How did the Cassini spacecraft get designed (successfully)? With mathematics (among other things)
How did the Cassini mission control team get the spacecraft to Enceladus and know when to start collecting data? With mathematics
How did the Enceladus data from the Cassini spacecraft get transmitted (successfully) to Earth? With mathematics
How did the astronomers using the Keck telescope conclude there is little to no sodium on Enceladus? With mathematics
How did Maxwell describe electricity and magnetism? With mathematics
How did Langmuir and Alfven (and others) develop plasma physics, and so describe the behaviour of plasmas? With mathematics
How did pln2bz, Thornhill et al explain the Cassini and Keck Enceldadus data? With mythology
What use did pln2bz, Thornhill et al make of the (intrinsically mathematical) theories of electromagnetism and plasma physics, in their explanations? None.
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.
However, you did not bother to suggest just HOW anyone - other than the high priests of the 'EU Theory' religion - should (or could) test any of these ideas... what methods, what techniques, what tools to use?
Nor did you bother to explain how anyone - including yourself - could tell the difference between these non-science ideas and the hundreds of other non-science ideas promoted on various internet websites, from TVF's exploding planets, to Nancy's Planet X, to Cunningham's (non-terrestrial) landforms as evidence of interplanetary warfare, and beyond.
So, may I ask again?
Why should anyone pay any more attention to these EU ideas (about Enceladus) than those of hundreds of other non-science websites'?
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?
So, in comments on a story about Enceladus and the lack of sodium in Keck observations, you introduce a book about mammoth extinctions?!
A book which even you do not dare claim has anything directly to do with Enceladus (or the Keck observations).
Your comments, to this story, can thus be accurately be summarised as a cynical, deliberate attempt to improve the rankings of a certain crackpot website in search engines, by linking it to Slashdot, with no intention whatsoever to engage in discussion, discourse, or debate about: * specific (non-scientific) so-called 'EU Theory' claims about Enceladus, * the (merely coincidental) relationship between the methods used by so-called 'EU Theorists' and those used by real scientists, or * anything else that has any relevance to Enceladus and the Keck observations.
In what respect do your comments differ from porn/knock-off watch/'free' software/viagra (etc) spam?
Even comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly thing-amy-whats-its have more relevance to the original story than anything you've written!
APODNereid:
How do you go about determining what "its own terms" are, for "[e]ach piece of evidence"? pln2bz:
I made the point very clearly. You cannot evaluate mythology and ancient documents with mathematics. Either those stories and writings contain useful astronomical information or they do not. The only way to determine this is through a logical analysis of the stories and writings themselves, and by investigating the archaeological details of the last major extinction event. Thank you.
How do you go about determining what "its own terms" are, for "[e]ach piece of evidence", concerning evidence which is not mythological?
For example, data returned from the Cassini probe, since it started orbiting Saturn (and the subset of such data that pertains to Enceladus, however you choose to assess pertinence)... after all, it's some such data that lead us to this discussion, isn't it.
Or, more generally, evidence obtained by detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation from beyond the solar system (assuming that you and I agree on what, in astronomy, would constitute detection [...] from objects beyond the solar system).
Everything we think we know about the universe beyond the solar system derives from the detection of photons*.
It is from analyses of these detections that we derive conclusions about stars made of hydrogen, of clouds of tenuous gas and dust, of regions of hot plasma, and so on.
Some are 'false colour' images, but close enough to what we imagine we might see if only we could look through the eyepiece of the telescope (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070418.html).
It's but a small step to look at other false colour images, taken in the infrared for example, through what is obviously just a telescope, and imagine we can interpret them similarly (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070413.html).
Other images are false colour composites, with one or more components having been taken by something that may bear little resemblance to our backyard refractor; nonetheless we may feel we can still interpret them similarly (example: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/crab/index.html).
However, reading the details of how photon/EMR detection got turned into an image quickly reveals that we should be very cautious when it comes to interpreting these images. For example, take this combined (Chandra) x-ray and (VLA) radio 'image' of the supernova remnant G11.2-0.3 (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/g11/index.html). Here is a description of how the x-ray image was created (source: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107292):
NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory observed G11.2-0.3 at two epochs, the first (Sequence Number 50076) on 2000 August 6, and the second (Sequence Number 50077) on 2000 October 15. The exposure for the first epoch was 20 ks. The second epoch consisted of two exposures, one of 10 ks and the other of 5 ks. In all observations, the remnant was positioned on the back-illuminated CCD chip S3 of the ACIS instrument in standard exposure mode. In this mode, the time resolution (3.2 s) is too coarse to resolve the pulsations from the pulsar.
The data were analyzed using the CIAO 2.02 and MIRIAD software packages. Following the energy binning scheme of Hughes et al. (2000), we added together the individual count maps from the three different observing epochs in the 0.6-1.65 keV, 1.65-2.25 keV, and 2.25-7.5 keV energy bands. Spectrally weighted exposure maps were created for each observation and energy band, and were summed over the three observations, creating a total count map and exposure map for each energy band. The count maps were divided by the exposure maps, and the result convolved with a 5" FWHM Gaussian to enhance the nebular structure given the low count rate. The three individual maps were then combined into a 3-color image, with red, green, and blue assigned to the low, medium, and high energy bands respectively.
Radio observations of G11.2-0.3 were made with the VLA at 20 and 6 cm (L- and C-bands, respectively), between 1984 April and 1985 May. Details of these observations are summarized in Table 1.
Data reduction and analysis were performed using standard procedures within the miriad package (Sault & Killeen 1999). The data were flux-density and anten
APODNereid:
So tell us, if you'd be so kind pln2bz, how do you suggest anyone - scientist, non-scientist; member of the American public, citizen of Germany; and so on - should judge, evaluate, test, assess and otherwise check up on the dozens, hundreds, thousands,... of other 'viewpoints'? pln2bz:
Are you arguing that people should not try to understand complex subjects because it is difficult? APODNereid:
What I meant was, given the hundreds (if not thousands) of (other) 'viewpoints' that have scientific merit that is similar to 'EU Theory', what method(s) do you suggest Joan Chardonnay and Joe Sixpack (or Dr Zhou and Herr Professor Georg) use to evaluate (test, assess, check,...) them?
Few members of the American public (or citizens of Germany, or...) have the time to spend reading even a small subset of such viewpoints, let alone evaluating them. I realise that what I'm trying to say may be too terse, so let me present a few examples.
Recall that the context is 'cracks on Enceladus', a mission to study them, and whether "most Americans would appreciate hearing more than just one viewpoint on how their money is being spent".
