Something new under the sun

[BenBurch]

I don't understand half of what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make you a fool.

It's the half that I *do* understand that does that for me.

 

[robinson]

Point being, which maybe was too subtle, is considering somebody a fool because YOU don't understand them, sometimes means you are the fool, not the other way around.

 

[Ziggurat]

Point being, which maybe was too subtle, is considering somebody a fool because YOU don't understand them, sometimes means you are the fool, not the other way around.

Sometimes. But sometimes, they really are just a bloody stupid fool.

 

[sol invictus]

Point being, which maybe was too subtle, is considering somebody a fool because YOU don't understand them, sometimes means you are the fool, not the other way around.

Ultimately you're just going to have to rely on your own good sense.

If you think Zig and I and nearly every other physicist in the world are fools, and Zeuzzz is a physics genius that's identified these huge gaping problems that somehow none of the professionals have ever noticed... well, that's up to you.

Back on topic, it IS possible that these anomalies (which are very tiny) have something to do with the EM fields of the sun, because they might be related to the solar wind etc. That would be one of the least interesting possibilities, but it needs to be explored. And guess what? Real physicists are taking that idea seriously and exploring whether or not it's possible. They're using numbers and math and theories of physics to do so - wow!

 

[Zeuzzz]

Zeuzzz is merely another in a long line of people who have taken the easy, anti-intellectual, beyond-reality path and yearn for some attention, however dismissive.

Zeuzzz is woo and is not worth another moment of anyone's time.

Yet another Ad Hominem post Complexity, I really am beginning to wonder why you insist in only making personal comments and not debating the issues at hand. I ask you to see past your Ad Antiquitam attutude for one post only and post something which makes a useful contribution to the thread. If you can't quite manage that, at least provide an explanation for your disparaging comments because they really achieve very little otherwise. It cant be that hard, really. Can it?

The derisionary nature of your comments do you no favours, intellectual people see straight though personal attacks for what they really are.

 

[Dancing David]

Ultimately you're just going to have to rely on your own good sense.

If you think Zig and I and nearly every other physicist in the world are fools, and Zeuzzz is a physics genius that's identified these huge gaping problems that somehow none of the professionals have ever noticed... well, that's up to you.

Back on topic, it IS possible that these anomalies (which are very tiny) have something to do with the EM fields of the sun, because they might be related to the solar wind etc. That would be one of the least interesting possibilities, but it needs to be explored. And guess what? Real physicists are taking that idea seriously and exploring whether or not it's possible. They're using numbers and math and theories of physics to do so - wow!

They also forget that people would love to topple a theory or find a new one.

But that pesky evidence must be delt with!

Thanks Zig, Sol, the Man and others, appeals to emotion, god the gap and irrelevant facts taken out of context, vague explanations and wishful thinking, more like creationism than science.

Appeals to emotion, god of the gaps, irre
And the same people would love to topple a theory or make a new one, it is a ce

 

[MattusMaximus]

Back on topic, it IS possible that these anomalies (which are very tiny) have something to do with the EM fields of the sun, because they might be related to the solar wind etc. That would be one of the least interesting possibilities, but it needs to be explored. And guess what? Real physicists are taking that idea seriously and exploring whether or not it's possible. They're using numbers and math and theories of physics to do so - wow!

Yes, and it should also be noted that they're doing this without completely tossing out everything we know about gravity, general relativity, the big bang cosmology, etc. The real scientific community can work this one out for themselves without the likes of EU-proponents like Zeuzzz attempting to "help" them.

And for the record, Zeuzzz has yet to respond to most of my original criticisms of his claims -- including the fact that I caught him blatantly misrepresenting the work done by some real scientists. Rather than attempt to learn some basic physics and at least make his arguments self-consistent, now it appears that he has gone into what I've come to call "woo martyr mode".

Sol, do you have any links for more detail on what you mentioned? I'd be interested in seeing the latest info on the Pioneer Anomaly.

