Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Perpetual Student]

Sol88:
Try a dose of reality -- you have become quite tedious. Attempt to learn from those here who have spent a good part of their lives studying physics and cosmology.
You are as far out of your league here as is imaginable. You are like a toddler trying to debate guided missile technology with professionals because he believes it is done by rocket fairies.

 

[Reality Check]

no I did not!

You said in post 2267

And RC wrote

Two different posts from two different people about two different topics:
From Tim Thompson: A post about Pantheon Fossae and the Apollodorus crater mentioning that the "The shape and pattern of channels in Caloris Basin is consistent with the geological interpretation that they are grabens." .
From Reality Check: A post about the spider crater and troughs mentionaing "It is definitely not a graben system which is a depressed block of land bordered by parallel faults. "

The Caloris Basin contains but is not the spider crater and troughs.

The Caloris Basin contains channels that look like grabens.
The spider crater has troughs that do not look like grabens (faults do not usually spread out from a central point).

ETA: I am wrong! Pantheon Fossae has radial grabens. I was thinking about terrestrial fault lines which are not usually radial. But apparently the fault lines from impacts can be radial which I should have expected .

 

[Sol88]

What does Reality Check's post have to do with you not responding to what Tim Thompson posted? Since you keep referring to RC are you the Richard Cranium of which you speak?

What's the point in trying to offer an alternative explanation when the people I'm discussing it with can't get there chite together?

Who do you think is correct!

 

[The Man]

Two different posts from two different people about two different topics:
From Tim Thompson: A post about Pantheon Fossae and the Apollodorus crater mentioning that the "The shape and pattern of channels in Caloris Basin is consistent with the geological interpretation that they are grabens." .
From Reality Check: A post about the spider crater and troughs mentionaing "It is definitely not a graben system which is a depressed block of land bordered by parallel faults. "

The Caloris Basin contains but is not the spider crater and troughs.

The Caloris Basin contains channels that look like grabens.
The spider crater has troughs that do not look like grabens (faults do not usually spread out from a central point).

ETA: I am wrong! Pantheon Fossae has radial grabens. I was thinking about terrestrial fault lines which are not usually radial. But apparently the fault lines from impacts can be radial which I should have expected .

Well technical it is the pre-stressed area that can produce such geological features after an impact to that pre-stressed area. Normally in an impact crater the center becomes raised as it bounces back from that impact. In a sufficiently large impact the central area may not become raised, but still remains stressed. An additional impact in that area might relive that stress as a surface expansion resulting in the features observed, just my interpretation, based on my understanding of mechanics of materials and as I have said before I am certainly not an expert in impact craters.

 

[Sol88]

Sol88:
Try a dose of reality -- you have become quite tedious. Attempt to learn from those here who have spent a good part of their lives studying physics and cosmology.
You are as far out of your league here as is imaginable. You are like a toddler trying to debate guided missile technology with professionals because he believes it is done by rocket fairies.

yes correct they have spent the best part of their lives inside the box, especially if it is their livelihood, the studying of physics and cosmology never took into account the high energy electromagnetic effect that modern instrument have allowed us to see recently.

I mean our Moon being charged via the solar wind is an absolute ripsnorter!

We had people standing on the Moon and they have only just released data confirming the moon has an atmosphere, is being electrostaticly charged and has "winds".

Go to any site on the net aimed at our children learning about the moon and you won't find too much on the subject, this is because the people that have spent a good part of their lives studying physics and cosmology, had NO idea this could happen!

and now the core (iron) of Mercury is being induced producing electric currents and the attendant magnetic fields via the solar wind!

We could get started on the Sun being electrical in nature or comet moving on highly elliptical orbits in the same solar "wind" that produces the effects we are seeing on Mercury, Mars out moon among many other bodied in this solar system.

Now there is a common link here, you just need to find it!

