As I said, since I last looked in detail at his stuff...
The link in my comment is to the arXiv preprint of Will's latest compilation; it can be quite daunting to read through all xxx pages, and unless you've mastered the math behind GR the formalist framework will likely be nigh impossible to grasp.
However, I find the ingenuity of some of the tests breathtaking, and the sheer doggedness of some of those experimenters...
On top of that, think of how odd many of the tests would have seemed to 19th (and earlier) century physicists. Or this: what does a scintillation detector, a bit of radioactive iron, a loudspeaker, and a tower have to do with the cosmic microwave background?? The astonishing connection is that the former (crudely) describes the famous Pound-Rebka experiment (confirming gravitational redshift, just as Einstein ordered); the latter is a key test of the 'Big Bang theory', which at its heart is the application of GR to the universe as a whole.
Can you please point me to his falsifiable prediction? The tremendous progress in weak lensing, this last decade or so, and plans for GAIA (etc), may mean such tests may come much, much sooner.
Icarus, "International Journal of Solar System Studies"; unfortunately it's a subscription publication (though with some ingenuity you can find at least the abstracts of many Icarus papers through ADS; papers with preprints on arXiv are, of course, free) http://icarus.cornell.edu/. This is the best, deepest, etc resource (IMHO).
General, diffuse website: Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD, most have at least some good links; not specific to planet formation though http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html)
General astronomy discussion forum (LOTS of very knowledgeable and helpful people): BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/)
It's been a while since I immersed myself in TVF's 'exploding planet hypothesis', but what I recall is that he has his own ideas about gravity.
Nothing wrong with that of course, the more seriously testable hypotheses on what gravity is, the better!
However, if he is (or was; that webpage hasn't been changed for quite a while) serious about this idea, he'd get more traction showing that it passes the same direct experimental and observational tests the General Theory of Relativity (GR) does*, rather than exploring some esoteric implications.
Just as the Auger observatory recently announced results that open a new window on the universe (crudely, cosmic ray astronomy), so LIGO and other gravitational wave radiation detectors may soon open one more (crudely, GWR astronomy). Now if TVF were to make some testable predictions concerning the GWR signals LIGO (etc) will (or won't) detect...
My comment, the second part anyway, was intended as a bit of a joke - if you ever get the pleasure of reading some 'Electric Universe' material, you'll see what I mean about 'the universe is 99.999% plasma, therefore electricity rules!'
You'll also quickly discover the amount of venom, vitriol, and so on proponents of these ideas hurl at what they call 'mainstream astrophysicists'.
I'd be happy to suggest resources on theories of planetary formation, be they webpages, books, papers, blogs, or discussion fora... just ask!:-)
pln2bz, I went looking for this "in-depth review of magnetic reconnection for the past couple of months" at the site you named, but the only thing I could find that vaguely resembled this was a thread started by MM on 21 December, 2007 (barely a month ago, not two), and that concentrates on this arXiv preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3452*.
Not once, anywhere in that thread, are any papers on the study of magnetic reconnection in lab plasmas (i.e. lab experiments) mentioned.
In fact, the thread resembles a scripture study class - what did Alfvén have to say about X? are the words written in this wikipedia page an accurate reflection of what Alfvén wrote?
There are no equations, no theory, no models, no analyses, and none of the participants seems to have even tried to find papers reporting the study of magnetic reconnection in lab plasmas, much less read them and try to understand them!
But perhaps I got the wrong thread?
* You will see, of course, that this preprint is not about presenting the results from lab studies, but rather interpreting observations of solar phenomena.
Actually, Michael Mozina has been performing an in-depth review of magnetic reconnection Is this, perchance, the same Michael Mozina who posted to this Einstein@Home thread (in the Science Message Board)? [How the Sun shines: http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/forum_thread.php?id=6058]
The guy who is co-author of a paper which claims the Sun was formed when a super-massive neutron star fragmented into smaller pieces, and one such fragment became a ~0.1 sol neutron star core of the Sun*?
The same one who has been particularly vehement, in many internet discussion fora, that a) the concept of 'neutron stars' violates his fundamental rule of science (that every theory must be tested, empirically, in controlled conditions, in earthly labs^), and b) the Sun has a solid (mostly iron?) surface?
The same one who is a co-author of a paper claiming that the Sun is powered (~67%) by the decay of excited neutrons in its core and (~34%) by standard fission reactions*? Yet who is also on record, in many fora, as claiming that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)"?
The same one who claims that the mass of the Sun is under-estimated because the solar system is accelerating in the z-direction (or something like this)? That the 'missing matter' in galaxies is largely due to stars being more massive than estimated because they are composed largely of iron?
If so, then I wonder if you can ask him from which university he got his PhD in plasma physics? In which laboratories has he done plasma science experiments?
And when does he plan to publish a paper, based on his review, in a relevant IEEE journal (the one Peratt is editor of perhaps)?
Oh, and how many equations are presented in the laying out of his arguments?
* This idea resembles nothing like any 'Electric Universe' idea I've ever come across, nor do the papers he is a co-author of reference Birkeland, Alfvén, currents, Peratt, Thornhill,... (at least, not that I remember). Maybe it's a different Michael Mozina.
^ You can find many lots of instances of him insisting that 'a gram' of something be produced in a lab before that something can be said to have been 'scientifically qualified'. Curiously, he has continued to say this long after the paper he co-authored went up on the arXiv preprint server.
you refuse to consider evidence unless it meets your own strict requirements I do?
I mean, these 'strict requirements' are my own, personal, ones?
Hmm... could you do me a favour please? Would you mind pointing out the comments, by me, here in Slashdot, which describe these? I mean, as personal requirements, not those of the tens of thousands who have written astronomy, astrophysics, space/plasma physics, and cosmology papers.
Concerning evidence.
Would you be kind enough to give some examples of such evidence, concerning observable phenomena beyond the Earth's atmosphere?
I am interested - in the first instance - only in evidence that has not been independently verified by observation using the unaided eye. A quick skim of a site you have linked to, many times (it contains many 'pictures of the day'), turned up no such evidence... all the 'beyond the Earth's atmosphere' phenomena (images) are the result of lots of number crunching of data from instruments, the operation of which can yield images only if you accept that several modern theories in physics are a sufficiently stable and accurate characterisation of how the universe works. A particularly spectacular example is the one featuring "Supernova remnant RJX1713.7-3946".
it is my right and duty to explain to people an alternative perspective on the materials that you have been taught And I don't think I have ever suggested, or even hinted, that you are not free to speak in any way you wish.
What I have been trying to do is get at least an outline of how science, in this 'alternative perspective', is (or should be) conducted: -> what is the role of independent review? -> how should 'evidence' be evaluated? -> what are the equivalents of 'hypotheses', 'models', and 'theories'? -> what is the nature of testing? -> may the 'beautiful theories' of Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, Thornhill, Scott, etc be slain? -> if so, how (in principle)?... and so on.
For some reason, you seem extremely reluctant to address these; why?
It took me a while to find this, but pln2bz referenced an older SD comment, by leokor (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=388752&cid=21836590), which contains some material pertinent to this comment (of pln2bz's); I added the emphasis:
(4) Normally, I wouldn't have to say it, since experiment is a necessary part of scientific method--remove experiment, and you've got no science (and I mean it). But seeing the prevalence of purely theoretical approach in the mainstream astrophysics, I want to emphasize that Plasma Universe places a heavy emphasis on experiment. No matter who's the author of a theory--even Alfven himself--even a couple of contrary experiments may be grounds for reconsidering the theory's hypotheses. Plasma Universe does not construct no epicycles. No does it care how beautiful a theory is. As someone once said, the greatest tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact. So, in light of the dozens (hundreds?) of papers reporting 'magnetic reconnection' found in lab experiments, may we thus conclude that Alfvén's 'beautiful theory' has been 'slain'?
Based on what you have written, here in SD, pln2bz, I imagine that you (and Thornhill, and Scott, and Peratt, and...) would be delighted to examine these experiments, in detail, to learn just how badly slain Alfvén's 'beautiful theory' is.
Would readers of this comment be interested to have these PU promoters join such a discussion? Of necessity, any internet discussion forum would have to support the relatively straight-forward posting of the symbols (etc) in the equations in Alfvén's theory, together with those in the papers reporting magnetic reconnection in the lab... Slashdot does not (AFAIK) have this capability.
(3) General: Preference is given to the "actualistic" approach, as defined by Alfven in opposition to the "prophetic" approach. The former starts in the here-and-now and works its way outward and back in time. The latter proposes a very detailed knowledge about the origin of the universe and works its way in the opposite directions. Particular: As a result, Plasma Universe is stronger in the near-space science, as evidenced even by the now-wide acceptance of the Alfven-Birkeland theory of auroras. But it is fuzzier in the department of cosmology (not to say that the greater detail of the Big Bang theory necessarily means that it's correct). For more on this dichotomy, see the Alfven's paper where he introduces it: Leaving aside the mis-characterisations*, the Alfvén paper cited is now nearly 20 years old.
Maybe a review of the advances in observational cosmology over those 20 years might be of interest?
Perhaps a more detailed look at this "actualistic" vs "prophetic" dichotomy could prove insightful?
For example, how accurate a characterisation was it in 1990? How accurate today?
To what extent would such a detailed examination inform readers about this Plasma Universe idea?
