Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Reality Check]

Extensive links with partial quotations, supporting a scientific view, are exactly what a thread that is contentious should have.

I agree with you. A link with partial quotations that supports a point made in a post is great.
Zeuzzz though is too fond of multiple links with multiple quotations to support a single point.

Your opinion is noted. I find extensive dumb posts with nothing to back them up far more irritating. As well as making a thread unpleasant to read.

Ditto.

 

[The Man]

You don't know what anybody but yourself does. One huge difference between Plasma proponents here, and most "skeptics", is the "crackpots" supply a huge amount of science and publications, allowing for investigation and study of stuff, while most of the critics offer only insults and derision. While I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers, I find it far more interesting to read them than read a boring stream of insulting responses, devoid of any science or rational thought.

Skeptics need to first be skeptical of there own assertions, simply being skecticlal of the assertions of others is not being a skeptic.

Crackpots certainly supply an overwhelming amount of references or quotes but that does not make them scientific. Likewise as you state “I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers” it has been made evident that many of the other PC supporters suffer from that same affliction.

The difference being, that those references, questions and quotes are specifically addressed by skeptics while opposing questions, references and quotes are ignored by PC psudo-skecptics.

Nobody needs you to remind us of anything, much less your conclusions.

Everyone needs reminding form time to time, some more then others and to remind you that as a self professed technical person (or at least professed at technical terminology) you should take the time to understand those technical papers your refer to, instead of just confessing your ignorance and the utter lack of validity of your assertions. That you are essential ignorant (by your own admission) of the specific technical aspects of both positions is hardly a bases to disparage either of those positions.

 

[Ziggurat]

One huge difference between Plasma proponents here, and most "skeptics", is the "crackpots" supply a huge amount of science and publications, allowing for investigation and study of stuff, while most of the critics offer only insults and derision.

So you think Zeuzzz is somehow better positioned because he posts more links than his opponents. Well, posting links is fairly easy - so is using Google to look them up. But which side is it that does actual calculations to evaluate these ideas? It hasn't been Zeuzzz. He's avoided them like the plague, even when they demonstrate rather unambiguously that the plasma models for stuff like galactic rotation curves are nonsense. It's been the critics who have done the calculations, and its his (and frequently your) inability or refusal to actually address those calculations which have earned him scorn. So no, the skeptics have offered far more than insults.

While I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers,

Then why are you impressed with links to them, if you can't even evaluate whether or not they support his position?

 

[robinson]

So you think Zeuzzz is somehow better positioned because he posts more links than his opponents.

No, but I find it more interesting to see why somebody supports something.

Well, posting links is fairly easy - so is using Google to look them up.

No, it isn't easy. If it was, you and others could offer refutations and rational scientific counters to explain your positions. With ease. It isn't just finding links, it is reading the lengthy reports, papers and other tiresome tasks, then finding relevant parts, then copy and paste, it is like work.

But which side is it that does actual calculations to evaluate these ideas? It hasn't been Zeuzzz. He's avoided them like the plague, even when they demonstrate rather unambiguously that the plasma models for stuff like galactic rotation curves are nonsense.

This is an example of what I was talking about. You just say stuff, rather than showing where the demonstration actually is.

Then why are you impressed with links to them, if you can't even evaluate whether or not they support his position?

Nobody said they were impressed. Your seeming inability to read what I wrote, doesn't endear me to your opinions. I said I find it more interesting than a stream of insults, off topic screed and the usual spench.

From what I can gather, the theories about Galaxy formation and rotation are not the simplistic ideas you seem to rail against.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it isn't easy.

It's very easy. What it isn't is quick. I frankly have no interest in spending large amounts of time educating Zeuzzz or you. The time I've already spent doing that seems to have little to no impact.

This is an example of what I was talking about. You just say stuff, rather than showing where the demonstration actually is.

You have been in those threads. I have little interest in spending the time to look up conversations you were part of for you.

From what I can gather, the theories about Galaxy formation and rotation are not the simplistic ideas you seem to rail against.

I never said they were. Galactic formation is a messy business indeed. But you don't NEED to know how they formed to be able to figure out, for example, that magnetic fields CANNOT account for why they orbit faster than predicted by the gravitational attraction of visible matter alone. That calculation is easy. And magnetic effects come out something like 10²⁰ times too low. So the alternative to dark matter proposed by Zeuzzz falls apart with freshman physics calculations.

