"Maybe a solid metallic surface would align better with low observed surface wave transfer compared to a soupy plasma." Perhaps it would.
Given how much energy the Sun radiates, per second, per square metre of its surface, an interesting follow-on question might be: How could such a surface remain metallic?
You seemed pretty clear, when you claimed "They're overall arguing that electrodynamics can better explain many astronomical observations than gravitation + dark matter, dark energy and modifications to cosmological constants", where "they" refers to what's found on a particular website (actually, PDF), that you linked to. My point: there's no substance to any such claims (other than those which merely repeat what you can easily find from any mainstream source).
At least, none which has any quantitative, internally consistent legs to stand on.
"Agreed, this is better termed Plasma Cosmology, not Electric Universe [...] I was reading more of the folks they cited than the.info website."
Then why not say so? Why give airtime to folk who, not to put too fine a point on it, are deliberately lying? Who might, therefore, be reasonably called crackpots?
"That seems reasonable; correct or not is a matter to be determined."
Yes, it (the PC stuff) may indeed seem reasonable. However, it has long since been determined that it cannot possibly be correct. Or, more precisely, every single one of the principals involved in those efforts is either dead or has stopped doing research into showing that the reasonable-sounding ideas actually match the relevant, cold, hard, objective, quantitative astronomical data. For example, Peratt has published nothing new, on this topic, since the late 1980s (yes, he's published stuff, but none of it involves new research), and Lerner's last work on this seems to be sometime in the 1990s. In the meantime, the quantity and quality of the directly relevant astronomical data has grown enormously, from the WMAP results to the thousands of hours of Hubble observations to the SDSS to data from Spitzer, Herschel, Chandra, Fermi, WISE,...
Don't you find it odd that, given the tens of thousands of hours EU and PC proponents have spent promoting their ideas on websites across the internet, and given the hundreds (thousands?) of ardent fans, not a single one has done anything to develop these ideas, on a scientifically-sound basis?
"That the shapes and spins of galaxies can be shown in simulation by collapsing parallel electric filaments ("pinch" effect), "
No, your source is lying.
In 1986, Peratt published two Plasma Cosmology (NOT Electric Universe) papers, reporting the results of some simulations (similar to, but not quite the same as, what you wrote). However, these were not simulations of real galaxies. Why not? Because real galaxies contain stars (duh!), whose motions ("spins", to use your term) cannot possibly be represented in Peratt's simulations (stars have charge-to-mass ratios vastly different from the ions Peratt assumed, in his simulations).
Worse, real galaxies do not have double nuclei with the same shape as those in Peratt's simulations. And so on.
"They're overall arguing that electrodynamics can better explain many astronomical observations than gravitation + dark matter, dark energy and modifications to cosmological constants."
LOL. We must be reading different websites; I found nothing at all to suggest that anyone has developed any models which show " that electrodynamics can explain any astronomical observations"!
At least none that aren't already well-established parts of mainstream astrophysics. Care to share, freality?
And that's how the world works today: Rather than astrophysical observations acting as a test for our gravity-centric theories, the observations are just made to fit with mathematical contortions. And rather than the stories of ancient humans acting as a test for our astrophysical theories, they are just abandoned and ignored -- as if the information is just unrecoverable. It's not that it's not recoverable; it's that you just don't know anything about it.
OK, thinking about this a bit more...
From about 4000 years ago (between ~5000 and 3000 anyway) on, there are surviving written records, relatively large in number and reasonably well understood/translated, from at least two well-separated regions.
Astronomers, among others, have gone over these records very carefully, and have found various events such as eclipses (esp solar), supernovae, and comets.
Analysis - mathematical, by necessity - of these records leads to various conclusions, of considerable robustness; among them:
* the relative sizes (in the sky) of the Sun and Moon have not changed, over this period
* the motions of the Sun and Moon, through the sky, are completely consistent with Ptolemaic models of (what we today call) the solar system, Kepler's models, and today's ones (which incorporate General Relativity)
* ditto, but to a lesser degree of accuracy, the naked eye planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn)
* ditto, also to a somewhat lesser degree of accuracy, and only relative to rather more modern estimates of orbits, a number of comets, esp Halley's.
So, at least in the sense that written records can be read, and information about the dates and times and appearances of some solar system phenomena (as we call them today) compiled, "the stories of ancient humans" very much "act[ed] as a test for our astrophysical theories"!
Of course, various groups of humans, who left no written records, and without contact with others, no doubt have (had) many stories (myths, etc). The fact that "first contact" with some of these groups occurred well after ~500 BCE (say) should provide a very good test of the quality of the astronomical events and phenomena in their stories. For example, do they record the solar eclipses, supernovae, and comets which are found in Chinese records (say)?
And that's how the world works today: Rather than astrophysical observations acting as a test for our gravity-centric theories, the observations are just made to fit with mathematical contortions. And rather than the stories of ancient humans acting as a test for our astrophysical theories, they are just abandoned and ignored -- as if the information is just unrecoverable. It's not that it's not recoverable; it's that you just don't know anything about it.
I've been away a while, and find that I don't really understand this; would you mind explaining it a bit for me please?
Specifically, what "observations" are you referring to? For example, do they include the apparent positions of the Moon and (naked eye) planets in the sky? Solar and lunar eclipses? Comets? Naked eye supernovae (or, in one culture with a long written history, "guest stars")?
At a high level, how do you suggest "the stories of ancient humans" could act "as a test for our astrophysical theories"?
Specifically, given that "our astrophysical theories" are expressed quantitatively via equations, how could these tests be performed without mathematics?
You're doing a great job of summarizing the problem of how cosmology is worked on these days: as a hierarchical system with astrophysicists at the top. This system might work better if the education was specifically geared towards maintaining more objectivity and neutrality with regards to the interpretation of space observations. But, in fact, the bulk of the training that you hold in such high regard is geared towards one particular cosmology, and blends assumptions and speculative research (like helioseismology) in with agreed-upon facts. To argue that people must all be cast within the same mold before they can have a legitimate opinion on the biggest questions of the universe is self-defeating and blatantly antithetical to the history of science. We need outsiders and skeptics in *ALL* interpretive natural science disciplines commenting on *ALL* interpretations at *ALL* times in order to keep fresh ideas coming in and innovation moving forward.
Compare this with the introduction to Scott's book (my emphasis):
Plasma physicists know that 96% of the universe is not made up of "invisible matter" but rather of matter in the plasma state. [...] The cosmos in fact does not contain the mysteriously undetectable entities that present astrophysical theories require. Modern, straightforward explanations of all the phenomena astronomers find so enigmatic are now available to us. Anyone interested in astrophysics needs to become aware of the properties of the electric plasma that fills more than 99% of the universe. Ours really is an Electric Sky. [...] The main thrust of this book is that the time is ripe for informed people from outside astrophysics.to demand reasonable answers to reasonable questions and to evaluate what the astrophysical theoreticians have been telling us.
So Scott (and pln2bz) would seem to be advocating that the study of the Sky be done *solely* by folk the bulk of whose training is in laboratory plasma physics and electrical engineering, which blends assumptions and speculative research (like catastrophism, whatever that is) in with agreed-upon facts*.
But wouldn't this lead to exactly the situation that pln2bz so passionately decries? "To argue that people must all be cast within the same mold [lab-based plasma physics and catastrophism] before they can have a legitimate opinion on the biggest questions of the universe is self-defeating and blatantly antithetical to the history of science."
Further, look at what happens when "outsiders" (outside lab-based plasma physics and catastrophism) do the very thing that pln2bz (and Scott) advocate - comment on EU interpretations, demand reasonable answers to reasonable questions - they are ridiculed, they are threatened, have verbal abuse heaped upon them, and even banned from internet discussion fora ostensibly devoted to discussing EU ideas!
Scott advocates a cosmology that does not depend on 95% of the universe being missing. Whether you realize it or not, there are a couple hundred scientists who populate all of the major disciplines that agree with Don Scott's analysis, and who communicate on the issues on a daily basis. If Scott is misapplying physics, he's apparently doing it well enough to escape the attention of all of those people, including a handful of nuclear physicists. Apparently, Scott has figured out a way to tailor his "propaganda" that works for all disciplines. It must have taken him quite a bit of fine-tuning to turn something absurd into something that works across multiple disciplines like that!
