Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Reality Check]

There is nothing to "win" here, and no amount of maths is going to prove the point!

Case in hand SR and GR!!

But observation will!!

You really are confused confused about SR and GR if you think that they have not been experimentally confirmed.
Experimental basis of Special Relativity
Tests of general relativity

N.B. Every experimental test of SR is also an experimental test of GR since GR incorporates SR.

The first link is especially interesting. It was written by a scientist and so he has actually added a section on "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR" as any good scientists would.

How many times are you going to ad hoc something before re examining the under lying assumption, namely the Universe is NOT electrically neutral!! It's a fully charged environment

Please present your proof that there are more positive charges than negative charges in the Universe (or vice versa).

 

[Reality Check]

If maths blows the wind thru your hair, go ahead! You and I are not the only one reading this thread.

I am not a mathematician by a long shot! And maths is no substitute for common sense!

So how does your "common sense" explain the fact that electrons act like particles (e.g. bounce off things like magnetic fields) and also act like waves (e.g. cause interference patterns when passed through slits)?

What you seem to mean is: You do not understand the maths. You cannot understand the explanations of the maths. You cannot understand the explanations of the consequences of the maths. Therefore you will ignore the maths.

And why QM and GR/SR will never be able to agree! So which one is wrong?

Firstly QM and SR already agree (quantum field theory).
Secondly both QM and GR are right - in their own areas of application. They even "agree" since GR can be restated in terms of the

quantum mechanics of interacting theoretical spin-2 massless particles (called gravitons).^WP

Scientists however think that neither is complete until they can be combined into one theory (Quantum gravity).

 

[Reality Check]

Yes they do, read the electric gravity link!

We've smashed enough elementary particles together to know about spin, charge etc etc

But gravity is all about mass and unless you find your holy grail, the Higgs Boson, in your 6 billion dollar toy (the LHC) then your Farked!

Easy to work out when you consider the orbits of electron around a nucleus, that's why electric gravity makes alot more sense than it just attracts!

There are parallels between electric gravity and why ferromagnetisim does what it does, .i.e. all the electron moving in lock step with each other!

The electric gravity link is interesting: No mathematics and a lot of pretty pictures. I can see why you like that web page Sol88 !

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.[18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.

Problems that are immediately obvious

1. "protons, neutrons and electrons" move. Thus their dipoles can never be "radially oriented".
2. "protons, neutrons and electrons" (and the atoms that they are are in) are not spread over a "given surface". They are spread in volumes.
3. Atoms in solids actually move (thermal vibrations). Molecules rotate. But Thornhill's "radially oriented" on a surface electric dipoles need to keep their orientation.
4. Atoms in the gas state also generate gravity - where are the surfaces in the gas?

We have smashed enough elementary particles together to know about spin, charge etc etc - and to know about electrostatic charges (dipole moments). So what does science actually tell us?

• The proton has an electric dipole moment of < 5.4×10⁻²⁴ e cm
• The neutron has an electric dipole moment of < 2.9×10⁻²⁶ e cm
• The electron has an electric dipole moment of < < 1.6 × 10⁻²⁷ e cm

Therefore your next task Sol88 is to point out these values to Thornhill and ask him to plug them into his equations for electric gravity and pass the results back to us.

 

[tusenfem]

Uncle Wal's maybe on the money I think!

[qimg]http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Electric%20gravity.jpg[/qimg]

Uncle Wal has not invented this, he can only copy from other's peeps works!
If you would really read stuff you would find that it is from a certain Sansbury.

And just to repeat myself, the stupidity of the texts on holoscience:

But then he says:

The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.

Ehhhhh wait! say that again?
Gravity is weak because the distortion of the subatomic particles is minute in a gravitational field?


But, in this theory it is the distortion of the subatomic particles, the so called dipoles, that create gravity. Talking about a snake biting itself in its tail.


nuff sed, no moor is needs, bunks is as bunks does
(adopting Sol's grammar skills, so he might understand)

 

[Tubbythin]

And why QM and GR/SR will never be able to agree! So which one is wrong?