* for example "The latter proposes a very detailed knowledge about the origin of the universe", "the Alfven-Birkeland theory of auroras"
It is a true synthesis of all of the natural sciences, but what it concludes is that plasmas in space are being mathematically modeled incorrectly. And this is where people tend to turn off. In plasma-based cosmologies, plasmas are electrodynamic entities that, like in the lab, respond with electrical resistance and luminosity to changes in their charge density. In conventional cosmologies, astrophysicists *assume* that plasmas are "perfect conductors", they *assume* that space is "quasi-neutral" -- that a given volume of space essentially has equal numbers of positive and negative charges -- and they *assume* that magnetic fields are "frozen-in place" within a plasma (as opposed to being affected by the mechanics and electrodynamics of the plasma itself).
The concept of "magnetic reconnection", for instance [...] has never been validated within a laboratory despite being discussed for decades now. And importantly, there is no reason for why we cannot validate magnetic reconnection within the lab.
If asked to guess, I'd say you wrote this without critically thinking about it, and certainly without investigating the work of the scientists who study the Earth's magnetosphere and the IPM (inter-planetary medium).
Last month, the AGU (American Geophysical Union) held its Fall 2007 meeting in San Francisco. I think I recall reading that some 15,000 people attended.
Just from the titles of the sections (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm07/?content=program&show=glance), I'd guess that this would have been an extremely important meeting for all Plasma Universe/Electric Universe groupies - 'Atmospheric and Space Electricity', 'Planetary Sciences', 'Solar and Heliospheric Physics', 'Magnetospheric Physics', and so on.
SH44A - Magnetic Reconnection in Laboratory, Magnetospheric, and Solar Plasmas IV Posters (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm07&part=SH44A&maxhits=400), which featured posters with such interesting titles as:
"Magnetic reconnection with multiple X-lines in an open system: Two fluid simulations with finite electron inertial effects"
"Breakdown of the Frozen-in Condition and Plasma Acceleration: Dynamical Theory"
"Self-regulation of the reconnecting current sheet in relativistic pair plasmas"
"Fast Reconnection in Electron-Positron Plasmas via Turbulent Outflow Jets"
"Universal Method for Describing Magnetic Reconnection"
From a different pln2bz comment:
Nereid, you seem to think that I *really* care about responding to your interruptions. But you present nothing for my mind to chew on. You are little more than a pest to
you present nothing for my mind to chew on How about my question, about where one can go to get more information about Electric Universe/Plasma Universe ideas?
Here it is again: Why not tell us all the URL of [...] a forum which presents these 'Electric Universe' ideas, in the form of hypotheses models numbers equations data etc... and permits an open discussion of how good the match between theory and observation actually is?
Within the Plasma Universe, we only believe things that are supported by observation; and if it has not been done in a lab, we will always remain somewhat dubious Then surely you would be only too pleased to answer my questions!
Here they are again: [T]ell us all the name of the lab(s) in which Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, Tesla, etc conducted experiments with a 2x10^30 kg ball of plasma (of any [...] composition)?
[Tell us] the labs in which they investigated the green [O III] 495.9 and 500.7 nm lines ('nebulium', a term Birkeland was, no doubt, familiar with), by direct observation of such lines?
I thought these were very simple, straight-forward questions, of the kind you'd be only too pleased to answer. What part of 'if it has not been done in a lab, we will always remain somewhat dubious' did I fail to understand?
I ask if you'd be interested in having a discussion on the plasma physics in Peratt's (galaxy) papers, and the extent to which it matches the relevant (astronomical) observations, a discussion that would, of necessity, by quantitative (with equations, numbers, and so on), and you reply with a tirade about "[my] favored theories can only identify 4-5% of the universe"!
Would you be so kind as to tell all readers just what APODNereid's "favored theories" are? Be sure to use only APODNereid's comments in Slashdot as your source material.
Back to the invitation: may I ask, again, if you'd be interested and willing in having a discussion of Peratt's published papers on galaxies, which discussion to focus on the plasma physics in those papers and the relevant astronomical observations?
I'd appreciate an unequivocal 'yes' or 'no'.
If the ideas are so absurd, then shouldn't people see that for themselves? I'm arguing about facts, and you're constantly arguing against arguing about facts. Another, all too common, theme in your SD comments.
First, I feel it is important for readers to see for themselves just how inaccurate your portrayal of the 'facts' is. And for them to have a good set of primary source URLs so they can go check for themselves, independently.
An example: "Look at the star, and notice the structure of the infrared filaments -- the star's corona -- coming off of it." The 'facts' are somewhat different than you portray them, and I made a suggestion on where readers may go to get more details (the primary source in this case being an ESO website, and the papers linked to therefrom: http://www.eso.org/instruments/naco/overview.html).
Second, almost all the scientific 'facts' you introduce contain intricate webs of theory-based logic. The ideas you are promoting seem to me (based on my own reading of the websites etc to which you have provided links) to reject many of the theories in these logic trains. Ergo, the 'facts', as stated by you, are equivalent to "1 = 2" in some way... an internal contradiction. I suspect that many SD readers know this at some level, but they may not be aware of just how intimately the astronomical images you so often reference are meaningful only if key parts of the theories you explicitly reject are accepted (if only provisionally).
Third, I would hope that my most potent critiques are those directed at the explicit or implicit methods which underlie the 'Electric Universe' ideas.
To repeat: this is the Science part of Slashdot. To have a meaningful discussion, we need a certain minimum of mutual comprehension. For most folk, 'Science' carries the baggage of things like peer-reviewed papers, hypothesis-model-theory, quantitative testing, internal consistency, and so on.
Yet you yourself have said, more than once, that you reject most of these fundamentals.
That's fine, there's nothing sacred about any of these.
However, I have yet to see anything of substance from you on what you propose to take the place of these fundamentals.
How does one do science, in the brave new world of 'the Electric Universe paradigm'?
The Plasma Universe theory, perspective or point of view -- whatever you want to call it -- is real, very alive, relatively rich in detail and history, and supported by multiple unrelated disciplines. It is a true synthesis of all of the natural sciences, but what it concludes is that plasmas in space are being mathematically modeled incorrectly. And this is where people tend to turn off. In plasma-based cosmologies, plasmas are electrodynamic entities that, like in the lab, respond with electrical resistance and luminosity to changes in their charge density. In conventional cosmologies, astrophysicists *assume* that plasmas are "perfect conductors", they *assume* that space is "quasi-neutral" -- that a given volume of space essentially has equal numbers of positive and negative charges -- and they *assume* that magnetic fields are "frozen-in place" within a plasma (as opposed to being affected by the mechanics and electrodynamics of the plasma itself). Very importantly, this would all be true were it not for the natural behavior of plasmas within the laboratory. Within the laboratory, we see clear indications that all three of these assumptions are invalid. In the laboratory, plasmas will naturally form filaments. These filaments have long-range attraction and short-range repulsion, which means that they twist around one another, and yet never fully combine. These braided ropes are observed all over the place in space, and astrophysicists have a rich lexicon to pull from for describing them: magnetic ropes, flux tubes, or even elephant trunks. But one thing they greatly resist calling it is an "electric current", for if electric currents can exist in space on large scales, then they would certainly do things of importance. They would cause forces. This is a big problem for conventional theories because they have been assuming that space is not electrically connected as much as possible for centuries now. It's like an addiction that they just can't shake. The box keeps getting bigger for their closed electrical systems over time, but only at a snail's pace. The idea that the entire universe might be electrically connected is something that they refuse to consider even when presented with evidence that it is so.
Maybe that's why so many people on/. are tired of the PU theory - it's unlikely that we'll get anything more definitive than "maybe it's true, maybe it isn't".
Plasma-based theories are far more inherently testable than the current theories. In the conventional thinking, we don't even get rock-solid definitions for gravity and mass. And we're constantly barraged with pseudo-scientific ideas like multiple dimensions and string theory. What you have to realize is that the Plasma Universe is almost entirely based upon laboratory experience, whereas the conventional theories are largely the result of equations tinkering. The concept of "magnetic reconnection", for instance, which presumably demonstrates a mechanism for explaining the fact that the Sun's corona is 100x hotter than its surface (!), has never been validated within a laboratory despite being discussed for decades now. And importantly, there is no reason for why we cannot validate magnetic reconnection within the lab.
There you go again, oodles of words that (sometimes) correspond well to what's in the collective body of scientific studies of the IPM (inter-planetary medium), magnetospheres of planets, stars, the ISM (inter-stellar medium), galaxies, AGN (active galactic nuclei), and so on, but (mostly) are distortions, mis-understandings, mis-characterisations, and (let's be honest here) outright falsehoods.
Why not engage in a 'on the merits' discussion, in an internet discussion forum where LaTeX is implemented? Where we can write down the equations, look at the statistical tests, examine the actual data, (and so on)?
Why not tell us all the URL of such a forum which presents these 'Electric Universe' ideas, in the form of hypotheses models numbers e
(my emphasis)
What's happening is that every time that I try to educate people on Slashdot about what the Electric Universe states, people inevitably ridicule me. Hmm... maybe if you paid more attention to what at least some of those who respond to your comments actually write you might get a more sympathetic hearing?
For example, among the replies to your >400 comments are some which are very thoughtful, respectful, and detailed. The authors seem to have taken a great deal of trouble to understand what you wrote, and replied accordingly.
Then there's the apparent disconnect between what you have written (and what folk can read for themselves, by following the links you provided) and what many (most?) SD folk recognise - from their day-to-day work* - as science: the role of hypotheses, models, theories, and so on, and the paramount importance of (quantitatively) testing these against (all) good, pertinent experimental results and (astronomical) observations.