 

[Sol88]

Well technical it is the pre-stressed area that can produce such geological features after an impact to that pre-stressed area. Normally in an impact crater the center becomes raised as it bounces back from that impact. In a sufficiently large impact the central area may not become raised, but still remains stressed. An additional impact in that area might relive that stress as a surface expansion resulting in the features observed, just my interpretation, based on my understanding of mechanics of materials and as I have said before I am certainly not an expert in impact craters.

Wow and you think my idea is outlandish non science woo!

Care to give me the mathematical model for that hypothesis?

Thought not!

Like what caused the pre stress? what causes the center to "bounce" back? Why would a "sufficiently" large impact not cause the center to raise?

And in fact why would a sufficiently large impact not blow some of the targets too bits like Mimas for e.g.

Crater on Mimas
Credit: Cassini Imaging Team, SSI, JPL, ESA, NASA

 

[The Man]

What's the point in trying to offer an alternative explanation when the people I'm discussing it with can't get there chite together?

Who do you think is correct!

What makes you think there has to be a consensus on an internet forum about an area under debate like the Pantheon Fossae? I should point out that the debate is primarily about whether the subsequent impact caused the stress relief or that the stress was so great that it force said relief before the impact. Unfortunately from the data we have we can only estimate material properties to a certain degree, but that was in some of the material I linked before.

I have already posted what is the probable cause in my opinion, or do you need to be reminded?

 

[The Man]

Wow and you think my idea is outlandish non science woo!

Care to give me the mathematical model for that hypothesis?

Thought not!

Didn’t think long did you? I posted before an article of such a model and their stated results, so you will have to ask them or do some research yourself.

Outlandish woo? Certainly, because as I have also posted before I have done high voltage testing (have you?) and the patterns you purport as being the result of such discharges do not even resemble the patterns of such discharges.

Unfortunately, I am no longer at such a laboratory and can now, only offer my opinions.

 

[Perpetual Student]

yes correct they have spent the best part of their lives inside the box, especially if it is their livelihood, the studying of physics and cosmology never took into account the high energy electromagnetic effect that modern instrument have allowed us to see recently.

Think man! Why would they not take something into account if it were real? As you say, "it is their livelihood." EM forces are as much a part of nature as gravity and all other physical phenomena. Maxwell, and the early researchers of electricity and magnetism were great physicists! Today, EM forces are an important part of a physicist's curriculum. Indeed there are physicists who specialize in several aspects of electromagnetism. Look here:BOOKS If it would help explain the universe better they would embrace it.
You are not unlike a creationist -- blind to the nature of science, its methods and its power.
But, creationists have a religious belief system that drives their ignorance and blinds them to science. I just don't get what your problem is -- you simply behave like a child (the one who thinks rockets work by fairies).

 

[Sol88]

Didn’t think long did you? I posted before an article of such a model and their stated results, so you will have to ask them or do some research yourself.

Outlandish woo? Certainly, because as I have also posted before I have done high voltage testing (have you?) and the patterns you purport as being the result of such discharges do not even resemble the patterns of such discharges.

Unfortunately, I am no longer at such a laboratory and can now, only offer my opinions.

I read that you were involved in high voltage testing, did you work up to voltages involved in terrestrial lightning?

 

[The Man]

Wow and you think my idea is outlandish non science woo!

Care to give me the mathematical model for that hypothesis?

Thought not!

Like what caused the pre stress? what causes the center to "bounce" back? Why would a "sufficiently" large impact not cause the center to raise?

And in fact why would a sufficiently large impact not blow some of the targets too bits like Mimas for e.g.

[qimg]http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/%7Eidh/apod/image/0503/mimas_cassini.jpg[/qimg] Crater on Mimas
Credit: Cassini Imaging Team, SSI, JPL, ESA, NASA

Right you’re going to compare a moon to a planet in how it bounces back? Try taking a course in mechanics of materials sometime or even physics heck how about even electronics. What is this propensity you seem to have for editing posts without indicating that edit? I will respond to the posts I read and quote, but change that post without proper indication after I have copied it and I will not read or respond to such surreptitious edits.

