Klimax will, of course, respond in whatever fashion she or he sees fit, including a non-response.
I would like to give a personal opinion.
Zeuzzz, your posting record here in the JREF forum is open for all to see and read.
In particular, your posts in the
Something new under the sun and the
Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not threads, both here in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section.
I have continually stated that my posts are brief at the moment while I’m busy. I've made an exception in this thread, I started the PC explanation for pulsars, so i may aswell finish.
Several posters have accused you of lying, and have presented pretty strong cases that this is so, based solely on your own posts.
Subjective. Misunderstandings. I would say that they were lying when they said that I lied. I have not lied, lying is
intentional deceit, I'm always open if I feel I have misrepresented something. I can post you all the posts where I have admitted some mistakes in an open way if you really want. But what would that achieve? another angry accusational post from you?
plagiarism? hardly. I explained why, and that is one of the few posts where I didn't quote the scientific material. Use you brain, was that scientific material really likely to have been written by me? we already discussed this, or are you going to keep bringing it up, post after post. Just ignore the actual material and spend time shooting the messenger. Name the logical fallacy.
In many cases where a strong and detailed case debunking your assertions has been presented, you have chosen to not even acknowledge the responses, much less try to address them (check out the nine "here" links in
this post, for example).
I told you, about five million times, I will try to address fully what you wrote, and other things, when I finish my exams, meanwhile I'll just keep to the usual couple of posts a day, apart from when I’ve occasionally got some spare time to write a long contribution, mainly as I know how annoyed you get when I add the occasional comment here, and I find these sort of posts by you truly hilarious to read
So you'll just to have get more and more annoyed meanwhile, as I'm not going to start any threads that I don’t have time to defend my position on (I've started hardly any here so far). My last exam resit is on July 4th, if you really want to put a date on it. Though I probably wont be in working function for a good week or so after that. Drinks up!
This extract sums things up nicely:As I said, this is a personal opinion ... but anyone may read what you have posted in this section of the JREF forum and decide how accurate this summary is.
That quote from sol is hilarious. He thinks that he won the debate about magnetic reconnection, despite never explaining at all how the field lines in magnetic reconnection theory release the energy that is easily explained with Alfvens current disruption method. Thats another thread i'll have to start, and I'll make sure to quote his magnetic "tangle" theory too.
I started to sort through the misunderstandings, mis-statements, falsehoods, and errors in your
post#39 (above), but I've decided it's just not a worthwhile use of my time ... it's more of the 'same old, same old' that you spammed the Something new under the sun and the Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not threads with (and, no doubt, others before, and after, them), several times.
Sure
I'm still waiting for this:
So, when I (or someone else) gets around to going through that Healy and Peratt paper, and discovers that there is, shall we say, a discrepancy ...
???
If any other member is interested in any specific aspect of anything so far not addressed in any of Zeuzzz' posts in this thread, I'd be happy to engage in discussion. However, I'm done with engaging in a non-discussion with you Zeuzzz, other than in the Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not and
Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics threads.
Well, as I keep telling you, I will enjoy actually discussing some PC material when I've the time, and I really dont know why you have to resort to writing these sort of posts. You should just do what Reality Check, or D'David does, if you think that I have not answered a question, just keep pointing it out, without all the personal accusations, I will respond eventually. A list of a scientific questions would be far more appropriate than your usual tactics. I cant answer every single post instantly, there’s only one of me. And these sort of responses don’t really progress the subject at hand? do they? I dont write entire posts like this about you? do I?
And please don’t respond to this post in a similar vein here, i'm sure its quite tedious for other people listening to you bicker about me all the time... try to keep your posts about the SCIENCE of the discussion, you are posting in the Science and Technology section after all.
Back to the subject at hand....
One page that I found just now that contradicts the mainstream pulsar theory is this interesting one;
Powerful explosions suggest neutron star missing link 2008
The collapsed star occasionally unleashes powerful bursts of X-rays, which are forcing astronomers to rethink the life cycle of neutron stars.
"We are watching one type of neutron star literally change into another right before our very eyes. This is a long-sought missing link between different types of pulsars," says Fotis Gavriil of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and the University of Maryland, Baltimore. Gavriil is lead author of a paper in the February 21 issue of Science Express.