It would seem that pln2bz would like to have a viewpoint he calls 'EU Theory' the one (and only?) that "most Americans would appreciate hearing".
My question concerns why, if there are to be other viewpoints considered, 'EU Theory'? Why not Nancy and Planet X? Hoagland's Enterprise Mission? Cunningham's crater chains? And so on. (Interested readers may find their own way to sites promoting these 'viewpoints'; Google is your friend).
What criteria should "reasonable, objective people" use - in pln2bz's opinion - to choose among the hundreds of such viewpoints to even read about? And what criteria - again, in pln2bz's opinion - should they use to evaluate their validity?
To address the last: pln2bz (and anyone else reading this), the Anonymous Coward (AC) whose post I am replying to is not APODNereid. Of course, you should not take me (or AC) at my word, but undertake your own investigation.
Somewhat out of order:
"I wish what I write here to be read solely within the context of the SD comment strings in which they appear or reference."
Thanks for your noting this. You'll see from at least one of pln2bz's comments today (or yesterday, depends on where you are) that he (I shall follow your convention and call pln2bz 'he') did not choose to respect my clearly expressed wishes in this matter. Worse, and apparently quite uncharacteristically, he leveled some unsubstantiated, pejorative charges at me, and chose not to reply (despite being directly called on them).
"a) does not often respond to questions about material in his (her?) SD comments;" I disagree. Until this very recent deluge of SD chatter, I have observed that it was extremely rare for pln2bz to drop any argument, or even allow a single disparaging or otherwise disagreeable comment to go uncontested.
From my reading of earlier SD comments, by pln2bz, I now see that this is so.
All the more unusual then that he has apparently changed his approach - off the top of my head, I'd guess there are at least a dozen, quite serious, questions, comments or challenges from me that he has not replied to.
Perhaps the most remarkable - though not particularly surprising - is his apparent reluctance to state the logically consistent paradigm within which he himself judges/assesses/etc ideas, facts, etc in the fields of astronomy and space. Naively, I'd've expected - based on my reading (to date) of his SD comments - that he'd be only too pleased to reply, in well over 1000 words. After all, a common theme in his comments is that those who question 'EU Theory' have not taken the trouble to read the evidence presented, and, even if they have, they are not willing to assess it in any way other than one from the universe of what might be called 'approaches consistent with modern science'.
"c) (deliberately?) mis-states, mis-interprets, or misunderstands many so-called facts, observational or experimental results;" I believe his mis-statements and mis-interpretations of these things are naive misunderstanding, and not malicious.
I continue to find it amazing that the mis-understanding and mis-interpretation (deliberate or not) is so widespread!
But perhaps I shouldn't be; it seems that pln2bz relies on what we might call tertiary sources - summaries on TB webpages, which are themselves based on (HST, ESO, ESA, NASA, etc) PRs, which are in turn based (to varying degrees) on papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals. Can you recall him ever having referenced a primary source?
"d) is confused about, or (worse) deliberately mis-construes, the nature of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, space science,...), as fields of science" Although it is clear that he uses a system for gaining knowledge about Nature that is different from what most people use, it is critical to understand that everyone, including him, must share this system in order to reach his conclusions. He knows this as well as you know that he must share your system of knowledge (which you call science; an act he regards as pretentious and wrong) to reach your conclusions about Nature. This is the true fight.
This rings true, based on what I've read so far of his SD comments.
In some ways it's good news - there is the possibility that an agreement on 'the rules of engagement' can be reached, and thus that there is a framework within which fruitful dialogue can take place.
Most of his posts on Slashdot treat his readership as if they already had his system (thus his "confidence in his readers' ability") by appealing to common sense ab
The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is a fundamental prediction of Hot Big Bang cosmology. The temperature of its black-body spectrum has been measured at the present time, $T_{\rm CMBR,0}$ = 2.726$\pm$ 0.010 K, and is predicted to have been higher in the past. At earlier time, the temperature can be measured, in principle, using the excitation of atomic fine structure levels by the radiation field. All previous measurements however give only upper limits as they assume that no other significant source of excitation is present. Here we report the detection of absorption from the first {\sl and} second fine-structure levels of neutral carbon atoms in an isolated remote cloud at a redshift of 2.33771. In addition, the unusual detection of molecular hydrogen in several rotational levels and the presence of ionized carbon in its excited fine structure level make the absorption system unique to constrain, directly from observation, the different excitation processes at play. It is shown for the first time that the cosmic radiation was warmer in the past. We find 6.0 {is less than} T_{\rm CMBR} {is less than} 14 K at z = 2.33771 when 9.1 K is expected in the Hot Big Bang cosmology.
This reports the results of some very difficult astronomical observations, with the detailed quantitative support for 'Hot Big Bang Cosmology' explained using both the wonderful capabilities of the UVES spectrograph on the KUEYEN VLT and details from quantum theory of the atom ('atomic fine structure levels').
Or, saying this another way, the relevance of the data collected from UVES depends critically upon the accuracy of the (physics) *theories* used to design, build, and operate UVES (and the VLT), and (physics) *theories* on atomic transitions (which may not be testable in the lab, because no lab can create a plasma which mimics the relevant one in the interstellar medium (ISM)).
You and others like you do not consider something worthy of investigating unless there exists mathematical models that can demonstrate it is so.
Please do not try to side-track my questions.
Besides, how do you know what I do (or do not) consider worthy of investigating?
Perhaps you 'know' in the same way you 'know' that I "actively silenc[e] alternative views" (I note that you didn't reply to this)? May one conclude that making unsubstantiated, pejorative statements about other SD writers is an acceptable to you? For example, I could state - without any substantiation whatsoever - that pln2bz is a well-known convicted felon?
For avoidance of doubt: I am not, repeat NOT, asserting that pln2bz is a well-known convicted felon!
There are forms of evidence which can elevate an idea to a level of consideration as plausible, and for which mathematics really doesn't have a lot to say about.
If you say so... with respect to astronomy and space studies, what are these 'forms of evidence'?
For these, what are the methods which an independent, objective third party could use to test, judge, evaluate, etc the 'plausibility' of any such ideas?
{omitting a large part of your comment, as it concerns your assumptions of what I might, or might not, do with respect to evaluation etc.}
Different cosmologies offer different sets of evidence, and they have to be evaluated on their own terms.
You've lost me I'm afraid; I thought we were talking about (my bold):
the American public is being asked to pay for a mission to the planet to study these supposed cracks, and presumably to eventually study the supposed ocean beneath the ice. I think that most Americans would appreciate hearing more than just one viewpoint on how their money is being spent.
