpot nonsense to be published? Will there be some changes in internal processes and procedures, if only to ensure minimal scientific standards are met wrt publications that bear the IEEE name (at least in plasma physics)?

Let's check back in a year or so, shall we?

(to be continued)

 

[Tubbythin]

Anything on the sun that is subphotospheric should be treated as theory.

I think I agree. I mean the nuclear fusion p-p chain model should be treated as a theory definitely. Along side the theory of gravity or QED.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Really?

Like the superb work of science fiction that Scott wrote?

Or the one Thornhill wrote?

Ah, I remember now ...

{insert parody of something misunderstood about modern astronomy here}, THEREFORE Scott's scifi about electric stars MUST BE RIGHT!

Sorry, I keep forgetting that, in the alternative PC universe Scott (Thornhill, etc) ideas/hypotheses/models/theories are not required to:

a) be shown to be internally consistent ... quantitatively
b) be shown to be consistent with the rest of physics, whether plasma physics or General Relativity, or ... quantitatively
c) be shown to match all relevant observations and experimental results ... quantitatively.

Right ... of the ~500 million (or it 500 billion?) stars in the relevant databases, you take Scott's word that the behaviour of a couple (or a handful) are anomalous wrt standard stellar models and evolution theory ... and from that conclude that all 500 million+ stars MUST be powered by giant electric currents?!?

No, that can't be right ... what am I missing Zeuzzz?
What model is that Zeuzzz?

Can't the one in the IEEE paper, "The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars" now can it?

Why not?

Because that so-called paper does not contain any models .... period.

Oh, silly me ... how could I have forgotten!

Um ... can you remind me please Zeuzzz, what is the "current density on the stars surface"? Let's start with the Sun, then move on to a typical M dwarf, go up the Main Sequence, and then out to the various giants and supergiants.

Oh, and no dancing or word salad please ... values, in Amps/m² if you please.
Indeed.

But wait!

No one, not Scott, not Thornhill, not even Zeuzzz eye-poppi) has given anything other than what would earn a C in a creative writing class on "this approach"!

Thanks Zeuzzz ... the very definition of woo indeed.

Anything productive in this post? any valid questions in here? I must have missed them.

 

[Tubbythin]

This also has implications for the CMB that is often used to prove the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson made the assumption that their signal was thermal in origin and inferred that the source could be treated as an ideal blackbody. Without acknowledging the strict requirements involved in setting a blackbody temperature, discussed in the publication above. They used the laws of thermal radiation, obtaining a temperature of 3.5±1.0K.

Looks like a pretty good blackbody to me. In case you hadn't realised Zeuzzz, the curve is a perfect blackbody spectrum. The data points and error bars cannot be seen as they all lie under the curve. So... do you still think the CMBR isn't a blackbody?

 

[Tubbythin]

Anything productive in this post? any valid questions in here? I must have missed them.

Hint: look for the question marks.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I've been keeping a loose eye on this (and related threads), and would be surprised if the electric star theory is taken seriously by anyone! but then I may be biased and a run-down may be good for onlookers. Besides, it's been a while since it was discussed at length.

You are probably taking the more unorthodox electric star claims, such as very high charge, electrical power instead of nuclear, etc, which you wont find published in any PC journal.

... snip ...

Gotta hand it to ya Zeuzzz, you are soooo good at this sort of thing!

Let's see now ... "The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars", page 8, there is a reference to "D.E. Scott" (actually, it says "Credit D.E. Scott")

And in the References, the only "D.E. Scott" is [38] "The Electric Sky, Mikamar Publishing, 2006" (it should be noted that [38] is on page 6).

Tell us all Zeuzzz, what does Scott's "The Electric Sky" have to say about what powers the Sun?

This is the key aspect of PC, gaining knowledge of the plasma in space via direct plasma based experiments and scaling them up through many orders of magnitude.

... snip ...

Right ... and a classic example of the inconsistency at the heart of Plasma Cosmology is that gaining knowledge of gravity in space via direct gravity experiments and scaling them up through many orders of magnitude is not even mentioned, much less considered or acknowledged as providing troubling concerns for PC ...

