"NASA Pseudo-skeptic Receives Rebuttal from Electric Universe Theorist"

[Zeuzzz]

Theres something about two academics locking horns and getting angry at each other that I love reading. Having read Bridgmans 'refutation' of Scotts material a few months ago, I had thought that this may be the last say on the matter, but Scott in the last few days seems to have given a worthy responce. He has since had his material published in numerous reputable peer reviewed journals, lectured at NASA on his theories, and generally put a compelling case forward for his EU based theories.

NASA Pseudo-skeptic Receives Rebuttal from Electric Universe Theorist
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/descott08/090321_des.htm

March 21, 2009

[Editor's note: On March 16 Dr. Donald E. Scott gave a presentation of electric universe concepts to a gathering at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, which appeared to be well-received by many of the attendees.

However there he met with pseudo-skeptic Dr. Tom Bridgman who had offered a "critique" of Scott's book The Electric Sky last year, and who, whilst 'personable' to Scott's face, has since written further pseudo-criticism of Scott's presentation. The following are a few excerpts from Scott's rebuttal of Bridgman's original "critique".]

When I first heard about Dr. Tom Bridgman's 48-page onslaught against me and the material I present in my book, The Electric Sky (TES), I thought I would simply ignore him. But friends I admire and trust have repeatedly implored me to take up my pen so that the casual reader of his criticisms will not assume I accept them. These following paragraphs are not a comprehensive dissection of each and every allegation he made. They are simply my reaction to what stood out as being most outrageously inaccurate, and uninformed.

Bridgman's 'critique' can be found here:
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/ElectricSky_20080322.pdf

The following is my response to Bridgman (TB) roughly in the order in which he states his objections.

PULSARS

[On the top of his page 2] TB implies that I have proposed a "radically different model of pulsars". The notion that pulsar repetition rates are most probably due to an electrical oscillation rather than light-house-like massive stars rotating at 60,000 rpm or more is due, not to me, but to other investigators such as Healy & Peratt (see:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf

Those authors begin their (peer reviewed) paper with a review of the history of the discovery of pulsars and the classical theoretical descriptions of their behavior. They (H&P) performed a plasma supported transmission line experiment that duplicated some 17 detailed properties of those observed emissions. I have read their paper, discussed this with Peratt personally, and find much merit in what they say. Postulating this electrical mechanism as an explanation for observed pulsar emissions is far less of a stretch of one's sense of reality than proposing that an incredibly massive star rotates with the speed of a dentist's drill. But H&P's proposed model is, regrettably, not mine to take credit for. [......]

Scotts full detailed rebuttal to Bridgemans critisisms can be seem here: http://members.cox.net/dascott3/RebutTB.pdf

CONCLUSION
Astrophysics pseudo-skeptics like Bridgman have certain recognizable characteristics in common.

1. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
2. They refuse to consider any electrical causation for anything in space.
3. When confronted with =in your face evidence' such as the image of a high redshifted QSO in front of a more distant, low redshifted galaxy, they resort to arguments (usually involving math or statistics) to disprove – or at least make you doubt – what your eyes are telling you. The old Groucho Marx line comes to mind: “Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?”
4. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. The fact that they have been voted upon and accepted by a self-involved, insular group of 'experts' does not make them true. Winning a hand vote is not the same thing as scientific validation.
5. It is clear that they have never been exposed to the basic properties of plasma nor the fundamental inter-relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents. But they feel free to lecture those who have.
6. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

Both sides make valid points. Both sides ignore each others valid points.

Thoughts please.

Who do you think is right out of the two?

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, let's just look at the tone of the discussion. It seems to me like Scott:

0. needs to invent a term like "pseudo-skeptic" as a sort of an insult, instead of sticking to addressing the point. What's a "pseudo-skeptic" anyway? Someone who sticks to which way the evidence points? Because that's really all that happens there to warrant the "pseudo-skeptic" title.

In effect, it's a thinly veiled accusation of being not really a skeptic, but some kind of an irrational cultist. Oh, gee, like we've never had that accusation thrown at scientists before.

1. "They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'."

Really? It seemed to me like quoting a peer-reviewed paper had a bit more merit than a mere "argument from authority." It points at an existing body of evidence and maths that you can check for yourself, rather than starting over from scratch again.

Also, another jab, the accusation of "speaking down" to their audience.

2. "They refuse to consider any electrical causation for anything in space."

Yes, I should hope that any scientist worth his salt will refuse to believe something yet unsupported by sufficient evidence.

3. "When confronted with =in your face evidence' such as the image of a high redshifted QSO in front of a more distant, low redshifted galaxy, they resort to arguments (usually involving math or statistics) to disprove – or at least make you doubt – what your eyes are telling you. The old Groucho Marx line comes to mind: “Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?”"

Well, gee, silly scientists insisting on using maths

The fact is that "your eyes" are a piss-poor instrument for understanding the universe.

As a trivial example: the light of a distant star, passing through the right gravity well can appear to you as four different stars. E.g., that's just one star: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Einstein_ring.jpg

As another trivial example: ejected matter from stars can often appear to move at speeds higher than the speed of light. But when you actually do the maths using relativity, and realizing that it's not ejected perpendicular to your viewing direction (as would mistakenly appear to your lying eyes) it's not above c at all.

Who are you going to trust? Maths or your eyes? If his answer is the second, that disqualifies him right there and then.

4. "They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. The fact that they have been voted upon and accepted by a self-involved, insular group of 'experts' does not make them true. Winning a hand vote is not the same thing as scientific validation."

Ah, right, the old argument that the science establisment is just some self-appointed clique.

5. "It is clear that they have never been exposed to the basic properties of plasma nor the fundamental inter-relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents. But they feel free to lecture those who have."

Any physicist has learned about plasma _and_ about the relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents extensively in university.

6. "If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative."

Ah, the good ol' appeal to motive. If you can't make your own case, I guess an ad-hominem is almost traditional.

Heh.

Basically that tells me all I need to know, righ there. It's the language of quacks, charlatan and conspiracy-theorists.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thoughts please.

Who do you think is right out of the two?

I haven't read Scott's book. I read through Bridgman's critique of it, and my BS meter didn't so much as ping. Reading Scott's rebuttal, it went off the scale, from the highly suspect use of the term "pseudo-skeptic (that classic piece of well-poisoning from those who want to discourage, rather than reply to, criticisms of their work) right down to the false modesty - "But friends I admire and trust have repeatedly implored me to take up my pen". Bridgman's physics is entirely reasonable, and Scott's isn't; Bridgman's language, although a little Dawkins-ish, is the language of science, whereas Scott's is the language of misdirection and sophistry; and in some areas Scott's assertions are simply absurd - he doesn't, for example, seem to understand that different classes of physical object can exist in different environments without requiring a different set of laws of physics (except for the fact that his own theories require this no less).

In short, Bridgman is a scientist and Scott is an idealogue. That isn't conclusive proof that Bridgman is right and Scott wrong, but for all practical purposes I would submit that a rational choice at this stage is to give serious consideration to Bridgman's conclusions and to dismiss Scott's.

Dave

 

[Cuddles]

Basically that tells me all I need to know, righ there. It's the language of quacks, charlatan and conspiracy-theorists.

Hans, meet Zeuzzz.