IIRC (if I recall correctly), you were very clear that you rejected the standard scientific paradigms as legitimate methods for testing these 'Electric Universe' ideas.
Yet you have yet - IIRC - to provide an alternative framework by which those ideas may be checked and tested.
Perhaps there is a paradigm shift under way; perhaps 'picture science' and 'mythology trumps physics' will one day rule the world.
But if such a shift does occur, who will design, build, launch, operate (etc) the next Hubble Space Telescope?
* remember, quite a few of those who have responded to your comments declared themselves to be working scientists
I rather doubt a poll of people on their familiarity with QED (this wikipedia page will do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics) would tell you much about how good a job it does, as a theory, in accounting for the relevant experimental results.
Science - thank goodness - is not some version of American Idol.
Plasma physics is pretty darn quantitative, and it has been applied (quantitatively) to astronomical observations, in order to develop hypotheses and models, to explain (in terms of mechanisms and processes) the fine details of the data that comes from the instruments attached to telescopes... as the thousands of papers on MHD (magnetohydrodynamics - what Alfvén got his Nobel for) in databases such as ADS will attest [source: http://adswww.harvard.edu/)*.
If you - or any other reader of this comment - are interested in learning why Peratt's 'astronomy' papers (on galaxies, for example) are not cited by anyone (except himself), why not join an internet discussion forum where lots of folk with degrees in physics (including plasma physics), astronomy, etc hang out^? It would surely be interesting, wouldn't it? I mean, we could have a discussion on his papers, in terms of how well he has applied plasma physics and tested hypotheses against the actual astronomical observations.... quantitatively!
Surely this is how science is done? By developing (testable) hypotheses... and actually testing them?
Or do you think the only people in the world who know enough about plasma physics, as applied to 'things we see in the sky' (beyond the Earth's atmosphere), to be able to do this kind of science are Peratt and Thornhill (despite the thousands who have PhDs in just this)?
* If you need some help finding these thousands of papers, just say so; I'd be only to pleased to help you. ^ For avoidance of doubt, none of the 'Electric Universe' fora I am aware has any quantitative discussions (equations, numbers, estimated uncertainties, etc), of astronomical phenomena... I'd love to be proven wrong.
1) 'the Plasma Universe' is NOT 'supported by IEEE! At least, not in the sense that you imply. In fact, I hear that this claim has caused some IEEE members to get quite upset, and they are now taking steps to stop this kind of nonsense.
Here's the lowdown on the part of the IEEE that DOES cover plasma physics (my emphasis): "NPSS [Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society] IS... - The IEEE Technical Society that covers the fields of Fusion Technology, Nuclear Medical and Imaging Sciences, Particle Accelerator Science and Technology, Pulsed Power Systems, Radiation Effects, Radiation Instrumentation, Plasma Sciences and Applications, Standards for Nuclear Instruments and Detectors, and Computer Applications in Nuclear and Plasma Sciences." [source: http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/nps/aboutnpss.htm]
2) Isn't time we hear from proponents of the weak force? the strong force?
I mean, proponents of 'the Electric Universe' claim, falsely, that astrophysicists regard gravity as the only force worth studying, and counter-claim that 'electricity'* is really the only one (odd though that while 99.{insert more 9's here, to your taste}% of the universe is plasma, 100% is mass-energy, so gravity wins).
Surely there must be folk who believe that a plague should visit both houses; that the strong force is {insert your favourite number here} orders of magnitude stronger than electromagnetism, and that only the inconsequential neutrinos can escape the grip of the strong force (see, true believers of this cult can make just as many false claims as 'EU theorists'!)? There must be a Nobel Laureate whose work can be picked over to find juicy morsels that support these obvious truths!
And let's not neglect the weak force... it may be weak in name, but its effects are profound, its wingéd messengers can leap tall buildings in a single bound! not only can they pass through solid walls, but even a light-year of solid lead is but tissue paper to them! Its flock vastly outnumber those of the baryons, and when the truth about dark matter (DM) is finally discovered (any day now, promise), the awesome reality of the dominance of the universe by the weak force will become clear - DM is neutralinos, the supreme embodiment of the weak force!!!! {feel free to continue adding exclamation marks here}.
Oh, and let's not forget that the weak force IS ('could be' only to doubters) responsible for CP violating events, and thus, the reason for our very existence in our universe today (why we have matter-antimatter asymmetry, and all that).
* Of course, they don't mean that; they really mean electromagnetism.
The 'significance' of the apparent similarity is far more mundane.
What you 'see' in the image is a representation of data from an instrument attached to a telescope in Chile.
That data itself is the result of a great deal of number crunching, based on long chains of logic, based on theories of physics.
The "the structure of the infrared filaments -- the star's corona -- coming off of it" is nothing of the sort!
If you are REALLY interested in those 'infrared filaments', I would be happy to recommend a few papers on 'the NACO adaptive-optics facility' (the instrument used in this case); you might be interested to learn how much of these are exactly what you'd expect from a point source imaged through the atmosphere above the VLT.
Speculation can be fun; speculation based on such gross mis-understanding of the input data surely isn't.
Hmm... how about 'doesn't require any new physics' as a criterion?
I don't recall seeing any papers, containing actual equations, numbers, and stuff on this 'solar fission hypothesis'; do you know of any AC?
It's not that rotational instability may lead to 'fission'; it's that such instability is relatively well-understood, and that no one, AFAIK, has published a plausible model... that "[d]oes not contradict existing data".
File this in the round file, alongside TVF's other wild ideas.
pln2bz, I've finished reading your comments on SD.
While I can't be sure that I've read all 441, I don't think the ones that I may have missed will alter what I am about to say in any significant way.
First, you correctly observed that many of those who responded to your comments seem to have not actually read the material which you presented. However, to the extent that at least a subset of these responses did, in fact, address a key part of your message, I feel you did them a disservice by (apparently, nearly always) ignoring them. More on this later.
Second, where there was a response which seemed to indicate some familiarity with the material you presented, I feel that you all too often failed to tackle the questions, challenges, misunderstandings, etc in an appropriate way. More on this later.
Third, I note that, at a meta-level, most if not all of the points in my SD comments have been made by others at one time or another, in connection with different aspects of 'EU Theory' ideas and so-called evidence. And as with my SD comments, you have largely failed to address the core challenges in an appropriate way.
In a nutshell, what is 'science' and 'evidence' to you is, more often than not, at odds with what those who have engaged you in discussion consider these to be (more later). Some folk have, if what they write is to be believed, degrees in one branch of science of another... some are PhDs, some merely BScs. Further, some are professional scientists, making a living by practicing science. And many have degrees, often advanced degrees, in math, or computing science, or related fields.
pln2bz, you are perhaps unaware of just how effectively you have achieved the opposite of what you clearly had intended, by many of your comments - you convinced the very folk with curiosity (about the material you presented) AND far more experience with science than you seem to have that these 'EU Theory' ideas have little to no basis in science, and so can be dismissed out of hand in the same way as hundreds of other crackpot ideas.
I have chosen to put this summary as a reply to your comment on the role of mathematics, partly because your reply is such a good example of how to alienate your intended audience.
Where to from here?
If you are genuinely interested in continuing to promote 'EU Theory' here in SD, may I suggest that you pay attention to why you have, it seems to me, so singularly failed so far? In particular, seek to:
* understand why appeals to authority (Alfven, Peratt, 'plasma physicists', and so on) will usually get readers' backs up
* avoid invoking what I like to call 'martyr logic' (you know, '*they* suppressed Galileo yet he was right; *they* are suppressing Thornhill, therefore Thornhill is a modern-day Galileo, and EU Theory MUST be right too'); in the absence of a strong case, this will serve to do nothing more than confirm in most readers' minds that you are a crank
* learn some physics, preferably astrophysics. Given your beliefs, it might be a good idea to concentrate on stuff that's both relatively simple (in terms of the math involved) and quite unrelated to electricity (etc) - for example, how the masses, radii, and absolute luminosities of stars are estimated, from direct observations, leading to an understanding of the HIPPARCOS mission. The point would be to try to appreciate why your remarks about math, about quantitative vs qualitative evidence, and - above all - your approach to how ideas are (or should be) tested send such clear, negative, messages to your intended audience.
Planetary scientists continue to perpetuate misunderstanding when they call the "Tiger Stripes" of Enceladus "cracks" that allow water to reach the surface. The channels are, in fact, precise analogs of those seen on Europa. Their frequent parallelism, their ridges or levees, and their ability to cut across all other channels in their paths stand as a definitive contradiction of the "fracturing" hypothesis. The pictures suggest something akin to a "claw" or router bit dragged across the surface in disregard for prior surface relief. That is a unique signature of an electric arc. In contrast, fracturing is invariably affected by a pre-existing surface channel or groove, as anyone who has ever worked with a glasscutter knows very well.
Now let's see what Schneider et al. actually found, per the abstract of the conference paper that the SD story which all these comments are on (source: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.P11F..08S)
A groundbased telescopic search for sodium emission near Saturn's moon Enceladus places a firm upper limit on the possible amount of sodium released by eruptions there. Independent observations at the Keck and Anglo- Australian Telescopes using high resolution spectroscopy failed to detect any sodium emission near Enceladus, despite the high sensitivity of such instruments to minute amounts of sodium originating at Jupiter's moons Io and Europa. Large amounts of sodium would be expected if Enceladus' plume material were derived directly from a long-lived ocean (or more confined "sea") in contact with rocky material. Chemical models predict that sodium would dissolve into such an ocean at mixing ratios relative to water of 10-4 to 10-1 (Zolotov et. al, 2007). Our numerical plumes models show that such high sodium concentrations would result in a long-lived torus of sodium encircling Saturn. Our detection upper limits fall orders of magnitude below these models, leading us to conclude that the Enceladus plumes do not originate in an ocean or sea. These observations support the alternative theories that Enceladus' plumes are generated by shear heating of the icy crust - resulting in sublimation or melting - or the decomposition of clathrates. These results do not rule out the possibility that a deep ocean exists at depth that is not directly responsible for the plumes. Plume sampling by Cassini or potential future missions, however, would not be probing this potentially habitable environment. This work has been supported by NSF's Planetary Astronomy Program.