So why does Zeuzzz believe what he believes, when the numbers demonstrate the absurdity of those beliefs? Perhaps he's simply credulous for a certain sort of authority. Apparently the words of certain plasma experts hold more weight for him than actual numbers.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You really need to get up to date with modern day space plasma physcis, my dear Zeuzzz, there is definitely no assumption of homogenous plasmas, you obviously do not understand the purpose of drawn magnetic field lines, plasmas are basically NEVER infinitely conducting, but highly conducting, which means that to a certain degree (i.e. on time scales smaller than the diffusion time) the magnetic field may be considered frozen into the plasma, and yes, space plasma physics does talk about electric currents. As an example, my latest (accepted by peer reviewed journal of geophysics research) paper is called: Magnetotail Dipolarization and Associated Current Systems Observed by Cluster and DoubleStar.

get out of the plasma physical middle ages please!

tusenfem, if you have a problem with any of the plasma physics I have posted then please point it out.

I wanted to ask you, which do you think is primary, Ej or Bu? I tend to get different answers from people, some just say its an ambiguos question (which it is if your just looking at their basic relationship, they are equivalent) but I've always wanted to know if there is any proof either way as to which is primary. I suspect the current is primary, but noticed that some others have asserted that the bulk plasma flow is what drives the generation of current. I expect that the same proof could be derived for the Ej approach, considering that they are basically equivalent, but i'm not sure what distinguishes between a primary or secondary effect between the two.

 

[Dancing David]

Prove that a singularity can exist in nature, not in mathmatical terms, and I'll fully beleive in black holes. They just stricke me as a mathematical extrapolation too far.

It also depends whether your speaking about mini, midi, or maxi black holes. I think that black hole candidates, like Cyg X-1 and A0620-00, that have been proposed (along with >50 more) to be black holes are actually binaries with large accretion disks (some 5 solar masses), and I have reservations over 'super massive' ones as burning H to Fe is almost as efficient lamp as accretion, giving a <1% of the rest energy, and this is also implied by their spectra which show high metal enrichment compared with solar abundances.

WOW Zeuzzz, so this brings me to the questions for the Lernerites:

What keeps a 300 solar mass accretion in an area of a sphere roughly 43 AU from collapsing?

What forces and energies keep such an object from contracting to a black hole under the forece of gravity. (We are talking galactic ceneters here).


So what keeps it from collapsing hmmm?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I like this publication you contributed to here tusenfem; (http://www.iwf.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/publications/mag_tail/volwerk_et_al_JGR_r_2008a.pdf) Magnetotail Dipolarization and Associated Current 1 Systems Observed by Cluster and DoubleStar

Its primarily an observational paper, is it not? With all these new powerful observations all these current systems are becoming clearly visible now.

And this paper is primarily about the cross-tail current, Pudovkin et al. showed that its power ε is related to the Poynting flux (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986GeoRL..13..213P), proving that the solar wind–magnetosphere interaction constitutes a dynamo. I believe that it was also found that substorms typically begin when the power, ε, exceeds about 10¹⁸ erg/s for about 40 min, showng that substorms do not occur as a result of a spontaneous magnetic reconnection.

Instead of relying on the concept of magnetic reconnection Akasofu et al have shown that it may be worthwhile to consider that the solar wind–
magnetosphere dynamo generates two solenoidal currents in
the magnetotail. The flux transfer can be understood in terms of an
increase of the solenoidal currents caused by an increase of ε. Changes of the magnetic field configuration that are associated with the so-called “southward turning” of the IMF vector can be explained by an increase of the dynamo power ε.

 

[Dancing David]

Please remember that Robinson is a contrarian and he is doing this to yank your chains. He also lampoons the PC side while appearing to support them.

Robinson, on Perrat''s rotaion curve model and the 'electric sun model' Ziggy, Sol and others pointed out that the math that would be used to support the PC explanation often fails to meet observations or has direct contradictions. Like stars blowing apart or the magnetic fields being too low. there is a whole thread devoted to the bad statistics of Arp's QSO/galaxy associations.

Do you deny that?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Please remember that Robinson is a contrarian and he is doing this to yank your chains. He also lampoons the PC side while appearing to support them.

Robinson, on Perrat''s rotaion curve model and the 'electric sun model' Ziggy, Sol and others pointed out that the math that would be used to support the PC explanation often fails to meet observations or has direct contradictions. Like stars blowing apart or the magnetic fields being too low. there is a whole thread devoted to the bad statistics of Arp's QSO/galaxy associations.

Do you deny that?

Where is this calculation? it was likely;

a) Probably using a central magnetic field, which is nothing to do with Peratts model
b) To lower charge on the star
c) Not considering the interaction of the star with it local environment
d) Using to low density for the ISM (or, dare i say, not even including the ISM in the calulation)

 

[robinson]

... there is a whole thread devoted to the bad statistics of Arp's QSO/galaxy associations.