 

[Zeuzzz]

If you think Zig and I and nearly every other physicist in the world are fools, and Zeuzzz is a physics genius that's identified these huge gaping problems that somehow none of the professionals have ever noticed... well, that's up to you.

I never claimed that I discovered the gaping holes, i am merely relaying to you what a considerably large group of scientists feel about the way that modern cosmology is going. And there are many. Here's a few hundred or so; http://cosmologystatement.org/

You seem to have a very conspiratorial way of thinking about things. I am absolutely sure that there is no 'conspiracy' as such. It has more to do with faith and how you approach science. The more that you interact with people who are religious about their physics, the more you come to see that there are specific human psychological factors at work.

It is easy to demonstrate that there is no conspiracy: Just pick a friend and try to explain the theory to them from scratch. You'll notice that the more technical knowledge the person has, the harder it will be to convince them of anything that is paradigm changing. This is called "the curse of knowledge", something a lot of people here seem to be badly suffering from. Just because you spent years learning something does not make it right, often students do not question what they learn they merely take it as fact, and so this revelation can be quite hard to accept once realized.

Charles Eisenstein eloquently explores this problem in a paper entitled “A State of Belief is a State of Being”. I’ll quote the abstract in full:

http://anti-matters.org/ojs/index.php/antimatters/issue/view/1/showToc

When students in a university classroom are invited to share anomalous stories, the “skeptical” tactics used to debunk them seem reasonable at first, but eventually reveal a worldview that is cynical, arrogant, dogmatic, and unfalsifiable. Because any new evidence can, with sufficient effort, be made to fit a preexisting paradigm, belief is seen to come down to choice. Moreover, like most belief systems, the worldview of the Skeptic has an emotional component, long ago identified by Bertrand Russell and others as a meaninglessness or despair inherent in classical science. The choice of belief therefore extends beyond a mere intellectual decision, to encompass one’s identity and relationship to the world. This approach conflicts with traditional scientific objectivity, which enjoins that belief be detached from such considerations. The relationship between observation and belief is more subtle than the traditional scientific view that the latter must follow dispassionately from the former. Indeed, the “experimenter effect” in parapsychology, as well as mounting problems with objectivity in mainstream science, suggest a need to reconceive science and the Scientific Method in light of the crumbling of the assumption of objectivity upon which it is based.

And more specifically, cosmology seems to be one area in particular where an ever increasing amount of established scientists seem to be growing ever more skeptical of mainstream ideologies. Take for example this paper;

ΛCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence? by Professor of Astrophysics at The University of Alabama, Richard Lieu

Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. Thus e.g. while superluminal motion can be explained by Special Relativity. data on the former can never on their own be used to establish the latter. This is why traditionally astrophysicists have been content with (and proud of) their ability to use known physical laws and processes established in the laboratory to explain celestial phenomena. Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter {\it and now} dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models. The recent WMAP3 paper of Spergel et al (2007) will be used as case in point on selective citation. I also show that when all evidence are taken into account, two of the competing models that abolish dark energy and/or dark matter do not trail behind $\Lambda$CDM by much. Given all of the above, I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping in the dark.

And i'm sure that many other competant scientists feel the same way too, even if they dont want to say it publically.

 

[MattusMaximus]

A charged particle beam consisting of only one kind of particle is not a plasma. By definition a plasma is quasineutral.

Wow, another "plasma cosmology" proponent who doesn't understand basic physics. However, this time it's even more hilarious because they are not even getting the definition of plasma correct!

And they're a plasma universe woo... it's too much... the... laughter... is... hurting... my... side...

 

[MattusMaximus]

I never claimed that I discovered the gaping holes, i am merely relaying to you what a considerably large group of scientists feel about the way that modern cosmology is going. And there are many. Here's a few hundred or so; http://cosmologystatement.org/

Ah ha -- I've heard about this "statement" before. This is essentially the physics-cosmology version of the Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwinism" where they claim to have a few hundred scientists on their side promoting intelligent design creationism.