(I added the bold re Io and Europa).
So, pln2bz would have us accept that certain surface features on Io, Europa, AND Enceladus are *all* due (entirely?) to 'sputtering' or 'electric arcs', based solely (so it would seem) on certain qualitative similarities in the appearance of these features with some lab materials blasted with plasma guns^.
However, despite the SD story having been up for over 10 days, he apparently did not bother to check the source, nor check whether Thornhill (or any other 'EU Theory' authority) commented on (or was even aware of) the apparent inconsistency; namely that the Keck results suggest the method of formation of the Enceladus features is not the same as the Io or Europa ones (for avoidance of doubt, the Keck results do not *prove* anything; such is the nature of modern science).
What say you, pln2bz? Within the 'EU Theory' paradigm, is it legitimate to introduce evidence, concerning Enceladus' plumes in this case, beyond qualitative similarities in images? Especially when that (other) evidence is quantitative? When it is independent of the images?
And if it is legitimate, how should that evidence be weighed? To what extent do the qualitative similarities trump the quantitative spectroscopic data? Or do 'EU Theorists' feel compelled to develop mathematical models of these hypothesised arcs and sputterings,
The problem is that spacecraft perform corrections (either manual or automatic) to their trajectories. Math isn't the only thing directing them.
But the bigger problem with your analysis here is that spacecraft are judged on the basis of whether or not they get to where they were directed and perform their function. We essentially buy (build) the spacecraft on the basis of our perception that it will perform as it is programmed.
Actually, the biggest problem is for 'EU Theorists'.
After all, first, they reject any role for maths, or even of quantitative analyses, data, etc - the key method for determining whether an idea passes an observational or experimental test is whether it, qualitatively, looks like something from the playbook.
Second, there is no 'EU Theory'* account of how spacecraft get to where they go, or planetary orbits, or the orbits of moons, or... Indeed, there cannot be, because quantitative tests are not part of the 'EU Theory' method.
But, I could be wrong. So, please give us all a reference - website, paper, whatever - using material in which anyone (with the relevant expertise) can calculate the Cassini trajectory, and the Enceladus orbit, given the relevant inputs. Don't forget to state the expected degree of precision (and thanks for so clearly mis-stating what the role of 'precision' and 'accuracy' is, in celestial mechanics).
As you've demonstrated, the critics are ignored or insulted.
Oh this is priceless!
Please, take the time to read what I have written in my comments in Slashdot. In particular, pay attention to my persistence in trying to get you to state, clearly and unambiguously, what the 'ground rules' are, in the non-science 'EU Theory' you are so enthusiastic in promoting.
If you can, please connect these ground rules to good engineering practice.
Most of all, please explain how the testing of any 'EU Theory' idea can be performed, independently, without any numbers, math, or equations.
APODNereid:
How did Maxwell describe electricity and magnetism? With mathematics
pln2bz:
That's very simplistic. Maxwell was *only* able to derive his equations because of the work of Faraday, who did most of the laboratory work that Maxwell required to build a reasonable physical model, AND WHO SUSTAINED OVERWHELMING CRITICISM FOR NOT QUANTIFYING HIS LABORATORY WORK. Faraday lived most of his life as an outcast for this reason even though he was right in the end! This is no minor point either because Maxwell was *only* successful because of the efficacy of his physical model, which Faraday helped to create. If his physical model had been wrong in some way, we wouldn't be using his equations today.
Nice story (if somewhat inaccurate).
Nicely irrelevant too.
"EU Theory" = "Electric Universe Theory" (I think). If you assert that electricity (and magnetism) plays a crucial role in astronomical phenomena, yet refuse to use the standard theory of electricity and magnetism (in the classical domain, Maxwell's equations) to test those ideas, how should a disinterested, unbiassed outsider respond? I mean, the equations aren't all that difficult, and there are huge numbers of good resources to use to apply them, so why - after decades of working on this - don't we have even the basics presented by true believers like you?
This is why it's important that you *wonder* whether or not Thornhill is right. If you discount them on the basis of some superficial reasons, then you are valuing your own psychological desire to sound and feel right over the reality of who actually is right. You're struggling to find some sort of all-encompassing litmus test, and you've chosen mathematics and the peer review system as your guide.
Ah, the classic mis-statements and diversions rear their heads again, right on cue!
pln2bz, once again, what - in the 'EU Theory' worldview - are the methods used t
APODNereid:
Earlier, you acknowledged that, for you, the standard, mainstream science (plasma physics, space physics, etc) paradigm was NOT to be used to evaluate, test, or otherwise assess these non-science ideas. In fact, if I recall correctly, you explicitly stated that NO MATTER WHAT you might or might not read in any mainstream textbook or journal, you would find it unconvincing. pln2bz:
I think the absurdity of your statement here speaks for itself. I asked a very legitimate and reasonable question, and your response is to portray me as a mad man. Let's refresh readers' memories, shall we? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=393188&cid=21755168
Some selected extracts: pln2bz:
[...] your appeals to formalism within astrophysics [...] do not work as a mechanism for convincing me that he's wrong. APODNereid:
Now that I know - thanks for the clarification - that that is not the paradigm you are working within, I am looking forward to you explaining - to me and any other readers of this comment - just what paradigm you are working within. [...] For avoidance of doubt, I have already acknowledged that, for you, the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science does NOT convince you (of anything, apparently). pln2bz:
Each piece of evidence demands that it be considered on its own terms because mathematics does not adequately describe all forms of evidence. (and then you introduced 'evidence' about mammoths as relevant to Cassini and Keck observations of Enceladus).
To be honest, based upon my own interactions with you, I'm not sure that I blame the EU Theorists for ignoring the peer review system. I'm beginning to suspect that perhaps the system is broken. I mean, you've hardly demonstrated a single ounce of respect for any of *them* in spite of the fact that their publications are completely logical. Peer review is no entity that is free of human malfeasance. If the rest of the astrophysicists are like you, then that says far more about you and them than Thornhill. In the grand scheme of science, scientists who allow themselves to become emotionally invested in the theories they work on inevitably risk making themselves irrelevant to the history of science. I don't know what role you play in all of this, but you appear to demonstrate rather extreme attachments, as evidenced by your off-the-charts lack of *curiosity*. If you had any, you'd just go out and ask somebody who works with plasma guns what they think (assuming that you know such people), and they would tell you pretty much precisely what the EU Theorists are saying. So, once again, here's the theme:
pln2bz, you have stated - in pretty unambiguous terms - that the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science does NOT convince you.
We are commenting here on a story in the *Science* section of Slashdot.
Aside from the oddity of choosing to comment about a story within an (implicit) framework that you explicitly reject, I'm still trying to understand what the logically consistent framework is within which you (and other 'EU Theorists') test ideas against observations and experimental results (preferably of direct pertinence to Cassini and Keck observations of Enceladus).
It seems that every time I ask you to tell us all what this framework is, you reply with lots of words about the failings (in your mind) of certain aspects of the standard paradigm, irrelevancies (mammoths, cosmologies, for example), personal attacks,... in fact anything but a straight-forward, clear exposition of the methods you use, of how you ensure logical consistency, etc.
pln2bz: what do you propose to put in the place of the standard paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science?
APODNereid:
How - in specific detail - do you suggest a disinterested, unbiased outsider go about assessing the (non-science) claims from that website that you have chosen to copy above? pln2bz:
They could ask a plasma physicist who has experience in a lab what *they* think... I'm sure that Anthony Perratt, for instance, could tell you all about sputtering if he had the time. Just one?
And why 'a plasma physicist who has experience in a lab'? Why not a plasma physicist who has experience with space plasmas? Why not a geophysicist or geologist who as experience with rifting (etc) here on Earth (or the Moon)?
How do you assess their 'thoughts' (answers)? Especially if they disagree?
In the methods of the non-science 'EU Theory', is appeal to authority the ultimate test?
If the chosen EU Theory authority is too busy (or otherwise than unwilling or unable) to give me, you, or anyone else an answer, does the standard methodology of the non-science 'EU Theory' have a fall-back (Plan B) suggestion as to how a disinterested, unbiased outsider could go about assessing the (non-science) claims from that website that you have chosen to copy above?
Have *you* asked somebody who works with plasma guns what *they* think about Enceladus? Let me re-phrase that: Do you *know* anybody who works with plasma guns? It's already very clear that APODNereid is among the damned - my personal experience or expertise is quite irrelevant to 'EU Theory' methodology. I could say 'I think the correspondence between lab sputtering and data about Enceladus is tenuous, even qualitatively' or something else; it's irrelevant because APODNereid doesn't qualify as an anointed 'plasma physicist who has experience in a lab' authority.