 

[edd]

It's a pretty poor rebuttal. This was almost comical:

He ridicules Halton Arp's statement that "we cannot see through Seyfert galaxies" and presents a hand-waving argument (into which he drags the imaginary stuff called "dark matter") to 'show' that we can indeed see through galactic disks. Really? Well, take a look at this image that I took [from my observatory]:
http://www.members.cox.net/dascott2/M31.html
and tell me you would be able to see a star (QSO) far beyond this galaxy, directly behind it. And this galaxy, M31, isn't even a Seyfert.

I can give counterexamples where galactic disks can clearly be seen through, including one famous Seyfert and many galaxies that aren't Seyferts. Giving a photo of Andromeda and claiming it categorically shows the QSOs can not be background objects is not really a great argument, is it?

The WMAP section also shows what I would consider misunderstandings about the detectability of intervening large scale structure in CMB maps.

Also, the idea that gravitational lensing depends on considering only point masses is boggling.

And how about this quote from a section on neutron stars:

The standard explanation of neutron star formation is 'gravitational collapse' of a 'dying star'. As I said above, that is another fictional mechanism for which no real evidence has ever been found.

I don't even know where to begin with that.

 

[paximperium]

Basically that tells me all I need to know, righ there. It's the language of quacks, charlatan and conspiracy-theorists.

Say hello to one of of several "electric/plasma/my pet theory trumps all of science-universe" believers on the forum.

 

[BenBurch]

Insanity on parade AGAIN?

The "Electric Universe" stuff sounds like ancient usenet "Ludwig Plutonium"* posts.

* see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Usenet_personalities

 

[HansMustermann]

OK, and now for Scott's PDF by chapter:

- "THE (NON)USEFUL PRODUCTS OF ASTROPHYSICS"

Lots of handwaving, and what looks like deliberately mis-understanding/mis-representing what Bridgmann did say. Aka, strawman.

He essentially dances around the actual claim that, basically, "the same physics involved was already tested and used in other devices", by (A) the non-sequitur that, basically, "yeah, but they weren't thinking of _astrophysics when they tested it" and (B) basically "yeah, but unless it's actually tested in astrophysics, it doesn't actually count as testing that theory."

- "THE IMPORTANCE OF IN SITU MEASUREMENTS"

He seems to start on the road to adressing the actual complaints, but by the second paragraph he's obviously sidetracked, and all that he seems to cherry pick from there is the name of Galileo. And goes off based on it on an Argumentum Ad Lazarum fallacy. See, Galileo was against the establishment, man, just like Scott is against the establishment. That makes him right, man.

. "TRUSTING MATHEMATICAL MODELS"

Short story: again, he seems to start on the way to saying that actually he does, but then he pulls the classic proof of not understanding science at all, and comes out the other end of the paragraph saying basically the same thing that he doesn't trust them. 'Cause, see, if now and then a newer, more detailed theory adds another 1% correction on a narrow field, for him that is roughly equivalent to not knowing anything at all and using the maths as some silly-putty post-facto.

- "IT LOOKS LIKE 'X' SO IT MUST BE 'X'"

Short story: he actually does say that if something looks like X it must be X. Some fault line looks like an electrical arc? Well, that must actually be an electrical arc.

- "AD HOMINEM ATTACKS"

The only funny paragraph is where he handwaves unconvincingly over the very justified objection that he's ignoring quantum mechanics.

Here's why that objection was relevant: because that's how we explain neutron stars, fusion in the sun, etc. I would expect someone whose claim to glory is basically "my theory is right and yours is wrong", would indeed adress what's wrong with the other theory. You know, where do the predictions not agree with reality.

And he actually quotes a paragraph from Bridgman which says just that. But then Scott goes into a surrealistically stupid postulating that nah, it's irrelevant after all, and indeed a red herring, and he's not doing it. Nyah. Apparently just because he says so.

- "GRAVITATIONAL LENSING"

Short story: ample proof that he has no clue at all what he's talking about. His claim that GL would only apply if a galaxy was a point singularity, is so freaking stupid, it's almost funny. Didn't he ever hear about integrating?

- "GENERAL RELATIVITY DOES INCLUDE ELECTROMAGNETISM"

Basically: yeah, but I said it doesn't _explicitly_ include electromagnetism. So? Why would that be relevant anyway? Fluid dynamics equations don't include electromagnetism either, but there's nothing to prevent one from applying _both_ to design a hydro power plant.

- "NAKED SINGULARITIES ARE NOT BLACK HOLES"

More empty sophistry and using so many words to dance around what Bridgman's objection actually was: that Scott doctored a quote from a physicist to make it sound like black holes shouldn't exist, when he actually was saying that naked singularities can't exist. So here Scott tries to make it sound like "yeah, well, he's just picking on me for not qualifying one word better", when the objection was different and more important than that.

- "OUTFLOWS FROM ACCRETING BLACK HOLES ARE NOT HAWKING
RADIATION"

Again, he doesn't actually address Bridgman's actual objection, and the Wikipedia quote used is thus fully irrelevant. I'm not sure whether to attribute this to deliberate sophistry, or just apply Hanlon's Razor, because it's really _that_ surrealistic.

Etc, etc, etc.

Let's just say that I see only empty sophistry. He's only pretending to answer. He mostly picks irrelevant phrases (like that mention of Galileo) or blatant strawmen and bravely demolishes them, while not addressing even one single actual objection. And he still doesn't make any testable predictions of his own.

And he seems to basically go back again and again, to the point that if the official theory sometimes doesn't fit 0.1% of something, then surely that's proof or at least room for his hypothesis to be the real thing... despite the fact that his doesn't make any predictions at all. (And then when you do try to fit some numbers into his, the results are actually off by 10000%.)

Sorry. Bridgman comes across as a scientist, Scott comes across as... well, what you'd get if you put a clown in a lab coat at the circus. He handwaves lots and spews lots of nonsenes, but in the end it's still not science.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Theres something about two academics locking horns and getting angry at each other that I love reading. Having read Bridgmans 'refutation' of Scotts material a few months ago, I had thought that this may be the last say on the matter, but Scott in the last few days seems to have given a worthy responce. He has since had his material published in numerous reputable peer reviewed journals, lectured at NASA on his theories, and generally put a compelling case forward for his EU based theories.

[...]

(bold added)

He has since ... - as in he, Scott?

He has since ... - since when, the last few days?

had his material published in numerous reputable peer reviewed journals ... - if "his" = "Scott's", which material? which reputable peer reviewed journals?
(ADS gives me 102 hits for "Scott, D" in the period 2005 to 2009, but none of them seem to be this Scott)

lectured at NASA on his theories ... - he has? When? Where?

generally put a compelling case forward for his EU based theories ... - he has? other than in papers published in peer-reviewed journals, and lectures at NASA, where? when? how?

 

[paximperium]

So where is Zeuzz?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Well, let's just look at the tone of the discussion. It seems to me like Scott:

0. needs to invent a term like "pseudo-skeptic" as a sort of an insult, instead of sticking to addressing the point. What's a "pseudo-skeptic" anyway? Someone who sticks to which way the evidence points? Because that's really all that happens there to warrant the "pseudo-skeptic" title.

In effect, it's a thinly veiled accusation of being not really a skeptic, but some kind of an irrational cultist. Oh, gee, like we've never had that accusation thrown at scientists before.

1. "They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'."

Really? It seemed to me like quoting a peer-reviewed paper had a bit more merit than a mere "argument from authority." It points at an existing body of evidence and maths that you can check for yourself, rather than starting over from scratch again.