I'll respond to this the same way I respond to the creationists when they reference their bogus list. For every person the plasma-cosmologists (PCs) have on their list, there are likely hundreds (if not thousands) of physicists and astronomers who think plasma-cosmology is the pseudoscience that it is.

So, when confronted with this fact (that "our guys" outnumber "their guys" by many 100s to 1, let's say), the PCs will likely respond that "the numbers don't matter!"

Well then, if the numbers don't matter, then why bring up such a list in the first place?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Yes, and it should also be noted that they're doing this without completely tossing out everything we know about gravity, general relativity, the big bang cosmology, etc. The real scientific community can work this one out for themselves without the likes of EU-proponents like Zeuzzz attempting to "help" them.

Where on Earth did i say we need to toss out everything we know about gravity? I never said we need to toss out anything, I merely was postulating a possible mechanism by which gravity may take place based on EM forces, and gave my opinion that gravity may not be a true force in its own right. This is concpetual problem, nothing about the actual mapped and tested force of gravity needs to change, just the way it may work. Since this is lacking from conventional models, i would consider this a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Would you call Maxwell a woo for also trying to do a similar thing by coming up with his Maxwellian equations for gravity? I think not.

And i have specifically stated my support for relativity, which is one of the most powerful and sucessful theories ever devised. Why do you think we would disregard such a useful theory?

It is one of the ploys of pseudoskepticism to assert offhandedly that the proposed explanation violates some law of physics, without stating why it violates it. To assert “all of known physics must be wrong” comes across as a symptom of of panic.

You said you were a physics teacher Mattus, so could you stop adopting the role of pseudoskeptic, one of “those who shout their objections but don’t take proper note of what is going on”, and list your scientific problems with what I have said openly so i can respond. Maybe we can reach a consensus, as i dont really know what your main issue with this material is so far (past you think that someone related to it is a creationist, so it must all be rubbish )


And the Big Bang, well, thats a different matter. The Big Bang is a joke. See my previous post for the long list of highly respected academics (literally hundreds) that doubt the validity of the Big Bang. Contrary to popular belief, the Big Bang doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe.

BBT excels at explaining how the universe evolved from an incredibly hot, dense volume about 13.7 billion earth-time years ago. But, it is silent on the 'origin' of that volume. It also does not assert the universe is finite in age or size, merely the observationally accessible slice. In fact, people who believe in the Big Bang literally believe in creationism, the Big Bang just appeared out of nothing, Wham, Bam, Bang! Nothing, but suddenly then EVERYTHING. Truly Creationism at its most extreme.

I should point out this paper, peer reviewed and published in the IEEE journal of plasma science, which gives a comparison of the BB with PC;

Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang
Lerner, E.J.
Lawrenceville Plasma Phys., NJ, USA;

This paper appears in: Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Publication Date: Dec. 2003
Volume: 31, Issue: 6, Part 1
On page(s): 1268- 1275
ISSN: 0093-3813

Abstract:

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of /sup 4/He, /sup 7/Li, and D are more than 7/spl sigma/ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10/sup -14/. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2/spl sigma/ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.

And for the record, Zeuzzz has yet to respond to most of my original criticisms of his claims -- including the fact that I caught him blatantly misrepresenting the work done by some real scientists. Rather than attempt to learn some basic physics and at least make his arguments self-consistent, now it appears that he has gone into what I've come to call "woo martyr mode".

Again, i would like examples of these critisisms, as i am hard streched to find exactly what you are referring to.

 

[Yllanes]

.
As far as I know, quasi-neutrality is a characteristic of plasmas, not a requirement, and the factors that do define a plasma (a) the plasma approximation (b) bulk interactions (c) plasma frequency, do not depend on quasi-neutrality.

However, it may well be that certain specialist areas do not consider charged particle beams to be "quasi-neutral" plasmas, and differentiate them accordingly.

The existence of a Debye length is one of the requirements of the definition of plasma (not the only one). A plasma can have beams of electrons and ions, but they should be configured in such a way that quasineutrality is observed. Using the word plasma in a more general context is not a good idea.