QM and SR already agree and are both tested to very high precision. And yet you want to reject both completely! And then you wonder why nobody is taking you seriously?

 

[Dancing David]

davefoc wrote over in the thread Quantum entanglement?



Amen!

When faced with a fundamental challenge to the current theory, a lot of followers of said theory demand the proponent of the other theory to do the math and show us the calculation!

But didn't we invent computers to do all the hard work involved in the math?

Or do you math nuts do the stereotypical mad scientists thing?

And this one sounds familiar when explaining the Big Bang [qimg]http://members.pioneer.net/%7Emchumor/00images/5994_chemistry_cartoon.gif[/qimg]

Just don't divide by Zero!!!

Nope, your ignorance is amazing: in that you have not examined the subject.

QM , since it's inception has defied acting "simple enough issue".

QM does not act the way we want it to, it acts teh way it does.

And you are really quite silly.

Here is the deal the misapplied term 'dipole' that you refer to in the orbitals comes straight out of QM:

Common use of dipole: refer to separate and opposite charge values + and -

What the picture which represent the space that the electron potentialy exists in:
Pauli numbers of the exclusion principle: spin.

Then you mention that they are called 'orbitals', because originally after the 'plum pudding' model someone thought that maybe electrons orbit the nucleus. This is now know to be not true, but the term has stuck.

 

[Dancing David]

When faced with a fundamental challenge to the current theory, a lot of followers of said theory demand the proponent of the other theory to do the math and show us the calculation!


The burden of proof is on you silly.

You made the silly statement, you made the claim!

You say that you have something that 'challenges' the mainstream, yeah?

So what?

the issue is upon you to show the YOUR CLAIM has merit.

That is called the burden of proof. Your claim, you defend it.

That is not mean old science.

That is the JREF. I get challenged all the time on stuff that i right, so does everyone here. It is not some conspiracy to fight the new innovations, it is called 'critical thinking'.

You are just earning your wings newbie. Maybe you could try defending your ideas instead of whining and pouting.

That is what the JREF is all about.
(Just a suggestion, but maybe you are here to promote a political and philospohical agenda.)

 

[Tim Thompson]

PC/EU Comments from the Peanut Gallery

I kind of gave up when the thread degenerated into a new depth of silliness. But I would like to point out a few key issues, in the possibly forlorn hope that this might actually become an intelligent conversation.

Point one: What is "electric universe"? (EU)
Point Two: What is "plasma cosmology"? (PC)
Neither of these alternative ideas have been well defined or explained anywhere in this entire thread. I submit that we really don't know what we are even talking about, at any level. I would like to see not a general description, but a precise definition, of both hypotheses. How, specifically, do EU & PC differ from each other, and with equal specificity, how do they differ from mainstream theories, upon which they claim to improve? All we have so far is vague references to some mythical notion that every mention of plasma or electromagnetism somehow falsifies mainstream theories. In reality, we are simply being told what we have known for years & decades, as if it were a revelation.

Point three: How can we observationally distinguish between alternative hypotheses and mainstream theory?
There is a well established and perfectly reasonable process for distinguishing between alternative explanations for natural phenomena, which has been routinely ignored throughout this discussion. That process is to use the differences derived from the definitions as described above to identify specific observations which will reveal those differences for all to see. We want to design & execute a program of astronomical observations and/or laboratory experiments, the results of which can be predicted (either literally or not) from the formal structure of the competing hypotheses or theories. Comparing the results of the observations to the results of the predictions, we can then determine unambiguously which of the competing theories or hypotheses actually describes what really happens in nature. There has been no mention of such observations in this discussion, but that should in fact be the primary topic. Anybody can claim anything, but the facts of nature & observation are inescapable. I would like to see the enthusiastic proponents of alternative ideas spell out in detail what observations need to be made (or perhaps have already been made) which will falsify one while simultaneously verifying the other idea. That's how arguments like this are settled when real science is the goal.