What does '[d]ifferent cosmologies' have to do with 'a mission to the planet to study these supposed cracks'?
Anyway... for the 'EU Theory', what are the terms by which the strongest 'sets of evidence' should be evaluated (I assume there is, in some sense, a 'cosmology' in 'EU Theory')?
The problem that you appear to be having is that you're used to a more centralized forum where threads can be deleted if they are deemed to be heretical.
I do? How did you arrive at this conclusion? What fora are you referring to?
So, the idea that you should be actively silencing alternative views for interpretations is a bit out of line.
Huh?!?!
I've been here in Slashdot but days and you are accusing me of 'actively silencing alternative views'?!? I mean, have you read the Slashdot FAQs lately?
But perhaps I misunderstand you (seems I do that a lot); in what way is asking questions, about material that you have written, here in SD, 'actively silencing alternative views'?
But, your appeals to formalism within astrophysics (the idea that Thornhill should just write a paper documenting his prediction in greater depth) do not work as a mechanism for convincing me that he's wrong.
I'm beginning to think that you are - quite deliberately - misunderstanding what I write.
Second, within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), Wallace Thornhill did not make any predictions, much less any accurate predictions!
pln2bz:
I would be wary of relying upon arguments that depend upon a lack of awareness within the public, for if large numbers of people finally learn about the prediction, and you are still arguing that he made no prediction, people will consider your approach to be a bit "unique". I fail to believe that the public will adopt your more nuanced definition of what a prediction is (whatever that is).
APODNereid (bold in the original)
Here's where I expected more of you.
As my comment - that you are quoting - clearly states ("From the post of yours that I'm replying to, I can't tell; however, you do seem to be asking for acceptance of the ideas you are so obviously promoting on the basis of their (traditional) scientific legitimacy. As I have to start somewhere, the rest of my comment will assume this is the case."), I was working within the assumption that you were presenting a case within the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science !
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).
What I'm (patiently, so far) waiting for is for you to tell me (and any other reader) what the paradigm is, within which you may be convinced of anything (to do with astronomy and space).
I'll ask again: dear pln2bz, would you please be so kind as to tell me how you d
Is dark matter and dark energy not kooky stuff to you? When astrophysicists have difficulty, for instance, identifying enough matter to generate gravitational lensing, and just assume the needed dark matter necessary to make it so, is that not also kooky to you? First, congratulations on, once again, mis-stating and misunderstanding an interesting part of modern astrophysics.
Second, thanks for the clarity with which you state the gulf between your 'viewpoint' and the nature of modern (astro)physics.
FWIW (for what it's worth), in astrophysics, 'non-baryonic dark matter' is extraordinary... several classes of quite different, independent observations lead to the same, quantitatively consistent conclusion. Further, the concept has great utility, not least because it permits the development of a great many hypotheses which can be tested (and are continuing to be tested). In other words, science doing what it does best (Birkeland would be proud).
When astrophysicists see filaments of plasma in space that are surrounded by helical magnetic fields and that span tens of thousands of light years I asked you about this earlier, and you chose not to reply - will you again choose to not reply?
The 'seeing' of 'filaments of plasma in space' and 'surrounded by helical magnetic fields' is done through long chains of logic, a great many mathematical models, and the application of a wide range of modern (physics) theories.
To the extent that you are willing to cite this rich mix of data and theory as 'fact', to what extent are you also irrevocably binding yourself to the detailed, quantitative world of modern (plasma) physics?
The answer is, of course, that you can't avoid it... the only honest (and logical) alternative is to re-analyse all the (raw) data yourself, building your own mathematical models, based on your own (physics) theories.
People who work with things that have to work in the real world around us would in fact tend to think it's kooky to *not* suppose that such structures represent large-scale flows of electricity. Who are these people? Are they (plasma) physicists? Do they have degrees in astrophysics? What are the chains of logic and math that connects a 2cm plasma filament in the lab to a ~thousand light-year long jet in the Virgo cluster (say)?
The Deep Impact results can legitimately be interpreted that way [that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charges]. If it's not the case, then somebody needs to come up with a reasonable explanation for why there were two flashes. Earlier I offered to assist you find answers to this (good) question; you ignored my offer. Why?
But here's a question in return: when the various spacecraft reached, and landed on, the Moon, Venus, Mars, Titan, and Eros, were there any flashes? If not, can the absence of such flashes 'legitimately be interpreted' as falsifying the hypothesis 'that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charges'?
If the IPM (inter-planetary medium) is a plasma, and since plasmas are good (electrical) conductors, how is it 'that bodies in space can acquire [...] electrical charges'? When (if) you answer this question, please be sure to include relevant discussion of the Debye length.
The idea that electricity flows through space is not at this point inane BS. It's already accepted that electrical flows occur from the Sun to the Earth. One of the many advantages to operating within the standard (plasma physics, space science) scientific paradigm is that key terms are clearly defined, and connections with the underlying (physics) theory easily traced.
One of the disadvantages to operating outside this paradigm is that key terms lose their precision, communication becomes fuzzy, misunderstandings all too common, and so on.
If by the above you are referring to the solar wind, then of course you're right, and we can turn to any number of standard textbooks and scientific papers to explore the topic in as much depth as any reader wishes.
However, if by the above you mean something like Juergen's currents, or the idea that the Sun is powered (largely) by a giant inter-stellar current, then we are adrift without a paddle... we have no minimal mutual understanding on which to base further dialogue.
Is it so insane to include as a *possibility* that they are being etched by plasmas? Not really. Quite right.
However, the difficulty comes once you accept that *possibility*... how do you begin to test it? For what you've written these last few days, in SD, it is clear that:
a) you reject - out of hand - any testing done within the standard scientific paradigm of plasma physics or space science;
b) you offer no alternative means by which any such testing could be done.
I'm just trying to have a conversation, really, because I honestly don't trust the establishment to admit that it is wrong on this issue. What they're going to do is work their way to the same conclusions the hard way, by fighting tooth and nail to avoid considering the possibility that electricity does things of importance in space, and people like you and I will probably be dead by the time it happens. Ah, the eternal excuse - I can't tell you anything about my electromachining (or whatever you call it) idea, nor can I suggest any way anyone could even *begin* to draft a programme to test it, because I honestly don't trust the establishment to admit that it is wrong on this issue!
Would you mind explaining the logic here please?
The plume on Io, for god's sake, looks *exactly* like the output of a plasma gun. It does? '*exactly*'?
How did you come to that conclusion?
In what - quantitative - sense is it *exact*?