Among your vast collection of PC literature, can you give us some juicy quotes Zeuzzz about why General Relativity cannot/must not/should not be "scaled up through many orders of magnitude"?

There's a particularly good one by Alfvén, isn't there?

Just dont fall into the trap that other people have here of vigorously opposing something before they have the slightest clue what it is.

Okey dokey ...

I am looking forward to reading posts by you Zeuzzz, in which you begin to address the dozens (hundreds?) of questions in this thread that you've walked away from (without, in most cases, even acknowledging them) ...

For your convenience, I'll present the post numbers, with links to the posts, in a series of posts, rather than all in one ...

 

[Zeuzzz]

I guess so ... because not one of the references in any of the posts which quote my question - in any form - contain explicit discussion of the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).

But, you may be right ... which dark posting of yours does contain such references?

The one I posted three times.

Sure thing ...

In a later post, I'll provide post numbers, and links thereto, which contain questions that you have consistently failed to answer, or (in many cases) even acknowledge.

Good. This should be fun.

I would also like to invite other regulars in this thread to do the same ... IIRC, you have run away from many, many posts (and questions) by others too ...

Theres only one of me, and hundreds of you, I cant answer all the hundreds of questions that have been asked of me. And keep saying that I've run away all you want, I'll just keep returning here showing how silly you are when you say this.

Zeuzzz, here are some words I wrote: "Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...)."

So, instead of saying "there are no such papers", you serve up the so-called Thornhill paper ... and later bleat about how good it is, as science, all the while confirming that it does not provide what I asked for?

What's this called? chutzpah?

I answered your original question, you changed it later when I answered it.

{insert appropriate expletive here}

Zeuzzz, the luminosities, masses, colours, estimate surface gravities, etc, etc, etc of many thousand (million?) stars are available, in the literature, for free (all that's required is a proper citation).

The spectra of thousands (millions?) are also available, equally free, for use.

The relevant physics (Stark effect, Zeeman effect, etc) necessary to quantify the 'electric star model' in the so-called Thornhill paper can be found in any number of standard undergrad physics textbooks ... even those Thornhill himself no doubt used at the University of Melbourne.

And so on.

True.

Yet neither Thornhill nor Scott (who WT quotes) seems to have bothered even citing any of this vast cornucopia, let alone actually using it.

Untrue.

If you've got some science you want to share with us, by all means do so.

I have. You dismiss it without valid reasons, and refuse to even discuss it, apart from pointing out one misleadingly labelled axis. So why should I show any more? You'll just do the same.

If all you have is fairy stories, please, refrain from wasting bandwidth and electricity ...

It was received well by the IEEE, as they tend to be more open to new theories than other astro journals are, which tend to take a similar line of thought to you DRD, denounce them as crackpot and not adhering to what we know is the 'truth' in space. A position I feel is most unscientific.

Here, for once, you have a good point.

Having got the Thornhill 'papers', I contacted some IEEE members, referred to the papers, and asked some innocent questions.

It will come as no surprise to many readers (but may to you Zeuzzz) to learn that they were horrified that such garbage was going out under the IEEE name.

Well they are the sort of people that you want to avoid. They feel that their science is the "truth" and any rival theory need to be crushed and dismissed as crackpottery, without any valid scientific reasons given as to why. Thats not how science works.

Its quite odd how you ask an IEEE member about this publication, but ignore the large amount of world experts in this field that reviewed and published this paper and saw nothing wrong with it. It will certainly be interesting to see what work is built up on this paper, and who cites it. I was speaking to Jaques Morret-Baily in E-mail correspondances recently about raman scattering, and he said that he could see a possible relationship between chemical separation of elements in solar atmospheres (due to marklund convection) which would be able to produce the spectra of stars using Thornhills model, depending on the density of the corona. I'm sure he'll reference Thornhills publication when he publishes it, and should expand on the basic idea put forwards by him. Thats how science should work.