Point four: The role of plasma physics & electromagnetism in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology
One myth which the enthusiastic fans of EU & PC have advanced in my presence is the myth that "astronomers" (that should rather be "astrophysicists") do not study plasma physics and electromagnetism, and are therefore biased by ignorance, while the alternative thinkers, armed with a deep knowledge of plasma physics and electromagnetism, have the intellectual advantage. In fact, both plasma physics and electromagnetism are deeply involved in the mainstream disciplines of astrophysics and cosmology. One need only look to the books and extensive published papers to see this. This thread is dominated by this myth, with enthusiastic fans cheering every mention of "plasma" as if it were the downfall of astrophysics as we know it, while that in fact could not be farther from the truth. Do not fall for the myth.

 

[Anaconda]

Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."

Writers are linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and also a dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Mathematicians are even more linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and an even more dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.

Experiments? No. Pure mathematicians don't engage in experiment, other than "thought experiments".

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.

These folks, here, are just stringing you along, Sol88, and Zeuss, you energies and knowledge can be more effectively employed elsewhere.

These pure mathmaticians need to be sealed in there little Platonic Cave and left to their shadows in perpetuity.

Yes, I have no math skills, but math is a description, but it is not an explanation. For that you need words, and concepts. Mathematicians will never understand that.

"What of Lazarus?"

Sol88, come out of this cave of perpetual shadow and leave these people to their fate.

They play you off, so you can't spend your time persuading people who have an open-mind.

These people don't have an open-mind.

The mathematics of "big bang, black holes" has already been falsified, once they used the "infinity" concept.

Infinity can't be quantified. Yet, that is exactly what these people do.

"Big bang, black hole" hypothesis likes to give the impression that it is rigorous and quantified -- that is false. Any "science" that relies on infinity for their basic constructs which is what "modern" astronomy does, today, is not a science, it is a farse, and these guys know it.

It is reification at its most deceptive level. Mathematics gives a patina or thin veneer of scientific respectability, but only mathematics that doesn't rely on the "infinity" concept has any value in the physical sciences.

These guys, here, and indeed, "modern" astronomy are shaman that use mathematics as a cover for fancy.

Sol88 and Zeusss, come out of this loathesome cave and let's seal it up after ourselves.

UniverseToday, any number of website are better than this arena of closed minds.

 

[sol invictus]

Point one: What is "electric universe"? (EU)
Point Two: What is "plasma cosmology"? (PC)
Neither of these alternative ideas have been well defined or explained anywhere in this entire thread. I submit that we really don't know what we are even talking about, at any level. I would like to see not a general description, but a precise definition, of both hypotheses. How, specifically, do EU & PC differ from each other, and with equal specificity, how do they differ from mainstream theories, upon which they claim to improve? All we have so far is vague references to some mythical notion that every mention of plasma or electromagnetism somehow falsifies mainstream theories. In reality, we are simply being told what we have known for years & decades, as if it were a revelation.

Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable. So far, the result has been a torrent of dodges, whines, and squirms, containing nothing even close to a contender. That's about the best evidence that PC/EU is not science one could attain in this thread at least, so I consider the matter long since settled.

But the challenge remains open, on one condition - that if the PC/EU explanation is shown false, Zeuzzz (or whoever proposes it) will agree to stop posting about PC/EU.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."

Writers are linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and also a dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Mathematicians are even more linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and an even more dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.

Experiments? No. Pure mathematicians don't engage in experiment, other than "thought experiments".

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.

These folks, here, are just stringing you along, Sol88, and Zeuss, you energies and knowledge can be more effectively employed elsewhere.

These pure mathmaticians need to be sealed in there little Platonic Cave and left to their shadows in perpetuity.

Yes, I have no math skills, but math is a description, but it is not an explanation. For that you need words, and concepts. Mathematicians will never understand that.

"What of Lazarus?"