Also, another jab, the accusation of "speaking down" to their audience.

2. "They refuse to consider any electrical causation for anything in space."

Yes, I should hope that any scientist worth his salt will refuse to believe something yet unsupported by sufficient evidence.

3. "When confronted with =in your face evidence' such as the image of a high redshifted QSO in front of a more distant, low redshifted galaxy, they resort to arguments (usually involving math or statistics) to disprove – or at least make you doubt – what your eyes are telling you. The old Groucho Marx line comes to mind: “Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?”"

Well, gee, silly scientists insisting on using maths

The fact is that "your eyes" are a piss-poor instrument for understanding the universe.

As a trivial example: the light of a distant star, passing through the right gravity well can appear to you as four different stars. E.g., that's just one star: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Einstein_ring.jpg

As another trivial example: ejected matter from stars can often appear to move at speeds higher than the speed of light. But when you actually do the maths using relativity, and realizing that it's not ejected perpendicular to your viewing direction (as would mistakenly appear to your lying eyes) it's not above c at all.

Who are you going to trust? Maths or your eyes? If his answer is the second, that disqualifies him right there and then.

4. "They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. The fact that they have been voted upon and accepted by a self-involved, insular group of 'experts' does not make them true. Winning a hand vote is not the same thing as scientific validation."

Ah, right, the old argument that the science establisment is just some self-appointed clique.

5. "It is clear that they have never been exposed to the basic properties of plasma nor the fundamental inter-relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents. But they feel free to lecture those who have."

Any physicist has learned about plasma _and_ about the relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents extensively in university.

6. "If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative."

Ah, the good ol' appeal to motive. If you can't make your own case, I guess an ad-hominem is almost traditional.

Heh.

Basically that tells me all I need to know, righ there. It's the language of quacks, charlatan and conspiracy-theorists.

You should see bridmans accusations, far worse. Accused him of being a creationist, put his work alongside some of the woo-est new earth creationist idiots out there on his website, accused him of being an outright crackpot, and various other extremely disparaging things. I think that Scott calling him a pseudoscientist in return is a rather meagre and polite way of ruturning the favor.

I do notice howvere that you have not once mentioned any of the science underlying this whole fiasco, and have instead chosen to just comment on scotts closing summary about what he has noticed about Bridmans debunking techniques. Addressing the science being discussed would be more appropriate I feel, this is the sciecne and technology section afterall.

 

[Zeuzzz]

OK, and now for Scott's PDF by chapter:

- "THE (NON)USEFUL PRODUCTS OF ASTROPHYSICS"

Lots of handwaving, and what looks like deliberately mis-understanding/mis-representing what Bridgmann did say. Aka, strawman.

He essentially dances around the actual claim that, basically, "the same physics involved was already tested and used in other devices", by (A) the non-sequitur that, basically, "yeah, but they weren't thinking of _astrophysics when they tested it" and (B) basically "yeah, but unless it's actually tested in astrophysics, it doesn't actually count as testing that theory."

- "THE IMPORTANCE OF IN SITU MEASUREMENTS"

He seems to start on the road to adressing the actual complaints, but by the second paragraph he's obviously sidetracked, and all that he seems to cherry pick from there is the name of Galileo. And goes off based on it on an Argumentum Ad Lazarum fallacy. See, Galileo was against the establishment, man, just like Scott is against the establishment. That makes him right, man.

. "TRUSTING MATHEMATICAL MODELS"

Short story: again, he seems to start on the way to saying that actually he does, but then he pulls the classic proof of not understanding science at all, and comes out the other end of the paragraph saying basically the same thing that he doesn't trust them. 'Cause, see, if now and then a newer, more detailed theory adds another 1% correction on a narrow field, for him that is roughly equivalent to not knowing anything at all and using the maths as some silly-putty post-facto.

- "IT LOOKS LIKE 'X' SO IT MUST BE 'X'"

Short story: he actually does say that if something looks like X it must be X. Some fault line looks like an electrical arc? Well, that must actually be an electrical arc.

- "AD HOMINEM ATTACKS"

The only funny paragraph is where he handwaves unconvincingly over the very justified objection that he's ignoring quantum mechanics.

Here's why that objection was relevant: because that's how we explain neutron stars, fusion in the sun, etc. I would expect someone whose claim to glory is basically "my theory is right and yours is wrong", would indeed adress what's wrong with the other theory. You know, where do the predictions not agree with reality.

And he actually quotes a paragraph from Bridgman which says just that. But then Scott goes into a surrealistically stupid postulating that nah, it's irrelevant after all, and indeed a red herring, and he's not doing it. Nyah. Apparently just because he says so.

- "GRAVITATIONAL LENSING"

Short story: ample proof that he has no clue at all what he's talking about. His claim that GL would only apply if a galaxy was a point singularity, is so freaking stupid, it's almost funny. Didn't he ever hear about integrating?

- "GENERAL RELATIVITY DOES INCLUDE ELECTROMAGNETISM"

Basically: yeah, but I said it doesn't _explicitly_ include electromagnetism. So? Why would that be relevant anyway? Fluid dynamics equations don't

Are you Bridgman yourself? May have met at another skeptic forum if I recall where you posted the oriingial article. ....If you are Bridgman.

I think that the above description just as biased and ingnoring Scotts valid points just as much as Bridman is. When I have the time I'll disect this point by point. Meanwhile I have more pressing matters.

 

[HansMustermann]

No, I'm not Bridgman. And I _have_ read both PDFs carefully. That's how I know that Scott's handwaving and lame wordplays don't actually address Bridgman's objections.

 

[Zeuzzz]

(bold added)

He has since ... - as in he, Scott?

He has since ... - as in he, Scott.

He has since ... - since when, the last few days?

He has since ... literally this week.

had his material published in numerous reputable peer reviewed journals ... - if "his" = "Scott's", which material? which reputable peer reviewed journals?
(ADS gives me 102 hits for "Scott, D" in the period 2005 to 2009, but none of them seem to be this Scott)

In reputable peer reviewed IEEE plasma physics journals that cover plasma phsyics, plasma energy, space plasma properties, cosmic plasmas, plasma energy considerations, and many, many other areas. The IEEE is a very large and respected organisation. The couple that I recall him being published in are The Transactions on Plasma Scicnce, The IEEE Journal of Pulsed Plasma Science, and a couple of others that I cant be bothered to find at the mo. A few other very reputable Atrophysics journals have also cited his work of late.

lectured at NASA on his theories ... - he has? When? Where?

He has lectured at NASA on his theories infront of an audience of about 60 people at the NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. From what I've heard the audience were a mix of standard atrophysicists, engineers, scientific journalists and cosmologists, all of which recieved his material quite well. Including Bridgeman, to his face, before going home later and getting angry and wound up that this time he's probably not chosen a creationist to mess with (which is what he usually does, debunk youg earth/universe creationist idiots), so probably wishes he hadn't started arguing with someone who can back up his arguments with sound evidence.

generally put a compelling case forward for his EU based theories ... - he has? other than in papers published in peer-reviewed journals, and lectures at NASA, where? when? how?

In his referencing of Alfvens still underappreciated work, by bridging the gap between standard atrophysics modelling of pseudoplasma behaviour and real plasma behaviour, in showing what the Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos are as opposed to common mistakes in standard modelling of these aspects (his peer reviewed publication on this here) and generally offering unique and refreshing perspectives on things previously though definitive and set in stone by most astronomers.


