Something new under the sun

[sol invictus]

Aha, you're back. I thought after being repeatedly exposed as a liar and a fool you had run away. No such luck, I guess.

Amazing. He critises arguments from authority then uses his very own argument from authority to verify his own position! "overwhelming number of authorities on my side"

Whooosh... (that's the sound of my point going over your head).

Try reading it again. Oh, and don't misquote me again.

Whats ironic about this statement is that your reason for dismissing plasma cosmology in the first place is an argument from authority, "Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus" sort of attitude. Well, history has shown us something completely different.

No, my reason for dismissing it is that it doesn't match the data. That's also many other people's reason for dismissing it, which is why there is a consensus against it.

Try not to confuse effect with cause.

And Sol, I am curious as to what the 'mainstream' opinion is for Van Allens observation that magnetic moments of the planets and stars are proportional to their angular momentum, over some 12 orders of magnitude. I thought that there was supposed to be no driving force on bodies causing them to rotate, just left over angular momentum from when they formed. Van Allen said: “This
graph is purely empirical and is regarded with disdain by theorists of planetary magnetism.”

Do you still think a force is necessary to keep something rotating? Frankly, that's just... really, really stupid. We've known better for at least 400 years, and that physics has been explained many times in this thread and in others here recently. If you don't understand that, you need to go back to high school.

As for magnetic moments, I have no idea what the "mainstream" explanation is for that specific relation (if it really exists, which I do not take your word for anymore), but I don't find it the slightest bit surprising that there would be such a relation between angular momentum and magnetic field of a planet or star. The field of the earth is due to currents in the molten core - and those currents will flow in the plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the planet, with a strength that depends on the speed of rotation. Naively that gives a linear relation between the rotation speed and the magnetic moment. Of course that might be totally wrong because of various non-linear effects, but it's the simplest possibility.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What have we talked about so far? Peratts galaxy model, and 'magnetic reconnection'.

.
Don't forget the Electric Stars thread that you yourself started (and apparently abandoned the same day), despite saying you'd get back to it 'in a few days'. In light of what you've written here, about your math abilities, it's very easy to draw a conclusion why you abandoned it: the 'electric stars' part of 'plasma cosmology' fails at even the high school physics level.

I should add that as this is, apparently, something Scott is wholeheartedly into, it detracts from the credibility of the paper of his that you cited in this thread, the one with at least two fatal flaws and which you took dozens (hundreds?) of posts to oh-so-indirectly acknowledge is flawed.

Of course, 'Peratt's galaxy model' has also been pretty soundly trashed, but as there are quite a few open questions to you on it, I guess we will have to wait until you return before squeezing an admission that it's dead as a doornail as far as any credible science is concerned (or, just maybe, not).
.

Hardly much content, we've looked in detail at about two publications, Peratts galaxy papers and Scotts publication on EM forces in space. There are many more things to discuss that may be far more interesting, I've barely scratched the surface here. But I have to stop posting for a couple of months now, I have other commitments.

.
That's certainly true ... quite a few people have been waiting, patiently, for you to consider their questions worthy enough of your time for you to answer.

If I may give you some gratuitous advice: when you return, please, please spend some time to formulate your answers so that they do not come across as brush-offs, as grossly ignorant of the relevant math (which you have said, more than once, you are capable of), and (above all) as something more than mindless regurgitations of material by Scott and Peratt.

What do I mean by mindless?

Well, if you do, as you say, have the math skills to make Maxwell's equations sit up and beg, then failing to spot the glaring holes in Scott's electric Sun and Peratt's galaxy rotation curve material (or, worse, continuing to defend these laughable goof-ups) certainly leaves a strong impression that your support for this scientific nonsense is mindless.

On the other hand, if your math isn't, in fact, up to it, it would be far far far better that you 'fessed up, than to continue to pretend that it is (when those whose math clearly is up to the task can see through what you write). Please, read what iantresman has written in this respect; whatever he may think, he has at least the honesty to say what he can intelligently evaluate and what he can't.
.