Sol88, come out of this cave of perpetual shadow and leave these people to their fate.

They play you off, so you can't spend your time persuading people who have an open-mind.

These people don't have an open-mind.

The mathematics of "big bang, black holes" has already been falsified, once they used the "infinity" concept.

Infinity can't be quantified. Yet, that is exactly what these people do.

"Big bang, black hole" hypothesis likes to give the impression that it is rigorous and quantified -- that is false. Any "science" that relies on infinity for their basic constructs which is what "modern" astronomy does, today, is not a science, it is a farse, and these guys know it.

It is reification at its most deceptive level. Mathematics gives a patina or thin veneer of scientific respectability, but only mathematics that doesn't rely on the "infinity" concept has any value in the physical sciences.

These guys, here, and indeed, "modern" astronomy are shaman that use mathematics as a cover for fancy.

Sol88 and Zeusss, come out of this loathesome cave and let's seal it up after ourselves.

UniverseToday, any number of website are better than this arena of closed minds.

I am not a physicist, astronomer or a cosmologist -- but I do have a serious interest in these subjects and I came here with an open mind.
Neither you nor your two colleagues have contributed one credible thought to these EU/PC threads. When I ask questions, I get a bunch of links and pictures with no connection to my questions. The sad truth (for you) is that the universe behaves mathematically -- to an astonishing degree. The lack of mathematical skills that you and your colleagues demonstrate is your undoing.

If EM forces dominate the universe, proving it with a little mathematical demonstration is not much to ask. EM forces do behave mathematically to the same degree the rest of the universe does. You have mastered a lot of jargon with no real knowledge. You and your two friends are nothing but bluster, wind and smoke!

By the way, not being able to construct a paragraph without misspellings, childlike sentence structure and a profound ignorance of word meanings does not help your cause. You desperately need to be re-educated in the subjects of English (and/or your native tongue), mathematics and physics. A primer in logic would also help.

 

[Tubbythin]

Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."

Writers are linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and also a dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Mathematicians are even more linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and an even more dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.

Common sense is invariably found to be wrong in modern physics. Why? Because common sense is based on everyday "prejudices". For non-physicists everyday experience doesn't include studying the really really tiny, travelling close to the speed of light or studying the Universe on cosmological scales. So an appeal to common sense isn't any kind of physics argument at all.
On the other hand the requirement that any physical theory should be logical and devoid of self-contradiction is mandatory. Unfortunately for you and your friends, what you propose is invariably self-contradictory and illogical (just see Sol88's recent posting on electrical gravity for an excellent example).

Experiments? No. Pure mathematicians don't engage in experiment, other than "thought experiments".

What about all those experiments you've been reffered to that have falsified PC/EU?

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.

What is ""big bang, black hole" theory"?

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.

I hope you've got clear evidence on that. Otherwise I think accusing someone of "doctoring pictures" without evidence could amount to libel.

These folks, here, are just stringing you along, Sol88, and Zeuss, you energies and knowledge can be more effectively employed elsewhere.

Yeah, stringing them along by presenting evidence that falsifies their theories. I suppose we've doctored that evidence too?

These pure mathmaticians need to be sealed in there little Platonic Cave and left to their shadows in perpetuity.

Yes, I have no math skills, but math is a description, but it is not an explanation. For that you need words, and concepts. Mathematicians will never understand that.

Physics is a mathematical science. If you can't do the maths take up sociology (no offense meant to sociologists).

"What of Lazarus?"

Sol88, come out of this cave of perpetual shadow and leave these people to their fate.

They play you off, so you can't spend your time persuading people who have an open-mind.

These people don't have an open-mind.

If ignoring the last 100 years of advance in physics for a self-contradictory theory of electric gravity is having "an open-mind" I'd rather keep my mind closed thanks.

The mathematics of "big bang, black holes" has already been falsified, once they used the "infinity" concept.

Infinity can't be quantified. Yet, that is exactly what these people do.