Do you deny that?

I have no knowledge of any such thread. Here again is the difference between sides. PC proponents would have provided a helpful link to the thread, allowing me to decide if there was a thread, as well as read the thread.

 

[Zeuzzz]

WOW Zeuzzz, so this brings me to the questions for the Lernerites:

What keeps a 300 solar mass accretion in an area of a sphere roughly 43 AU from collapsing?

Generally its the angular momentum. Many other people have this exact opinion on many BH candidates actually being neutron stars, that why I think its likely, for the reasons they have given.

Astrophysics of Neutron Stars - Facts and Fiction about their Formation and Functioning

An unconventional survey is presented of the observable properties of neutron stars, and of all astrophysical phenomena possibly related to them, such as their pulsing, clock irregularities, bursting, and flickering, the generation of cosmic rays, of gamma-ray bursts, and of jets, their birth, and their occasional transient appearance as 'supersoft' X-ray sources. The msec pulsars are argued to be born fast, the black-hole candidates to be neutron stars inside of massive disks, and the gamma-ray bursts to be sparks from dense 'blades' accreting spasmodically onto the surfaces of (generally) old neutron stars Supernovae - the likely birth events of neutron stars - are thick-walled explosions, not to be described by Sedov-Taylor waves, which illuminate their gaseous environs via collisions of their 'splinters'.

And this later publication also considers some viable alternatives to black holes, as white dwarfs binaries with large accretion disks; http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...GH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

So what keeps it from collapsing hmmm?

Angular momentum.

 

[Ziggurat]

Where is this calculation?

Dig it up yourself. You ignored it last time, I'm not going to spend the time tracking it down just so you can ignore it again.

a) Probably using a central magnetic field, which is nothing to do with Peratts model

Actually, I think the field I used was from one of Peratt's papers. The approximate magnetic field of the galaxy can be measured, and the measurements don't provide anything close to big enough. Whether it's "central" or not is rather irrelevant: it's about 20 orders of magnitude too small to do the job, regardless of how you arrange it.

b) To lower charge on the star

I believe the charge I used was also from one of your sources. You've said you think it could be much larger, but I've already listed why the reasons you think it might be larger are nonsense.

c) Not considering the interaction of the star with it local environment

That will make the problem worse, not better. The local environment will contain much of the excess charge the sun ejected. A magnetic field will serve to pull the positive sun in the opposite direction as the negative surroundings, but once their charge centers are displaced, they will pull back towards each other. The local environment will thus act to counter the effects of a galactic magnetic field on the sun's galactic orbit.

d) Using to low density for the ISM (or, dare i say, not even including the ISM in the calulation)

Are you saying that the interstellar medium could account for the mass that astronomers currently attribute to dark matter? If you are, you're wrong. If you mean something else, then you're being nonsensical, because the mass of the galaxy is the only way the interstellar medium could enter any of those calculations.

 

[robinson]

It's very easy. What it isn't is quick. I frankly have no interest in spending large amounts of time educating Zeuzzz or you. The time I've already spent doing that seems to have little to no impact.

You have been in those threads. I have little interest in spending the time to look up conversations you were part of for you.

Like I said, it isn't easy to find the relevant links to support a point. Nor do PC deniers seem to have a ready source of refutations to simply link to, each time somebody brings up what they consider a crackpot theory.

But you don't NEED to know how they formed to be able to figure out, for example, that magnetic fields CANNOT account for why they orbit faster than predicted by the gravitational attraction of visible matter alone. That calculation is easy. And magnetic effects come out something like 10²⁰ times too low. So the alternative to dark matter proposed by Zeuzzz falls apart with freshman physics calculations.

There is a great example of the lack of data. There must be some papers that support your point. If you linked to them, I could read about how we know the strength or a galaxies electromagnetic field. How it is measured, maybe some cool pictures as well. Instead, we just have your word for it.

So why does Zeuzzz believe what he believes, when the numbers demonstrate the absurdity of those beliefs?

Let me help.

Zeuzzz, why do you believe what you believe?

Perhaps he's simply credulous for a certain sort of authority.

Zeuzzz, do you doubt the numbers that show plasma doesn't matter? Do you doubt the math that shows Dark Matter must exist, in a vast halo, around Galaxies? Do you doubt there is an unknown new type of matter that exists in vast invisible quantities? Giant globes of invisible stuff, exactly in the right place to explain the extremely odd galaxy rotation curves? If so, why?