 

[Yllanes]

Where on Earth did i say we need to toss out everything we know about gravity? I never said we need to toss out anything, I merely was postulating a possible mechanism by which gravity may take place based on EM forces, and gave my opinion that gravity may not be a true force in its own right.

You said that

The reasoning behind Gravity is highly circular. Gravity is based on mass. What is mass? Mass is based on Gravity, and is hard to define apart from the intuitive idea of how much 'stuff' there is in something.

That's incorrect (that 'mass' can't be defined apart from the intuitive idea of how stuff there is). But setting aside that, I asked you to define electric charge, to see if you can do it without circularity. If you can't, why do you accept that concept and not the concept of mass?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Where on Earth did i say we need to toss out everything we know about gravity?

I dunno, probably when you said this:

"It's generally assumed gravity is a fact. It's not. It's a theory, invented by Newton and barely three centuries old."

And i have specifically stated my support for relativity, which is one of the most powerful and sucessful theories ever devised. Why do you think we would disregard such a useful theory?

Because that useful theory actually predicted the expansion of the universe and therefore the current big bang cosmology accepted by the scientific community. You can't have it both ways: on the one hand you want to say that BBC (big bang cosmology) is a joke, then you turn right around and say that GR (general relativity) is "one of the most successful and powerful theories every devised." Do you realize that you're contradicting yourself yet again? GR and BBC go together!

It is one of the ploys of pseudoskepticism to assert offhandedly that the proposed explanation violates some law of physics, without stating why it violates it. To assert “all of known physics must be wrong” comes across as a symptom of of panic.

And it is the ploy of an idiot pseudoscientist to do nothing but chat on message boards instead of doing any real science.

You said you were a physics teacher Mattus, so could you stop adopting the role of pseudoskeptic, one of “those who shout their objections but don’t take proper note of what is going on”, and list your scientific problems with what I have said openly so i can respond. Maybe we can reach a consensus, as i dont really know what your main issue with this material is so far (past you think that someone related to it is a creationist, so it must all be rubbish )

Then you must either be blind, stupid, or a liar, because on the first page of this thread I very clearly outlined numerous mistakes that you have made in your claims, your understanding of physics, and the manner in which you dishonestly represent the work of other scientists.

Not only that, but I have seen numerous posts from other threads where others with more physics training than I have attempted to point out your errors. How do you respond? You dismiss them and continue to proselytize your belief in "plasma cosmology."

I'm no longer concerned about convincing you of anything. I am more than happy to allow others to review the thread and decide for themselves what to think of you.

And the Big Bang, well, thats a different matter. The Big Bang is a joke. See my previous post for the long list of highly respected academics (literally hundreds) that doubt the validity of the Big Bang. Contrary to popular belief, the Big Bang doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe.

Uhhh, yeah. So there's another BIG contradiction -- remember my earlier point about how GR and BBC go together? You slam the BBC yet you fawn all over GR, and you don't even realize that you're shooting yourself in the foot when you do this. If you're going to throw out BBC, then you'll have to throw out GR as well because it is the view of gravity that not only predicted BBC but tells us how the universe at large evolves in concordance with BBC.

Not only that, but we are getting to the point where we can actually test out big bang conditions in the lab. There are currently proposals to do this very thing at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. You see? People on my side of the fence actually test out our ideas as opposed to churning out mind-numbing rubbish.

Wow, can't help fools...

 

[Zeuzzz]

Where on Earth did i say we need to toss out everything we know about gravity?

I dunno, probably when you said this:

"It's generally assumed gravity is a fact. It's not. It's a theory, invented by Newton and barely three centuries old."

where is the factual inaccuracy in that statement? The theory of gravity, is just that, a theory. And it is barely three centuries old. I fail to see how this statement of fact could invoke such a responce as it did. How gravity actually works is still an open question in science, so my points are valid.