"Big bang, black hole" hypothesis likes to give the impression that it is rigorous and quantified -- that is false. Any "science" that relies on infinity for their basic constructs which is what "modern" astronomy does, today, is not a science, it is a farse, and these guys know it.

Please tell us... at what distance does the EM force between two electrons go to zero?

It is reification at its most deceptive level. Mathematics gives a patina or thin veneer of scientific respectability, but only mathematics that doesn't rely on the "infinity" concept has any value in the physical sciences.

So I suppose you reject the idea of an infinitely old Universe?

These guys, here, and indeed, "modern" astronomy are shaman that use mathematics as a cover for fancy.

How could you possibly know? You've made pretty clear to everybody that you have no idea what actually goes on in modern astronomy.

Sol88 and Zeusss, come out of this loathesome cave and let's seal it up after ourselves.

UniverseToday, any number of website are better than this arena of closed minds.

Bye. I can't imagine you'll be missed.

 

[ben m]

Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."

"I haven't presented any evidence, but just imagine if I did and imagine that you continued saying no! If that happened, you would be shown to be dogmatic fools! Therefore you are dogmatic fools!" Any therefore, presumably, why bother showing evidence?

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.

Mathematics took over when Tycho Brahe took measurements to a precision of ten arcminutes, or perhaps when Newton showed that calculus was a good way of describing the world.

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.

Nobody asked you for the (complex) math describing black holes; we asked you for the (Freshman-level) math describing the force on a charged particle in a magnetic field.

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.

The photos are not doctored; you have been shown raw data and you chose to ignore it. If you want to allege fraud ... well, then you can deny (quite literally) anything you like about any field of science whatsoever.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I kind of gave up when the thread degenerated into a new depth of silliness. But I would like to point out a few key issues, in the possibly forlorn hope that this might actually become an intelligent conversation.

Point one: What is "electric universe"? (EU)
Point Two: What is "plasma cosmology"? (PC)
Neither of these alternative ideas have been well defined or explained anywhere in this entire thread. I submit that we really don't know what we are even talking about, at any level. I would like to see not a general description, but a precise definition, of both hypotheses. How, specifically, do EU & PC differ from each other, and with equal specificity, how do they differ from mainstream theories, upon which they claim to improve? All we have so far is vague references to some mythical notion that every mention of plasma or electromagnetism somehow falsifies mainstream theories. In reality, we are simply being told what we have known for years & decades, as if it were a revelation.

[...]

Actually, Z did provide a concise description of Plasma Cosmology.

He had been asked, repeatedly, to do so, from the very start of this thread, and, in post #684 he did so:

Overview

Plasma cosmology posits that the most important feature of the universe is that the matter it contains is composed almost entirely of astrophysical plasma. The state of matter known as plasma is an electrically-conductive collection of charged particles, possibly together with neutral particles or dust, that exhibits collective behavior and that responds as a whole to electromagnetic forces. The charged particles are usually ions and electrons resulting from heating a gas. Stars and the interstellar medium are composed of plasma of different densities. Plasma physics is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena.

The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from standard cosmology are:

1. Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.[10].
2. An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[11] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[12]
3. Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).

Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos; as many cosmological processes as possible are explained by the behaviour of a plasma in the laboratory.[13] Proponents contrast this with the big bang theory which has over the course of its existence required the introduction of such features as inflation, dark matter and dark energy that have not been detectable yet in laboratory experiments.

Now that is a quote, from Eric Lerner.

Z went on:

Concise enough?

A little extra. Reference 10 reads; "H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics (2nd edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation. In order to illustrate this, let us suppose that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance RE ((the position vector being RE) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by the solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm RE/RE3. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)"

Well before then, RC had started compiling a list of things which seemed, from Z's posts, to be an operational definition of PC ... and he (RC) has added to it as Z continued to post, and as others chipped in.

It's now a quite long list, and a real hodge-podge of things.