And as for you complaining about making arguments from authority I feel that I have no choice when everyone here is shouting about how much of a crank I am. I doubt that are many other areas of science where so many academics question the dominant paradigm as they do with the Big Bang, I am not alone, and I have no hesitation to show this.

.
I think I must have missed these 'so many academics question the dominant paradigm as they do with the Big Bang'.

There are only two authors you have seen fit, so far, to try to defend (Scott and Peratt; Alfvén's work has been almost never under discussion); of those who you're tangentially mentioned, you've so far failed to answer any significant questions.

I mean, even the very few questions on the long list of 'plasma cosmology' papers you yourself supplied have remained completely unaddressed (by you).

In an earlier post I suggested, politely, that you take greater care to not exaggerate (I was even more tentative than this); sadly, there seems to be, still, as great a gulf between what you (apparently) sincerely believe and what you have been able to articulate in even the most basic form that's fit for this particular audience.
.

Considering that most of the reasons for dismissing plasma cosmology shown in this thread are arguments from authority themselves I fail to see why I should refrain from doing this in responce.

(rest of post omitted)

.
Oh?

Did you not read the posts with the math?

Did you mis-understand the independent, all-their-own-work refutations of your own words (on magnetic reconnection, for example)?

How about the straight-forward, simple applications of classical physics that demolished both Scott's 'electric Sun' and Peratt's 'galaxy rotation curve' materials (two of only three concrete 'plasma cosmology' claims that have actually been discussed)?

Here's another piece of gratuitous advice: if you still fail to see how transparently dishonest, disingenuous, or just plain ridiculuous this last statement of yours comes across as, it may be wiser that you not return at all.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Aha, you're back. I thought after being repeatedly exposed as a liar and a fool you had run away. No such luck, I guess.

Here you go again with the unsubstanciated claims. Note how I do not fill my post aginst you with personal comments. I refuse to make any personal comments about you, and will just discuss the subject at hand without the need to invoke peoples emotions into the debate. If you hadn't already noticed, most of the maths that you have posted, claiming that it disproves something I have said, I have infact agreed with. I just argued about its relevance to this subject. You seem unable to notice this however, and have yet to come up with any reason to dismiss plasma cosmology.

No, my reason for dismissing it is that it doesn't match the data. That's also many other people's reason for dismissing it, which is why there is a consensus against it.

What doesn't match the data? I thought we already established that you "dont have a clue what plasma cosmology is", so i feel that you are last person able to pass any sort of judgement on an area you remain ignorant of.

Do you still think a force is necessary to keep something rotating? Frankly, that's just... really, really stupid. We've known better for at least 400 years, and that physics has been explained many times in this thread and in others here recently. If you don't understand that, you need to go back to high school.

Where did I say this? I didn't. Yet another misrepresentation by Sol.

As for magnetic moments, I have no idea what the "mainstream" explanation is for that specific relation (if it really exists, which I do not take your word for anymore), but I don't find it the slightest bit surprising that there would be such a relation between angular momentum and magnetic field of a planet or star. The field of the earth is due to currents in the molten core - and those currents will flow in the plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the planet, with a strength that depends on the speed of rotation. Naively that gives a linear relation between the rotation speed and the magnetic moment. Of course that might be totally wrong because of various non-linear effects, but it's the simplest possibility.

I take that as a no then. There is no explanation for this highly linear relationship between the magnetic moments of bodies and their angular momentum in standard theory. Thats why it seems to have only been addressed by plasma cosmologists, by using some of plasma's various electrical effects.

The Van Allen Hypothesis—The Origin of the Magnetic Fields of the Planets and Stars - IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 35, NO. 4, AUGUST 2007

Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 35, Issue 4, Aug. 2007 Page(s):748 - 750
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPS.2007.897910

Summary:Van Allen experimentally observed that the magnetic moments of the planets and stars are proportional to their angular momentum over some 12 orders of magnitude. This graph is purely empirical and is regarded with disdain by theorists of planetary magnetism.rdquo - Van Allen. In this paper, I develop a model that both predicts the proportionality between magnetic moment and angular momentum and also fits the experimental results with no adjustable parameters. The model is based on the fact that each rotating planet and star is immersed in a nonrotating conducting plasma cloud, which constitutes a Faraday electrical generator. This Faraday generator is assumed to be the primary source of the magnetic field, in contrast to present models that assume that the flow of magma in the planets' cores is responsible.