Well, thats my opinion on the matter. His theories are by no means perfect, but to simply disregard him as a conspiracy theorist or a crackpot (as people above have done) is most demeaning and shows a complete lack of respect for the time and effort he, as a scientist, has put into trying to develop alternative theories that could potentially hold merit, that have been worthy of peer review and publication.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The standard explanation of neutron star formation is 'gravitational collapse' of a 'dying star'. As I said above, that is another fictional mechanism for which no real evidence has ever been found.
I don't even know where to begin with that.

I don't even know where to begin with that.

Well, try.

And then maybe I can show you why he said this, and what his true thoughts on the matter are

A, by no means definitive, overview can be seen here by a science journalist: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090121theory.htm

The references to peer reviewed publications to back up the alternative models can be given, if you would like this. Some of these sites may be a good start if unfamiliar with these alternatives: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/links.htm

 

[Zeuzzz]

I think that the above description just as biased and ingnoring Scotts valid points just as much as Bridman is. When I have the time I'll disect this point by point. Meanwhile I have more pressing matters.

Will get round to this later....

 

[Zeuzzz]

So where is Zeuzz?

Dunno. Maybe you should ask him.

WTF is up with your avatar btw? You trying to say something about yourself?

 

[HansMustermann]

In his referencing of Alfvens still underappreciated work, by bridging the gap between standard atrophysics modelling of pseudoplasma behaviour and real plasma behaviour, in showing what the Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos are as opposed to common mistakes in standard modelling of these aspects (his peer reviewed publication on this here) and generally offering unique and refreshing perspectives on things previously though definitive and set in stone by most astronomers.


Well, thats my opinion on the matter. His theories are by no means perfect, but to simply disregard him as a conspiracy theorist or a crackpot (as people above have done) is most demeaning and shows a complete lack of respect for the time and effort he, as a scientist, has put into trying to develop alternative theories that could potentially hold merit, that have been worthy of peer review and publication.

Alfven was a smart guy and he did make some valid discoveries about plasma. But:

1. "Electric Universe" is not the same thing. Alfven never proposed such idiocies as that, basically, the stars and the sun are just giving off energy only because some huge current passes through them.

EU is to Alfven's work what "quantum amulet" peddlers are to Planck's.

2. There was some genuine interest in Alfven's larger scale predictions about the role of electromagnetic fields in star formation. Unfortunately nobody ever detected the kind of electromagnetic fields he predicted at that scale. And not for lack of trying.

Though some of his _other_ hypotheses have been proven correct.

Basically, same as Einstein, Tesla, and any other scientist, he was right about some things and wrong about others. That's how science works.

3. And that already gave you a difference between what Alfven hypothesized and such crackpots as Scott and their EU idiocy. Alfven actually did the maths and made some predictions, while Scott just produces hot air and copious handwaving. Alfven was a real scientist, Scott seems to be just a snake oil peddler using Alfven's good name to sell his own BS.

4. Plasma Cosmology is already less detailed than our current model, as it is. It's explaining far less stuff and is making far less predictions. So there is a very pragmatical reason why we don't dump our existing model for Alfven's. You don't dump a model which works better, for one that does half of that.

EU is even less useful. It's just lots of handwaving and emotional rhetoric, but doesn't actually predict much. It's good for selling books to conspiracy theorists, but it's freaking useless as a scientific model. It needs a lot more of that maths that Scott seems to distrust, before anyone can do anything useful with it.

Do you understand that simple pragmatical point? There is no establishment conspiracy to keep Scott down. It's just that with our current model you can put some numbers in and predict something is going to happen. With the EU model you just can't do much.

Let him go back to the drawing board and come with a coherent and falsifiable theory, and _then_ scientists will take it more seriously.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Alfven was a smart guy and he did make some valid discoveries about plasma. But:

1. "Electric Universe" is not the same thing. Alfven never proposed such idiocies as that, basically, the stars and the sun are just giving off energy only because some huge current passes through them.

Errr. Not really correct. Alfven was the first to propose the heliospheric current circuit of considerable amerage flowing into the sun, based on the properties of the (somewhat more known) heliospheric current sheet. Infact, Alfvens ideas on Stars were that they acted as homopolar motor that were driven by heliopheric currents, which is not at all that unsimilar to what Scott et al have proposed.

Scotts only real caveat with Alfvens model is the location of the double layers. Alfven proposed they were positioned above the poles (see his publication in Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 54, no. 2 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Ap&SS..54..279A) whereas Scott et al propose that the DL is evenly distributed across the surface. (see for example the breif overview he givesof this concept in his publications in the IEEE Journal of Pulsed Plasma Science (PPPS07 Paper 350734): http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf), and goes further than Alfven in proposing that this mechanism could itself also create some/all of the energy output of the sun in addition.

Since you seem largely unfamiliar with Alfvens ideas in this area, a good summary of Alfvens ideas on space plasma, cosmic currents, aurorae and their relation to stars, and even large scale galaxies, can be seen in this overview by Lundin in Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part C: Solar, Terrestrial & Planetary Science Volume 26, Issues 1-3, Auroral particle acceleration processes: the legacy of Hannes Alfvén

2. There was some genuine interest in Alfven's larger scale predictions about the role of electromagnetic fields in star formation. Unfortunately nobody ever detected the kind of electromagnetic fields he predicted at that scale. And not for lack of trying.

Not sure what your referring to here. What exactly did he predict? you have a reference?

I know that the usual gravity > EM models of star formation have since been revised, and most theories now start off with EM influences as the starting point and then when considerable mass is achived gravity starts to dominate.

Basically, same as Einstein, Tesla, and any other scientist, he was right about some things and wrong about others. That's how science works.

Einstein wouldn't know which end of a screwdriver to use; he was a theoretician. Tesla was an engineer and practical scientific experimenter, similar to Birkeland, and many other PU/EU advocates. This is a crucial difference.

3. And that already gave you a difference between what Alfven hypothesized and such crackpots as Scott and their EU idiocy. Alfven actually did the maths and made some predictions, while Scott just produces hot air and copious handwaving. Alfven was a real scientist, Scott seems to be just a snake oil peddler using Alfven's good name to sell his own BS.

How rather demeaning, and lacking any substance. Scott et al have made meny predictions, some of which have already born out to be true. Maybe you are just unaware of them. You want a link?

4. Plasma Cosmology is already less detailed than our current model, as it is. It's explaining far less stuff and is making far less predictions. So there is a very pragmatical reason why we don't dump our existing model for Alfven's. You don't dump a model which works better, for one that does half of that.

Plasma cosmology (Lerner et al) infact made predictions that closer matched the data (element abundances, CMB, large scale structure, etc) than the original Big Bang predictions did. I linked to a bit of this material in this post in the plasma cosmology thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4557482&postcount=1714 All this material has been discussed here now for a looooooooong time, in the plasma cosmology thread and others. No consensus yet. People still ignoring the evidence in my opinion.

EU is even less useful. It's just lots of handwaving and emotional rhetoric, but doesn't actually predict much. It's good for selling books to conspiracy theorists, but it's freaking useless as a scientific model. It needs a lot more of that maths that Scott seems to distrust, before anyone can do anything useful with it.

You referring to anything specific here? Something we maybe talk about? Or you just gonna make general statements without addessing the material your talkng about?