Images from Kristian Birkeland's terrella experiments from 100 years go are so identical to eclipsed shots of Io (with its hot point sources) that the two images are literally impossible to distinguish. They are?
I thought Birkeland's 'images' are on photographic emulsion, and 'images' of 'eclipsed shots of Io (with its hot point sources)' are the result of an extremely complex chain of processing, using many, detailed, mathematical models (the spacecraft to ground station commslink alone is a marvel of modern technology). Am I mistaken?
People who argue that we should not investigate these things are basically assuming their way to their own conclusions. Who so argues? Certainly not the dozens of PhDs who write papers on the landforms of Mars, etc!
These ideas should not be judged within the assumptions of papers. Not even - Flying Spaghetti Monster forfend! - within the assumptions of 'EU Theory' papers (should any ever get written)?
We should evaluate the concept of electrical terraforming instead within the conclusions. What does this mean? What 'conclusions'? Reached how? Using which parts of plasma (or related) physics?
So tell us, if you'd be so kind pln2bz, how do you suggest anyone - scientist, non-scientist; member of the American public, citizen of Germany; and so on - should judge, evaluate, test, assess and otherwise check up on the dozens, hundreds, thousands,... of other 'viewpoints'?
Are you arguing that people should not try to understand complex subjects because it is difficult? Not in the least! I can't work out how you inferred that from what I wrote.
What I meant was, given the hundreds (if not thousands) of (other) 'viewpoints' that have scientific merit that is similar to 'EU Theory', what method(s) do you suggest Joan Chardonnay and Joe Sixpack (or Dr Zhou and Herr Professor Georg) use to evaluate (test, assess, check,...) them?
Few members of the American public (or citizens of Germany, or...) have the time to spend reading even a small subset of such viewpoints, let alone evaluating them.
Saying this another way, as I have said several times now, in other SD comments, I'm trying to get you to state/suggest/recommend/etc a method/framework/paradigm within which ideas such as 'EU Theory' should - in your own view - be judged/assessed/tested.
If it's so absurd that electrical plasmas are etching out Enceladus, then it makes sense that you should be able to demonstrate why the link I posted is so wrong. It's easy enough to do, for an audience comprised of folk who've got degrees in, or who work full-time in, planetary science, space (plasma) science (physics), geophysics, etc.
Much more difficult is to come up with a demonstration that you would regard as acceptable.
Why?
For starters, as our dialogue (if it can be called that) in various SD comment strings attests, you do not accept the standard (plasma physics, space science,...) scientific paradigm, so a demonstration within that paradigm would leave you untouched and unmoved (though my guess is that a significant minority - or more - of SD readers of astronomy/space science/astrophysics SD topics would find it compelling, or at least interesting).
So what would work?
Well, if you'd be so kind as to tell me (and all others who would read your reply) what you regard as acceptable forms of judgment, assessment, testing, evaluation, and so on (of material such as that in 'the link I posted') are, then I could start to prepare such a demonstration.
Of course, it's entirely possible that no such demonstration, within your evaluation paradigm, is possible, even in principle. Saying this another way, it may be that, within your worldview, 'the link I posted' cannot be shown to be wrong, ever.
APODNereid, apparently from BAUT, is no affiliation of mine and neither is anyone else from BAUT or any other web forum. I guess I shouldn't be surprised they've taken notice of you as I have. Though Nereid's response pertains to your specific post, I think it is clear the response is not one written with any knowledge of your modus operandi or the futility of taking that particular approach to arguing with you. That is, after all, why I listed the particular objections that I did and took care to clarify and qualify them. Nereid would be wise to understand them and research you independently before trying to deal with you as the kind of mere EU pretender seen in most internet forums. Thanks for these comments.
In fact, if you read my other SD comments, you'll see that I have been independently investigating pln2bz's 429 (as of today) SD comments, from Day 2 of my SD existence.
FWIW (for what it's worth), I have found a number of replies to pln2bz's SD comments helpful and informative, not least because some were followed by further pln2bz's SD comments (and so on). In particular, I have formed the (provisional, tentative) opinion that pln2bz:
a) does not often respond to questions about material in his (her?) SD comments;
b) writes (deliberately?) using words which have sometimes quite idiosyncratic meanings, but doesn't spell these personal meanings out, thus making communication unnecessarily difficult;
c) (deliberately?) mis-states, mis-interprets, or misunderstands many so-called facts, observational or experimental results;
d) is confused about, or (worse) deliberately mis-construes, the nature of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, space science,...), as fields of science (and is reluctant - or worse, regards it as abhorrent - to engage in discussion on this).
FWIW(2): anyone reading this comment is free to assume anything they wish about any connection between APODNereid and any user/member/participant in any other internet discussion forum, whether with the handle/name/avatar of Nereid or not. Myself, I wish what I write here to be read solely within the context of the SD comment strings in which they appear or reference.
FWIW(3): my current goal, wrt (with regard to) pln2bz is to establish clear guidelines on what she (he?) considers legitimate frameworks within which the EU ideas he (she?) promotes may be judged, assessed, tested, evaluated, etc. To the extent that I have formed any opinion, it seems that, as a hypothesis, 'there is only one true word, and that is the word of {Thornhill, Scott, insert other names here}' is not falsified by anything pln2bz has written in SD (that I've read so far). pln2bz, if you're reading this, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to comments you've written in SD which do, in fact, falsify this hypothesis.
There is a subtle guerrilla war going on within the discipline of astrophysics right now. There is? Are we talking about the science-based discipline of astrophysics?
Many of the conventional astrophysicists are refusing to consider the *possibility* that electricity in space does things of importance. They are? Like who? And how did you arrive at this conclusion?
I've asked you similar questions, when replying to other comments by you, but you've chosen not to reply; I hope you reply this time. After all, to the extent you deign to describe the PhD students in Space Science and Plasma Physics (whether in university Departments of Electrical Engineering or not) as 'astrophysicists' (or not), it's a bit rich to say they 'refuse to consider the *possibility* that electricity in space does things of importance'. Would you be interested to read some of the papers by these folk, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which falsify your assertion?
Even when the evidence is compelling, they refuse to take part in any serious investigation that the conventional theories may be seriously wrong. What compelling evidence?
And how would you suggest 'serious investigation' be done? This is another serious question - what methods, tools, techniques, analyses, etc do you feel should be brought to bear in a study of such so-called compelling evidence?
There is a huge disconnect right now between the more over-zealous astrophysicists and reasonable, objective people. And you know this because...? Of research you've done, using the standard tools and techniques of sociology, psychology, etc?
Or you're merely stating something you personally feel, but have no objective data worth anything to back it up?