We believe that it is not so -- that cosmologies should instead exhaust all more mundane explanations within the laboratory before we can resort to thought experiments. You guys can be forgiven for not seeing this decades ago when the conventional theories were being established, but the many unexpected findings related to electromagnetism within space should have inspir
pln2bz has written many comments in Slashdot on what he sees as a need for a new paradigm, an "Electric Universe framework and approach"; leokor has written a few comments in Slashdot on what he sees as the key features of the general approach of "Electric/Plasma Universe".
As I have written, in several SD comments, pln2bz has not* even outlined what this new paradigm is, in terms of things like the role of review, of hypotheses and theories, of the need for consistency, or even what role logic should play in this paradigm.
I have made several attempts to determine what this new paradigm comprises, or includes, based on the empirical data of pln2bz' SD comments, and the materials he has referenced. One such attempt involved a detailed examination of the physical mechanisms presented (by pln2bz) in a key "Electric Universe" document on comets^.
Somewhat to my surprise, pln2bz responded to my analysis - simple and tentative as it was - with thinly veiled threats to identify the real-world individual(s) who wrote the comments, and stalk them. He also responded to my astonishing discovery of a possible case of intellectual fraud and dishonesty with bombast, bluster,... and complete silence on the actual findings themselves.
-> leokor explicitly states that there are astronomical observations which are not within Plasma Universe's scope^^; yet pln2bz all but asserts that *every* observable phenomenon should be within its scope**
-> leokor explicitly points to quantitative work done done within Plasma Universe's scope (in several SD comments); yet pln2bz states that there is (essentially) no such work yet*^.
Along the way, there are inconsistencies regarding falsification (leokor explicitly uses the term, and seems to consider quantitative observations potentially capable of falsifying Plasma Universe; pln2bz either avoids the topic entirely, or implies that falsification is not (yet) possible, or that testing his favoured alternatives is somehow illegitimate); scope (leokor seems to have no hang-up over applying plasma physics to distant galaxies that we could not possibly test in the lab in a thousand lifetimes, but pln2bz writes that this is either illegitimate or too metaphysical to even consider); and method (leokor seems to consider papers published in relevant peer-reviewed highly pertinent; pln2bz regards unsubstantiated, untested personal speculations as of equal merit to such papers^*).
Just one more, to close this comment:
These are in fact part of the set of "big questions" that we *must* frequently grapple with if we are to keep the interpretive sciences on track: what role should thought experiments play in science? Clearly, you guys believe that they can serve as the basis for the instantiation of cosmologies. We believe that it is not so -- that cosmologies should instead exhaust all more mundane explanations within the laboratory before we can resort to thought experiments. You guys can be forgiven for not seeing this decades ago when the conventional theories were being established, but the many unexpected findings related to electromagnetism within space should have inspired more of you to go back to the laboratory, and to realize that your thought experiments need to be re-evaluated relative to more physical explanations involving plasmas.
I expect that leokor is well aware of the assumptions used in plasma physics, and of the inevitable extrapolations far beyond anything anything done in any lab experiment, that underlie the papers by Peratt (and others) he (leokor) references (there are huge leaps of faith - if you want to call them that - in the application of the scaling laws, for example); clearly, pln2bz seems blissfully (willfully?) ignorant of thi
I didn't read anything in pln2bz' response about the specifics of the case of apparent intellectual fraud and dishonesty.
May one read the bluster as a (blatant?) attempt to avoid something quite nasty in the closet?
And the response to the detailed analysis of the document in question as a naked appeal to authority (because pln2bz recognises that the document validates the hypotheses)?
Thank you for speaking so loudly and clearly pln2bz.
"Arguing that space must be charge neutral on some scale is tantamount to declaring that we've reached a conclusion on a metaphysical question" BUSTED http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=358211&cid=21392029; Not at all. I don't have time to respond to every nitty-bitty thread, so here's the gist of it. The supposed "debunking" creates a strawman, modeling cosmic bodies as isolated "pith-ball" charges in vacuum. It ignores the collective effects of many individual charges in the solar wind plasma that, on the relevant scale, can be assumed to be nearly continuous. It forms a double layer plasma sheath around a cosmic body (normally, in the magnetopause) that screens that cosmic body's charge from the outside. Most of the voltage differential occurs within such plasma sheath (also called Langmuir sheath). This very property of plasma gave it its name. Thus, provided the plasma sheaths don't intersect, there is no electrostatic interaction between individual cosmic bodies. While there seems nothing particularly wrong with what you write here leokor, the debunking and strawman monikers apply just as well to your comment here.
If you follow the chain backwards, to the pln2bz comments, in a much older SD story thread, that AC was referring to, you'll see that he (and Thornhill, apparently) responded to the "pith-ball" question* very differently to what you wrote. Along the way the full comments were sliced and diced, and the contexts changed. Not much one can do about it I think, given the format of Slashdot.
I personally would be quite interested to explore the extent to which pln2bz' assertion (that I quoted, that you quoted, that...) can be said to be BUSTED, with respect to the solar system bodies which have been visited by space probes - the Moon, Venus, Mars, Eros, Titan, Tempel 1, Itokawa (the ones with a physical touchdown); those where there have been close flybys.
A general comment: it's pretty clear that you and pln2bz have different perspectives on what the "Plasma/Electric Universe" approach/worldview/whatever is, sometimes these appear in direct conflict^. It's also interesting to read how you've rephrased (shall we say) what he has written to make it appear less ridiculous, and to note the parts of what he wrote that you have chosen to not comment on. I intend nothing by this comment, merely noting what I have read, and a response to "stop diverting the readers' attention from the actual subject by trying to discredit Plasma/Electric Universe in general, by either demolishing strawmen or by picking on on occasional imprecise statement by this or that supporter".
* yes, it was originally a question!
^ saying that the assertion "that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets!" (yes, there was an exclamation mark in the original) "if enthusiastic, is also imprecise" has got to be the best understatement I've read so far this year!
I have no desire, nor intention, of discussing what might or might not be in anything Peratt has not published - if he (or you, or anyone else) wishes to develop that model and publish papers based on that development, I'm sure he (or you, or anyone else) are free to do so.
So, over the next few days, I shall take up your challenge and cite papers presenting astronomical observations and analyses which falsify key parts of the Peratt model(s), as presented in the two papers linked to in your earlier comment.
I do not know what material by "ScienceApologist" is referred to here, so I can't comment on that.
If the "Tim Thompson" material being referred to is "On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis" http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html, then there's an obvious continuity with my quick look at what's wrong with the T&T PDF document.
Let's start with this, from the Tim's introduction (my emphasis):
It is not my intention, at least for now, to address the issues raised, and alleged to be in favor of the electric-sun hypothesis. Rather, it is my intent to show that the arguments of Scott et al. against the standard interpretations of stellar physics are devoid of merit. This is an important point, because it shifts to the champions of the electric-sun hypothesis, the responsibility for showing that their hypothesis is better than the standard. What I have done is go back one step further in the chain, and show that three (of four) working hypotheses about "the Electric Universe framework and method" can be tested and given a tick in the "YES" box, using this PDF document as a representative sample.
It also shifts to the champions of the EU framework and approach the responsibility for showing that their methods are better than the standard.
Here are those four working hypotheses again:
#1: in the EU paradigm, "theory" is indistinguishable from "speculation in prose".
#2: EU theories cannot be falsified, even in principle, by any experimental ("in the lab") or observational results.
#2a: Within the Electric Universe framework and approach, evidence presented does not need to accurately reflect its source, nor be fully attributed; copyrights need not be respected.
#3: EU theories are internally inconsistent.
As is clear from the material presented in the SD comments linked to in my earlier comment here, the first three hypotheses are validated; the last was not tested (but is unlikely to be validated - meaninglessness is perfectly consistent with meaninglessness).