Apparently the words of certain plasma experts hold more weight for him than actual numbers.

Zeuzzz, do you consider Plasma experts more knowledgeable than the bulk of scientist who believe in Dark Matter? If so, why?

 

[Ziggurat]

There is a great example of the lack of data. There must be some papers that support your point. If you linked to them, I could read about how we know the strength or a galaxies electromagnetic field. How it is measured, maybe some cool pictures as well. Instead, we just have your word for it.

No, actually, there really isn't a lack of data. Here is some (easily obtainable via google) information on how magnetic fields are measured in astronomy:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields
That gives us a ballpark figure of about 10 microGauss, with some galaxies reaching around 100 microGauss. There are limits to the charge on the sun based on the rather simple fact that large charges cannot be confined to the surface. We know the velocity of the sun about the galactic center, as well as how far away it is, so we can calculate an acceleration. That's all you need: a charge, a magnetic field, a velocity, and an acceleration. And the numbers don't work. Not even close, not even allowing for an order of magnitude uncertainty in every single quantity in there.

But what difference will this post of mine make? Likely none. You will ignore or quickly forget the content here, and pretend that Zeuzzz's position is uncontradicted. As you've been doing for a long time now. You grow tiresome in your ignorance.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Bump ...

... snip ...

Her point about gravitational lensing disproving it shows a complete lack of what is being proposed,

... snip ...

Let's see now ...

Start with gravitational lensing: in (Lerner's) PC, do photons follow null geodesics? A simple YES or NO answer please (and no ducking the question by claiming you don't have the background in physics to be able to say, you've already declared that you do).

Good, they do.

Next, is it possible, in principle, to estimate the mass which causes 'gravitational lensing' by an approach like ray tracing? A simple YES or NO answer please (and no ducking the question by claiming you don't have the background in physics to be able to say, you've already declared that you do).

Good, it is.

Next, have reliable reports of high-quality observations been reported, in the peer-reviewed literature, of galaxies lensing background objects? This may be new to you, but it shouldn't be ... if you have been actually reading what I have written.

Good, they have.

Next, have 'mass maps' been made of these lensing galaxies? Or, have robust estimates been made of the mass of these lenses?

...

Here's the bottom line, Zeuzzz: galaxies have masses far in excess of that which you can estimate from objects and material, in the galaxies, which emits light (across the entire EM spectrum), or absorbs it ... as determined by gravitational lensing observations.

Now comes the PC-killer point in the logic chain (at least, PC per Lerner, and now Zeuzzz): the large-scale, average motions of stars, gas, plasma (etc) in galaxies can be accounted for entirely by the gravity due to the mass in the galaxies acting on the mass in the galaxies (enter the usual caveats, e.g. about colliding/merging galaxies). So who needs PC?

One more thing: Lerner puts great store in observations of a small number of high velocity ('halo') white dwarfs observed recently. He shouldn't, and should know better ... the various microlensing surveys constrain any such populations to levels far below 'baryonic matter in the halo is sufficient to account for spiral galaxy rotation curves' (as do the various deep HST observations), and only the most irresponsible extrapolations of the actual, independently verified, astronomical observations would suggest they could anyway.

But then you already knew all this, right? So you have, presumably, already got a draft paper ready to submit to arXiv, in support of PC AND consistent with all the various observations, right? And you're only too pleased to roll up your sleeves and discuss the actual observations in all their gory details ... right?

This post #144 in this thread; it is not even half-way down the first (of four) lists of open questions, to Zeuzzz, about material directly relevant to PC that he himself posted (not counting all the open questions since the last list was posted, on 12 June 2008).

Still waiting for some of those promised answers Z ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You should realize by now that no one ever reads all of the links that you spam the forum with. It is just too much work especially since pc includes dozens of theories.

You don't know what anybody but yourself does. One huge difference between Plasma proponents here, and most "skeptics", is the "crackpots" supply a huge amount of science and publications, allowing for investigation and study of stuff, while most of the critics offer only insults and derision. While I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers, I find it far more interesting to read them than read a boring stream of insulting responses, devoid of any science or rational thought.

... snip ...

As a JREF Forum member who has, in fact, read almost all* the material Z and BAC have posted in this thread, permit me to make a comment here ...

A little over a month ago, I went through this entire thread, from the beginning, and compiled a list of posts of mine where direct questions about the material Zeuzzz has posted, of direct relevance to "Plasma Cosmology"^, had been asked but not answered.

Of course, the pages and pages and pages of links and extracts Z posted do indeed "allow[] for investigation and study of stuff".