 

[The Man]

Think man! Why would they not take something into account if it were real? As you say, "it is their livelihood." EM forces are as much a part of nature as gravity and all other physical phenomena. Maxwell, and the early researchers of electricity and magnetism were great physicists! Today, EM forces are an important part of a physicist's curriculum. Indeed there are physicists who specialize in several aspects of electromagnetism. Look here:BOOKS If it would help explain the universe better they would embrace it.
You are not unlike a creationist -- blind to the nature of science, its methods and its power.
But, creationists have a religious belief system that drives their ignorance and blinds them to science. I just don't get what your problem is -- you simply behave like a child (the one who thinks rockets work by fairies).

Indeed PS, I do not know what I was thinking trying to bring my years of working with high voltage, materials and science in to their realm of pictures, supposition and unilateral misinterpretation.

 

[The Man]

I read that you were involved in high voltage testing, did you work up to voltages involved in terrestrial lightning?

Well what would you consider those voltages to be? If you simply mean the voltages required to break down the dielectric strength of our atmosphere at the distances of the electrical discharge pictures you have presented, then yes.

 

[Reality Check]

Like what caused the pre stress? what causes the center to "bounce" back? Why would a "sufficiently" large impact not cause the center to raise?

You have been reading the posts? You do know something about Mercury?
The Caloris Basin just happens to be the third largest impact carter known in the Solar System. The spider crater and troughs happen to be right in the center of a crater that is 1,550 km in diameter and surrounded by a ring of mountains up to 2km high.
To my simple mind that is a lot of stress.

The center bounces back because the impact removes so much of the surface that the pressure of on the rock by the rest of the planet just pushes it high.

And in fact why would a sufficiently large impact not blow some of the targets too bits like Mimas for e.g.

http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/apod/image/0503/mimas_cassini.jpg Crater on Mimas
Credit: Cassini Imaging Team, SSI, JPL, ESA, NASA

Yet another question from Sol88 with a blinding obvious answer:
If the impact was sufficiently large enough to blow up the target then it would have blown up the target!

 

[Tim Thompson]

Did Too

did not!

Did too!
Hope we aren't getting too intellectual for the rest of you.

 

[tusenfem]

yes correct they have spent the best part of their lives inside the box, especially if it is their livelihood, the studying of physics and cosmology never took into account the high energy electromagnetic effect that modern instrument have allowed us to see recently.

You will find that most of the space physicists look outside the box, otherwise there can be no new developments. EM is strong, yes, but not everywhere and every time, you keep on failing to understand that, and probably never will. Take a look at the charged stars and how the electrostatic force was, what 22 orders of magnitude(?) SMALLER than the gravitational force.

I mean our Moon being charged via the solar wind is an absolute ripsnorter!

ripsnorter: something extraoridnary

We had people standing on the Moon and they have only just released data confirming the moon has an atmosphere, is being electrostaticly charged and has "winds".

What do you mean "only just released"? You are kidding right? The first mentioning that the moon could be charged is by Singer & Walker in 1962, BEFORE we went to the moon. When they went to the moon, there was (I think almost direct) mentioning of "levitating dust" on the moon, about 1 metre high.

I am bit fuddled though about what you call "winds".

Go to any site on the net aimed at our children learning about the moon and you won't find too much on the subject, this is because the people that have spent a good part of their lives studying physics and cosmology, had NO idea this could happen!

Yeah, right, like you are going to talk to kids about plasma physics on the moon. It's not like that is one of the easiest topics in the world. Get real!

And like I said, we already knew since 1962 that it could and would happen. Get your history right! (probably, if you would ask michael mozina he would probably say that Kristian Birkeland already found this)

and now the core (iron) of Mercury is being induced producing electric currents and the attendant magnetic fields via the solar wind!