Rather to my surprise, I found that the document may be an intellectual fraud - it purports to be something which it is not (a poster presentation at the 2006 ICOPS, an international scientific conference). More surprising is that pln2bz does not seem to regard this as serious... if it is a case of intellectual fraud, there will be no legal sanctions*, nor any legal recourse; however, it has the potential to do considerable damage to Thornhill's and Talbott's reputations^ - this sort of story can spread extremely quickly.
Now of course there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation... but the longer folk like pln2bz continue to ignore it or downplay it, the greater the suspicion that no such explanation exists.
* as far as I know it is not illegal, in the US or Australia, to claim a document is a poster presentation at an international scientific conference when it is not.
^ unless they are perfectly comfortable with such practices and behaviours.
The state of modern astrophysics is very healthy, thank you.
The conventional theories can't adequately explain why planets appear to frequently have hotspots at their poles.
Er, you do realise, I hope, that the study of planets in our solar system isn't really part of astrophysics? And hasn't been for several decades now? You realise that there's a whole new field of science - planetary science - that studies these phenomena?
There remains no explanation within the conventional theories for why the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets.
I've yet to see any credible attempt to explain why the Deep Impact impactor generated two flashes at the time of impact
Are you perhaps referring to a certain PDF document, that you provided a link to in an earlier comment, purportedly by a (self-declared) physicist (Wallace Thornhill) and David Talbott, purportedly a poster at a 2006 IEEE international conference* (and associated webpages)?
Or perhaps you could provide a link to a reputable source, concerning these "two flashes"?
If we can see elements popping into existence within simple ball lightning laboratory experiments,
... then perhaps a little healthy scepticism and an open mind may be in order? For example, has this result been independently verified? If not, then why not?
What's ultimately really silly about how science operates these days is that there is far too much eagerness to cast aside alternative competing theories that challenge the conventional ones.
One of the great things^ about the contemporary internet is that it's so easy to get things published. Even better is that there are sites which permit publication of physics papers, with far weaker requirements than a relevant peer-reviewed journal has, permitting "alternative competing theories" to get an airing that they otherwise would not. The strong will survive, and go on to become (perhaps) a paper in a good journal, and maybe, just maybe, a Nobel Prize for the author.
But we've been over this, you and I many, many times; if you think you have a framework and method - different from the standard (physics) paradigm you explicitly reject - why not lay it out? Let the world hear of how you think science should really be done!
And by the way, point me to your comet document when it's ready. I'm very eager to see what you come up with!
Any theory that attempts to explain the inverse temperature problem must also grapple with the fact that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets! There is no satisfying explanation for that one to date without consideration of an electric field, and the standard solar model miserably fails in explaining it. And this is no minor matter either because the solar wind, taken as a whole, constitutes the largest structure in our solar system, the heliospheric current sheet. Contemplate the implications of that for a moment: astrophysicists do not understand what is causing the motions of the largest structure in our own immediate neighborhood!
If you know of even one observation that doesn't square with Peratt's model of galaxies, by all means, let us know. For Peratt's model, see: A. L. Peratt. Evolution of the Plasma Universe I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets. IEEE Transactions in Plasma Science, PS-14, 6 (1986) A. L. Peratt. Evolution of the Plasma Universe II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, PS-14, 6 (1986)
To this day, Peratt's model remains the only one that explains the shape and stability of galaxies, and does it without recourse to such ad-hoc devices as dark matter.
(source as above; emphasis added).
Even in 1986, and allowing for enthusiasm, this remains... imprecise.
For starters, the MOND folk (Milgrom, Sanders, McGaugh, etc) would no doubt take strong exception to the "without recourse to [...] dark matter" part (http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/).
Next, even in 1986, the observed "shape" of Double Radio Sources associated with Active Galactic Nuclei (DRAGNs) was inconsistent with the Peratt's model; today, with considerably more, much higher resolution, across many more EM wavebands observations, Peratt's model clearly fails both "shape" and "stability" criteria (an example: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~abridle/dragnparts.htm).
Finally, we now have independent estimates of the radial distribution of mass in galaxies, from analyses of gravitational lensing, something not available to any sign
It's the natural result of allowing mathematicians to take over physics. They could care less about physicality. When did "mathematicians" first "take over physics"?
I think about the time Newton developed the calculus and also joined the heavens and Earth together in a seamless manner with his universal law of gravitation.
Or maybe the lack of concern, by physicists, about physicality can be shown by the prediction of what is now called the psi/J particle? Or the experimental agreement, to some 12 significant digits, of a key parameter in Quantum Electrodynamics, whose calculation involves a great deal of mathematics?
The public's love affair with gadgets is obscuring their contemplation of the complex philosophical questions associated with astrophysical interpretations. Forget astrophysics; Aspect's experiments (and others who subsequently validated and extended them) on Bell's inequality showed Einstein wrong, and left philosophical questions that would surely give you a splitting headache if you were interested enough to look into them... and all this right here in laboratories on dear old terra firma.
the skeptics are marginalized as having no value The state of modern astrophysics is very healthy, thank you.
There are some "skeptics" (as you call them), and they have no difficulty getting their works published; however the so-called skeptics you have been so vocal in promoting elsewhere in Slashdot are only marginalised by their continued inability to put together a coherent presentation, much less a consistent, quantitative one.
And dark matter and dark energy are being used as fudge factors for things like gravitational lensing. Perhaps if you spent more time actually reading the relevant research papers you wouldn't keep making such ridiculous comments as this?
I mean, everyone is entitled to their own opinions; however, if you want your comments to be taken seriously, why not put the effort in to first checking your facts?
Of course, research has been done on exploding double layers! How nice of you to quote work from the other side of the divide. Or did you think that Plasma/Electric Universe is to be defined as what has NOT been published? Good to see your comments here, leokor!
I'm afraid I don't understand this comment, would you mind clarifying please?
It seems you are saying that Volwerk's PhD thesis and Charles' paper (among others) belong to the "Plasma/Electric Universe" "side"; are you?
In any case, would you mind saying a few words on how you see the two sides "of the divide" - what distinguishes one from the other?
And if we were to ask Volwerk or Charles about which side of the divide their works are from, how confident are you that they'd say, with certainty, that they are from the "Plasma/Electric Universe" side?
This is my last comment on pln2bz', where he presented the 21-page PDF document (ElectricComet.pdf) and asked what is incorrect with it.
In earlier comments, I have examined nine specific, physical mechanisms in the 'electric comet model' presented in that document, and found them all meaningless (as presented, even within the context of all references), examined the so-called six to 15 predictions about the Deep Impact mission (and found them equally meaningless), and considered how someone with a BSc in physics and an admitted admirer of Hannes Alfvén could write a poster for an international conference in plasma physics so contrary to the spirit of Alfvén's work, and his lecturers' teaching (not to mention having allegedly spent 30 years on that model).
This final comment concerns form vs substance - why take Thornhill to task for not publishing a paper in a relevant peer-reviewed journal? Why examine the "two flash" prediction in terms of quantitative parameters? And so on.
Note that this comment will glide over questions concerning just how well the assertions on the "two flash" prediction match the *actual* prediction (HINT: they do so only if your brain is so open it falls out).
At one level form matters a great deal: without it all kinds of hanky panky could become OK, from plagiarism, to revisionism, to an inability to independently check published assertions, and beyond. Of course, such pedantry matters not one jot if the relevant Electric Universe ideas get published in relevant peer-reviewed journals... but pln2bz has been unable to tell us where we can read such papers, despite his hotline to Thornhill.
At another level, form defines substance: science (and its penumbra) as dialogue has meaning (substance) only because of the mutually agreed conventions (forms) all participants implicitly accept.
Or saying this another way: if you can't do 'form', whatever you think you're doing, it sure isn't science.
Somewhere on one of the IEEE pages you will read that Wallace Thornhill has a BSc from the University of Melbourne (in Australia, not Florida), in physics and electronics.
In the PDF document you will see a reference to Hannes Alfvén. A few minutes searching ADS, starting with "Alfven, H" in the author field, will turn up lots and lots of published papers. Almost all of them are filled with equations, numbers, and quantitative stuff; they also provide references to other material, where Alfvén has stood on the shoulders of others' work.