But let's assume you have done the research - how did you decide which 'astrophysicists' are 'over-zealous'? and which 'people' are 'reasonable, objective'?
They consider people like myself as spreading "misinformation". I can only speak for myself, but based on what I've read so far of your comments here in SD, I'd say you are ignorant, confused, and hypocritical.
Ignorant because of the so-called 'facts' you cite, those that I myself have investigated, you more often than not mis-state, mis-represent, or misunderstand them.
Confused because you seem to want people who read your comments to take them seriously, in a scientific sense, but almost in the same breath admit that there's no scientific basis for them, that you do not wish them to be investigated using such methods, and are unwilling or unable to answer very simple questions about them.
Hypocritical because, on the one hand, you insist that there's something going on in the heavens that should be investigated but isn't being so investigated; on the other hand, you baulk at even the idea that your pet 'EU Theory' should also be investigated, much less questioned or challenged.
So tell us, if you'd be so kind pln2bz, how do you suggest anyone - scientist, non-scientist; member of the American public, citizen of Germany; and so on - should judge, evaluate, test, assess and otherwise check up on the dozens, hundreds, thousands,... of other 'viewpoints'?
It's a serious question; I hope you'll give it some thought, and give us the benefit of your serious consideration on it.
I was wondering how long before a chance to ask this came up; not long at all, as it turns out.
Have you, yourself, stood on the surface of Enceladus pln2bz? No? Then how do you know it's real?
No, this is a serious question... if you do not have direct, personal experience of anything astronomical (beyond the Earth's atmosphere), whence comes your understanding of it?
Perhaps you've got a telescope from Meade or a competitor in your backyard; perhaps you've observed Saturn through the eyepiece, and seen a spot of light which you concludes is Enceladus? If so, how did you work out that there's ice on it?
Why is it important to ask these questions? Because if you choose to tilt at modern astronomy (planetary science, space science, astrophysics, etc), you should be prepared to construct an alternative universe, free of all the inputs which depend crucially on the 'mathematical models' you reject... like those which go into the design, construction, launch, etc of the spacecraft which gathered the data you so conveniently use to heap scorn on the work of the professionals.
I've been reading through your comments in SD, pln2bz, to get a better idea of just what you're trying to promote, and why.
Most of the comments I've read so far are either addressed already or will likely come up again.
However this one is just too rich to pass up (and, it seems, no one has responded yet).
the similarities we observe between space plasmas and laboratory plasmas are completely coincidental and unimportant to an extent that they should not even be investigated, and that instead, we should look to invisible particles to explain the motions of large-scale structures of the universe.
That's the assertion; let's go through some of the specific examples cited, to see a) how well they align with the assertion, and b) how accurate they are.
The fact that a spiral galaxy is in fact the same thing as a cross-section of two rotating Birkeland Currents?
To put it politely, bollocks... they have little, if any, similarity beyond the apparent visual appearance in some (deliberately) selected examples by Peratt. In particular, the central portions of spiral galaxies bear little, if any, similarity with Peratt's pictures (which, in an ironic twist, are quintessentially the very mathematical models you are so dismissive of in other comments).
The fact that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets?
And what is the claimed similarity with any lab plasmas?
The fact that Kristin Birkeland was able to reproduce many of the major features we're observing in our local solar system 100 years ago with his electrical plasma terrella experiments?
He was? How many? How many was he NOT able to reproduce? How did you determine the degree of similarity?
To take one example, was he able to reproduce the perihelion advance of Mercury's orbit (one of the classic facts that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was able to account for)?
The fact that electrical plasmas continue to conduct current, and thus exert force, during their "dark mode"?
And the similarity with 'space plasmas' is... what, exactly?
The fact that the Colorado River goes straight through the Kaibab Upwarp, even though rivers typically do not penetrate mile-high plateaus?
How is this even relevant?? It's neither a 'space plasma' nor a 'laboratory plasma'!
[skipping two]
The fact that the Deep Impact impactor elicited two separate flashes at the time of impact even though the impactor was traveling at something like 23,000 mph?
Ah, the Deep Impact 'prediction'!
And what is the similarity with lab plasmas?
The fact that astrophysicists have to use a different value of G for the Sun in their calculations than is used for other objects (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2814)?
What does this have to do with space plasmas? And what is the similarity with lab plasmas?
The fact that we can see jets of charged particles in space with helical magnetic fields around them that extend thousands of light years in length? Do you understand what James Maxwell would say?
We can? I thought the only thing we can 'see' beyond the solar system is photons (and some cosmic rays)? I thought that 'jets of charged particles' and 'helical magnetic fields' could only be inferred by using exquisitely detailed mathematical models (of the kind you apparently disdain)?
The fact that we can observe "moving geysers" on Enceladus, and that Wallace Thornhill predicted as much before it was observed?
What does this have to do with space plasmas? And what is the similarity with lab plasmas? Where did Wallace Thornhill publish his prediction?
The fact that Io possesses moving plumes, that these vents are much hotter than lava, and that the supposed "lava lakes" are not hot as would be expected from a
By 'DT' I meant 'Wallace Thornhill', per the earlier comments (for some reasons I got 'David Thornhill' stuck in my mind)... apologies for the error (I was quoting the reference to 'Deep Impact flash predictions').
There are other mechanisms to validate timestamps for predictions. We could just as easily identify Internet cross-references to the prediction. And in fact, it's easy to do just that...
The idea that Thornhill's prediction does not mean anything unless the people who are threatened by it in fact sanction it is hardly a strong argument.
I guess one can take this non-answer as an answer... DT did NOT publish any (scientific) details of how he worked out his so-called prediction, and certainly none that anyone - plasma physicists, electrical engineer, or slavish follower of mythology - could independently verify.
But thanks: it's becoming clearer that others' who've commented on what you've written in SD were right - you are pushing non-science, and using the idea of some kind of giant conspiracy as an excuse for why there is nothing at all in the way of (plasma) science behind these ideas.
Actually, the quantitative nature of the prediction is readily apparent to most people: *two* flashes is a different number than *one* flash. Your requirements for his prediction are completely meaningless within the context of the number of flashes. How does order of magnitude make any sense whatsoever with respect to a prediction on the number of flashes?
Good point.
So DT's 'prediction' of 'flashes' came with at least an OOM (order of magnitude), or two, estimate of their brightness? I mean, how else did he know that they'd be bright enough to register in the cameras/detectors, but not too bright to vapourise the mother ship?
Does the fact that Thornhill did not predict the exact magnitude of the flash or delay between the two flashes discount the fact that he got the number of flashes right? No, not at all, unless you can demonstrate how it is possible that he could have been so lucky.