And these large bursts have been attributed to an electrical discharge already by some, presumably in an area where more charge builds up over a greater distance than the periodic ones, before it discharges between the two bodies in the binary system. Most pulsars with the highest frequency pulses are now known to be binaries.
The alternative discharge mechanism for pulsars, first proposed by Peratt back in 1995, has the distinct advantage of being able to explain the recently observed pulsars that should be spinning far too fast for mainstream theories to allow. I should also add that the original reason that neutron stars were invented was to explain this high rotation observed from certain pulsars, despite some nuclear chemists pointing out the problems encountered when packing neutrons that close together. I think that a few astronomers have started to notice that neutronium is not very tenable on a nuclear level, and now that they have been observed to spin even faster, a less easily falsifiable entity has now been proposed. Apparently, some neutron stars can actually change completely, and turn into stars made of
'strange matter'! sometimes called "quark stars".
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/771
"Strange matter" is a hypothetical state of matter that consists of roughly equal numbers of up, down and strange quarks. Moreover, these quarks are not confined - unlike the up and down quarks that make up the protons and neutrons in ordinary matter. Some physicists have even conjectured that strange matter is the absolute ground state of bulk matter, rather than iron-56, which is the most stable of all the nuclei. [...]
Several groups have calculated the properties of bulk strange matter and demonstrated that neutron stars might convert into strange stars of roughly the same size. Various astrophysical objects have been proposed as candidate strange stars, but with mixed results.
Accretion on to strange-matter pulsars
You couldn't make it up!
I find Peratts original electric current discharge explanation for pulsars, that has been gaining attention thanks to the work of Wu
et al recently, much more likely than "strange matter" one where the pulses originate from emmission points on a rotating surface. Check out this one, hot off the press;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0920 14 May 2008
Electric currents j flow along the open magnetic field lines from the polar caps of neutron stars. Activity of a polar cap depends on the ratio = j/c GJ, where GJ is the corotation charge density. The customary assumption ≈ 1 is not supported by recent simulations of pulsar magnetospheres and we study polar caps with arbitrary. We argue that no significant activity is generated on field lines with 0 <
< 1. Charges are extracted from the star and flow along such field lines with low energies. By contrast, if > 1 or < 0, a high voltage is generated, leading to unsteady e± discharge on a scale-height smaller than the size of the polar cap. The discharge can power observed pulsars. Voltage fluctuations in the discharge imply unsteady twisting of the open flux tube and generation of Alfv´en waves. These waves are ducted along the tube and converted to electromagnetic waves, providing a new mechanism for pulsar radiation.[...]
The current will fluctuate around jB (Levinson et al. 2005); in addition, the excitation of Alfven waves implies fluctuations of jB itself (§ 5). A time-averaged Mback ∼ 1 can be expected in such discharges. Then the backflow energy flux is comparable to that of the primary particles.
Very interesting publication, and I find it much more likely than "strange matter" or objects spinning at truly ridiculous speeds of 2000 times in one second. The pulses we detect from pulsars are not an indication of their speed, more their charge, local voltages and electrical activity, as predicted previously by PC proponents. This voltage, produced by a double layer on the stars surface, seems to be able to explain the radiation we observe from pulsars very well.
To quote Peratt;
Both simulation and experiment suggest that micro-pulses and sub-pulses are produced by particle-wave interactions in non-uniform plasma eradiated by the electromagnetic wave. This effect is produced when the magnetically insulated voltage pulse reaches the pulsar surface. Because of the curvature, magnetic insulation is lost and plasma flows across this region.
And even though high voltages in space used to be a quite taboo subject in space from conventional neutral gas theories (although used by PC proponents for decades), a lot of astronomers seem much more open to accepting that large charge separation can occur in space to produce these voltages, that usually arise from double layers in plasma, which can boost these voltages even further due to their structure.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf
The fractional frequency stability scaling versus measurements interval up to about 30,000,000 s for pulsars is nearly identical to that for trapped-ion clocks. This supports the pulsar surface-magnetosphere relativistic double layer model; itself a trapped ion mechanism[...]