Why should anyone pay any more attention to these EU ideas (about Enceladus) than those of hundreds of other non-science websites'? pln2bz:
Because sputtering is something that we do in the laboratory all of the time. If you take the trouble to check out some of these other non-science websites, you'll find they use a similar logic:
*Readers of Slashdot comments should pay more attention to {insert non-science idea here} because {insert well-observed natural/artificial phenomena here} is something we do in the laboratory/observe in the sky/experience in our lives all of the time.*
This, of course, simply pushes the testing back one step - why, of all things, should sputtering in the lab be the phenomenon that trumps all the other alternatives?
ps -- There's a new paper out that might interest you... http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0712.3833v1. If you were truly curious, you'd wonder why people to this day continue to validate Arp's findings. One would think that people would not so willingly throw their careers away if they didn't at least possess strong conviction. I called you on this earlier, but it seems this is a part of the standard methodology of this non-science 'EU Theory'.
How is an Arp paper/preprint on quasar redshifts pertinent to Cassini and Keck observations of Enceladus?
In the methodology of this non-science, is it pertinent for others to introduce papers such as "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology" (Spergel et al.: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449) into comments on an Enceladus story?
And yet, you must realize that Thornhill can still be right that we're observing electrical terraforming, even if he doesn't present a single equation for it. Electrical terraforming is something that we can do, and that is done, within the laboratory with plasma guns; it exists in the real physical world regardless of whether or not Thornhill presents equations for it. To argue that it is not possible as an explanation without quantification ignores the fact that people point plasma guns in the laboratory at blocks of matter all of the time to see what happens, and that the results look qualitatively similar to what we're observing on both Io and Enceladus. It's called sputtering within the semiconductor industry, and it's used for laying down a thin film onto a chip. Hmm... in which Earthly lab has Enceladus-scale sputtering been observed (and, dare one ask, measured quantitatively)?
One that is ~10s to ~thousands of km in each of 3 dimensions; one that has a vacuum with pressure and composition of {insert quantitative values here}; one that has been operating for tens of thousands to millions of years; (and so on)?
But thanks anyway for your answer, I see now that logical consistency - with all easily tested environmental variables - is not required in this non-science method you have described.
For example, for 'sputtering' of the kind used in the semiconductor industry to be pertinent to the formation of 'Tiger Stripes' on Enceladus, surely a simple check on reasonableness would be whether the required electric field should be observable, via the Stark effect, in the line spectra? Oh wait, no, according to the non-science methods you have outlined, it is not necessary to do any such simple consistency checking... it would involve equations, numbers, and maths (all you need is an EU Theory believer to declare that 'the results look qualitatively similar', and it's verboten to say that 'funny, to me the two look quite DIS-similar, qualitatively').
Slashdot Mirror
As I said, since I last looked in detail at his stuff ...
...
The link in my comment is to the arXiv preprint of Will's latest compilation; it can be quite daunting to read through all xxx pages, and unless you've mastered the math behind GR the formalist framework will likely be nigh impossible to grasp.
However, I find the ingenuity of some of the tests breathtaking, and the sheer doggedness of some of those experimenters
On top of that, think of how odd many of the tests would have seemed to 19th (and earlier) century physicists. Or this: what does a scintillation detector, a bit of radioactive iron, a loudspeaker, and a tower have to do with the cosmic microwave background?? The astonishing connection is that the former (crudely) describes the famous Pound-Rebka experiment (confirming gravitational redshift, just as Einstein ordered); the latter is a key test of the 'Big Bang theory', which at its heart is the application of GR to the universe as a whole.
Can you please point me to his falsifiable prediction? The tremendous progress in weak lensing, this last decade or so, and plans for GAIA (etc), may mean such tests may come much, much sooner.
Icarus, "International Journal of Solar System Studies"; unfortunately it's a subscription publication (though with some ingenuity you can find at least the abstracts of many Icarus papers through ADS; papers with preprints on arXiv are, of course, free) http://icarus.cornell.edu/. This is the best, deepest, etc resource (IMHO).
...
ADS Abstract service, for finding papers relevant to planetary formation (click on Physics and Geophysics Search http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ads_abstracts.html)
General, diffuse website: Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD, most have at least some good links; not specific to planet formation though http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html)
General astronomy discussion forum (LOTS of very knowledgeable and helpful people): BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/)
General physics discussion forum (not much on planetary formation however): Physics Forums (http://physicsforums.com/index.php)
I'll suggest some of the other resources in a later comment
It's been a while since I immersed myself in TVF's 'exploding planet hypothesis', but what I recall is that he has his own ideas about gravity.
...
Nothing wrong with that of course, the more seriously testable hypotheses on what gravity is, the better!
However, if he is (or was; that webpage hasn't been changed for quite a while) serious about this idea, he'd get more traction showing that it passes the same direct experimental and observational tests the General Theory of Relativity (GR) does*, rather than exploring some esoteric implications.
Just as the Auger observatory recently announced results that open a new window on the universe (crudely, cosmic ray astronomy), so LIGO and other gravitational wave radiation detectors may soon open one more (crudely, GWR astronomy). Now if TVF were to make some testable predictions concerning the GWR signals LIGO (etc) will (or won't) detect
* Here's a recent compilation: The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072)
My comment, the second part anyway, was intended as a bit of a joke - if you ever get the pleasure of reading some 'Electric Universe' material, you'll see what I mean about 'the universe is 99.999% plasma, therefore electricity rules!'
... just ask! :-)
You'll also quickly discover the amount of venom, vitriol, and so on proponents of these ideas hurl at what they call 'mainstream astrophysicists'.
I'd be happy to suggest resources on theories of planetary formation, be they webpages, books, papers, blogs, or discussion fora
pln2bz, I went looking for this "in-depth review of magnetic reconnection for the past couple of months" at the site you named, but the only thing I could find that vaguely resembled this was a thread started by MM on 21 December, 2007 (barely a month ago, not two), and that concentrates on this arXiv preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3452*.
Not once, anywhere in that thread, are any papers on the study of magnetic reconnection in lab plasmas (i.e. lab experiments) mentioned.
In fact, the thread resembles a scripture study class - what did Alfvén have to say about X? are the words written in this wikipedia page an accurate reflection of what Alfvén wrote?
There are no equations, no theory, no models, no analyses, and none of the participants seems to have even tried to find papers reporting the study of magnetic reconnection in lab plasmas, much less read them and try to understand them!
But perhaps I got the wrong thread?
* You will see, of course, that this preprint is not about presenting the results from lab studies, but rather interpreting observations of solar phenomena.
[How the Sun shines: http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/forum_thread.php?id=6058]
The guy who is co-author of a paper which claims the Sun was formed when a super-massive neutron star fragmented into smaller pieces, and one such fragment became a ~0.1 sol neutron star core of the Sun*?
The same one who has been particularly vehement, in many internet discussion fora, that a) the concept of 'neutron stars' violates his fundamental rule of science (that every theory must be tested, empirically, in controlled conditions, in earthly labs^), and b) the Sun has a solid (mostly iron?) surface?
The same one who is a co-author of a paper claiming that the Sun is powered (~67%) by the decay of excited neutrons in its core and (~34%) by standard fission reactions*? Yet who is also on record, in many fora, as claiming that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)"?
The same one who claims that the mass of the Sun is under-estimated because the solar system is accelerating in the z-direction (or something like this)? That the 'missing matter' in galaxies is largely due to stars being more massive than estimated because they are composed largely of iron?
If so, then I wonder if you can ask him from which university he got his PhD in plasma physics? In which laboratories has he done plasma science experiments?
And when does he plan to publish a paper, based on his review, in a relevant IEEE journal (the one Peratt is editor of perhaps)?
Oh, and how many equations are presented in the laying out of his arguments?
* This idea resembles nothing like any 'Electric Universe' idea I've ever come across, nor do the papers he is a co-author of reference Birkeland, Alfvén, currents, Peratt, Thornhill,
^ You can find many lots of instances of him insisting that 'a gram' of something be produced in a lab before that something can be said to have been 'scientifically qualified'. Curiously, he has continued to say this long after the paper he co-authored went up on the arXiv preprint server.
I mean, these 'strict requirements' are my own, personal, ones?
Hmm
Concerning evidence.
Would you be kind enough to give some examples of such evidence, concerning observable phenomena beyond the Earth's atmosphere?
I am interested - in the first instance - only in evidence that has not been independently verified by observation using the unaided eye. A quick skim of a site you have linked to, many times (it contains many 'pictures of the day'), turned up no such evidence
What I have been trying to do is get at least an outline of how science, in this 'alternative perspective', is (or should be) conducted:
-> what is the role of independent review?
-> how should 'evidence' be evaluated?
-> what are the equivalents of 'hypotheses', 'models', and 'theories'?
-> what is the nature of testing?
-> may the 'beautiful theories' of Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, Thornhill, Scott, etc be slain?
-> if so, how (in principle)?
For some reason, you seem extremely reluctant to address these; why?
Based on what you have written, here in SD, pln2bz, I imagine that you (and Thornhill, and Scott, and Peratt, and
Would readers of this comment be interested to have these PU promoters join such a discussion? Of necessity, any internet discussion forum would have to support the relatively straight-forward posting of the symbols (etc) in the equations in Alfvén's theory, together with those in the papers reporting magnetic reconnection in the lab
Maybe a review of the advances in observational cosmology over those 20 years might be of interest?
Perhaps a more detailed look at this "actualistic" vs "prophetic" dichotomy could prove insightful?
For example, how accurate a characterisation was it in 1990? How accurate today?
To what extent would such a detailed examination inform readers about this Plasma Universe idea?