Do you understand that simple pragmatical point? There is no establishment conspiracy to keep Scott down.

Of course there isn't. His book(s), his publications, and his lectures show that the material is all out there for anyone who chooses to see it. No-ones trying to 'cover it up' in a conspiracy. Sure, some people (infact many) dislike him and his theory as it challenges their personal scientific beliefs about how things work.

Let him go back to the drawing board and come with a coherent and falsifiable theory, and _then_ scientists will take it more seriously.

He has.

Have you even looked at it?

 

[Dancing David]

So Zeuzzz, try telling us how the Scott model of the electric star works?

So what is the source of the charge that leads to the sun shining?

What makes the sun shine in the electric model?

You should not quote Thunderbolts!

Do you want me to find their page about the Materhorn?

 

[sol invictus]

Errr. Not really correct. Alfven was the first to propose the heliospheric current circuit of considerable amerage flowing into the sun, based on the properties of the (somewhat more known) heliospheric current sheet. Infact, Alfvens ideas on Stars were that they acted as homopolar motor that were driven by heliopheric currents, which is not at all that unsimilar to what Scott et al have proposed.

Let's see what Alfven actually said, shall we? This is from a talk he gave in 1986, near the end of his life, regarding currents flowing into and out of the sun:

Phenomena which can not be understood without explicitly accounting for the current are:

1. Formation of double layers.

2. Energy transfer from one region to another.

3. The occurrence of explosive events such as solar flares, magnetic substorms,
possibly also"internal ionization "phenomena in comets (Wurmet ai., 1963;Mendis,1978), and stellar flares.

4. Double layer violation of the Ferraro corotation. Establishing "partial corotation" is essential for the understanding of some features of the solar system.

5. Formation of filaments in the solar atmosphere, in the ionosphere of Venus, and in the tails of comets and in interstellar nebulae.

6. Formation of current sheets which may give space a "cellular structure."

Here's what Scott has to say about those currents:

The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies.

Some of the items in Alfven's list are a little suspect, but none of them are crazy. Scott's idea - that the sun is a giant light bulb - is complete nut-jobbery. More, it's just plain stupid. It's no different than any of the hundreds of deluded cranks that spam physics departments with ridiculous theories all the time.

We've spent quite a lot of time on this forum debunking these moronic electric universe ideas ad nauseum (more like ad vomitorium). There are pages and pages and pages here in which Zeuzzz lies, flipflops, shifts goal posts, and squirms in a desperate attempt to avoid being pinned down on anything definite. In the end, I challenged him to produce one single PC/EU quantitative prediction/explanation of some astrophysical phenomenon that differs from the "mainstream's". He failed to do so, and continues to - which proves that at least Zeuzzz' version of these ideas has nothing to do with science.

 

[AWPrime]

Question Zeuzzz, how is it that planets aren't effected by the EU current?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

He has since ... - as in he, Scott.




He has since ... literally this week.

had his material published in numerous reputable peer reviewed journals ... - if "his" = "Scott's", which material? which reputable peer reviewed journals?
(ADS gives me 102 hits for "Scott, D" in the period 2005 to 2009, but none of them seem to be this Scott)

In reputable peer reviewed IEEE plasma physics journals that cover plasma phsyics, plasma energy, space plasma properties, cosmic plasmas, plasma energy considerations, and many, many other areas. The IEEE is a very large and respected organisation. The couple that I recall him being published in are The Transactions on Plasma Scicnce, The IEEE Journal of Pulsed Plasma Science, and a couple of others that I cant be bothered to find at the mo. A few other very reputable Atrophysics journals have also cited his work of late.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Here's what you wrote in the OP (bold added):

"... but Scott in the last few days seems to have given a worthy responce. He has since had his material published in numerous reputable peer reviewed journals, lectured at NASA on his theories, and ..."

IOW, "literally this week" he has "had his material published in numerous reputable peer reviewed journals, [and] lectured at NASA on his theories"!

He must have had a very busy week.

Or perhaps that's not what you intended to say?

"In reputable peer reviewed IEEE plasma physics journals that cover plasma phsyics, plasma energy, space plasma properties, cosmic plasmas, plasma energy considerations, and many, many other areas."

With that info, I was able to find just two, in the period 2005 to 2009:

Evidence of an Influx of Interstellar Plasma from Archaic Z-Pinch Recordings (2005)

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos (2007)

There's also this: Electro-Magnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos (2006) Which hardly counts, does it?

Not exactly "numerous reputable peer reviewed journals" is it.

"A few other very reputable Atrophysics journals have also cited his work of late"

They have? Data please!

lectured at NASA on his theories ... - he has? When? Where?

He has lectured at NASA on his theories infront of an audience of about 60 people at the NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. From what I've heard the audience were a mix of standard atrophysicists, engineers, scientific journalists and cosmologists, all of which recieved his material quite well. Including Bridgeman, to his face, before going home later and getting angry and wound up that this time he's probably not chosen a creationist to mess with (which is what he usually does, debunk youg earth/universe creationist idiots), so probably wishes he hadn't started arguing with someone who can back up his arguments with sound evidence.

[...]

And what about the when? What was the occasion, a conference? a workshop? or did he rent a room for an afternoon, as anyone can, for almost any purpose?

I must say Z you seem to be doing very poorly at answering straight-forward questions about something which you presumably are very well informed.

(to be continued)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[content omitted]

Well, try.

And then maybe I can show you why he said this, and what his true thoughts on the matter are

A, by no means definitive, overview can be seen here by a science journalist: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090121theory.htm

The references to peer reviewed publications to back up the alternative models can be given, if you would like this. Some of these sites may be a good start if unfamiliar with these alternatives: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/links.htm

Z, you seem to be having trouble with not only spelling but also the [ QUOTE ] tags.

The content of the embedded quote - that I omitted - rather badly mangles who wrote what ... would you please try a bit harder to get this right? These little things seem pesky, to some anyway, but they not only make for lack of clarity in one's posts, they also contribute to an erosion of credibility (other than if you are not a native speaker, or suffer from dyslexia, persistent and frequent errors of this kind are perceived as laziness, sloppiness, etc.).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Einstein wouldn't know which end of a screwdriver to use; he was a theoretician. Tesla was an engineer and practical scientific experimenter, similar to Birkeland, and many other PU/EU advocates. This is a crucial difference.

(bold added)

So, you are stating that Tesla is a "PU/EU advocate"?

Or that Birkeland is a "PU/EU advocate"??

How rather demeaning, and lacking any substance. Scott et al have made meny predictions, some of which have already born out to be true. Maybe you are just unaware of them. You want a link?

(bold added)

Yes please; but only to quantitative predictions "which have already born out to be true" (BTW, what does "born out to be true" mean?)

Plasma cosmology (Lerner et al) infact made predictions that closer matched the data (element abundances, CMB, large scale structure, etc) than the original Big Bang predictions did. I linked to a bit of this material in this post in the plasma cosmology thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4557482&postcount=1714 All this material has been discussed here now for a looooooooong time, in the plasma cosmology thread and others. No consensus yet. People still ignoring the evidence in my opinion.

[...]

I don't know whether you are just forgetful, or are cynically disingenuous, or ... (feel free to reply), but ...

a) in that long thread we discussed ALL of Lerner's material - that you presented

b) the parts of that material which you stayed engaged with others on were shown to be a worse match to the actual astronomical data (well, the "element abundances, CMB, large scale structure" ones; I have no idea what you meant by "etc")

c) there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of direct questions, directly pertinent to the material that you posted in that thread, that you have walked away from.