The core of Mercury, just like the core of the Earth is in motion, creating a magnetic field. The solar wind, just like a the Earth, disturbs this magnetic field, however, as the internal magnetic field is small at Mercury, it has greater influence, and extra currents are induced in the core. Read the paper by Glassmeier that I send you and you will understand how it works.

Mercury's internal field IS NOT created by the solar wind.

We could get started on the Sun being electrical in nature or comet moving on highly elliptical orbits in the same solar "wind" that produces the effects we are seeing on Mercury, Mars out moon among many other bodied in this solar system.

The Sun has electromagnetic phenomena, sure, and there is a solar wind, sure, and then what? You are coming up with your EU handwaving again (apparently what EU proponents are best at, because they "are not mathematicians of physicists" but only use "their common sense", even though it has often be pointed out that especially in plasma physics common sense leads to the wrong conclusion.

Homework for Sol88: Rewrite this part of the sentence in understandable English.
we are seeing on Mercury, Mars out moon among many other bodied in this solar system.

For the rest, there is this profession called space physicist (which I belong to) which does nothing else BUT look at the influence/interaction of the solar wind with solar system bodies.

Now there is a common link here, you just need to find it!

Why don't you point us to that common link? I don't have any idea.

 

[Belz...]

yes correct they have spent the best part of their lives inside the box, especially if it is their livelihood, the studying of physics and cosmology never took into account the high energy electromagnetic effect that modern instrument have allowed us to see recently.

Sol, this silly theory has been around for a while, now. Since we know scientists have this nasty tendency of adopting theories once they prove themselves, so they can use it to, like, do stuff, and since you don't seem to have knowledge of, well, anything, why do you think plasma cosmology is still lying on the fringes ?

 

[Dancing David]

Sol88,

So you Have one crater, that is good.

What force was needed to create that crater?
How was the discharge created?
Models and theories please.

 

[Tubbythin]

When money and peoples scientific views stop alternatives getting funding.

Wuh? So when its decided which bits of "science" should get funding, we shouldn't consider the science in the proposals?

Its really that simple. Its closely linked to education. I dont think that most graduate education is teaching people to think, to be independant researchers, their taught to be part of a certain scientific paradigm, without the chance to look closely at some of the underlying principles. Its mainly at the 'elitist' institutions that this is the worst.

I think you couldn't be much more wrong. While undergrad physics could be considered rather handheld - learn this bit of information, perform this experiment thats been done 50,000 times before, compare with the "proper" experiment. Graduate physics is all about venturing into the unknown - doing experiments that have never been done before or remeasuring something to a new precision or proposing new theoretical solutions to anomalous data. Frequently all three!
So whats the really important difference? In almost all cases in undergrad style labs if your answer disagrees with the literature then you are wrong. But when you're doing a PhD in cutting edge physics both possibilities are open. Determining who is right could make your career, but get it wrong and and the consequences could be pretty bad.
Whether your discovery is groundbreaking or fairly minor, you're still gonna have to defend it against the peer review of some of the most knowlagable people in the field. If that doesn't force someone to be independent and think for themself, what will?

For example, Arp had worked at the Carnegie Institute observatory for many years documenting many observations that supposedly conflicted with the Big Bang. Eventually the Caltech Head of the telescope allocation comitee threatened him by saying "Unless you change your line of research, we'll take away your telescope time"

Then sent a letter to him saying "The comitee feels that it is no longer suitable to assign time to Arp to pursure researches aimed at establishing the location of quasars with nearby galaxies". Unfortunately for the Carnegie Institutes suppressive actions, Arp soon found work at another Observatory and continued with his work sucessfully. Which didn't make them look very good at all.

Do you really think that's an accurate picture?

Imagine if Arp was allowed to continue and his work was appreciated by the scientific community and instead the recent people looking for observations of Dark Matter were told "Its no longer suitable to look for un-scientific non baryonic un-observable invisble gnomes like as Dark Matter, so your telescope time has been cancelled". We'd probably be in quite a different place now.