The source of the radiation energy may not be contained within the pulsar, but may instead derive from either the pulsars interaction with its environment or by energy delivered by an external circuit (Hannes Alfvén 1981).[2] This hypothesis is consistent with both the long term memory effect of the time averaged pulse and the occurrence of nulling, when no sub-pulses are observed. As noted earlier, our results support the 'planetary magnetosphere' view (Michael 1982) where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission.
Quite a prophetic paper considering that it was the first one to suggest this electrical explanation for pulsars in such detail, and is now being confirmed by various observations.
And instead of listing all the other recent papers I could list on this, Just read this publication, which essentially sums up everything that I've been saying just in the abstract.
The state of pulsar theory -Advances in Space Research Volume 33, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 542-551 [[
full text]]
Abstract
I summarize the status of pulsar theory, now 35 years after their discovery. Although progress has been made in understanding the relevant processes involved, there are several widely held misconceptions that are inhibiting further advances.
These include the idea that plasma “must” be accelerated from the magnetic polar caps (the basis for the “Hollow Cone Model”) and the idea that winds would be driven away by centrifugal forces, with large amplitude electromagnetic waves playing no role whatsoever. However, recent theoretical work is converging on a picture that closely resembles the latest HST and Chandra images, providing hope for the future. No less than three groups have recently confirmed the early Krause-Polstorff–Michel simulations showing that the fundamental plasma distribution around a rotating neutron star consists of two polar domes and an equatorial torus of trapped
nonneutral plasma of opposite sign charges.
Unless a lot of new physics can be added [], this distribution renders the Goldreich–Julian model irrelevant (i.e., along with most of the theoretical publications over the last 33 years).
Another interesting thing that seems to have gained acceptance recently on pulsars, and other compact stars, is the large spherical electric field that they emanate, often called an electrosphere.
High Energy Emission from Strange Stars (made entirely of
strange matter )
We consider the main sources of high energy radiation emission from strange quark stars. We analyze the bremsstrahlung surface photon emissivity of strange quark matter by systematically taking into account the effects of multiple scattering of the highly relativistic quarks in a dense medium (the Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal effect). The effect of the electrosphere of the quark star on the bremsstrahlung spectrum is also presented. The presence of the electric field strongly influences the radiation spectrum emitted by the electrosphere. The effect of multiple scattering, which strongly suppresses radiation emission, is important only for the dense layer of the electrosphere situated near the star's surface and only for high values of the surface electric potential of the star. A typical bremsstrahlung radiation spectrum, which could extend to very low frequencies, could be one of the main observational signatures even for low temperature quark stars.
Talk of our sun eminating possessing an electrosphere still seems to not have been addressed in the literature, some PC/EU proponents have suggested for many years that a global E-field on the sun resulting from a double layer can explain many of the unsolved characteristics of the sun (ref:
REF, [and even some mainstream astronomers have started using plasma double layers on the sun to explain certain aspects very recently, better late than never!;
REF). Some of the main problems would be the heating of the corona, and the origin of the solar wind, the origin of flares, which are all long unsolved mysteries to conventional fluid gas theories. But if there’s an external spherical electric field around the sun then this may be able to explain why the particles get accelerated in the solar wind, why the corona is so much hotter than the surface of the sun, as well as possibly providing clues as to the origin of solar flares resulting from electrical discharges. Judging from these recent pictures from SOHO of a perfectly spherical field surrounding the sun, this now seems an very likely, so we may have already inadvertently detected it! Unless, of course, its explained as field of strange dark quark matter
And the equatorial plasma torus that Birkeland simulated on his Terella over a centrury ago is there and all, in a differnet EM spectrum that is not usually visible;
--
Nearly perfectly equipotential at every radius, exactly what you would expect from an E-field.
Hopefully now these ideas have started to become accepted on pulsars and other stars, astronomers will start applying them to our own sun. Many of the unresolved problems with current solar models could likely be resolved by including this often overlooked EM component. They can certainly explain pulsars and millisecond pulsars much better than the conventional approach. All interesting stuff from my perspective.