* for example "The latter proposes a very detailed knowledge about the origin of the universe", "the Alfven-Birkeland theory of auroras"
It is a true synthesis of all of the natural sciences, but what it concludes is that plasmas in space are being mathematically modeled incorrectly. And this is where people tend to turn off. In plasma-based cosmologies, plasmas are electrodynamic entities that, like in the lab, respond with electrical resistance and luminosity to changes in their charge density. In conventional cosmologies, astrophysicists *assume* that plasmas are "perfect conductors", they *assume* that space is "quasi-neutral" -- that a given volume of space essentially has equal numbers of positive and negative charges -- and they *assume* that magnetic fields are "frozen-in place" within a plasma (as opposed to being affected by the mechanics and electrodynamics of the plasma itself).
The concept of "magnetic reconnection", for instance [...] has never been validated within a laboratory despite being discussed for decades now. And importantly, there is no reason for why we cannot validate magnetic reconnection within the lab.
If asked to guess, I'd say you wrote this without critically thinking about it, and certainly without investigating the work of the scientists who study the Earth's magnetosphere and the IPM (inter-planetary medium).
Last month, the AGU (American Geophysical Union) held its Fall 2007 meeting in San Francisco. I think I recall reading that some 15,000 people attended.
Just from the titles of the sections (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm07/?content=program&show=glance), I'd guess that this would have been an extremely important meeting for all Plasma Universe/Electric Universe groupies - 'Atmospheric and Space Electricity', 'Planetary Sciences', 'Solar and Heliospheric Physics', 'Magnetospheric Physics', and so on.
Within Solar and Heliospheric Physics (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm07&sec=SH) it would seem there were quite a few sessions that would have been of intense interest to you. Some examples:
SH41C - Magnetic Reconnection in Laboratory, Magnetospheric, and Solar Plasmas I (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm07&part=SH41C&maxhits=400), with such sessions as:
* "Causes and Consequences of Reconnection in the Laboratory" (abstract is here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMSH41C..06P), and,
* "Experimental merging, coalescence, reconnection, and bouncing of two flux ropes" (abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMSH41C..07I - note that the six authors seem to work in the same lab as Peratt; interesting, don't you think?)
SH44A - Magnetic Reconnection in Laboratory, Magnetospheric, and Solar Plasmas IV Posters (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm07&part=SH44A&maxhits=400), which featured posters with such interesting titles as:
"Magnetic reconnection with multiple X-lines in an open system: Two fluid simulations with finite electron inertial effects"
"Breakdown of the Frozen-in Condition and Plasma Acceleration: Dynamical Theory"
"Self-regulation of the reconnecting current sheet in relativistic pair plasmas"
"Fast Reconnection in Electron-Positron Plasmas via Turbulent Outflow Jets"
"Universal Method for Describing Magnetic Reconnection"
From a different pln2bz comment:
Nereid, you seem to think that I *really* care about responding to your interruptions. But you present nothing for my mind to chew on. You are little more than a pest to
Here it is again: Why not tell us all the URL of [...] a forum which presents these 'Electric Universe' ideas, in the form of hypotheses models numbers equations data etc
Here they are again: [T]ell us all the name of the lab(s) in which Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, Tesla, etc conducted experiments with a 2x10^30 kg ball of plasma (of any [...] composition)?
[Tell us] the labs in which they investigated the green [O III] 495.9 and 500.7 nm lines ('nebulium', a term Birkeland was, no doubt, familiar with), by direct observation of such lines?
I thought these were very simple, straight-forward questions, of the kind you'd be only too pleased to answer. What part of 'if it has not been done in a lab, we will always remain somewhat dubious' did I fail to understand?
Would you be so kind as to tell all readers just what APODNereid's "favored theories" are? Be sure to use only APODNereid's comments in Slashdot as your source material.
Back to the invitation: may I ask, again, if you'd be interested and willing in having a discussion of Peratt's published papers on galaxies, which discussion to focus on the plasma physics in those papers and the relevant astronomical observations?
I'd appreciate an unequivocal 'yes' or 'no'. If the ideas are so absurd, then shouldn't people see that for themselves? I'm arguing about facts, and you're constantly arguing against arguing about facts. Another, all too common, theme in your SD comments.
First, I feel it is important for readers to see for themselves just how inaccurate your portrayal of the 'facts' is. And for them to have a good set of primary source URLs so they can go check for themselves, independently.
An example: "Look at the star, and notice the structure of the infrared filaments -- the star's corona -- coming off of it." The 'facts' are somewhat different than you portray them, and I made a suggestion on where readers may go to get more details (the primary source in this case being an ESO website, and the papers linked to therefrom: http://www.eso.org/instruments/naco/overview.html).
Second, almost all the scientific 'facts' you introduce contain intricate webs of theory-based logic. The ideas you are promoting seem to me (based on my own reading of the websites etc to which you have provided links) to reject many of the theories in these logic trains. Ergo, the 'facts', as stated by you, are equivalent to "1 = 2" in some way
Third, I would hope that my most potent critiques are those directed at the explicit or implicit methods which underlie the 'Electric Universe' ideas.
To repeat: this is the Science part of Slashdot. To have a meaningful discussion, we need a certain minimum of mutual comprehension. For most folk, 'Science' carries the baggage of things like peer-reviewed papers, hypothesis-model-theory, quantitative testing, internal consistency, and so on.
Yet you yourself have said, more than once, that you reject most of these fundamentals.
That's fine, there's nothing sacred about any of these.
However, I have yet to see anything of substance from you on what you propose to take the place of these fundamentals.
How does one do science, in the brave new world of 'the Electric Universe paradigm'?
The Plasma Universe theory, perspective or point of view -- whatever you want to call it -- is real, very alive, relatively rich in detail and history, and supported by multiple unrelated disciplines. It is a true synthesis of all of the natural sciences, but what it concludes is that plasmas in space are being mathematically modeled incorrectly. And this is where people tend to turn off. In plasma-based cosmologies, plasmas are electrodynamic entities that, like in the lab, respond with electrical resistance and luminosity to changes in their charge density. In conventional cosmologies, astrophysicists *assume* that plasmas are "perfect conductors", they *assume* that space is "quasi-neutral" -- that a given volume of space essentially has equal numbers of positive and negative charges -- and they *assume* that magnetic fields are "frozen-in place" within a plasma (as opposed to being affected by the mechanics and electrodynamics of the plasma itself). Very importantly, this would all be true were it not for the natural behavior of plasmas within the laboratory. Within the laboratory, we see clear indications that all three of these assumptions are invalid. In the laboratory, plasmas will naturally form filaments. These filaments have long-range attraction and short-range repulsion, which means that they twist around one another, and yet never fully combine. These braided ropes are observed all over the place in space, and astrophysicists have a rich lexicon to pull from for describing them: magnetic ropes, flux tubes, or even elephant trunks. But one thing they greatly resist calling it is an "electric current", for if electric currents can exist in space on large scales, then they would certainly do things of importance. They would cause forces. This is a big problem for conventional theories because they have been assuming that space is not electrically connected as much as possible for centuries now. It's like an addiction that they just can't shake. The box keeps getting bigger for their closed electrical systems over time, but only at a snail's pace. The idea that the entire universe might be electrically connected is something that they refuse to consider even when presented with evidence that it is so.
/. are tired of the PU theory - it's unlikely that we'll get anything more definitive than "maybe it's true, maybe it isn't".
Maybe that's why so many people on
Plasma-based theories are far more inherently testable than the current theories. In the conventional thinking, we don't even get rock-solid definitions for gravity and mass. And we're constantly barraged with pseudo-scientific ideas like multiple dimensions and string theory. What you have to realize is that the Plasma Universe is almost entirely based upon laboratory experience, whereas the conventional theories are largely the result of equations tinkering. The concept of "magnetic reconnection", for instance, which presumably demonstrates a mechanism for explaining the fact that the Sun's corona is 100x hotter than its surface (!), has never been validated within a laboratory despite being discussed for decades now. And importantly, there is no reason for why we cannot validate magnetic reconnection within the lab.
There you go again, oodles of words that (sometimes) correspond well to what's in the collective body of scientific studies of the IPM (inter-planetary medium), magnetospheres of planets, stars, the ISM (inter-stellar medium), galaxies, AGN (active galactic nuclei), and so on, but (mostly) are distortions, mis-understandings, mis-characterisations, and (let's be honest here) outright falsehoods.
Why not engage in a 'on the merits' discussion, in an internet discussion forum where LaTeX is implemented? Where we can write down the equations, look at the statistical tests, examine the actual data, (and so on)?
Why not tell us all the URL of such a forum which presents these 'Electric Universe' ideas, in the form of hypotheses models numbers e
For example, among the replies to your >400 comments are some which are very thoughtful, respectful, and detailed. The authors seem to have taken a great deal of trouble to understand what you wrote, and replied accordingly.
Then there's the apparent disconnect between what you have written (and what folk can read for themselves, by following the links you provided) and what many (most?) SD folk recognise - from their day-to-day work* - as science: the role of hypotheses, models, theories, and so on, and the paramount importance of (quantitatively) testing these against (all) good, pertinent experimental results and (astronomical) observations.
IIRC (if I recall correctly), you were very clear that you rejected the standard scientific paradigms as legitimate methods for testing these 'Electric Universe' ideas.
Yet you have yet - IIRC - to provide an alternative framework by which those ideas may be checked and tested.
Perhaps there is a paradigm shift under way; perhaps 'picture science' and 'mythology trumps physics' will one day rule the world.