What are you trying to do with this thread Z, continue to promote these non-science ideas again, with no intention to address challenges to them?

Oh, and let's not forget that Lerner, by his very own words, declares PC to be non-science.

In case you have forgotten, Lerner declared this to be one of PC's core assumptions:

"a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution"

Yep, he declared GR to have no pertinence when it comes to cosmology ... as an assumption (no testing, nothing).

I went through this step by step in this post; you may wish to re-read it.

 

[sol invictus]

(quoting Zeuzzz):

"In reputable peer reviewed IEEE plasma physics journals that cover plasma phsyics, plasma energy, space plasma properties, cosmic plasmas, plasma energy considerations, and many, many other areas."

I just did a search of the IEEE, and found precisely one paper on astrophysics published by a Donald E. Scott, called "Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos". (Neither of DRD's other references are to journal articles.)

So Zeuzzz - where are all the rest? Weird they didn't turn up when I did a search using the IEEE's own search engine, isn't it?

Now, let's have a look at that one. The abstract is completely absurd (how in the world did he get this past peer review?). For example, one sentence in the abstract is "Many helioastronomers claim that magnetic fields can be open ended. Astrophysicists have claimed that galactic magnetic fields begin and end on molecular clouds. Most electrical engineers, physicists, and pioneers in the electromagnetic field theory disagree, i.e., magnetic fields have no beginning or end. "

How odd - he seems to be saying that "many" astronomers don't know Maxwell's equations. That would certainly be a shock - professional astronomers not understanding the basics of their field! An assertion like that had better be supported, so let's see how he backs that up in the paper.

Here's Scott backing this up: "Since the 1950s, some solar astrophysicists have asserted that the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) is really open ended [7], with one end “anchored” to the Sun and the other waving in the
solar wind. Open field lines supposedly connect to the polar regions of the Sun and define the polar coronal holes that are prevalent at solar minima [8]."

Reference [7] is to a public, educational NASA website . But OK, let's have a look.

Guess what? Not a single statement there that disagrees with Maxwell's equations, and nothing about open ended fields "waving in the solar wind". Scott's assertion appears to be a bald-faced lie, and he's been caught with his pants down.

How about the next reference? Well, it certainly talks about "open lines". But a 2 minute skim of the paper makes it obvious (there's even a picture) what the authors are talking about - they're talking about field lines that do not curl back and re-enter the sun, NOT about lines that "end" somewhere.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Mr. Scott that the notion of B field lines ending is completely absurd - what would it even mean? And that's patently obvious to anyone that understands what field lines are (which means anyone with more than a high school education in physics). So to claim that professionals are making this mistake is.... really, really stupid, and it makes him look like the complete crank that he evidently is.

I'll stop there, as I've already wasted enough time on this quack.

 

[Zeuzzz]

In the end, I challenged him to produce one single PC/EU quantitative prediction/explanation of some astrophysical phenomenon that differs from the "mainstream's". He failed to do so, and continues to - which proves that at least Zeuzzz' version of these ideas has nothing to do with science.

Sol, I gave a detailed reply about Birkeland and Peratts work to your challenge. When you said you wnated something more specific I gave it, but by then you had me on ignore if I recall correctly. I can

a) Show you the posts where I did reply to this 'challenge'
b) Tell you the predictions/explanations again
c) There is no c)

Probably best if this be taken up in another thread. EU discussed in this thread are more speculative than plasma cosmology.

 

[Zeuzzz]

(bold added)

So, you are stating that Tesla is a "PU/EU advocate"?

Or that Birkeland is a "PU/EU advocate"??

No. EU/PC wasn't even a theory when they were alive. It was due to their pioneering work and excesive experiementation into electrical and plasma physics that enabled the very core of PU/EU to be founded.

Tesla was an absolute genius, still underappreciated to this day despite nealry half the technology we use today being primarily based on electrical ideas invented by him. Birkelands so under appreciated I doubt even people who have Phd's in electrical engineering or geophysics would have heard of him.

Yes please; but only to quantitative predictions "which have already born out to be true"

Well most of Scott et als predictions about various events in space, which are extremely distinct from most mainstream predictions, can be seen here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm

Some are yet to be verified, some have already proven true. Scotts more specific predictions can be seen in his various publications.

c) there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of direct questions, directly pertinent to the material that you posted in that thread, that you have walked away from.

Please go to that thread, and list at least 12 of these then. And I'll reply when I've the time.

If you can list 100 then I'll eat my foot.

Oh, and let's not forget that Lerner, by his very own words, declares PC to be non-science.

No, he chooses a different starting assumptions for his cosmology which dont adhere to your personal scientific preferences.

I went through this step by step in this post; you may wish to re-read it.

Twill do.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I just did a search of the IEEE, and found precisely one paper on astrophysics published by a Donald E. Scott, called "Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos". (Neither of DRD's other references are to journal articles.)

So Zeuzzz - where are all the rest? Weird they didn't turn up when I did a search using the IEEE's own search engine, isn't it?

Now, let's have a look at that one. The abstract is completely absurd (how in the world did he get this past peer review?). For example, one sentence in the abstract is "Many helioastronomers claim that magnetic fields can be open ended. Astrophysicists have claimed that galactic magnetic fields begin and end on molecular clouds. Most electrical engineers, physicists, and pioneers in the electromagnetic field theory disagree, i.e., magnetic fields have no beginning or end. "

How odd - he seems to be saying that "many" astronomers don't know Maxwell's equations. That would certainly be a shock - professional astronomers not understanding the basics of their field! An assertion like that had better be supported, so let's see how he backs that up in the paper.

Here's Scott backing this up: "Since the 1950s, some solar astrophysicists have asserted that the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) is really open ended [7], with one end “anchored” to the Sun and the other waving in the
solar wind. Open field lines supposedly connect to the polar regions of the Sun and define the polar coronal holes that are prevalent at solar minima [8]."

Reference [7] is to a public, educational NASA website . But OK, let's have a look.

Guess what? Not a single statement there that disagrees with Maxwell's equations, and nothing about open ended fields "waving in the solar wind". Scott's assertion appears to be a bald-faced lie, and he's been caught with his pants down.

How about the next reference? Well, it certainly talks about "open lines". But a 2 minute skim of the paper makes it obvious (there's even a picture) what the authors are talking about - they're talking about field lines that do not curl back and re-enter the sun, NOT about lines that "end" somewhere.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Mr. Scott that the notion of B field lines ending is completely absurd - what would it even mean? And that's patently obvious to anyone that understands what field lines are (which means anyone with more than a high school education in physics). So to claim that professionals are making this mistake is.... really, really stupid, and it makes him look like the complete crank that he evidently is.

I'll stop there, as I've already wasted enough time on this quack.

I'll have a read through this later. But the fact that you resort to calling him a quack doesn't do you any favors. Was hawkins a quack for getting some of his theories wrong?

 

[sol invictus]

Sol, I gave a detailed reply about Birkeland and Peratts work to your challenge.

You waffled and squirmed for weeks. After repeating my request again and again and again to no avail, I finally gave up and put you on ignore.