So, has that part of the IEEE gone to sleep and allowed crackpot nonsense to be published? Will there be some changes in internal processes and procedures, if only to ensure minimal scientific standards are met wrt publications that bear the IEEE name (at least in plasma physics)?

Let's check back in a year or so, shall we?

(to be continued)

Yes, indeed. Maybe you'll be sucessful in purging the scientific world of any theories and publications you take aversion to. This censorship type of approach seems a bit dogmatic to me.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Looks like a pretty good blackbody to me. In case you hadn't realised Zeuzzz, the curve is a perfect blackbody spectrum. The data points and error bars cannot be seen as they all lie under the curve. So... do you still think the CMBR isn't a blackbody?

Not exactly for the CMB. Just read;

http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-02.PDF

It has always been understood, in communications, that powerful signals imply proximal sources. This practical knowledge was neglected [1, 5]. Yet, concerns should have lingered over the amount of power found in the “CMB” [1, 11]. In addition, the experimental justification, for setting blackbody temperatures, was overlooked. The belief, that blackbody radiation was universal [4], enabled the dismissal of all laboratory experiments relative to its nature [3]. The experimental [3] and theoretical [4] basis of universality has now been brought into question. Blackbody radiation is not universal in nature [4], but, rather, is strictly limited to a physical setting best approached by graphite and soot on Earth [3]. A spectrum, like the “CMB” signal [11], may well appear to be thermal, but the temperature will not be valid unless the requirements set forth in Kirchhoff’s experiment are strictly followed [3].

The Planckian equation [18] remains detached from the physical world. Thermal emission is explained mathematically [4], without regard to the physical setting. Blackbody radiation is the only process in physics wherein the setting, transition species, and energy levels are devoid of physical meaning [3, 4]. In large part, this is a result of the erroneous belief in universality [3, 4]. Given universality, temperatures were set without the inconvenience of laboratory constraint [....]

When Penzias and Wilson used thermodynamic principles to set a temperature of 3.5 K, they did not consider the phases of matter [1]. The signal did not change with the seasons [1], and the Earth was not at 3 K, so Dicke et. al. [5] surmised that it originated from the Universe. A powerful spectrum was present, but the concept that the receiver must be close to the source was not considered. They believed, much like Planck [20], that the laws of thermal emission[18, 27, 28] were universally applicable. Yet, Kirchhoff’s law states that, for a blackbody, the temperature must be determined in the presence of thermal equilibrium, within an enclosure [2–4]. The Universe can never meet this requirement.

and this one too;

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-14-06.PDF

It has been advanced, on experimental (P.-M. Robitaille, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 2003,
v. 31(6), 1263–1267) and theoretical (P.-M. Robitaille, Progr. Phys., 2006, v. 2, 22–23)
grounds, that blackbody radiation is not universal and remains closely linked to the
emission of graphite and soot. In order to strengthen such claims, a conceptual analysis
of the proofs for universality is presented. This treatment reveals that Gustav Robert
Kirchho has not properly considered the combined eects of absorption, reflection,
and the directional nature of emission in real materials. In one instance, this leads to
an unintended movement away from thermal equilibrium within cavities. Using equilibrium
arguments, it is demonstrated that the radiation within perfectly reflecting or
arbitrary cavities does not necessarily correspond to that emitted by a blackbody.

Or read any of the publications written on this after the seminal plasma cosmology publication pointing this out in 2003; http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=6147649376720162606

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

You keep claiming that i've run away, but I've never run away. Here I am And I keep coming back no matter how many times you say that I've "run away".

Whatever you think I ran away from, please bring it up. I'll be happy to respond.

Sure thing ...

In a later post, I'll provide post numbers, and links thereto, which contain questions that you have consistently failed to answer, or (in many cases) even acknowledge.

I would also like to invite other regulars in this thread to do the same ... IIRC, you have run away from many, many posts (and questions) by others too ...

... snip ...