From that IEEE reference, and some searching on EU pages, you can estimate that Wallace Thornhill graduated in 1970 (+10 -15 years).
What were physics students taught, at the University of Melbourne, a few decades ago? Could they reasonably have been given passing grades, by their physics lecturers, for models developed and presented without references or equations? I can't be sure*, but I think it quite likely (>80%) that any of Thornhill's physics lecturers would have given him a failing grade for something like the (alleged) ICOPS poster with his name as an author.
How hard would it be to turn the ECM, as presented in that PDF document, into at least a first draft quantitative model? Read a few of Alfvén's papers, take a plasma physics graduate level course, and I think you'd agree that 1 hour to 1 day would be a good (95% CL) first estimate. Of course, Thornhill is no Alfvén, so let's be generous and say it'd likely take him 1 week to 1 month to come up with such a first draft... OK, maybe a year.
Wallace Thornhill, whose inquiry into the electric attributes of comets goes back more than 30 years That's from the webpage of the link on page 10 of PDF document ("Advanced Predictions of "Deep Impact"") (my emphasis).
So why, after 30 years' of work, does a person with a BSc in physics put his name to a document so devoid of anything quantitative? A document that's purportedly a poster at an international plasma physics conference? Concerning a model that is supposedly based on (plasma physics) ideas developed by Alfvén?
Here's my entirely speculative guess as to the answer: because any quantitative model, even an OOM (order of magnitude) one, would be obviously inconsistent with a large number of good, independent, observations and experimental results... and thus consigned to the dustbin of science history.
Of course, if you don't have at least a BSc with a major in physics^, you are likely to read the above and simply wonder... where does APODNereid's confidence re those assertions come from? Hard to address adequately within the limits of comments on SD, but open your mind to this: if comets are "asteroids on eccentric orbits", why are some objects with orbital eccentricities in the same range comets and others asteroids? Or this: if comets (or asteroids) are charged bodies on orbits within a constant, radial electric field (centred on the Sun), why can't those orbits be predicted by force laws based on electromagnetism?
Here is the actual prediction, from the 'predictions webpage' that the PDF document provides a link to (my emphasis).
Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter's atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash (lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact. [...] (The discharge could be similar to the "megalightning" [link omitted] bolt that, evidence suggests, struck the shuttle Columbia) [...] Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact. The intensity curve will be that of a lightning bolt (sudden onset, exponential decline) and may well include more than one peak. Further down the page, under a section entitled "ANOMOLOUS X-RAYS", there's also this (emphasis in original):
So, before physical impact occurs , we may expect a sudden discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile. It will have the characteristic light-curve of lightning, with rapid onset and exponential decay. There's a great deal more, by way of qualitative detail, but little of that is repeated in any subsequent TB commentary on the flashes (perhaps because, even at the qualitative level, consistency would be not so easy to establish?). There's also nothing on electrical interactions "of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter's atmosphere".
Here's how this so-called prediction is described, on a TPOD webpage dated Jul 07, 2005:
Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill predicted two blasts. [...] And here is what happened in the words of NASA investigator Peter Schultz, describing the event recorded from the spacecraft: "What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose". Note that the uncertain nature of both the existence of any pre-impact "flashes" and their number, in the predictions, is absent from the subsequent write-up.
Note that you have to do your own research if you want to find out when and where, and in what context, Peter Schultz said those words (or if he said them at all, or if he is a NASA investigator, or...).
Note the assumption, by whoever wrote the 7 July webpage that "a small flash" is pre-impact (and that, for example, "a big flash" is impact).
Note the lack of commentary about the intensity curve, the failure to mention x-ray emissions (or lack of them), and any reference to megalightning bolts*.
As far as I know, there is no EU material - even a webpage, much less a paper - that presents a quantitative analysis of the impactor "flashes", using publicly available quantitative data (if any reader knows of any such, please provide the appropriate references).
So, continuing to answer pln2bz' question ("which parts of the Electric Comet document are incorrect") - recall that wrt the Electric Comet Model (ECM) presented therein the answers already in are that the specific, physical mechanisms are neither correct nor incorrect, rather they are meaningless^ - the most charitable thing one could say is that the so-called predictions are so qualitative as to be all but impossible to find incorrect. Less charitably, one could say that the ECM cannot be falsified, even in principle, by any observational results (i.e. working hypothesis #2 is validated), and that at least one EU promoter is disingenuous, dishonest, or has a very poor grasp of English.
Next: what can be said concerning "electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill" and physics?
* FWIW (for what it's worth), the CAIB did not find any evidence of any such bolts having struck Columbia.
^ recall that the analysis is being done on only the PDF document itself and any material it references, and that the origin of comets (in the ECM) is not being examined.
There are six bullets on page 10 of the PDF document, and 11 in the referenced webpage.
Two of the six are not mentioned on the webpage; one of the six corresponds to two separate bullets on the webpage; five bullets on the webpage are not mentioned in the PDF document (some bullets have more than one prediction).
All so-called predictions may be grouped into four classes, in a two-by-two matrix:
Quantified prediction (e.g. "the energy released in the impact will be between X and Y joules") vs qualitative ones (e.g. "the energy released in the impact will be huge").
Certain predictions (e.g. "the impactor will cease transmission x±y seconds before impact") vs uncertain ones (e.g. "the impactor may cease transmission before impact").
Note that a third possible classification can be ignored - for no prediction is the degree of certainty quantitative (e.g. there are no examples of "the impactor will cease transmission x±y seconds before impact (95% CL)").
Of the ~15 predictions (document and webpage combined), none are quantitative.
Of the ~15 predictions, ~eight are certain ("will"), though only three are absolute (the others are only "will" if another prediction in the logic chain is validated, none of the prior 'predictions' is certain, e.g. IF a discharge THEN {another prediction}).
In addition, ~five predictions are differences compared with what is "expected" from mainstream comet models, according to the authors. However, there are no references to any source where the authors' expectations can be independently checked (so you have to do your own research to find out whether the authors have accurately portrayed non-EU models, present fiction, or something in between).
Only two (maybe three) predictions are expressed in terms of direct observables; the rest could only be tested within the framework of interpretive chains of logic and theory (or so it seems to me); an example: "The impact/electrical discharge will not reveal "primordial dirty ice," but the same composition as the surface." - compositions are conclusions derived from long chains of analysis of observations. As I have already noted, the PDF document contains no discussion of observational analyses, nor any (external) references to any.
The most definite, most directly related to observables, prediction is this one, found in the PDF document, but not on the webpage: "The cameras will reveal sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges ". Given that the Electric Universe so-called predictions were made after the results of comet Halley, Wild2, and Borrelly missions had been made public, this is hardly surprising!
The other 'direct observables' prediction is equally under-whelming: "We also expect an interruption of impactor transmission before it reaches the surface" (PDF), "Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact" (webpage) - no method of determining whether any "interruption of impactor transmission before it reached the surface" is due to "electrical stress [shorting] out the electronics on board" (or any other cause) is given.
The third prediction possibly relating to a direct observable ("maybe three" above) is "Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile"; this appears on the webpage but not in the document. It's a 'maybe' because it's not quantitative (and it's conditional on there being one or more 'discharges').
Clearly none of these so-called predictions could be falsified by any of the results from the Deep Impact mission, without quite a lot of additional inputs (with the exception of the "sharply defined" prediction).
Given the prominence of the 'discharge' prediction(s), I shall examine them in more detail in my next comment.