However, the record of this thread itself, and your own posts in it robinson, is objective and unambiguous: whatever "Plasma Cosmology" is, it is not science.

I have posted the results of my own investigation and study, along with the reasons why the conclusion "PC is not science" is so clear-cut.

But not only is this conclusion crystal clear, those who have been particularly vocal in promoting (what they see as) plasma physics-based explanations of a huge range of astronomical observations have been almost entirely silent in addressing challenges to their ideas, answering questions on material they have posted, and so on.

And that includes you robinson.

So how may I interpret your post (that I am quoting)?

As the writing of someone very forgetful (despite dozens if not hundreds of posts that point to the opposite)? As a deeply cynical ploy to appear to keep some sort of high ground?

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

... snip ...

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.

* there are a small number of items that I have been unable to obtain; sometimes it seems Z posted the wrong link (and didn't follow up with a correct one, when asked), and for ~3 items, I have not yet got an original.

^ whether "science or publications" or not; would you like the links to those lists?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.

This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:

• Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on anything else that is contained in "plasma cosmology"

The PC collection includes:

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation (His 1986 papers I and II).
• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
• Gallo et al. calculations of Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models.
• Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
• Wolf Effect (non-cosmological redshifts).
• Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light (redshifts).
• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies. E.g. Halton Arp's The Origin of Companion Galaxies.
• Other theories which may include the Electric Universe ().
• Lerner's explanation of the CMB.
• Peratt's explanation of the CMB, but it hasn't been introduced yet.
• Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).
• Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
• Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above). Lerner's paper.
• Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
• All standard plasma theories.
• Electric Universe e.g. electrically powered stars (see the earlier posts).
• The Van Allen Hypothesis—The Origin of the Magnetic Fields of the Planets and Stars
• etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

There's more.

Here are some other ideas, hypotheses, theories, etc that Zeuzzz has presented as being part of the "PC collection"

* the cosmological redshift ideas of Ari Brynjolfsson (none of which have been published)

* various vaguely plasma-related ideas of Thomas Smid (none of which have been published)

* Cynthia Whitney's ideas (essentially gravity-based ideas on the causes of the persistence of spiral shapes in spiral galaxies)

* various ideas about Raman scattering as the cause of at least part of the observed redshifts of some astronomical objects (other than CREIL)

* a range of claimed observational results concerning the intrinsic redshift of quasars, QSOs, and/or AGNs - these are qualitatively similar to the Arp et al. ideas already on the list, but they are separate, and quantitatively inconsistent with Arp's.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... there is a whole thread devoted to the bad statistics of Arp's QSO/galaxy associations.

Do you deny that?

I have no knowledge of any such thread. Here again is the difference between sides. PC proponents would have provided a helpful link to the thread, allowing me to decide if there was a thread, as well as read the thread.

Really?

It's called Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics, and a certain JREF member posted to it, even on page 1. That member's handle? "robinson" ("Good Natured Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: On the beach Posts: 5,841").

Are you old, Father William?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It's very easy. What it isn't is quick. I frankly have no interest in spending large amounts of time educating Zeuzzz or you. The time I've already spent doing that seems to have little to no impact.

You have been in those threads. I have little interest in spending the time to look up conversations you were part of for you.

Like I said, it isn't easy to find the relevant links to support a point. Nor do PC deniers seem to have a ready source of refutations to simply link to, each time somebody brings up what they consider a crackpot theory.

But you don't NEED to know how they formed to be able to figure out, for example, that magnetic fields CANNOT account for why they orbit faster than predicted by the gravitational attraction of visible matter alone. That calculation is easy. And magnetic effects come out something like 1020 times too low. So the alternative to dark matter proposed by Zeuzzz falls apart with freshman physics calculations.

There is a great example of the lack of data. There must be some papers that support your point. If you linked to them, I could read about how we know the strength or a galaxies electromagnetic field. How it is measured, maybe some cool pictures as well. Instead, we just have your word for it.

[...]

One of the JREF forum threads which contains the details is Something new under the sun.

Once again, a certain JREF forum member with the handle "robinson" posted to this thread, many times (at least once on ~half of the >30 pages, unless I goofed in my counting).

Here is part of what that member had to say, in a post towards the end of the thread: "I was commenting on the magnetism stuff. I almost started a thread on magnetism a long time ago, but this conversation, which started off about gravity, ended up being about plasma and magnetism and all kinds of fascinating stuff."

It gets better ...

That same "robinson" also wrote this, a bit later: "From reading and researching the presented material,"

Are you old, Father William?