Along the way, "EU" has crept in, and I think it's accurate to say that folk like MM, Z, and BAC tend to blur whatever distinctions there might be (though Z has, several times, tried to make it clear that he himself sees a distinction).

Perhaps the most interesting definition of PC (or EU/PC, or ...) is MM's, in another thread; it goes something like this: "the application of MHD and GR ... and any other theories in physics, which describe known laws of physics, to astronomy/cosmology".

Now back in post #85 of this thread, si wrote this:

The trouble is that there is no such thing as plasma cosmology. There is a set of ideas, ranging from the totally ridiculous (the sun is powered by electricity) to the merely stupid (flat galactic rotation curves can be explained by electromagnetic forces) to phenomena not fully understood by anyone (solar flares) to the totally mundane (most matter in the universe is plasma).

Every single concrete idea which has been put forward - of which there have not been many - has either been debunked or turns out to be consistent with mainstream astrophysics. After the fact, Zeuzzz has then declared that those ideas weren't PC after all. Every attempt to get him to produce a concrete or quantitative prediction of PC has failed, largely I think because he recognizes that it will probably be shown false in short order, leaving him with few options.

So instead he continues making vague statements about PC, and spends most of his posts attacking aspects of the standard cosmological model (relying on the logic of false dichotomy: if the standard theory is wrong mine must be right - even though I don't have one).

While there have been some other proponents of PC (or EU or PC/EU or PU/EU or ...) than Z, especially this year, I think si's post is still a pretty darn good summary.

(to be continued)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."

Writers are linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and also a dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Mathematicians are even more linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and an even more dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.

Experiments? No. Pure mathematicians don't engage in experiment, other than "thought experiments".

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.

These folks, here, are just stringing you along, Sol88, and Zeuss, you energies and knowledge can be more effectively employed elsewhere.

These pure mathmaticians need to be sealed in there little Platonic Cave and left to their shadows in perpetuity.

Yes, I have no math skills, but math is a description, but it is not an explanation. For that you need words, and concepts. Mathematicians will never understand that.

"What of Lazarus?"

Sol88, come out of this cave of perpetual shadow and leave these people to their fate.

They play you off, so you can't spend your time persuading people who have an open-mind.

These people don't have an open-mind.

The mathematics of "big bang, black holes" has already been falsified, once they used the "infinity" concept.

Infinity can't be quantified. Yet, that is exactly what these people do.

"Big bang, black hole" hypothesis likes to give the impression that it is rigorous and quantified -- that is false. Any "science" that relies on infinity for their basic constructs which is what "modern" astronomy does, today, is not a science, it is a farse, and these guys know it.

It is reification at its most deceptive level. Mathematics gives a patina or thin veneer of scientific respectability, but only mathematics that doesn't rely on the "infinity" concept has any value in the physical sciences.

These guys, here, and indeed, "modern" astronomy are shaman that use mathematics as a cover for fancy.

Sol88 and Zeusss, come out of this loathesome cave and let's seal it up after ourselves.

UniverseToday, any number of website are better than this arena of closed minds.

Is this the same Anaconda who wrote this (source)?

The two questions I put forward as possible discussion points were synchrotron radiation being a product of electric currents and double layers. Which one would you like to discuss?

And this (source)?

Why are synchrotron radiation and double layers the two questions I'm interested in discussing?

Synchrotron radiation has been widely detected in deep-space. It is a product of electrons spiralling in a magnetic current, an electron flow, if you will, ordered movement of electrons, also known as electric current. This is the most solid piece of scientific evidence that electric currents exist in space.

Double layers are the fundamental driving force of acceleration of electrons and ions. It is the engine of electromagnetism.

Detection of electric currents in deep-space.

The engine of electromagnetism.

In my mind, at least, those two items are the foundation of any productive discussion of electromagnetism in space. The rest flows from there.

And at least one JREF Forum member took you at your word, Anaconda, and focussed entirely on synchrotron radiation (with (electromagnetic) acceleration of charged particles promised), me.