Wrong question; if no one (else) can work out how he made the predictions, in what way are they any different from reading tea leaves? What hypotheses can be formulated, based on these so-called predictions, that can be independently tested, even in principle? Or must NASA employ DT as an oracle, given that only he can make (according to you) accurate predictions?
Oh, and let me not pass up acknowledging the centrality of 'IF you can't show me I'm wrong THEN I must be right!' logic. Is it acceptable - to you - for anyone to use this logic? or can it be applied only to words of wisdom from DT?
Does the existence of two flashes demonstrate that Thornhill's explanation of what happened deserves consideration in future missions? Yes, it does.
Good job you're not running NASA!
Now if DT were to write up, in a logical and consistent fashion, the full details of his so-called explanation - full of the necessary references to the underlying plasma physics of course - that'd be a start. Then he could get it reviewed (doesn't have to be by peers, Physics Forums has a quite good IR section, for example), and maybe we could revisit your comment.
In the meantime, how about we scour the internet (and beyond) for any other 'accurate predictions', and put all the explanations from all the others on the table, for serious consideration (by you).
So, I've been patient so far, but you seem really desperate here. Rather than propose a reasonable mechanism for the two flashes, it seems that all you can do is to cast doubt on the actual prediction itself and argue that it wasn't stated properly. If I'm to believe that Thornhill got lucky, then by what mechanism do you credit the double flashes? If you cannot explain this, from what do you derive your confidence that Thornhill is so wrong? It seems to me that you are judging his prediction on the basis of his theory's conclusions -- which would seem to i
Sorry you feel that way... I was looking forward to your answers (as I said, I've been reading your other comment in SD, and it seems you have been much more, shall we say, expressive, and willing to engage in dialogue with others... even when the topics have been highly abstract...).
BTW, would you mind re-stating the 'specific facts' that you think you have brought up? Just the top five will do. I'm interested to understand how you could possibly have concluded that I 'refused to deal with a single one of them'.
However, I really don't know what you're talking about...
For starters, that page does NOT say "that the Earth's surface can be described as a leaky capacitor"! (Perhaps you should read it again?)
Second, "the Earth" in this article means something slightly different from what you mean by the term (in your comment); if you would like to re-read, and then re-write, you'll quickly see your misunderstanding.
Third, though moot now, I can't believe you'd cite a Canadian Forest Service webpage as an authoritative source for planetary science!
I was hoping, but not expecting, better than this from you, pln2bz.
First, there's no such thing as 'EU Theory', in the standard, scientific meaning of 'Theory' (think of 'Theory of General Relativity', for example).
Well, surely, if you cover your eyes with your hands, you will not see it. So, uncover my eyes (and those of anyone else reading this)... go ahead, make your day! Give us all the reference(s), to the paper(s) published in the relevant peer-reviewed journal(s), where we can all go read all about this so-called theory for ourselves!
Just one request: please make sure that these papers have been cited (referenced) by the other papers you will be quoting, whenever you invoke 'EU Theory'.
Alternatively, be honest enough to admit that there is no such scientific theory.
Second, within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), Wallace Thornhill did not make any predictions, much less any accurate predictions!
I would be wary of relying upon arguments that depend upon a lack of awareness within the public, for if large numbers of people finally learn about the prediction, and you are still arguing that he made no prediction, people will consider your approach to be a bit "unique". I fail to believe that the public will adopt your more nuanced definition of what a prediction is (whatever that is). Here's where I expected more of you.
As my comment - that you are quoting - clearly states ("From the post of yours that I'm replying to, I can't tell; however, you do seem to be asking for acceptance of the ideas you are so obviously promoting on the basis of their (traditional) scientific legitimacy. As I have to start somewhere, the rest of my comment will assume this is the case."), I was working within the assumption that you were presenting a case within the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science!
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.
But more than that, I also wonder what your purpose is in denying these things rather than arguing against them? It appears to be less of an attempt to understand your surroundings than an attempt to *define* your surroundings. Glad you asked; I do hope you will be willing to listen to the answer.
Communication requires a certain minimum in terms of common understanding.
If I wish to communicate with you - and any others who happen along with comments - I need to make sure that the relevant parts of such a common understanding are in place. Otherwise, we will just be talking past each other for quite a while before realising it.
So, in this regard, I have achieved something very important: whatever case it is that you are so keen on presenting, I must not assume that you intend it to be taken seriously as one that has scientific merit.
If, at any time, you do intend something you assert to be taken seriously (scientifically), then please say so, and I (and others) may engage in science-based discourse with you.
Back to the topic... on what basis - other than popular opinion - do you wish your assertions to be judged? tested?
I can identify some fundamental problems within astrophysics without having to get a degree. Can you explain, for instance, the root cause of the two flashes in the Deep Impact Mission?
More 'semantical issues' I'm afraid.
First, for whatever reason, stuff which happens inside the solar system is (largely) the domain of 'space science', or 'plasma physics', or 'geophysics' (go figure) than 'astrophysics'.
Second, in whatever field you're working, calling the root causes of the two DI flashes a 'fundamental problem' shows either a profound ignorance of the fields, or crackpottery.
However, I've been reading some of your other Slashdot comments, and I gather that you have a view of the nature of science (well, physics anyway, which includes plasma physics, space science, astrophysics, and geophysics) different than that of those who actually do research (and publish papers, etc). I can't be sure, but it seems you take the naive falsificationist position... if so, rather odd, since even Popper (whose idea it is) only proposed it as a foil.
Wallace Thornhill was the only one who accurately predicted that there would be two separate flashes. I thought that accurate predictions were important within astrophysics, but it seems as though after-the-fact simulations are just as good, if not better.
I see you trot this out quite a often, and perhaps you've already addressed my comment on it elsewhere...
Not to worry, let's examine it, shall we?
Let's assume something resembling modern science, in terms of protocols and methods (we can look at alternatives later).
Let's assume that DT doesn't intend to base his ideas on 'new physics' (such as a fifth force, or branes, for example).
Let's further assume that DT has not extended plasma physics in radically new ways.
Finally, let's assume that DT's so-called prediction is based on nothing more than plasma physics.
OK so far?
In modern science, it doesn't count as a prediction if it isn't published, with the details of how it was made laid out in sufficient detail that others (with the relevant training in the relevant parts of plasma physics) can independently verify how it was made (logical consistency, no errors in the math, and so on).
Further, in modern space science (or plasma physics, or astrophysics, or...), it's not a prediction unless it's quantitative, at least to an OOM (order of magnitude).