Can the hypothesis that within the Electric Universe framework and approach, evidence presented does not need to accurately reflect its source be validated? Can such validation be found in the Electric Comet document? Stay tuned. Here is what you will read on page 7 of "The Electric Comet" PDF document (my emphasis):
One comet after another violates the "dirty snowball" criterion. Hale-Bopp in particular ignored the rules. In the photo seen here, it is still too far from the sun for a "snowball" to melt, but it already displays seven jets. The source of "the photo seen here" seems to be ESO Press Photo 37/96, dated 20 September 1996, and titled "Seven Jets in Comet Hale-Bopp" http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-1996/phot-37-96.html
The body of the caption is as follows:
This heavily processed image of C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp) is based on a CCD frame that was obtained on August 18, 1996, by Nick Thomas (Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie, Germany) and Heike Rauer (Observatoire de Paris, France), observing with the DFOSC multi-mode instrument on the Danish 1.54-m telescope at La Silla. The frame was taken at 04:20 UT through an R filter (to show the dust around the cometary nucleus) and the integration time was 20 s.
The subsequent image processing was perfomed by Hermann Boehnhardt (Universitaets-Sternwarte, Munchen, Germany). It involved bias subtraction and flat-fielding, followed by extraction of a subframe centered on the nucleus (the area corresponds to 797 x 797 pixels = 320 x 320 arcsec), logarithmic transformation and finally the application of a Laplace filter with a width of 15 pixels. The webpage concludes (my emphasis): "This is the caption to ESO PR Photo 37/96 [GIF, 76k]. It may be reproduced, if credit is given to the European Southern Observatory."
Curiously, credit does seem to have been given on at least one of the Thunderbolts webpages which reproduces it; how strange that what purports to be a poster presented at an scientific conference omits the credit (and seriously mis-characterises it).
Slashdot Mirror
"Maybe a solid metallic surface would align better with low observed surface wave transfer compared to a soupy plasma." Perhaps it would.
Given how much energy the Sun radiates, per second, per square metre of its surface, an interesting follow-on question might be: How could such a surface remain metallic?
"Only a small fraction of the energy carried by the galactic electric current is dissipated in the Corona"
And what is that current, in amps, if I may be so bold as to ask, grantspassalan?
And how much of it is dissipated in the corona?
Also, where does this current enter the Sun (or its corona)? Where does it leave?
Or, perhaps, is the Sun merely a Hotel California-like sink (current enters, but never leaves)?
And I think you're missing mine.
.info website."
...
You seemed pretty clear, when you claimed "They're overall arguing that electrodynamics can better explain many astronomical observations than gravitation + dark matter, dark energy and modifications to cosmological constants", where "they" refers to what's found on a particular website (actually, PDF), that you linked to. My point: there's no substance to any such claims (other than those which merely repeat what you can easily find from any mainstream source).
At least, none which has any quantitative, internally consistent legs to stand on.
"Agreed, this is better termed Plasma Cosmology, not Electric Universe [...] I was reading more of the folks they cited than the
Then why not say so? Why give airtime to folk who, not to put too fine a point on it, are deliberately lying? Who might, therefore, be reasonably called crackpots?
"That seems reasonable; correct or not is a matter to be determined."
Yes, it (the PC stuff) may indeed seem reasonable. However, it has long since been determined that it cannot possibly be correct. Or, more precisely, every single one of the principals involved in those efforts is either dead or has stopped doing research into showing that the reasonable-sounding ideas actually match the relevant, cold, hard, objective, quantitative astronomical data. For example, Peratt has published nothing new, on this topic, since the late 1980s (yes, he's published stuff, but none of it involves new research), and Lerner's last work on this seems to be sometime in the 1990s. In the meantime, the quantity and quality of the directly relevant astronomical data has grown enormously, from the WMAP results to the thousands of hours of Hubble observations to the SDSS to data from Spitzer, Herschel, Chandra, Fermi, WISE,
Don't you find it odd that, given the tens of thousands of hours EU and PC proponents have spent promoting their ideas on websites across the internet, and given the hundreds (thousands?) of ardent fans, not a single one has done anything to develop these ideas, on a scientifically-sound basis?
"That the shapes and spins of galaxies can be shown in simulation by collapsing parallel electric filaments ("pinch" effect), "
No, your source is lying.
In 1986, Peratt published two Plasma Cosmology (NOT Electric Universe) papers, reporting the results of some simulations (similar to, but not quite the same as, what you wrote). However, these were not simulations of real galaxies. Why not? Because real galaxies contain stars (duh!), whose motions ("spins", to use your term) cannot possibly be represented in Peratt's simulations (stars have charge-to-mass ratios vastly different from the ions Peratt assumed, in his simulations).
Worse, real galaxies do not have double nuclei with the same shape as those in Peratt's simulations. And so on.
"They're overall arguing that electrodynamics can better explain many astronomical observations than gravitation + dark matter, dark energy and modifications to cosmological constants."
LOL. We must be reading different websites; I found nothing at all to suggest that anyone has developed any models which show " that electrodynamics can explain any astronomical observations"!
At least none that aren't already well-established parts of mainstream astrophysics. Care to share, freality?
Thunderbolts has theories? Really?
"Theories" as in "speculative guesses", sure, they have lots of those.
"Theories" as in "scientific theories", well, I have yet to find any on that site; which are the ones you found, uigrad_2000?
"An electric universe explains none of the physics of the universe ..."
FTFY
For much the same reason the Pioneer Anomaly, decades ago, did not suddenly make geocentrism a cool idea worth (re-)investigating.
And that's how the world works today: Rather than astrophysical observations acting as a test for our gravity-centric theories, the observations are just made to fit with mathematical contortions. And rather than the stories of ancient humans acting as a test for our astrophysical theories, they are just abandoned and ignored -- as if the information is just unrecoverable. It's not that it's not recoverable; it's that you just don't know anything about it.
OK, thinking about this a bit more ...
From about 4000 years ago (between ~5000 and 3000 anyway) on, there are surviving written records, relatively large in number and reasonably well understood/translated, from at least two well-separated regions.
Astronomers, among others, have gone over these records very carefully, and have found various events such as eclipses (esp solar), supernovae, and comets.
Analysis - mathematical, by necessity - of these records leads to various conclusions, of considerable robustness; among them:
* the relative sizes (in the sky) of the Sun and Moon have not changed, over this period
* the motions of the Sun and Moon, through the sky, are completely consistent with Ptolemaic models of (what we today call) the solar system, Kepler's models, and today's ones (which incorporate General Relativity)
* ditto, but to a lesser degree of accuracy, the naked eye planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn)
* ditto, also to a somewhat lesser degree of accuracy, and only relative to rather more modern estimates of orbits, a number of comets, esp Halley's.
So, at least in the sense that written records can be read, and information about the dates and times and appearances of some solar system phenomena (as we call them today) compiled, "the stories of ancient humans" very much "act[ed] as a test for our astrophysical theories"!
Of course, various groups of humans, who left no written records, and without contact with others, no doubt have (had) many stories (myths, etc). The fact that "first contact" with some of these groups occurred well after ~500 BCE (say) should provide a very good test of the quality of the astronomical events and phenomena in their stories. For example, do they record the solar eclipses, supernovae, and comets which are found in Chinese records (say)?
And that's how the world works today: Rather than astrophysical observations acting as a test for our gravity-centric theories, the observations are just made to fit with mathematical contortions. And rather than the stories of ancient humans acting as a test for our astrophysical theories, they are just abandoned and ignored -- as if the information is just unrecoverable. It's not that it's not recoverable; it's that you just don't know anything about it.
I've been away a while, and find that I don't really understand this; would you mind explaining it a bit for me please?
Specifically, what "observations" are you referring to? For example, do they include the apparent positions of the Moon and (naked eye) planets in the sky? Solar and lunar eclipses? Comets? Naked eye supernovae (or, in one culture with a long written history, "guest stars")?
At a high level, how do you suggest "the stories of ancient humans" could act "as a test for our astrophysical theories"?
Specifically, given that "our astrophysical theories" are expressed quantitatively via equations, how could these tests be performed without mathematics?
You're doing a great job of summarizing the problem of how cosmology is worked on these days: as a hierarchical system with astrophysicists at the top. This system might work better if the education was specifically geared towards maintaining more objectivity and neutrality with regards to the interpretation of space observations. But, in fact, the bulk of the training that you hold in such high regard is geared towards one particular cosmology, and blends assumptions and speculative research (like helioseismology) in with agreed-upon facts. To argue that people must all be cast within the same mold before they can have a legitimate opinion on the biggest questions of the universe is self-defeating and blatantly antithetical to the history of science. We need outsiders and skeptics in *ALL* interpretive natural science disciplines commenting on *ALL* interpretations at *ALL* times in order to keep fresh ideas coming in and innovation moving forward.