There is no real reason as to why the magnetic fields of planets should be so uniform if they are resulting from purely currents due to convection at the core. And there are other problems. In current models the flow of magma involves a scalar electrical conductivity, which leads to the necessity of complex magma flows. As Cowling’s theorem demonstrates, there is no cylindrically symmetric flow pattern that can generate a magnetic field. In contrast, the plasma model has electrical currents controlled by a tensor electrical conductivity oriented with respect to the magnetic field. In this respect, the model may recreate a system similar to the disk generator created by Michael Faraday.

Also the velocity flow of the magma is relatively slow, on the order of kilometers per year, as suggested by the migration of the Earth’s magnetic poles. In contrast, the velocity used in the plasma model is that at the Earth’s equator, 40 000 km/day. In fact, the voltage induced by the Earth’s rotation in its own magnetic field induces a dc voltage of 52 kV between the equator and the poles. The flow of magma (to my knowledge) makes no predictions as to the relationship between the magnetic moment of a celestial rotating body and the angular momentum of the rotating body. In contrast, the plasma model yields the observed Van Allen model with no adjustable parameters.

This much untalked about area of Van Allens work would make an interesting discussion. And the above publication is very interesting (if you have access to it)

And also another paper to leave you pondering over before I have to leave for a while;


Trends in apparent time intervals between multiple supernovae occurrences

Abstract—This paper presents an analysis of recent and historic
supernovae and the statistics found in multiple supernovae
occurrences, as related to the apparent time intervals between
successive events, and the application of trends found from
those simple statistics to supernova surveying—a focused search:
developing target lists from the International Astronomical Union
(IAU), list of all known supernovae and their host galaxies, with
the greatest immediate statistical potential for a timely successive
supernova. This approach has yielded consistent results for target
development since its inception, with a 96% success rate over
16 months, and one direct, and immediate, result for surveying
(SN2002eg). These trends found in apparent time intervals
have been seen to apply to known hosts with only one recorded
supernova and not otherwise known to be “prolific” supernovae
producers. This strong indication of applicable periodic behavior
introduces a potential new role for extra-galactic supernovae, in
modern cosmology, as possible observational evidence in support
of the plasma cosmology theory of Hannes Alfven, based on
fundamental principles.

How can standard theory explain periodic supernovae? Another area where the plasma cosmology explanation seems by far the most likely one.

 

[Zeuzzz]

.
Don't forget the Electric Stars thread that you yourself started (and apparently abandoned the same day), despite saying you'd get back to it 'in a few days'. In light of what you've written here, about your math abilities, it's very easy to draw a conclusion why you abandoned it: the 'electric stars' part of 'plasma cosmology' fails at even the high school physics level.

Thanx for reminding me about that thread. I posted that thread on other fora, and so I thought I would see what reception it would recieve here. That would be a good discussion to continue, especially with the new data recently published by the scientists working with Hinode about the acceleration and heating of the corona, and the charge desity associated with sunspots.

Although I would like to point out that there are various different 'electrical' models of the sun, none of them are considered plasma cosmology material yet as they are more speculative than most other areas.

heres a brief history of the concept (warning: some models are now quite dated);
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/index.htm
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/index.htm
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/the_electric_sun.html
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4287093&isnumber=4287017

I should add that as this is, apparently, something Scott is wholeheartedly into, it detracts from the credibility of the paper of his that you cited in this thread, the one with at least two fatal flaws and which you took dozens (hundreds?) of posts to oh-so-indirectly acknowledge is flawed.

Of course, 'Peratt's galaxy model' has also been pretty soundly trashed, but as there are quite a few open questions to you on it, I guess we will have to wait until you return before squeezing an admission that it's dead as a doornail as far as any credible science is concerned (or, just maybe, not).
..
That's certainly true ... quite a few people have been waiting, patiently, for you to consider their questions worthy enough of your time for you to answer.