You are yet again conflating the line between me proposing that Gravity could be induced by means other than mass, with me saying that gravity is wrong. I am not saying that gravity is wrong, there is obviously a force that we can measure and have mapped out, what i am saying is that the cause of gravity could be something different than exclusively the attraction of mass. We just dont know, no-one on Earth knows how gravity actually causes mass to attract, so there is nothing scientifically invalid about proposing a potential solution.

 

[Acleron]

We just dont know, no-one on Earth knows how gravity actually causes mass to attract, so there is nothing scientifically invalid about proposing a potential solution.

Except when the proposed solution is scientifically invalid.
How would the EU theory explain the Cavendish and later experiments to measure the Gravitational constant?

 

[Zeuzzz]

That's incorrect (that 'mass' can't be defined apart from the intuitive idea of how stuff there is). But setting aside that, I asked you to define electric charge, to see if you can do it without circularity. If you can't, why do you accept that concept and not the concept of mass?

The concept of charge is far better understood than mass in my books. The EM field that result from charge are very precise, very well understood and have very precise models that can be directly experimentally confirmed. Gravity is different is that due to its comparitive wekaness to EM effects, it is very hard to accurately assertain its exact strength to a high degree of accuracy, and it lacks a physical process by which to work. It seems like forever scientists have been searching for the graviton, trying to work out how gravity actually works, but have not come close. There is no such search in the field of charge and electromagnetism, that is the difference.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The concept of charge is far better understood than mass in my books. The EM field that result from charge are very precise, very well understood and have very precise models that can be directly experimentally confirmed. Gravity is different is that due to its comparitive wekaness to EM effects, it is very hard to accurately assertain its exact strength to a high degree of accuracy, and it lacks a physical process by which to work. It seems like forever scientists have been searching for the graviton, trying to work out how gravity actually works, but have not come close. There is no such search in the field of charge and electromagnetism, that is the difference.

Notice how he doesn't answer the question about defining electric charge, despite his insistence that others must define mass? Talk about a double standard and moving the goalposts.

Not only that, but also note that Zeuzzz cleverly tries to have it both ways when making the argument that big bang cosmology "is a joke" while stating (repeatedly) that general relativity is a well-established theory. When it is pointed out to him that general relativity actually predicted and is in concordance with big bang cosmology (including recent data on dark energy), the response is... well, there is no response, he just ignores this criticism of the contradiction in his own arguments and continues to proselytize his "plasma universe" nonsense.

These two points alone outline very clearly why Zeuzzz is advocating pseudoscience, not real science.

 

[iantresman]

The existence of a Debye length is one of the requirements of the definition of plasma (not the only one). A plasma can have beams of electrons and ions, but they should be configured in such a way that quasineutrality is observed. Using the word plasma in a more general context is not a good idea.

.
A charged particle beam is clearly not a solid or liquid, and is not characterized by any known gas laws. Consequently, it must be a plasma, albeit a coherent structure within the plasma whose quasi-neutrality is violated.

Here is another reference: ".. an intense charged particle beam [..] when considered in the beam frame, is in fact a one-component non-neutral plasmas" -- Physics of Intense Charged Particle Beams in High Energy Accelerators by Ronald C. Davidson (page VII)

Here is a third reference: "Conventional plasmas [..] consist of a quasi-neutral collection of mutually interacting ions and electrons. This description applies to the vast majority of entities called plasmas. [..] Non-neutral plasmas are an exception to this taxonomy and not surprisingly, have certain behaviors that differ from conventional plasmas." -- Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, by Paul M. Bellan (page 530)

And a fourth: "Non-neutral plasmas [..] exhibit a broad range of collective properties such as plasma waves, instabilities and debye shielding." (my emphasis) -- Physics of Nonneutral Plasmas by Ronald C. Davidson (page 4)

 

[BenBurch]

DD, Absolutely! Topping gravity would be a Nobel Prize and enough in the way of grants to feed and house you in style for a long productive life. No real scientist would shy away from that.