Compare this with the introduction to Scott's book (my emphasis):
Plasma physicists know that 96% of the universe is not made up of "invisible matter" but rather of matter in the plasma state.
[...]
The cosmos in fact does not contain the mysteriously undetectable entities that present astrophysical theories require. Modern, straightforward explanations of all the phenomena astronomers find so enigmatic are now available to us. Anyone interested in astrophysics needs to become aware of the properties of the electric plasma that fills more than 99% of the universe. Ours really is an Electric Sky.
[...]
The main thrust of this book is that the time is ripe for informed people from outside astrophysics.to demand reasonable answers to reasonable questions and to evaluate what the astrophysical theoreticians have been telling us.
So Scott (and pln2bz) would seem to be advocating that the study of the Sky be done *solely* by folk the bulk of whose training is in laboratory plasma physics and electrical engineering, which blends assumptions and speculative research (like catastrophism, whatever that is) in with agreed-upon facts*.
But wouldn't this lead to exactly the situation that pln2bz so passionately decries? "To argue that people must all be cast within the same mold [lab-based plasma physics and catastrophism] before they can have a legitimate opinion on the biggest questions of the universe is self-defeating and blatantly antithetical to the history of science."
Further, look at what happens when "outsiders" (outside lab-based plasma physics and catastrophism) do the very thing that pln2bz (and Scott) advocate - comment on EU interpretations, demand reasonable answers to reasonable questions - they are ridiculed, they are threatened, have verbal abuse heaped upon them, and even banned from internet discussion fora ostensibly devoted to discussing EU ideas!
Scott advocates a cosmology that does not depend on 95% of the universe being missing. Whether you realize it or not, there are a couple hundred scientists who populate all of the major disciplines that agree with Don Scott's analysis, and who communicate on the issues on a daily basis. If Scott is misapplying physics, he's apparently doing it well enough to escape the attention of all of those people, including a handful of nuclear physicists. Apparently, Scott has figured out a way to tailor his "propaganda" that works for all disciplines. It must have taken him quite a bit of fine-tuning to turn something absurd into something that works across multiple disciplines like that!
We believe that it is not so -- that cosmologies should instead exhaust all more mundane explanations within the laboratory before we can resort to thought experiments. You guys can be forgiven for not seeing this decades ago when the conventional theories were being established, but the many unexpected findings related to electromagnetism within space should have inspir
As I have written, in several SD comments, pln2bz has not* even outlined what this new paradigm is, in terms of things like the role of review, of hypotheses and theories, of the need for consistency, or even what role logic should play in this paradigm.
I have made several attempts to determine what this new paradigm comprises, or includes, based on the empirical data of pln2bz' SD comments, and the materials he has referenced. One such attempt involved a detailed examination of the physical mechanisms presented (by pln2bz) in a key "Electric Universe" document on comets^.
Somewhat to my surprise, pln2bz responded to my analysis - simple and tentative as it was - with thinly veiled threats to identify the real-world individual(s) who wrote the comments, and stalk them. He also responded to my astonishing discovery of a possible case of intellectual fraud and dishonesty with bombast, bluster,
In this SD comment (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22310792), leokor appears to contradict pln2bz' (the one this is a response to); two specific examples:
-> leokor explicitly states that there are astronomical observations which are not within Plasma Universe's scope^^; yet pln2bz all but asserts that *every* observable phenomenon should be within its scope**
-> leokor explicitly points to quantitative work done done within Plasma Universe's scope (in several SD comments); yet pln2bz states that there is (essentially) no such work yet*^.
Along the way, there are inconsistencies regarding falsification (leokor explicitly uses the term, and seems to consider quantitative observations potentially capable of falsifying Plasma Universe; pln2bz either avoids the topic entirely, or implies that falsification is not (yet) possible, or that testing his favoured alternatives is somehow illegitimate); scope (leokor seems to have no hang-up over applying plasma physics to distant galaxies that we could not possibly test in the lab in a thousand lifetimes, but pln2bz writes that this is either illegitimate or too metaphysical to even consider); and method (leokor seems to consider papers published in relevant peer-reviewed highly pertinent; pln2bz regards unsubstantiated, untested personal speculations as of equal merit to such papers^*).
Just one more, to close this comment:
These are in fact part of the set of "big questions" that we *must* frequently grapple with if we are to keep the interpretive sciences on track: what role should thought experiments play in science? Clearly, you guys believe that they can serve as the basis for the instantiation of cosmologies. We believe that it is not so -- that cosmologies should instead exhaust all more mundane explanations within the laboratory before we can resort to thought experiments. You guys can be forgiven for not seeing this decades ago when the conventional theories were being established, but the many unexpected findings related to electromagnetism within space should have inspired more of you to go back to the laboratory, and to realize that your thought experiments need to be re-evaluated relative to more physical explanations involving plasmas.
I expect that leokor is well aware of the assumptions used in plasma physics, and of the inevitable extrapolations far beyond anything anything done in any lab experiment, that underlie the papers by Peratt (and others) he (leokor) references (there are huge leaps of faith - if you want to call them that - in the application of the scaling laws, for example); clearly, pln2bz seems blissfully (willfully?) ignorant of thi
I didn't read anything in pln2bz' response about the specifics of the case of apparent intellectual fraud and dishonesty.
May one read the bluster as a (blatant?) attempt to avoid something quite nasty in the closet?
And the response to the detailed analysis of the document in question as a naked appeal to authority (because pln2bz recognises that the document validates the hypotheses)?
Thank you for speaking so loudly and clearly pln2bz.
If you follow the chain backwards, to the pln2bz comments, in a much older SD story thread, that AC was referring to, you'll see that he (and Thornhill, apparently) responded to the "pith-ball" question* very differently to what you wrote. Along the way the full comments were sliced and diced, and the contexts changed. Not much one can do about it I think, given the format of Slashdot.
I personally would be quite interested to explore the extent to which pln2bz' assertion (that I quoted, that you quoted, that
A general comment: it's pretty clear that you and pln2bz have different perspectives on what the "Plasma/Electric Universe" approach/worldview/whatever is, sometimes these appear in direct conflict^. It's also interesting to read how you've rephrased (shall we say) what he has written to make it appear less ridiculous, and to note the parts of what he wrote that you have chosen to not comment on. I intend nothing by this comment, merely noting what I have read, and a response to "stop diverting the readers' attention from the actual subject by trying to discredit Plasma/Electric Universe in general, by either demolishing strawmen or by picking on on occasional imprecise statement by this or that supporter".
* yes, it was originally a question!
^ saying that the assertion "that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets!" (yes, there was an exclamation mark in the original) "if enthusiastic, is also imprecise" has got to be the best understatement I've read so far this year!
Thanks for the quick response, leokor.
I have no desire, nor intention, of discussing what might or might not be in anything Peratt has not published - if he (or you, or anyone else) wishes to develop that model and publish papers based on that development, I'm sure he (or you, or anyone else) are free to do so.
So, over the next few days, I shall take up your challenge and cite papers presenting astronomical observations and analyses which falsify key parts of the Peratt model(s), as presented in the two papers linked to in your earlier comment.
If the "Tim Thompson" material being referred to is "On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis" http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html, then there's an obvious continuity with my quick look at what's wrong with the T&T PDF document.
Let's start with this, from the Tim's introduction (my emphasis): It is not my intention, at least for now, to address the issues raised, and alleged to be in favor of the electric-sun hypothesis. Rather, it is my intent to show that the arguments of Scott et al. against the standard interpretations of stellar physics are devoid of merit. This is an important point, because it shifts to the champions of the electric-sun hypothesis, the responsibility for showing that their hypothesis is better than the standard. What I have done is go back one step further in the chain, and show that three (of four) working hypotheses about "the Electric Universe framework and method" can be tested and given a tick in the "YES" box, using this PDF document as a representative sample.