If I may give you some gratuitous advice: when you return, please, please spend some time to formulate your answers so that they do not come across as brush-offs, as grossly ignorant of the relevant math (which you have said, more than once, you are capable of), and (above all) as something more than mindless regurgitations of material by Scott and Peratt.

What do I mean by mindless?

Well, if you do, as you say, have the math skills to make Maxwell's equations sit up and beg, then failing to spot the glaring holes in Scott's electric Sun and Peratt's galaxy rotation curve material (or, worse, continuing to defend these laughable goof-ups) certainly leaves a strong impression that your support for this scientific nonsense is mindless.

On the other hand, if your math isn't, in fact, up to it, it would be far far far better that you 'fessed up, than to continue to pretend that it is (when those whose math clearly is up to the task can see through what you write). Please, read what iantresman has written in this respect; whatever he may think, he has at least the honesty to say what he can intelligently evaluate and what he can't.
..
I think I must have missed these 'so many academics question the dominant paradigm as they do with the Big Bang'.

There are only two authors you have seen fit, so far, to try to defend (Scott and Peratt; Alfvén's work has been almost never under discussion); of those who you're tangentially mentioned, you've so far failed to answer any significant questions.

I mean, even the very few questions on the long list of 'plasma cosmology' papers you yourself supplied have remained completely unaddressed (by you).

In an earlier post I suggested, politely, that you take greater care to not exaggerate (I was even more tentative than this); sadly, there seems to be, still, as great a gulf between what you (apparently) sincerely believe and what you have been able to articulate in even the most basic form that's fit for this particular audience.
..
Oh?

Did you not read the posts with the math?

Did you mis-understand the independent, all-their-own-work refutations of your own words (on magnetic reconnection, for example)?

How about the straight-forward, simple applications of classical physics that demolished both Scott's 'electric Sun' and Peratt's 'galaxy rotation curve' materials (two of only three concrete 'plasma cosmology' claims that have actually been discussed)?

Here's another piece of gratuitous advice: if you still fail to see how transparently dishonest, disingenuous, or just plain ridiculuous this last statement of yours comes across as, it may be wiser that you not return at all.

Any scientific objections?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Here you go again with the unsubstanciated claims. Note how I do not fill my post aginst you with personal comments. I refuse to make any personal comments about you, and will just discuss the subject at hand without the need to invoke peoples emotions into the debate. If you hadn't already noticed, most of the maths that you have posted, claiming that it disproves something I have said, I have infact agreed with. I just argued about its relevance to this subject. You seem unable to notice this however, and have yet to come up with any reason to dismiss plasma cosmology.





What doesn't match the data? I thought we already established that you "dont have a clue what plasma cosmology is", so i feel that you are last person able to pass any sort of judgement on an area you remain ignorant of.




Where did I say this? I didn't. Yet another misrepresentation by Sol.




I take that as a no then. There is no explanation for this highly linear relationship between the magnetic moments of bodies and their angular momentum in standard theory. Thats why it seems to have only been addressed by plasma cosmologists, by using some of plasma's various electrical effects.

The Van Allen Hypothesis—The Origin of the Magnetic Fields of the Planets and Stars - IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 35, NO. 4, AUGUST 2007




There is no real reason as to why the magnetic fields of planets should be so uniform if they are resulting from purely currents due to convection at the core. And there are other problems. In current models the flow of magma involves a scalar electrical conductivity, which leads to the necessity of complex magma flows. As Cowling’s theorem demonstrates, there is no cylindrically symmetric flow pattern that can generate a magnetic field. In contrast, the plasma model has electrical currents controlled by a tensor electrical conductivity oriented with respect to the magnetic field. In this respect, the model may recreate a system similar to the disk generator created by Michael Faraday.

Also the velocity flow of the magma is relatively slow, on the order of kilometers per year, as suggested by the migration of the Earth’s magnetic poles. In contrast, the velocity used in the plasma model is that at the Earth’s equator, 40 000 km/day. In fact, the voltage induced by the Earth’s rotation in its own magnetic field induces a dc voltage of 52 kV between the equator and the poles. The flow of magma (to my knowledge) makes no predictions as to the relationship between the magnetic moment of a celestial rotating body and the angular momentum of the rotating body. In contrast, the plasma model yields the observed Van Allen model with no adjustable parameters.