May I ask why you have = apparently - chosen to ignore attempts to have a discussion within the bounds you yourself proposed?

 

[Sol88]

Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable. So far, the result has been a torrent of dodges, whines, and squirms, containing nothing even close to a contender. That's about the best evidence that PC/EU is not science one could attain in this thread at least, so I consider the matter long since settled.

But the challenge remains open, on one condition - that if the PC/EU explanation is shown false, Zeuzzz (or whoever proposes it) will agree to stop posting about PC/EU.

Ok, one single phenomena it is!!

I pick Mercuries spider crater!

First a picture

Larger image HERE


Using just a few points off of my list below in bold, but showing the whole list for continuity.

Quote:
1. 99.999% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
4. Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.
5. Plasma is an excellent electrical conductor.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.

I propose this is an electrical discharge scar. A planetary sized lightning strike!!

The effect is easy to demonstrate, first build a layden jar then charge it, then finally (very carefully) discharge it


Look what happens!

now scale it from something like this

in the lab to one we see on Earth

to the scale we see on Mercury

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....



So Mercury becomes charged most probably like our moon in it's exposure to the solar wind until a threshold is reached.

What it discharged to is another question, I'd posit a sungrazer comet a a good candidate.

No mathematical jiggry pokery, it can be REPRODUCED in the lab, it can be scaled and ALL the ingredients to make it happen are there i.e. PLASMA, CHARGE SEPARATION etc etc!


So, Sol invictus your turn.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Ok, one single phenomena it is!!

I pick Mercuries spider crater!

...


I propose this is an electrical discharge scar. A planetary sized lightning strike!!

...

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

So Mercury becomes charged most probably like our moon in it's exposure to the solar wind until a threshold is reached.

What it discharged to is another question, I'd posit a sungrazer comet a a good candidate.

No mathematical jiggry pokery, it can be REPRODUCED in the lab, it can be scaled and ALL the ingredients to make it happen are there i.e. PLASMA, CHARGE SEPARATION etc etc!


So, Sol invictus your turn.

It looks like an impact crater with some idiosyncratic features to me.
If one were to seriously propose and electrical explanation, one would have to estimate the charge required, demonstrate how that charge would be achieved on Mercury and propose a discharge mechanism -- yes -- with some convincing mathematics -- (how else?)! You have done neither. Your lab demonstration may be interesting and even provocative, but it does not even come close to the level of scientific evidence for anything happening on Mercury.

 

[Reality Check]

Ok, one single phenomena it is!!

I pick Mercuries spider crater!

First a picture

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/mercurysurprise/spider_strip.jpg

Larger image HERE


...snipped lightning "explanation" of the crater...

You need to learn to read. This is what sol invictus said:

Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable. So far, the result has been a torrent of dodges, whines, and squirms, containing nothing even close to a contender. That's about the best evidence that PC/EU is not science one could attain in this thread at least, so I consider the matter long since settled.

But the challenge remains open, on one condition - that if the PC/EU explanation is shown false, Zeuzzz (or whoever proposes it) will agree to stop posting about PC/EU.

The lightning theory is not quantitative or falsifiable. Pictures do not mean anything.

You have also come up with a phenomenon that has nothing to do with cosmolgy. Planets are a bit smaller than galactic clusters.

The likely mainstream explanation is that the Spider crater is the result of multiple impacts, e.g. one creating the rays and another leving the slghtly off-center crater.


You have come up with the easiest to show as unlikely - the crater was produced from an enormous lightning strike from some unknown source.

• There is the typical PC nuttiness of: it looks like a duck then it must be a duck.
  Scientists say that if is looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has the DNA of a duck then it is a duck.
• Where are the other craters produced from other lightning strikes?
• Where did the lyden jar that caused the crater in the experiment picture come from on Mercury? Aliens maybe ?