Why would anyone say that? Dark matter isn't unscientific (if you think it is then you should maybe learn what science is). Why put in words like "invisible" and "gnomes". They are clearly not gnomes and invisible (as in does not emit EM radiation) matter is already part of the Standard Model.

If hubble had seen the scattered and random brightness/redshift graph for Quasars (wheres the galaxy one produces a roughly straight/curved line), and seen Arps work, I doubt very much he would have come to the conclusion that v=H₀d, and come to the obvious conclusion that there is no indication that quasars are at their proposed distances due to this evidence.

Right so now you can't even manage an argument from authority to defend your nonsense so instead you have imagine an argument from authority instead? How truly pathetic.

Students or tutors can not afford to go against the Big Bang in most of the 'higher' institutions, they would immediateluy lose their position, or 'tenure'.

Depends if they had one or both of the following:
a) Evidence that falsifies the Big Bang
b) An alternative explanation for the cosmological evidence that is internally consistent, falsifiable and matches the evidence to at least a similar degree as "the" Big Bang theory.
Do they?

Without posting the entire cosmology statement and all the hundreds of signatories [so it doesnt get taken down], I'll post half of it, but you can read it all here (which I highly recommend): http://cosmologystatement.org/

What on other made you think it was a sensible idea to the post that ridiculous page AGAIN? I would call it an argument from authority but it isn't even that.

The Large Hadron Collider is a prime example. How much did that cost? How much hype was there that this is going to prove the Big Bang, and reveal all the universes secrets, the illusive Higgs Boson and secrets of gravity? And what was the result? Nothing. Bunk. Crap.

Three words:
HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
Now, do you want to admit that the above paragraph is utterly stupid and retract it, or do I have to go through with you why the above paragraph is utterly stupid?

And still Focus Fusion technology, derived from plasma cosmology considerations of the magnetic field effect creating a Dense Plasma Focus (DPF), is still lacking sufficient funding to complete the last stage in its setup, despite needing nearly tens of thousands times less money than the projects based on principles closely related (and some even derived) from the big bang. See "Conventional Fusion vs. Focus Fusion"

I'm sure that's a very fair and balanced website
Just as an aside... supposing we never get fusion as an energy source up and running. Would it have been a complete waste of time and money? Or will the trillions of dollars spent on understanding plasma dynamics and instabilities partially compensate?

How long have scientists been trying to re-create continual nuclear fusion on Earth so we can harness this supposed energy? 40-50 years? And still nothing practical we can use How much have all these failed projects cost?

Its a joke.

Their most recent patent can be seen here, and its looking very promising at the moment:

"On January, 27, the US Patent office issued patent 7,482,607, Method and apparatus for producing x-rays, ion beams and nuclear fusion energy, to Eric J. Lerner and Aaron Blake, with the assignment of the patent to Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Inc. "

Get reading.

I will if I have time. I hope its an improvement on the mess he made with his cosmology theory.

The only scientific institute that seems willing to fund such alternative ideas is the IEEE. Which also, co-incidentally, publishes the other plasma cosmology material in the Transactions On Plasma Science Journal.

And?

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Go to any site on the net aimed at our children learning about the moon and you won't find too much on the subject, this is because the people that have spent a good part of their lives studying physics and cosmology, had NO idea this could happen!

Yeah, right, like you are going to talk to kids about plasma physics on the moon. It's not like that is one of the easiest topics in the world. Get real!

What an incredible egotistical statement to make!

And what electrostatics are real difficult are they Tusenfem

I show my 4 yr old girl the SCIENCE behind those shocks she gets when she has been playing on the trampoline and touches the metal, earths, herself to ground!!

Even this non mathematical genius found the non maths answer straight forward!

i.e. you do not need a deep understanding of plasma physics and mathematics to understand what happened!

Maths is for the details and NOT the concept.