This much untalked about area of Van Allens work would make an interesting discussion. And the above publication is very interesting (if you have access to it)

And also another paper to leave you pondering over before I have to leave for a while;


Trends in apparent time intervals between multiple supernovae occurrences



How can standard theory explain periodic supernovae? Another area where the plasma cosmology explanation seems by far the most likely one.

.
I don't know where you live Zeuzzz, nor whether you are familiar with the phrase 'hit and run' ... but I must say I am extremely disappointed in the content of your two posts in this thread (so far, today).

I mean, several people have asked you about materials you felt were worthy of readers' attention (you posted them), and yet you have, for whatever reason, chosen to completely ignore them.

Then, in a post in which you announce that you'll be absent for quite some time, you dump yet more stuff ... and expect that your audience will appreciate what you have written!

Earlier I tentatively concluded that your posts in this thread are entirely consistent with the hypothesis that you are consciously, deliberately, and maliciously behaving like a troll, and that there is objective evidence to fully substantiate that hypothesis.

I also said that would be a depressing conclusion, and that I hoped it was wrong.

Zeuzzz, I'm not sure you could have written a post more damaging to whatever credibility you think you have, but I doubt it.

Worse, if you are, as you say, capable of addressing the math behind 'plasma cosmology', you are the sole self-confessed advocate who can.

Based on what you have written so far today, what possible reason is there for anyone reading this thread to conclude anything other than 'plasma cosmology' is just as devoid of scientific content as 'creation science'?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanx for reminding me about that thread. That would be a good discussion to continue, especially with the new data recently published by the scientists working with Hinode about the acceleration and heating of the corona, and the charge desity associated with sunspots.

Althopugh I would like to point out that there are various different 'electrical' models of the sun, and none of them are considered plasma cosmology material yet as they are more speculative than most other areas.

.
Zeuzzz, Zeuzzz, Zeuzzz, can you not see just how damaging what you write is to what you seem to hold dear?

Please, please go read what you wrote in the other thread, and review it in light of what you must surely now know about your audience here in the JREF forum.
.

Any scientific objections?

.

If you are prepared to stick around and start by answering the many open questions for you, I think you'll quickly see there are many (and that they are as close to being fatal to the materials you have chosen to provide links to as it is possible to imagine).

But, if you're not going to stick around, why bother?

 

[Zeuzzz]

.
I don't know where you live Zeuzzz, nor whether you are familiar with the phrase 'hit and run' ... but I must say I am extremely disappointed in the content of your two posts in this thread (so far, today).

I mean, several people have asked you about materials you felt were worthy of readers' attention (you posted them), and yet you have, for whatever reason, chosen to completely ignore them.

Then, in a post in which you announce that you'll be absent for quite some time, you dump yet more stuff ... and expect that your audience will appreciate what you have written!

Earlier I tentatively concluded that your posts in this thread are entirely consistent with the hypothesis that you are consciously, deliberately, and maliciously behaving like a troll, and that there is objective evidence to fully substantiate that hypothesis.

I also said that would be a depressing conclusion, and that I hoped it was wrong.

Zeuzzz, I'm not sure you could have written a post more damaging to whatever credibility you think you have, but I doubt it.

Worse, if you are, as you say, capable of addressing the math behind 'plasma cosmology', you are the sole self-confessed advocate who can.

Apart from the academics that write the material, presumably.

Based on what you have written so far today, what possible reason is there for anyone reading this thread to conclude anything other than 'plasma cosmology' is just as devoid of scientific content as 'creation science'?