To the best of my knowledge, DT did not publish anything at all like this.
Ergo, DT did not make any predictions, in the sense of a (space science, plasma physics) scientific prediction.
But I could be wrong; can you point me to the issue of the relevant peer-reviewed journal in which DT published his prediction?
I guess Thornhill could just be really lucky, but shouldn't we evaluate that within our conclusions rather than our assumptions?
Actually, we should evaluate his so-called prediction as non-science... unless and until he publishes it, showing in sufficient detail how he made it (so anyone can check), and including the necessary parts of plasma physics he used. And, such publication should be at least reviewed (by others working in the relevant fields of physics, etc).
These seem like completely legitimate questions to me, and I'm very concerned that they are not taken more seriously because they go to the heart of the issue of whether or not bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge.
I see, from reading some of your other comments, that you do indeed feel this way, consistently.
However, it's not clear to me - yet - whether you consider 'legitimacy' from the perspective of contemporary physics. I hope you'll clarify that in due course.
As to being taken seriously: it seems to me there are only two choices, either you are OK to work with standard physics, or you want to i
If you wish to be taken seriously, pln2bz, may I suggest that you decide whether you're barracking for something with a basis in science, or some other arena.
If it's science, then either you sign on to the relevant methods, tools, techniques etc of the field you are interested in, or you start by admitting that you want to use a somewhat (or very) different set.
From the post of yours that I'm replying to, I can't tell; however, you do seem to be asking for acceptance of the ideas you are so obviously promoting on the basis of their (traditional) scientific legitimacy. As I have to start somewhere, the rest of my comment will assume this is the case.
I've paid very close attention to the accurate predictions that Wallace Thornhill has made, and almost more importantly, the responses to those predictions. Taken as a whole, EU Theory survives the criticism fully intact. Right here, in the first paragraph, your programme runs into trouble.
First, there's no such thing as 'EU Theory', in the standard, scientific meaning of 'Theory' (think of 'Theory of General Relativity', for example).
Second, within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), Wallace Thornhill did not make any predictions, much less any accurate predictions!
Let's move on.
Of the few who are trained to understand astrophysical issues [...] May one infer from this that you, yourself, feel that you are one of the few?
May one ask what training you have received, pertinent to understanding 'astrophysical issues'?
The fact that the plasma physics portion of EU Theory claims are just being ignored though for the sole reason that it is the EU Theorists who are saying them I've not read enough of your other Slashdot comments to be able to conclude if you're joking, are quite serious, or something else entirely.
Staying within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), I'm aware of almost no such 'plasma physics portion of EU Theory claims' published in relevant, peer-reviewed scientific journals in the last decade or so (other than one or two papers by A. Peratt). If these so-called claims have (plasma physics, space science, astrophysics) scientific merit, why don't the authors write up papers and get them published in peer-reviewed journals? Goodness, there are even ways to get ideas 'published', with 'review', with a much lower standard than the relevant journals in the field - why haven't there been any?
One thing is clear to me from my readings: conventional astrophysicists completely and consistently underestimate the legitimacy of the EU Theory arguments and evidence. Many don't even know enough about it to realize that they're siding with mathematical models against lab results. This will be the last quote, even though I'm barely a tenth of the way through your reply, it's already abundantly clear I made an incorrect assumption earlier.
Which textbooks, review papers, etc - by 'conventional astrophysicists' - did you read (that lead you to such a conclusion)?
Which 'lab results' (published where) did you read? To what extent did you check for the use of 'mathematical models' in the presentation of those 'lab results'?
In which lab was a test done, on a 2 x 10^30 kg mass of ~75% H, ~24% He, ~2% all other elements, of the legitimacy of 'EU Theory arguments and evidence' vs mainstream astrophysics?
But perhaps I have seriously misunderstood what you wrote. Would you be kind enough to state, as clearly as you can, the extent to which the cause/ideas/whatever you are promoting should (could?) be judged using the standard methods of science (of the fields of plasma physics, space science, or astrophysics)?
Slashdot Mirror
How did the Cassini spacecraft get designed (successfully)?
With mathematics (among other things)
How did the Cassini mission control team get the spacecraft to Enceladus and know when to start collecting data?
With mathematics
How did the Enceladus data from the Cassini spacecraft get transmitted (successfully) to Earth?
With mathematics
How did the astronomers using the Keck telescope conclude there is little to no sodium on Enceladus?
With mathematics
How did Maxwell describe electricity and magnetism?
With mathematics
How did Langmuir and Alfven (and others) develop plasma physics, and so describe the behaviour of plasmas?
With mathematics
How did pln2bz, Thornhill et al explain the Cassini and Keck Enceldadus data?
With mythology
What use did pln2bz, Thornhill et al make of the (intrinsically mathematical) theories of electromagnetism and plasma physics, in their explanations?
None.
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.
... what methods, what techniques, what tools to use?
However, you did not bother to suggest just HOW anyone - other than the high priests of the 'EU Theory' religion - should (or could) test any of these ideas
Nor did you bother to explain how anyone - including yourself - could tell the difference between these non-science ideas and the hundreds of other non-science ideas promoted on various internet websites, from TVF's exploding planets, to Nancy's Planet X, to Cunningham's (non-terrestrial) landforms as evidence of interplanetary warfare, and beyond.
So, may I ask again?
Why should anyone pay any more attention to these EU ideas (about Enceladus) than those of hundreds of other non-science websites'?
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?
So, in comments on a story about Enceladus and the lack of sodium in Keck observations, you introduce a book about mammoth extinctions?!
A book which even you do not dare claim has anything directly to do with Enceladus (or the Keck observations).
Your comments, to this story, can thus be accurately be summarised as a cynical, deliberate attempt to improve the rankings of a certain crackpot website in search engines, by linking it to Slashdot, with no intention whatsoever to engage in discussion, discourse, or debate about:
* specific (non-scientific) so-called 'EU Theory' claims about Enceladus,
* the (merely coincidental) relationship between the methods used by so-called 'EU Theorists' and those used by real scientists, or
* anything else that has any relevance to Enceladus and the Keck observations.
In what respect do your comments differ from porn/knock-off watch/'free' software/viagra (etc) spam?
Even comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly thing-amy-whats-its have more relevance to the original story than anything you've written!
How do you go about determining what "its own terms" are, for "[e]ach piece of evidence", concerning evidence which is not mythological?
For example, data returned from the Cassini probe, since it started orbiting Saturn (and the subset of such data that pertains to Enceladus, however you choose to assess pertinence)
Or, more generally, evidence obtained by detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation from beyond the solar system (assuming that you and I agree on what, in astronomy, would constitute detection [...] from objects beyond the solar system).