I added some bold.

post#3

post#9

Note that Zeuzzz' post#105 seems to address this ... except that later he weasels away, and starts dancing all over the place (see post#143 and #620, to give just two examples).

post#88

post#117

post#143 (there are questions there beyond those relevant to #3, 9, etc)

post#144

And no, Zeuzzz' post#159 does NOT address the questions above - see post#162.

post#177

post#182

post#193

post#195

post#196

Looking forward to Zeuzzz, being happy to respond ...

(to be continued)

 

[tusenfem]

Typical EU behaviour

Apparently, Zeuzzz does not know space physics as he should, and makes claims that can easily be put down, but might make other people that are not fully aware of science convinced that there may be something to this nonsense.

That is a very interesting publication that I've seen before. That tail coming detatched was certainly unexpected for standard cometary theory, and a very interesting observation. Probably deserves a thread in itself.

You are wrong here, it has already been proposed a long time ago that reconnection would be possible in the tail of a comet, like in the magnetotail of Venus which I am looking at at the moment. It is called plasma tail detachment or disconnection.

There was a paper in 2002 citing observations as old as 1998. (esoads.eso.org/abs/2002EM%26P...90..405V)

Then there were numerical investigations of this process in 1989 (esoads.eso.org/abs/1989JGR....9411813M)

And going back even further, such an event was also observed in 1987 (esoads.eso.org/abs/1987A%26A...187..267B)

And the earliest paper (that I could find) about tail disconnection was written in 1977 (esoads.eso.org/abs/1977BAAS....9..618N)

So, you can hardly say that mainstream space physics was not aware that this could happen and this was not unexpected. However, this was the first time that there was a very clear movie of this process, and that is naturally of great value.

 

[Tubbythin]

Ok. I'm confused Zeuzzz. Are you saying the fact that the CMBR has as close to a perfect blackbody spectrum of anything thats has ever been observed is down to soot?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

Zeuzzz, the luminosities, masses, colours, estimate surface gravities, etc, etc, etc of many thousand (million?) stars are available, in the literature, for free (all that's required is a proper citation).

The spectra of thousands (millions?) are also available, equally free, for use.

The relevant physics (Stark effect, Zeeman effect, etc) necessary to quantify the 'electric star model' in the so-called Thornhill paper can be found in any number of standard undergrad physics textbooks ... even those Thornhill himself no doubt used at the University of Melbourne.

And so on.

True.

Yet neither Thornhill nor Scott (who WT quotes) seems to have bothered even citing any of this vast cornucopia, let alone actually using it.

Untrue.

... snip ...

Oh?

I checked the 11 pages that have content again ... no equations, no analyses, hardly any numbers, ... (I'm concentrating on sections X through XV, the ones on the HR diagram etc, the ones directly relevant to an answer to my question; they are found on pp 8-11).

Thornhill uses the words like "the standard model" and "the electric star model", but, apart from the indirect reference to Scott's crackpot book, there are no references to any such models, let alone any presentation of them ...

It gets worse.

Section X ("HERTZSPRUNG-RUSSELL [H-R] DIAGRAM") begins with these words: "The H-R diagram is derived from observations".

However, no observations are cited! Except, of course, for a reference to Scott's crackpot book (does Scott reference any actual observations, Zeuzzz?)

Thornhill says, on p8 "A star’s position on the H–R plot is due to each star’s apparent size and the current density at its apparent surface. It is found that the broadening of spectral lines in an electric field, which is known as the “Stark effect,” increases for hotter stars." (I added emphasis).

Does Thornhill give a reference for the Stark effect? No.

Does Thornhill say who "found" this relationship? No.

Does Thornhill derive an estimate, from one form of the Stark effect (or otherwise), of the relationship between line broadening and "heat" (as in "hotter stars")? No.

Does Thornhill cite a reference where such a derivation may be found? No.

And so on.

Would you please explain, or show

a) what Thornhill does cite, in terms of the relevant physics?

b) which of the many databases on the spectra and photometry of stars Thornhill cites?

c) how Thornhill makes use of any of the cornucopia of observations and physics theory, quantitatively?