But the challenge is still open - but don't forget, it cuts both ways. Your job is to produce one - that's ONE - not five, one - quantitative explanation for an astrophysical phenomenon according to EU/PC that disagrees with the mainstream's. It must be specific, precise, quantitative, and falsifiable - in other words, it must meet the basic requirements for theories of the physical sciences.

If you can do that, I (probably with the assistance of other posters here) will take the time to consider and examine it carefully, in as scientific and unbiased a manner as I can. If, at the end of the examination, the idea has been found to be either logically inconsistent or incompatible with data, your end of the bargain is that you agree you will drop this nonsense. That can either mean you never post here again at all, or that you continue to post but acknowledge that EU/PC is not science (and therefore doesn't belong in this subforum).

In the event that we disagree on whether or not the idea has merit, I will try to make the case as best I can. In the end I suspect you will never acknowledge the facts - no matter how overwhelming - and that's how it will end, but the process may be educational nevertheless. Or if in the end I find that it does have merit, I will have gained something.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'll have a read through this later. But the fact that you resort to calling him a quack doesn't do you any favors. Was hawkins a quack for getting some of his theories wrong?

I'm not aware of any instance where Hawking acted like Scott.

 

[sol invictus]

I'll have a read through this later. But the fact that you resort to calling him a quack doesn't do you any favors. Was hawkins a quack for getting some of his theories wrong?

I have no idea who "hawkins" is, so I can't answer that.

If Scott is not a quack, then he's either simply stupid (unlikely), or more probably a very crotchety old man that's completely lost touch with reality (so that the phrase "open field line" drives him into some kind of blind rage, even though it has an obvious meaning that's perfectly consistent with Maxwell's equations).

Speaking seriously, I would never have accepted a paper like that were I the referee. It has zero scientific content - it's nothing more than a rant against various statements miscellaneous other people have made. Even if the criticisms were valid - and they're not, they're based on Scott's inability to understand what the experts are discussing with each other - the paper still wouldn't belong in a scientific journal. I skimmed the rest, and he makes many statements that are simply false (like that magnetic field lines cannot move - that's just plain wrong, at least according to the definition of "magnetic field line" everyone else in the world uses).

ETA - at least one part of my hypothesis is confirmed.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

c) there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of direct questions, directly pertinent to the material that you posted in that thread, that you have walked away from.

Please go to that thread, and list at least 12 of these then. And I'll reply when I've the time.

If you can list 100 then I'll eat my foot.

[...]

Up to 12 June, 2008, I referenced ~35 posts which contain unanswered questions (in that thread); these may be found here, here, here, and here.

You certainly attempted to answer some of these, and of course there were many more questions (that also remain unanswered), about material you posted, after 12 June 2008.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(bold added)

So, you are stating that Tesla is a "PU/EU advocate"?

Or that Birkeland is a "PU/EU advocate"??

No. EU/PC wasn't even a theory when they were alive. It was due to their pioneering work and excesive experiementation into electrical and plasma physics that enabled the very core of PU/EU to be founded.

Tesla was an absolute genius, still underappreciated to this day despite nealry half the technology we use today being primarily based on electrical ideas invented by him. Birkelands so under appreciated I doubt even people who have Phd's in electrical engineering or geophysics would have heard of him.

Thanks for the clarification.

It would seem that, when it comes to posts by you Z, an automatic questioning of some of the material in them is called for ... based solely on your track record in this thread so far.

Yes please; but only to quantitative predictions "which have already born out to be true"

Well most of Scott et als predictions about various events in space, which are extremely distinct from most mainstream predictions, can be seen here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm

Some are yet to be verified, some have already proven true. Scotts more specific predictions can be seen in his various publications.

That's nice ... but it doesn't answer my request, does it.

Z, I'd like you to be honest here ... did you genuinely think you were answering my request, when you wrote this part of your post (that I'm quoting)? I'm trying to work out where the breakdown in communication is happening - if there is one - before starting to seriously consider that you are being cynically disingenuous.

Oh, and by "publications" ("in his various publications") do you mean "papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals"? If so, can you please provide a list of those (containing quantitative predictions "which have already born out to be true")?

[...]

Oh, and let's not forget that Lerner, by his very own words, declares PC to be non-science.

No, he chooses a different starting assumptions for his cosmology which dont adhere to your personal scientific preferences.

My personal scientific preferences?

That's rich, Z; thanks for the laugh.

I went through this step by step in this post; you may wish to re-read it.

Twill do.

No need; I'm copying it here (with some editing re the Quote).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
robinson: While I tend to avoid arguements online, I enjoy reading the never ending debate about plasma and related issues. I keep learning new stuff.

DRD: If I may, I'll take you at your word, and in a later post I'll walk you through one aspect of the deep inconsistencies in "plasma cosmology" (at least as presented by Z, here in this thread). I shall try, hard, to keep the level sufficiently low that you can follow along, but I trust that you will respond in accord with the spirit of what you have written here, and ask questions about stuff you don't understand.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As promised.

Aim: walk robinson through one deep inconsistency in "plasma cosmology".

Scope: "plasma cosmology" as presented by Zeuzzz in this thread; specifically as presented in post#684.

Key assumption: "plasma cosmology" is intended to be a major contribution to contemporary science, and assessed accordingly (this is, after all, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of this forum).

Let's begin.

A central aspect of "plasma cosmology" is the following:

"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."

This is entirely consistent with the Copernican Principle (crudely, the Earth does not have a special place in the universe), and a deeper principle explicitly used in modern physics (crudely, that 'the laws of physics' are the same everywhere in the universe).

No doubt you have heard of the General Theory of Relativity (GR), first published by Einstein in 1916.

This theory is universal in its scope.

It has been tested extensively, in laboratories on Earth, throughout the solar system, and beyond.

Clifford Will's "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment" contains a summary of those tests; you may find the most recent version of this document here {link omitted}, and its arXiv abstract is here {link omitted}. There is a huge amount of information and links and references and stuff there, allowing for investigation and study of stuff.

This next part is very difficult.

What happens when you take GR and apply it to the universe as a whole? I can give you lots and lots of excellent references robinson, but I know of none that present this application at a technical level suited to you.

When faced with these kinds of situations, what do you do robinson? How do you go about verifying for yourself that conclusions from using something beyond your technical level are sound, in terms of the science (this is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of this forum)? If you could let me know, I'd be happy to walk you through how the conclusion follows from GR, using a method suited to you.

Here's one result: a scalar expansion is predicted from the FRW metric.

What does that mean?

In simple words, it means that the further an object is from us, the faster it will seem to be moving away from us. In other words, GR predicts the Hubble relationship. If you'd like to learn more about the Hubble relationship, may I suggest that John Huchra's website The Hubble Constant {link omitted} is a good place to start? There is a huge amount of information and links and references and stuff there, allowing for investigation and study of stuff.

That completes the first part of my walk-through for you robinson.

"a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution"

Those are words from the source Zeuzzz quotes, in post#684, concerning plasma cosmology.

We may call this a central tenant of plasma cosmology, a core belief, an essential pillar.

Notice anything strange?

Recall this: "Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos".

We are at the end of the walk-through; here is one deep inconsistency (or intolerable conflict) in "plasma cosmology": on the one hand there is clear statement of the Copernican Principle; on the other, an arbitrary exclusion of GR.

Now the extent of this inconsistency (or intolerable conflict) may take some time to sink in, so let me expand on it a bit.