ETA:
Did you actually look at the picture of the Spider crater?
One way to measure the relative age of features on planetary surfaces is to look at the density of craters on them. Younger features have fewer craters on them than older features.
Look at the Spider crater itself. I can see the typical central peak created by an impact. I can see 3-6 things which may be small craters.
Look at the terrain containing the crater. Take an area with a similar size to the crater. There are many more craters per area in the terrain than there are in the crater. The craters are even on top of the rays.
Thus: The crater is younger than the surrounding terrain, including the rays.
Therefore: The crater and the rays were created in two separate events.

This falsifies the lightning hypothesis which would create the crater and rays in one event.

 

[tusenfem]

So Mercury becomes charged most probably like our moon in it's exposure to the solar wind until a threshold is reached.

Unfortunately, you seem to be unawares that Mercury as its own magnetic field, and thus a magnetosphere which shields it from the solar wind. For an interesting view see Karl-Heinz Glassmeier's paper (note that is Glassmeier and not Gary A Glatzmaier). Therefore, Mercury will NOT behave like our moon, in the way that the Moon gets charged through UV radiation and solar wind interaction.

No mathematical jiggry pokery, it can be REPRODUCED in the lab, it can be scaled and ALL the ingredients to make it happen are there i.e. PLASMA, CHARGE SEPARATION etc etc!

Yeah, god forbit that the EU community should do MATH! It is not like Hannes Alfven or Anthony Peratt bothered with that silly notion of math.

ETA: I see that there is an overview paper about atmospheric electricity by Yair, Y.; Fischer, G.; Simões, F.; Renno, N.; Zarka, P (of which I know at least 2 personally) I will ask one to send me the pdf of the paper on monday, anyone who wants it can have it then. I think this would be very interesting for th EU peeps.

 

[Sol88]

You need to learn to read. This is what sol invictus said:

The lightning theory is not quantitative or falsifiable. Pictures do not mean anything.

You have also come up with a phenomenon that has nothing to do with cosmolgy. Planets are a bit smaller than galactic clusters.

The likely mainstream explanation is that the Spider crater is the result of multiple impacts, e.g. one creating the rays and another leving the slghtly off-center crater.


You have come up with the easiest to show as unlikely - the crater was produced from an enormous lightning strike from some unknown source.

• There is the typical PC nuttiness of: it looks like a duck then it must be a duck.
  Scientists say that if is looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has the DNA of a duck then it is a duck.
• Where are the other craters produced from other lightning strikes?
• Where did the lyden jar that caused the crater in the experiment picture come from on Mercury? Aliens maybe ?

ETA:
Did you actually look at the picture of the Spider crater?
One way to measure the relative age of features on planetary surfaces is to look at the density of craters on them. Younger features have fewer craters on them than older features.
Look at the Spider crater itself. I can see the typical central peak created by an impact. I can see 3-6 things which may be small craters.
Look at the terrain containing the crater. Take an area with a similar size to the crater. There are many more craters per area in the terrain than there are in the crater. The craters are even on top of the rays.
Thus: The crater is younger than the surrounding terrain, including the rays.
Therefore: The crater and the rays were created in two separate events.

This falsifies the lightning hypothesis which would create the crater and rays in one event.

Mr Cranium, Richard...did you read Sol Invictus's post

I'll point it out if you didn't have your glasses on

Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable.

Now I hope we both understand Sol Invictus's question?

To which, to your credit, where the only one to answer mainstream's standard answer.

To narrow the focus a little more, you state the spider feature was created in to separate events, correct?

i.e. Something formed the rays, then an impactor smashed into Mercury creating the crater, on a time scale that suggest two very distinct separate events.


How do you,(mainstream) think the rays where formed?

Care to answer Richard Cranium?


ELECTRIC DISCHARGE HYPOTHESIS NOT FALSIFIED!!!

Have another crack at it!

You may want to read this before answering, LINK Nahh fark it you can embarrass yourself, don't need my help!

Oh chit forgot to add a prediction to my above post to make it falsifiable, it will have very different surface magnetic signature than the surrounding terrain.

Quack quack!