It also shifts to the champions of the EU framework and approach the responsibility for showing that their methods are better than the standard.
Here are those four working hypotheses again:
#1: in the EU paradigm, "theory" is indistinguishable from "speculation in prose".
#2: EU theories cannot be falsified, even in principle, by any experimental ("in the lab") or observational results.
#2a: Within the Electric Universe framework and approach, evidence presented does not need to accurately reflect its source, nor be fully attributed; copyrights need not be respected.
#3: EU theories are internally inconsistent.
As is clear from the material presented in the SD comments linked to in my earlier comment here, the first three hypotheses are validated; the last was not tested (but is unlikely to be validated - meaninglessness is perfectly consistent with meaninglessness).
Rather to my surprise, I found that the document may be an intellectual fraud - it purports to be something which it is not (a poster presentation at the 2006 ICOPS, an international scientific conference). More surprising is that pln2bz does not seem to regard this as serious
Now of course there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation
* as far as I know it is not illegal, in the US or Australia, to claim a document is a poster presentation at an international scientific conference when it is not.
^ unless they are perfectly comfortable with such practices and behaviours.
The state of modern astrophysics is very healthy, thank you.
The conventional theories can't adequately explain why planets appear to frequently have hotspots at their poles.
Er, you do realise, I hope, that the study of planets in our solar system isn't really part of astrophysics? And hasn't been for several decades now? You realise that there's a whole new field of science - planetary science - that studies these phenomena?
There remains no explanation within the conventional theories for why the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets.
BUSTED, just a few days ago ... (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208390)
I've yet to see any credible attempt to explain why the Deep Impact impactor generated two flashes at the time of impact
Are you perhaps referring to a certain PDF document, that you provided a link to in an earlier comment, purportedly by a (self-declared) physicist (Wallace Thornhill) and David Talbott, purportedly a poster at a 2006 IEEE international conference* (and associated webpages)?
Or perhaps you could provide a link to a reputable source, concerning these "two flashes"?
If we can see elements popping into existence within simple ball lightning laboratory experiments,
What's ultimately really silly about how science operates these days is that there is far too much eagerness to cast aside alternative competing theories that challenge the conventional ones.
One of the great things^ about the contemporary internet is that it's so easy to get things published. Even better is that there are sites which permit publication of physics papers, with far weaker requirements than a relevant peer-reviewed journal has, permitting "alternative competing theories" to get an airing that they otherwise would not. The strong will survive, and go on to become (perhaps) a paper in a good journal, and maybe, just maybe, a Nobel Prize for the author.
But we've been over this, you and I many, many times; if you think you have a framework and method - different from the standard (physics) paradigm you explicitly reject - why not lay it out? Let the world hear of how you think science should really be done!
And by the way, point me to your comet document when it's ready. I'm very eager to see what you come up with!
It's done:
EU rebuttal #(insert large integer here) http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22196268
actualistic vs prophetic - false dilemma? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22204234
So open your brains fall out? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22204404
electric comet (1) - "Rules of evidence" http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208390
Image copyrights - addendum http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208968
EU paradigm - hypothesis on "evidence" http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22209504
Must accurately reflect source? Not for EU-ers! http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid
Any theory that attempts to explain the inverse temperature problem must also grapple with the fact that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets! There is no satisfying explanation for that one to date without consideration of an electric field, and the standard solar model miserably fails in explaining it. And this is no minor matter either because the solar wind, taken as a whole, constitutes the largest structure in our solar system, the heliospheric current sheet. Contemplate the implications of that for a moment: astrophysicists do not understand what is causing the motions of the largest structure in our own immediate neighborhood!
(pln2bz; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22144600; emphasis in the original).
"the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets!" BUSTED http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22148864, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22148128
(APODNereid; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22208390).
Not quite; see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22279668. Admittedly, however, the original statement, if enthusiastic, is also imprecise.
(leokor; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22279804; emphasis added).
If you know of even one observation that doesn't square with Peratt's model of galaxies, by all means, let us know. For Peratt's model, see:
A. L. Peratt. Evolution of the Plasma Universe I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets. IEEE Transactions in Plasma Science, PS-14, 6 (1986)
A. L. Peratt. Evolution of the Plasma Universe II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, PS-14, 6 (1986)
(leokor; source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426528&cid=22284506; emphasis added).
How about this: "Bright Spiral Galaxy M81 from Hubble" (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070529.html) - note the asymmetric arms, the large central bulge;
or this "One-Armed Spiral Galaxy NGC 4725" (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050901.html)?
To this day, Peratt's model remains the only one that explains the shape and stability of galaxies, and does it without recourse to such ad-hoc devices as dark matter.
(source as above; emphasis added).
... imprecise.
Even in 1986, and allowing for enthusiasm, this remains
For starters, the MOND folk (Milgrom, Sanders, McGaugh, etc) would no doubt take strong exception to the "without recourse to [...] dark matter" part (http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/).
Next, even in 1986, the observed "shape" of Double Radio Sources associated with Active Galactic Nuclei (DRAGNs) was inconsistent with the Peratt's model; today, with considerably more, much higher resolution, across many more EM wavebands observations, Peratt's model clearly fails both "shape" and "stability" criteria (an example: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~abridle/dragnparts.htm).
Finally, we now have independent estimates of the radial distribution of mass in galaxies, from analyses of gravitational lensing, something not available to any sign
I think about the time Newton developed the calculus and also joined the heavens and Earth together in a seamless manner with his universal law of gravitation.
Or maybe the lack of concern, by physicists, about physicality can be shown by the prediction of what is now called the psi/J particle? Or the experimental agreement, to some 12 significant digits, of a key parameter in Quantum Electrodynamics, whose calculation involves a great deal of mathematics? The public's love affair with gadgets is obscuring their contemplation of the complex philosophical questions associated with astrophysical interpretations. Forget astrophysics; Aspect's experiments (and others who subsequently validated and extended them) on Bell's inequality showed Einstein wrong, and left philosophical questions that would surely give you a splitting headache if you were interested enough to look into them
There are some "skeptics" (as you call them), and they have no difficulty getting their works published; however the so-called skeptics you have been so vocal in promoting elsewhere in Slashdot are only marginalised by their continued inability to put together a coherent presentation, much less a consistent, quantitative one. And dark matter and dark energy are being used as fudge factors for things like gravitational lensing. Perhaps if you spent more time actually reading the relevant research papers you wouldn't keep making such ridiculous comments as this?
I mean, everyone is entitled to their own opinions; however, if you want your comments to be taken seriously, why not put the effort in to first checking your facts?
I'm afraid I don't understand this comment, would you mind clarifying please?
It seems you are saying that Volwerk's PhD thesis and Charles' paper (among others) belong to the "Plasma/Electric Universe" "side"; are you?
In any case, would you mind saying a few words on how you see the two sides "of the divide" - what distinguishes one from the other?
And if we were to ask Volwerk or Charles about which side of the divide their works are from, how confident are you that they'd say, with certainty, that they are from the "Plasma/Electric Universe" side?
This is my last comment on pln2bz', where he presented the 21-page PDF document (ElectricComet.pdf) and asked what is incorrect with it.
... but pln2bz has been unable to tell us where we can read such papers, despite his hotline to Thornhill.
In earlier comments, I have examined nine specific, physical mechanisms in the 'electric comet model' presented in that document, and found them all meaningless (as presented, even within the context of all references), examined the so-called six to 15 predictions about the Deep Impact mission (and found them equally meaningless), and considered how someone with a BSc in physics and an admitted admirer of Hannes Alfvén could write a poster for an international conference in plasma physics so contrary to the spirit of Alfvén's work, and his lecturers' teaching (not to mention having allegedly spent 30 years on that model).
This final comment concerns form vs substance - why take Thornhill to task for not publishing a paper in a relevant peer-reviewed journal? Why examine the "two flash" prediction in terms of quantitative parameters? And so on.
Note that this comment will glide over questions concerning just how well the assertions on the "two flash" prediction match the *actual* prediction (HINT: they do so only if your brain is so open it falls out).