If you hadn't noticed all my posts the last week or so have been quite breif as i'm busy. I'm disappointed in this post DRR, I kept responding to your questions in particular as you seemed the only person capable of keeping an open mind on this, but it seems that by validating my position on magnetic reconnection, and posting more plasma cosmology material you get more annoyed at me. what can I do? what are these questions you want me to answer so badly? why not just ask them now?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(part of post omitted)

Although I would like to point out that there are various different 'electrical' models of the sun, and none of them are considered plasma cosmology material yet as they are more speculative than most other areas.

heres a brief history of the concept (warning: some models are now quite dated);
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/index.htm
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/index.htm
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/the_electric_sun.html
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4287093&isnumber=4287017

(rest of post omitted)

.
Zeuzzz, you claim to have a certain competence with math and (plasma physics).

You are posting in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the JREF forum.

You post this after what, several months, of active involvement here.

How could you possibly have shown greater contempt for your audience?

I mean, most of this stuff is as likely to earn you respect as posting the most grossly offensive child porn is in a forum devoted to how to tackle child abuse.

With your self-stated abilities in math and physics, have you actually read, critically read, this nonsense?!?

 

[Zeuzzz]

.
Zeuzzz, you claim to have a certain competence with math and (plasma physics).

You are posting in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the JREF forum.

You post this after what, several months, of active involvement here.

How could you possibly have shown greater contempt for your audience?

I mean, most of this stuff is as likely to earn you respect as posting the most grossly offensive child porn is in a forum devoted to how to tackle child abuse.

With your self-stated abilities in math and physics, have you actually read, critically read, this nonsense?!?

got any specific objections?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Apart from the academics that write the material, presumably.

.
There are, as far as I know, only two who we have discussed who are still alive - Scott and Peratt.

Neither has posted in this JREF forum (to my knowledge).

While you've been busy, I've been continuing my reading, looking at 'plasma cosmology' threads in other internet discussion forums.

I've concentrated on only those which seem to claim, or have, science-is-part-of-our-mission.

Curiously, you are the only advocate of 'plasma cosmology' that I've found (so far) who claims the math and physics competence to discuss what's presented in materials like those you cited by Scott and Peratt. That's one reason why I was hoping you'd turn out to be different from almost all the other advocates, whose sole reason for joining such forums seems to be either to create sufficient links as to increase the Google rank of whatever marketing piece is fave of the week, or to rail incoherently about conspiracies. A few - like iantresman - are honest enough to admit they really have no clue what the scientific content of the stuff they so gleefully post is.

That's one reason why I'm so disappointed in the edit you made to your last post - the scientific crap (sorry, there's no other word for it) in those links is even more pathetic than what YEC advocates try to promote ... how could you possibly have thought this was worthy of putting your name to? Have you no shame?!?
.

If you hadn't noticed all my posts the last week or so have been quite breif as i'm busy. I'm disappointed in this post DRR, I kept responding to your questions in particular as you seemed the only person capable of keeping an open mind on this, but it seems that by validating my position on magnetic reconnection, and posting more plasma cosmology material you get more annoyed at me. what can I do? what are these questions you want me to answer so badly? why not just ask them now?

.
I wrote, ages ago now, about a Verschuur paper you mentioned; you promised to return to it, you didn't.

I wrote about one of the papers in your long list of 'plasma cosmology' materials, asking for a response ... I got one from ben m, but not from you.

And it's not just about me ... at least one other person has, patiently, kept reminding you that you had promised to address questions he'd (very politely) brought up; you never even acknowledged that you'd made a promise you were breaking.

And so on.

Now you dump a whole load of scientific garbage, and declare you're too busy to bother with it.

How does it go, 'what's a seagull?'?

 

[sol invictus]

Here you go again with the unsubstanciated claims.

<snip>

Doesn't the sand get in your eyes?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'm going to ask a stupid question: why are we discussing magnetic reconnection until we're blue in the face (aside from arguing against Zeuzzz' assertions, that is) ? Exactly how does it reconnect with the OP ??

Because too many of us have allowed Zeuzzz and the other EU-PU woo on this forum to derail the thread with their crackpot notions of physics. 34+ pages is more than enough, imo.

We should cease feeding these trolls - let them starve...

 

[zosima]

.
Worshipers [sic], woozers, zealots and wacky in the same post, and you "haven't haven't run through all the details" yet.

Let me know if you need some better ad hominems, it certainly beats constructive criticism.