But if such a shift does occur, who will design, build, launch, operate (etc) the next Hubble Space Telescope?
* remember, quite a few of those who have responded to your comments declared themselves to be working scientists
I rather doubt a poll of people on their familiarity with QED (this wikipedia page will do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics) would tell you much about how good a job it does, as a theory, in accounting for the relevant experimental results.
... as the thousands of papers on MHD (magnetohydrodynamics - what Alfvén got his Nobel for) in databases such as ADS will attest [source: http://adswww.harvard.edu/)*.
.... quantitatively!
... and actually testing them?
... I'd love to be proven wrong.
Science - thank goodness - is not some version of American Idol.
Plasma physics is pretty darn quantitative, and it has been applied (quantitatively) to astronomical observations, in order to develop hypotheses and models, to explain (in terms of mechanisms and processes) the fine details of the data that comes from the instruments attached to telescopes
If you - or any other reader of this comment - are interested in learning why Peratt's 'astronomy' papers (on galaxies, for example) are not cited by anyone (except himself), why not join an internet discussion forum where lots of folk with degrees in physics (including plasma physics), astronomy, etc hang out^? It would surely be interesting, wouldn't it? I mean, we could have a discussion on his papers, in terms of how well he has applied plasma physics and tested hypotheses against the actual astronomical observations
Surely this is how science is done? By developing (testable) hypotheses
Or do you think the only people in the world who know enough about plasma physics, as applied to 'things we see in the sky' (beyond the Earth's atmosphere), to be able to do this kind of science are Peratt and Thornhill (despite the thousands who have PhDs in just this)?
* If you need some help finding these thousands of papers, just say so; I'd be only to pleased to help you.
^ For avoidance of doubt, none of the 'Electric Universe' fora I am aware has any quantitative discussions (equations, numbers, estimated uncertainties, etc), of astronomical phenomena
1) 'the Plasma Universe' is NOT 'supported by IEEE! At least, not in the sense that you imply. In fact, I hear that this claim has caused some IEEE members to get quite upset, and they are now taking steps to stop this kind of nonsense.
... it may be weak in name, but its effects are profound, its wingéd messengers can leap tall buildings in a single bound! not only can they pass through solid walls, but even a light-year of solid lead is but tissue paper to them! Its flock vastly outnumber those of the baryons, and when the truth about dark matter (DM) is finally discovered (any day now, promise), the awesome reality of the dominance of the universe by the weak force will become clear - DM is neutralinos, the supreme embodiment of the weak force!!!! {feel free to continue adding exclamation marks here}.
Here's the lowdown on the part of the IEEE that DOES cover plasma physics (my emphasis): "NPSS [Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society] IS...
- The IEEE Technical Society that covers the fields of Fusion Technology, Nuclear Medical and Imaging Sciences, Particle Accelerator Science and Technology, Pulsed Power Systems, Radiation Effects, Radiation Instrumentation, Plasma Sciences and Applications, Standards for Nuclear Instruments and Detectors, and Computer Applications in Nuclear and Plasma Sciences." [source: http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/nps/aboutnpss.htm]
2) Isn't time we hear from proponents of the weak force? the strong force?
I mean, proponents of 'the Electric Universe' claim, falsely, that astrophysicists regard gravity as the only force worth studying, and counter-claim that 'electricity'* is really the only one (odd though that while 99.{insert more 9's here, to your taste}% of the universe is plasma, 100% is mass-energy, so gravity wins).
Surely there must be folk who believe that a plague should visit both houses; that the strong force is {insert your favourite number here} orders of magnitude stronger than electromagnetism, and that only the inconsequential neutrinos can escape the grip of the strong force (see, true believers of this cult can make just as many false claims as 'EU theorists'!)? There must be a Nobel Laureate whose work can be picked over to find juicy morsels that support these obvious truths!
And let's not neglect the weak force
Oh, and let's not forget that the weak force IS ('could be' only to doubters) responsible for CP violating events, and thus, the reason for our very existence in our universe today (why we have matter-antimatter asymmetry, and all that).
* Of course, they don't mean that; they really mean electromagnetism.
The 'significance' of the apparent similarity is far more mundane.
What you 'see' in the image is a representation of data from an instrument attached to a telescope in Chile.
That data itself is the result of a great deal of number crunching, based on long chains of logic, based on theories of physics.
The "the structure of the infrared filaments -- the star's corona -- coming off of it" is nothing of the sort!
If you are REALLY interested in those 'infrared filaments', I would be happy to recommend a few papers on 'the NACO adaptive-optics facility' (the instrument used in this case); you might be interested to learn how much of these are exactly what you'd expect from a point source imaged through the atmosphere above the VLT.
Speculation can be fun; speculation based on such gross mis-understanding of the input data surely isn't.
Hmm ... how about 'doesn't require any new physics' as a criterion?
... that "[d]oes not contradict existing data".
I don't recall seeing any papers, containing actual equations, numbers, and stuff on this 'solar fission hypothesis'; do you know of any AC?
It's not that rotational instability may lead to 'fission'; it's that such instability is relatively well-understood, and that no one, AFAIK, has published a plausible model
File this in the round file, alongside TVF's other wild ideas.
pln2bz, I've finished reading your comments on SD.
... some are PhDs, some merely BScs. Further, some are professional scientists, making a living by practicing science. And many have degrees, often advanced degrees, in math, or computing science, or related fields.
While I can't be sure that I've read all 441, I don't think the ones that I may have missed will alter what I am about to say in any significant way.
First, you correctly observed that many of those who responded to your comments seem to have not actually read the material which you presented. However, to the extent that at least a subset of these responses did, in fact, address a key part of your message, I feel you did them a disservice by (apparently, nearly always) ignoring them. More on this later.
Second, where there was a response which seemed to indicate some familiarity with the material you presented, I feel that you all too often failed to tackle the questions, challenges, misunderstandings, etc in an appropriate way. More on this later.
Third, I note that, at a meta-level, most if not all of the points in my SD comments have been made by others at one time or another, in connection with different aspects of 'EU Theory' ideas and so-called evidence. And as with my SD comments, you have largely failed to address the core challenges in an appropriate way.
In a nutshell, what is 'science' and 'evidence' to you is, more often than not, at odds with what those who have engaged you in discussion consider these to be (more later). Some folk have, if what they write is to be believed, degrees in one branch of science of another
pln2bz, you are perhaps unaware of just how effectively you have achieved the opposite of what you clearly had intended, by many of your comments - you convinced the very folk with curiosity (about the material you presented) AND far more experience with science than you seem to have that these 'EU Theory' ideas have little to no basis in science, and so can be dismissed out of hand in the same way as hundreds of other crackpot ideas.
I have chosen to put this summary as a reply to your comment on the role of mathematics, partly because your reply is such a good example of how to alienate your intended audience.
Where to from here?
If you are genuinely interested in continuing to promote 'EU Theory' here in SD, may I suggest that you pay attention to why you have, it seems to me, so singularly failed so far? In particular, seek to:
* understand why appeals to authority (Alfven, Peratt, 'plasma physicists', and so on) will usually get readers' backs up
* avoid invoking what I like to call 'martyr logic' (you know, '*they* suppressed Galileo yet he was right; *they* are suppressing Thornhill, therefore Thornhill is a modern-day Galileo, and EU Theory MUST be right too'); in the absence of a strong case, this will serve to do nothing more than confirm in most readers' minds that you are a crank
* learn some physics, preferably astrophysics. Given your beliefs, it might be a good idea to concentrate on stuff that's both relatively simple (in terms of the math involved) and quite unrelated to electricity (etc) - for example, how the masses, radii, and absolute luminosities of stars are estimated, from direct observations, leading to an understanding of the HIPPARCOS mission. The point would be to try to appreciate why your remarks about math, about quantitative vs qualitative evidence, and - above all - your approach to how ideas are (or should be) tested send such clear, negative, messages to your intended audience.
Planetary scientists continue to perpetuate misunderstanding when they call the "Tiger Stripes" of Enceladus "cracks" that allow water to reach the surface. The channels are, in fact, precise analogs of those seen on Europa. Their frequent parallelism, their ridges or levees, and their ability to cut across all other channels in their paths stand as a definitive contradiction of the "fracturing" hypothesis. The pictures suggest something akin to a "claw" or router bit dragged across the surface in disregard for prior surface relief. That is a unique signature of an electric arc. In contrast, fracturing is invariably affected by a pre-existing surface channel or groove, as anyone who has ever worked with a glasscutter knows very well.
Now let's see what Schneider et al. actually found, per the abstract of the conference paper that the SD story which all these comments are on (source: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.P11F..08S)
A groundbased telescopic search for sodium emission near Saturn's moon Enceladus places a firm upper limit on the possible amount of sodium released by eruptions there. Independent observations at the Keck and Anglo- Australian Telescopes using high resolution spectroscopy failed to detect any sodium emission near Enceladus, despite the high sensitivity of such instruments to minute amounts of sodium originating at Jupiter's moons Io and Europa. Large amounts of sodium would be expected if Enceladus' plume material were derived directly from a long-lived ocean (or more confined "sea") in contact with rocky material. Chemical models predict that sodium would dissolve into such an ocean at mixing ratios relative to water of 10-4 to 10-1 (Zolotov et. al, 2007). Our numerical plumes models show that such high sodium concentrations would result in a long-lived torus of sodium encircling Saturn. Our detection upper limits fall orders of magnitude below these models, leading us to conclude that the Enceladus plumes do not originate in an ocean or sea. These observations support the alternative theories that Enceladus' plumes are generated by shear heating of the icy crust - resulting in sublimation or melting - or the decomposition of clathrates. These results do not rule out the possibility that a deep ocean exists at depth that is not directly responsible for the plumes. Plume sampling by Cassini or potential future missions, however, would not be probing this potentially habitable environment. This work has been supported by NSF's Planetary Astronomy Program.