At one level form matters a great deal: without it all kinds of hanky panky could become OK, from plagiarism, to revisionism, to an inability to independently check published assertions, and beyond. Of course, such pedantry matters not one jot if the relevant Electric Universe ideas get published in relevant peer-reviewed journals
At another level, form defines substance: science (and its penumbra) as dialogue has meaning (substance) only because of the mutually agreed conventions (forms) all participants implicitly accept.
Or saying this another way: if you can't do 'form', whatever you think you're doing, it sure isn't science.
In the PDF document you will see a reference to Hannes Alfvén. A few minutes searching ADS, starting with "Alfven, H" in the author field, will turn up lots and lots of published papers. Almost all of them are filled with equations, numbers, and quantitative stuff; they also provide references to other material, where Alfvén has stood on the shoulders of others' work.
From that IEEE reference, and some searching on EU pages, you can estimate that Wallace Thornhill graduated in 1970 (+10 -15 years).
What were physics students taught, at the University of Melbourne, a few decades ago? Could they reasonably have been given passing grades, by their physics lecturers, for models developed and presented without references or equations? I can't be sure*, but I think it quite likely (>80%) that any of Thornhill's physics lecturers would have given him a failing grade for something like the (alleged) ICOPS poster with his name as an author.
How hard would it be to turn the ECM, as presented in that PDF document, into at least a first draft quantitative model? Read a few of Alfvén's papers, take a plasma physics graduate level course, and I think you'd agree that 1 hour to 1 day would be a good (95% CL) first estimate. Of course, Thornhill is no Alfvén, so let's be generous and say it'd likely take him 1 week to 1 month to come up with such a first draft
So why, after 30 years' of work, does a person with a BSc in physics put his name to a document so devoid of anything quantitative? A document that's purportedly a poster at an international plasma physics conference? Concerning a model that is supposedly based on (plasma physics) ideas developed by Alfvén?
Here's my entirely speculative guess as to the answer: because any quantitative model, even an OOM (order of magnitude) one, would be obviously inconsistent with a large number of good, independent, observations and experimental results
Of course, if you don't have at least a BSc with a major in physics^, you are likely to read the above and simply wonder
Next, and last: form vs substance.
* inputs to flesh this out greatly welcome!
^ or something similar.
Here's how this so-called prediction is described, on a TPOD webpage dated Jul 07, 2005: Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill predicted two blasts. [...] And here is what happened in the words of NASA investigator Peter Schultz, describing the event recorded from the spacecraft:
"What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose". Note that the uncertain nature of both the existence of any pre-impact "flashes" and their number, in the predictions, is absent from the subsequent write-up.
Note that you have to do your own research if you want to find out when and where, and in what context, Peter Schultz said those words (or if he said them at all, or if he is a NASA investigator, or
Note the assumption, by whoever wrote the 7 July webpage that "a small flash" is pre-impact (and that, for example, "a big flash" is impact).
Note the lack of commentary about the intensity curve, the failure to mention x-ray emissions (or lack of them), and any reference to megalightning bolts*.
As far as I know, there is no EU material - even a webpage, much less a paper - that presents a quantitative analysis of the impactor "flashes", using publicly available quantitative data (if any reader knows of any such, please provide the appropriate references).
So, continuing to answer pln2bz' question ("which parts of the Electric Comet document are incorrect") - recall that wrt the Electric Comet Model (ECM) presented therein the answers already in are that the specific, physical mechanisms are neither correct nor incorrect, rather they are meaningless^ - the most charitable thing one could say is that the so-called predictions are so qualitative as to be all but impossible to find incorrect. Less charitably, one could say that the ECM cannot be falsified, even in principle, by any observational results (i.e. working hypothesis #2 is validated), and that at least one EU promoter is disingenuous, dishonest, or has a very poor grasp of English.
Next: what can be said concerning "electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill" and physics?
* FWIW (for what it's worth), the CAIB did not find any evidence of any such bolts having struck Columbia.
^ recall that the analysis is being done on only the PDF document itself and any material it references, and that the origin of comets (in the ECM) is not being examined.
There are six bullets on page 10 of the PDF document, and 11 in the referenced webpage.
Two of the six are not mentioned on the webpage; one of the six corresponds to two separate bullets on the webpage; five bullets on the webpage are not mentioned in the PDF document (some bullets have more than one prediction).
All so-called predictions may be grouped into four classes, in a two-by-two matrix:
Quantified prediction (e.g. "the energy released in the impact will be between X and Y joules") vs qualitative ones (e.g. "the energy released in the impact will be huge").
Certain predictions (e.g. "the impactor will cease transmission x±y seconds before impact") vs uncertain ones (e.g. "the impactor may cease transmission before impact").
Note that a third possible classification can be ignored - for no prediction is the degree of certainty quantitative (e.g. there are no examples of "the impactor will cease transmission x±y seconds before impact (95% CL)").
Of the ~15 predictions (document and webpage combined), none are quantitative.
Of the ~15 predictions, ~eight are certain ("will"), though only three are absolute (the others are only "will" if another prediction in the logic chain is validated, none of the prior 'predictions' is certain, e.g. IF a discharge THEN {another prediction}).
In addition, ~five predictions are differences compared with what is "expected" from mainstream comet models, according to the authors. However, there are no references to any source where the authors' expectations can be independently checked (so you have to do your own research to find out whether the authors have accurately portrayed non-EU models, present fiction, or something in between).
Only two (maybe three) predictions are expressed in terms of direct observables; the rest could only be tested within the framework of interpretive chains of logic and theory (or so it seems to me); an example: "The impact/electrical discharge will not reveal "primordial dirty ice," but the same composition as the surface." - compositions are conclusions derived from long chains of analysis of observations. As I have already noted, the PDF document contains no discussion of observational analyses, nor any (external) references to any.
The most definite, most directly related to observables, prediction is this one, found in the PDF document, but not on the webpage: "The cameras will reveal sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges ". Given that the Electric Universe so-called predictions were made after the results of comet Halley, Wild2, and Borrelly missions had been made public, this is hardly surprising!
The other 'direct observables' prediction is equally under-whelming: "We also expect an interruption of impactor transmission before it reaches the surface" (PDF), "Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact" (webpage) - no method of determining whether any "interruption of impactor transmission before it reached the surface" is due to "electrical stress [shorting] out the electronics on board" (or any other cause) is given.
The third prediction possibly relating to a direct observable ("maybe three" above) is "Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile"; this appears on the webpage but not in the document. It's a 'maybe' because it's not quantitative (and it's conditional on there being one or more 'discharges').
Clearly none of these so-called predictions could be falsified by any of the results from the Deep Impact mission, without quite a lot of additional inputs (with the exception of the "sharply defined" prediction).
Given the prominence of the 'discharge' prediction(s), I shall examine them in more detail in my next comment.
The body of the caption is as follows: This heavily processed image of C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp) is based on a CCD frame that was obtained on August 18, 1996, by Nick Thomas (Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie, Germany) and Heike Rauer (Observatoire de Paris, France), observing with the DFOSC multi-mode instrument on the Danish 1.54-m telescope at La Silla. The frame was taken at 04:20 UT through an R filter (to show the dust around the cometary nucleus) and the integration time was 20 s.
The subsequent image processing was perfomed by Hermann Boehnhardt (Universitaets-Sternwarte, Munchen, Germany). It involved bias subtraction and flat-fielding, followed by extraction of a subframe centered on the nucleus (the area corresponds to 797 x 797 pixels = 320 x 320 arcsec), logarithmic transformation and finally the application of a Laplace filter with a width of 15 pixels. The webpage concludes (my emphasis): "This is the caption to ESO PR Photo 37/96 [GIF, 76k]. It may be reproduced, if credit is given to the European Southern Observatory."
Curiously, credit does seem to have been given on at least one of the Thunderbolts webpages which reproduces it; how strange that what purports to be a poster presented at an scientific conference omits the credit (and seriously mis-characterises it).
Working hypothesis #2a is thus fully validated.