I'm not trying to win an argument with ya'll. I stated before that I believe that this is something that has to be tested experimentally, and that there is a lot of evidence out there verifying that claim. When I said I "haven't gone through all the details yet", I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. You might be making some really dumb mistakes, but I haven't read all the details because there are far too many and they are far too convoluted to go through with a fine toothed comb. I looked at the claims, knew that the claims you are making are actually being tested at great expense, and surmised that I don't have to take the time to digest your logic.

And yes calling someone that claims that they can deductively prove things that need to be empirically proven, a zealot, is IMO being nice, otherwise I would just say that it sounds like ya'll don't have any idea what you are talking about. If anyone could prove whether magnetic reconnection or current disruption was primary, then the government wouldn't be throwing several hundred million dollars at the problem.

Oh ya, FYI, attacking someone's use of language counts as an ad hominem attack as well.

 

[zosima]

I should clarify, that when I say "examined claims" I'm talking about the claims regarding current disruption, magnetic reconnection, whichever is "real"(I prefer primary, because they really are both real), and which one is the most useful model of the features of plasma magnetodynamics under discussion. I'm not touching the rest of it with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Pioneer spacecraft

Anyone have access to this publication: The Pioneer spacecraft or the follow up paper by another author Author's reply I cant access them for some reason... If anyone could post them here or PM me them that would be great, my usual access trick for publications isn't working on this website for some reason, and they are not listed anywhere else.

They are based on the one off paper that consideres what the net charge on the sun could be (On the global electrostatic charge of stars) and its external E-field. They seem to be proposing the same thing that I tried to calculate earlier in this thread, to see if that the suns E-field could be pulling pioneer back towards the sun, and I really want to see if thats what they are actually proposing. Other papers have cited the paper that considers the net charge on the sun, some of them may be relevant too if anyone has access to them; http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=1917035342779003248

I do hope they realize how woo EM forces affecting a body in space is considered by many. I still think that EM forces and the charge on the spacecraft are possible contendors to explain the pioneer anomaly, no matter how much people here claim thats a woo opinion. Spacecraft are known to charge up to 100 KV in the Earths atmosphere, and EM forces seem the only likely explanation for the anomaly to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

Spacecraft are known to charge up to 100 KV in the Earths atmosphere,

And how big a charge do you suppose that requires?

 

[Reality Check]

...snip...
I do hope they realize how woo EM forces affecting a body in space is considered by many. I still think that EM forces and the charge on the spacecraft are possible contendors to explain the pioneer anomaly, no matter how much people here claim thats a woo opinion. Spacecraft are known to charge up to 100 KV in the Earths atmosphere, and EM forces seem the only likely explanation for the anomaly to me.

The "only likely explanation for the anomaly to me"? Then you may not have read the article posted on April 18, 2008 in Sky and Telescope.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Anyone have access to this publication: The Pioneer spacecraft or the follow up paper by another author Author's reply I cant access them for some reason... If anyone could post them here or PM me them that would be great, my usual access trick for publications isn't working on this website for some reason, and they are not listed anywhere else.

They are based on the one off paper that consideres what the net charge on the sun could be (On the global electrostatic charge of stars) and its external E-field. They seem to be proposing the same thing that I tried to calculate earlier in this thread, to see if that the suns E-field could be pulling pioneer back towards the sun, and I really want to see if thats what they are actually proposing. Other papers have cited the paper that considers the net charge on the sun, some of them may be relevant too if anyone has access to them; http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=1917035342779003248

I do hope they realize how woo EM forces affecting a body in space is considered by many. I still think that EM forces and the charge on the spacecraft are possible contendors to explain the pioneer anomaly, no matter how much people here claim thats a woo opinion. Spacecraft are known to charge up to 100 KV in the Earths atmosphere, and EM forces seem the only likely explanation for the anomaly to me.

An example

Zeuzzz, in your studies of plasma physics, did you come across the term 'Debye length'?

If so, what do you think a typical value of this is, in the IPM (interplanetary medium) at ~1 au from the Sun?

 

[Zeuzzz]

doh, wrong thread. ... this thread urgently needs to die.