(I added the bold re Io and Europa).
So, pln2bz would have us accept that certain surface features on Io, Europa, AND Enceladus are *all* due (entirely?) to 'sputtering' or 'electric arcs', based solely (so it would seem) on certain qualitative similarities in the appearance of these features with some lab materials blasted with plasma guns^.
However, despite the SD story having been up for over 10 days, he apparently did not bother to check the source, nor check whether Thornhill (or any other 'EU Theory' authority) commented on (or was even aware of) the apparent inconsistency; namely that the Keck results suggest the method of formation of the Enceladus features is not the same as the Io or Europa ones (for avoidance of doubt, the Keck results do not *prove* anything; such is the nature of modern science).
What say you, pln2bz? Within the 'EU Theory' paradigm, is it legitimate to introduce evidence, concerning Enceladus' plumes in this case, beyond qualitative similarities in images? Especially when that (other) evidence is quantitative? When it is independent of the images?
And if it is legitimate, how should that evidence be weighed? To what extent do the qualitative similarities trump the quantitative spectroscopic data? Or do 'EU Theorists' feel compelled to develop mathematical models of these hypothesised arcs and sputterings,
The problem is that spacecraft perform corrections (either manual or automatic) to their trajectories. Math isn't the only thing directing them.
But the bigger problem with your analysis here is that spacecraft are judged on the basis of whether or not they get to where they were directed and perform their function. We essentially buy (build) the spacecraft on the basis of our perception that it will perform as it is programmed.
Actually, the biggest problem is for 'EU Theorists'.
... Indeed, there cannot be, because quantitative tests are not part of the 'EU Theory' method.
After all, first, they reject any role for maths, or even of quantitative analyses, data, etc - the key method for determining whether an idea passes an observational or experimental test is whether it, qualitatively, looks like something from the playbook.
Second, there is no 'EU Theory'* account of how spacecraft get to where they go, or planetary orbits, or the orbits of moons, or
But, I could be wrong. So, please give us all a reference - website, paper, whatever - using material in which anyone (with the relevant expertise) can calculate the Cassini trajectory, and the Enceladus orbit, given the relevant inputs. Don't forget to state the expected degree of precision (and thanks for so clearly mis-stating what the role of 'precision' and 'accuracy' is, in celestial mechanics).
As you've demonstrated, the critics are ignored or insulted.
Oh this is priceless!
Please, take the time to read what I have written in my comments in Slashdot. In particular, pay attention to my persistence in trying to get you to state, clearly and unambiguously, what the 'ground rules' are, in the non-science 'EU Theory' you are so enthusiastic in promoting.
If you can, please connect these ground rules to good engineering practice.
Most of all, please explain how the testing of any 'EU Theory' idea can be performed, independently, without any numbers, math, or equations.
APODNereid:
How did Maxwell describe electricity and magnetism?
With mathematics
pln2bz:
That's very simplistic. Maxwell was *only* able to derive his equations because of the work of Faraday, who did most of the laboratory work that Maxwell required to build a reasonable physical model, AND WHO SUSTAINED OVERWHELMING CRITICISM FOR NOT QUANTIFYING HIS LABORATORY WORK. Faraday lived most of his life as an outcast for this reason even though he was right in the end! This is no minor point either because Maxwell was *only* successful because of the efficacy of his physical model, which Faraday helped to create. If his physical model had been wrong in some way, we wouldn't be using his equations today.
Nice story (if somewhat inaccurate).
Nicely irrelevant too.
"EU Theory" = "Electric Universe Theory" (I think). If you assert that electricity (and magnetism) plays a crucial role in astronomical phenomena, yet refuse to use the standard theory of electricity and magnetism (in the classical domain, Maxwell's equations) to test those ideas, how should a disinterested, unbiassed outsider respond? I mean, the equations aren't all that difficult, and there are huge numbers of good resources to use to apply them, so why - after decades of working on this - don't we have even the basics presented by true believers like you?
This is why it's important that you *wonder* whether or not Thornhill is right. If you discount them on the basis of some superficial reasons, then you are valuing your own psychological desire to sound and feel right over the reality of who actually is right. You're struggling to find some sort of all-encompassing litmus test, and you've chosen mathematics and the peer review system as your guide.
Ah, the classic mis-statements and diversions rear their heads again, right on cue!
pln2bz, once again, what - in the 'EU Theory' worldview - are the methods used t
Some selected extracts:
pln2bz: [...] your appeals to formalism within astrophysics [...] do not work as a mechanism for convincing me that he's wrong. APODNereid: Now that I know - thanks for the clarification - that that is not the paradigm you are working within, I am looking forward to you explaining - to me and any other readers of this comment - just what paradigm you are working within. [...] For avoidance of doubt, I have already acknowledged that, for you, the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science does NOT convince you (of anything, apparently). pln2bz: Each piece of evidence demands that it be considered on its own terms because mathematics does not adequately describe all forms of evidence. (and then you introduced 'evidence' about mammoths as relevant to Cassini and Keck observations of Enceladus). To be honest, based upon my own interactions with you, I'm not sure that I blame the EU Theorists for ignoring the peer review system. I'm beginning to suspect that perhaps the system is broken. I mean, you've hardly demonstrated a single ounce of respect for any of *them* in spite of the fact that their publications are completely logical. Peer review is no entity that is free of human malfeasance. If the rest of the astrophysicists are like you, then that says far more about you and them than Thornhill. In the grand scheme of science, scientists who allow themselves to become emotionally invested in the theories they work on inevitably risk making themselves irrelevant to the history of science. I don't know what role you play in all of this, but you appear to demonstrate rather extreme attachments, as evidenced by your off-the-charts lack of *curiosity*. If you had any, you'd just go out and ask somebody who works with plasma guns what they think (assuming that you know such people), and they would tell you pretty much precisely what the EU Theorists are saying. So, once again, here's the theme:
pln2bz, you have stated - in pretty unambiguous terms - that the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science does NOT convince you.
We are commenting here on a story in the *Science* section of Slashdot.
Aside from the oddity of choosing to comment about a story within an (implicit) framework that you explicitly reject, I'm still trying to understand what the logically consistent framework is within which you (and other 'EU Theorists') test ideas against observations and experimental results (preferably of direct pertinence to Cassini and Keck observations of Enceladus).
It seems that every time I ask you to tell us all what this framework is, you reply with lots of words about the failings (in your mind) of certain aspects of the standard paradigm, irrelevancies (mammoths, cosmologies, for example), personal attacks,
pln2bz: what do you propose to put in the place of the standard paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science?
And why 'a plasma physicist who has experience in a lab'? Why not a plasma physicist who has experience with space plasmas? Why not a geophysicist or geologist who as experience with rifting (etc) here on Earth (or the Moon)?
How do you assess their 'thoughts' (answers)? Especially if they disagree?
In the methods of the non-science 'EU Theory', is appeal to authority the ultimate test?
If the chosen EU Theory authority is too busy (or otherwise than unwilling or unable) to give me, you, or anyone else an answer, does the standard methodology of the non-science 'EU Theory' have a fall-back (Plan B) suggestion as to how a disinterested, unbiased outsider could go about assessing the (non-science) claims from that website that you have chosen to copy above? Have *you* asked somebody who works with plasma guns what *they* think about Enceladus? Let me re-phrase that: Do you *know* anybody who works with plasma guns? It's already very clear that APODNereid is among the damned - my personal experience or expertise is quite irrelevant to 'EU Theory' methodology. I could say 'I think the correspondence between lab sputtering and data about Enceladus is tenuous, even qualitatively' or something else; it's irrelevant because APODNereid doesn't qualify as an anointed 'plasma physicist who has experience in a lab' authority.
Why should anyone pay any more attention to these EU ideas (about Enceladus) than those of hundreds of other non-science websites'? pln2bz: Because sputtering is something that we do in the laboratory all of the time. If you take the trouble to check out some of these other non-science websites, you'll find they use a similar logic:
*Readers of Slashdot comments should pay more attention to {insert non-science idea here} because {insert well-observed natural/artificial phenomena here} is something we do in the laboratory/observe in the sky/experience in our lives all of the time.*
This, of course, simply pushes the testing back one step - why, of all things, should sputtering in the lab be the phenomenon that trumps all the other alternatives?
How is an Arp paper/preprint on quasar redshifts pertinent to Cassini and Keck observations of Enceladus?
In the methodology of this non-science, is it pertinent for others to introduce papers such as "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology" (Spergel et al.: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449) into comments on an Enceladus story?
One that is ~10s to ~thousands of km in each of 3 dimensions; one that has a vacuum with pressure and composition of {insert quantitative values here}; one that has been operating for tens of thousands to millions of years; (and so on)?
But thanks anyway for your answer, I see now that logical consistency - with all easily tested environmental variables - is not required in this non-science method you have described.
For example, for 'sputtering' of the kind used in the semiconductor industry to be pertinent to the formation of 'Tiger Stripes' on Enceladus, surely a simple check on reasonableness would be whether the required electric field should be observable, via the Stark effect, in the line spectra? Oh wait, no, according to the non-science methods you have outlined, it is not necessary to do any such simple consistency checking