The "not accepted" part of the central tenant of plasma cosmology is not only a denial of GR and all the experimental tests to which it has been subject; it is also a clear, unambiguous statement that the Hubble relationship must be wrong, that the distances or redshifts (or both) must be wrong.

So what? Well, for one thing, it makes plasma cosmology something other than science - it contains a core element that ought to be eminently testable (by observation and experiment) but which has been declared off-limits for any testing. It declares GR to be an illegitimate theory of physics, by fiat, by declaring that its stated scope (universal, remember) is false.

If you are a fan of Karl Popper, a robust conclusion is that plasma cosmology is not falsifiable, and so cannot be part of science.

No doubt you have many questions; if you would care to write them down, I would be happy to try to answer them.

 

[technoextreme]

Speaking seriously, I would never have accepted a paper like that were I the referee. It has zero scientific content - it's nothing more than a rant against various statements miscellaneous other people have made.
.

I remember the last time I got involved in this discussion pointing out the same thing. The article I read compared conventional science to creationism. That journal seems to be a very woo orientated. If I remember correctly it probably is due to the fact that the backer of the Electric Universe concept created the journal.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Up to 12 June, 2008, I referenced ~35 posts which contain unanswered questions (in that thread); these may be found here, here, here, and here.

Well many I think I've already anwered. But I'll have another crack at them tommorrow if you insist. Only skimming the forum here today, just leaving the odd annoying comment here and there.

So thats about 50 questions, find 50 more and I'm gonna have to cripple myself and serve me up a nice foot pie.

 

[sol invictus]

I remember the last time I got involved in this discussion pointing out the same thing. The article I read compared conventional science to creationism. That journal seems to be a very woo orientated. If I remember correctly it probably is due to the fact that the backer of the Electric Universe concept created the journal.

Let's have a look: http://plasmascience.net/ieeetps/SeniorEditors.html

And whaddya know - one of the senior editors is Zeuzzz's favorite crackpot, Anthony Peratt. That explains how Scott's paper got published - Peratt would probably be the editor in charge, since it's in his "field". He probably sent it to Zeuzzz to referee .

You can read part of a review of Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/n33247u57n4438w1/
There are some pretty entertaining lines in there - clearly the reviewer had no idea Peratt was a priest of this bizarro PC sect...

 

[Zeuzzz]

I remember the last time I got involved in this discussion pointing out the same thing. The article I read compared conventional science to creationism. That journal seems to be a very woo orientated. If I remember correctly it probably is due to the fact that the backer of the Electric Universe concept created the journal.

Nope.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=27
"Published by: IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society

Visit the Website: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science

Plasma science and engineering, including: magnetofluid dynamics and thermionics; plasma dynamics; gaseous electronics and arc technology; controlled thermonuclear fusion; electron, ion, and plasma sources; space plasmas; high-current relativistic electron beams; laser-plasma interactions; diagnostics; plasma chemistry and colloidal and solid-state plasmas.
Contacts

Editor-in-Chief
Steven J. Gitomer, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, US Civilian Research & Development Foundation
Guest Scientist, Los Alamos National Laboratory
1428 Miracerros Loop South
Santa Fe, NM 87505, USA
Phone: 505-988-5751
Fax: 505-988-5751 (call first)
Email: tps-editor@ieee.org "

The two specific editors of that edition (minus the extra referees) were Anthony Peratt and Timothy Eastman. Hardly underqualified people. Infact some of the most qualified people there are in these matters. Far more qualified that Mr Invictus for sure, no matter how disparaging he is about them.

Anthony L. Peratt (S’60–M’63–SM’85–F’99) received the B.S.E.E. degree from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, in 1964, and the M.S.E.E. degree and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, 1967 and 1971, respectively.

From 1972 to 1979, he was a Staff Member with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. From 1975 to 1977, he was a Guest Physicist with the Max Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching, Germany. From 1981 to the present, he as beeen with the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM. In 1985, he was a Guest Scientist with the Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. From 1995 to 1999, he was with the Applied Theoretical Physics Division, Physics Division, Associate Laboratory Directorate for Experimental Programs, and he was a Scientific Advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy.

He authored Physics of the Plasma Universe (Berlin,Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1992), and was an Editor on Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology (Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1995) and Advanced Topics in Space and Astrophysical Plasmas (Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1997). He has served as session organizer for space plasmas at the IEEE International Confernce on Plasma Science from 1987–1989. His research interests include numerical and experimental contributions to high-energy density plasmas and intense particle beams, inertial confinement fusion, explosively-driven pulsed power generators, lasers, intense-power-microwave sources, particles, high-energy density phenomena, new concepts in space propulsion and high-performance computing, plasma cosmogony, and cosmology.

Dr. Peratt was the Guest Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE Special Issues on Space Plasmas in 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992, 2000, and 2003. He was the organizer of the IEEE International Workshops on Space Plasmas in 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995–1998, and 2003. He has been an Associate Editor with the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE sinc 1989. He was an Elected member of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Science Society (NPSS) Executive Committee (ExCom) from 1987 to 1989 and from 1995 to 1997. He was the General Chairman of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, Santa Fe, NewMexico, in 1994. He was the IEEE NPSS ExCom Vice Chairman and was elected to the IEEE NPSS Administrative Committee, both in 1997. He received the U.S. Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award in both 1987 and 1999, the IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award in 1993, and was a Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, University of Oslo Physics Department, and Norsk Hydro Kristian Birkeland Lecturer in 1995. He is a member of the American Physical Society, American Astronomical Society, and Eta Kappa Nu.

As for Timothy Eastman (Manager, Space Science Data Operations. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), scroll down to page four of the guest editoral overview of the transactions on plasma science on this webpage: http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Editorial-IEEETPSAug07-CosmicPlasma.pdf

Which also gives a good summary of some other material covered therein.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Well many I think I've already anwered. But I'll have another crack at them tommorrow if you insist. Only skimming the forum here today, just leaving the odd annoying comment here and there.

So thats about 50 questions, find 50 more and I'm gonna have to cripple myself and serve me up a nice foot pie.

(bold added)

Perhaps less skimming and more reading?

Each link, in each of the four posts I cited, contains a post; typically there is more than one question per post, in some cases way more than one ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Nope.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=27
"Published by: IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society

Visit the Website: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science

Plasma science and engineering, including: magnetofluid dynamics and thermionics; plasma dynamics; gaseous electronics and arc technology; controlled thermonuclear fusion; electron, ion, and plasma sources; space plasmas; high-current relativistic electron beams; laser-plasma interactions; diagnostics; plasma chemistry and colloidal and solid-state plasmas.
Contacts

Editor-in-Chief
Steven J. Gitomer, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, US Civilian Research & Development Foundation
Guest Scientist, Los Alamos National Laboratory
1428 Miracerros Loop South
Santa Fe, NM 87505, USA
Phone: 505-988-5751
Fax: 505-988-5751 (call first)
Email: tps-editor@ieee.org "

The two specific editors of that edition (minus the extra referees) were Anthony Peratt and Timothy Eastman. Hardly underqualified people. Infact some of the most qualified people there are in these matters. Far more qualified that Mr Invictus for sure, no matter how disparaging he is about them.




As for Timothy Eastman (Manager, Space Science Data Operations. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), scroll down to page four of the guest editoral overview of the transactions on plasma science on this webpage: http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Editorial-IEEETPSAug07-CosmicPlasma.pdf

Which also gives a good summary of some other material covered therein.

Sure seems rather more than "only skimming" to me ...