It is from analyses of these detections that we derive conclusions about stars made of hydrogen, of clouds of tenuous gas and dust, of regions of hot plasma, and so on.
Many of these detections are presented as pictures, or images, such as those presented daily at Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071220.html).
Some are just like what we can see with our own eyes (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070508.html).
Some are 'false colour' images, but close enough to what we imagine we might see if only we could look through the eyepiece of the telescope (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070418.html).
It's but a small step to look at other false colour images, taken in the infrared for example, through what is obviously just a telescope, and imagine we can interpret them similarly (example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070413.html).
Other images are false colour composites, with one or more components having been taken by something that may bear little resemblance to our backyard refractor; nonetheless we may feel we can still interpret them similarly (example: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/crab/index.html).
However, reading the details of how photon/EMR detection got turned into an image quickly reveals that we should be very cautious when it comes to interpreting these images. For example, take this combined (Chandra) x-ray and (VLA) radio 'image' of the supernova remnant G11.2-0.3 (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/g11/index.html). Here is a description of how the x-ray image was created (source: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0107292):
NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory observed G11.2-0.3 at two epochs, the first (Sequence Number 50076) on 2000 August 6, and the second (Sequence Number 50077) on 2000 October 15. The exposure for the first epoch was 20 ks. The second epoch consisted of two exposures, one of 10 ks and the other of 5 ks. In all observations, the remnant was positioned on the back-illuminated CCD chip S3 of the ACIS instrument in standard exposure mode. In this mode, the time resolution (3.2 s) is too coarse to resolve the pulsations from the pulsar.
The data were analyzed using the CIAO 2.02 and MIRIAD software packages. Following the energy binning scheme of Hughes et al. (2000), we added together the individual count maps from the three different observing epochs in the 0.6-1.65 keV, 1.65-2.25 keV, and 2.25-7.5 keV energy bands. Spectrally weighted exposure maps were created for each observation and energy band, and were summed over the three observations, creating a total count map and exposure map for each energy band. The count maps were divided by the exposure maps, and the result convolved with a 5" FWHM Gaussian to enhance the nebular structure given the low count rate. The three individual maps were then combined into a 3-color image, with red, green, and blue assigned to the low, medium, and high energy bands respectively.
And the radio image (source http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0202262):
Radio observations of G11.2-0.3 were made with the VLA at 20 and 6 cm (L- and C-bands, respectively), between 1984 April and 1985 May. Details of these observations are summarized in Table 1.
Data reduction and analysis were performed using standard procedures within the miriad package (Sault & Killeen 1999). The data were flux-density and anten
Few members of the American public (or citizens of Germany, or
Recall that the context is 'cracks on Enceladus', a mission to study them, and whether "most Americans would appreciate hearing more than just one viewpoint on how their money is being spent".
It would seem that pln2bz would like to have a viewpoint he calls 'EU Theory' the one (and only?) that "most Americans would appreciate hearing".
My question concerns why, if there are to be other viewpoints considered, 'EU Theory'? Why not Nancy and Planet X? Hoagland's Enterprise Mission? Cunningham's crater chains? And so on. (Interested readers may find their own way to sites promoting these 'viewpoints'; Google is your friend).
What criteria should "reasonable, objective people" use - in pln2bz's opinion - to choose among the hundreds of such viewpoints to even read about? And what criteria - again, in pln2bz's opinion - should they use to evaluate their validity?
To address the last: pln2bz (and anyone else reading this), the Anonymous Coward (AC) whose post I am replying to is not APODNereid. Of course, you should not take me (or AC) at my word, but undertake your own investigation.
Somewhat out of order:
"I wish what I write here to be read solely within the context of the SD comment strings in which they appear or reference."
Thanks for your noting this. You'll see from at least one of pln2bz's comments today (or yesterday, depends on where you are) that he (I shall follow your convention and call pln2bz 'he') did not choose to respect my clearly expressed wishes in this matter. Worse, and apparently quite uncharacteristically, he leveled some unsubstantiated, pejorative charges at me, and chose not to reply (despite being directly called on them).
"a) does not often respond to questions about material in his (her?) SD comments;"
I disagree. Until this very recent deluge of SD chatter, I have observed that it was extremely rare for pln2bz to drop any argument, or even allow a single disparaging or otherwise disagreeable comment to go uncontested.
From my reading of earlier SD comments, by pln2bz, I now see that this is so.
All the more unusual then that he has apparently changed his approach - off the top of my head, I'd guess there are at least a dozen, quite serious, questions, comments or challenges from me that he has not replied to.
Perhaps the most remarkable - though not particularly surprising - is his apparent reluctance to state the logically consistent paradigm within which he himself judges/assesses/etc ideas, facts, etc in the fields of astronomy and space. Naively, I'd've expected - based on my reading (to date) of his SD comments - that he'd be only too pleased to reply, in well over 1000 words. After all, a common theme in his comments is that those who question 'EU Theory' have not taken the trouble to read the evidence presented, and, even if they have, they are not willing to assess it in any way other than one from the universe of what might be called 'approaches consistent with modern science'.
"c) (deliberately?) mis-states, mis-interprets, or misunderstands many so-called facts, observational or experimental results;"
I believe his mis-statements and mis-interpretations of these things are naive misunderstanding, and not malicious.
I continue to find it amazing that the mis-understanding and mis-interpretation (deliberate or not) is so widespread!
But perhaps I shouldn't be; it seems that pln2bz relies on what we might call tertiary sources - summaries on TB webpages, which are themselves based on (HST, ESO, ESA, NASA, etc) PRs, which are in turn based (to varying degrees) on papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals. Can you recall him ever having referenced a primary source?
"d) is confused about, or (worse) deliberately mis-construes, the nature of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, space science, ...), as fields of science"
Although it is clear that he uses a system for gaining knowledge about Nature that is different from what most people use, it is critical to understand that everyone, including him, must share this system in order to reach his conclusions. He knows this as well as you know that he must share your system of knowledge (which you call science; an act he regards as pretentious and wrong) to reach your conclusions about Nature. This is the true fight.
This rings true, based on what I've read so far of his SD comments.
In some ways it's good news - there is the possibility that an agreement on 'the rules of engagement' can be reached, and thus that there is a framework within which fruitful dialogue can take place.
Most of his posts on Slashdot treat his readership as if they already had his system (thus his "confidence in his readers' ability") by appealing to common sense ab
Each piece of evidence demands that it be considered on its own terms
How do you go about determining what "its own terms" are, for "[e]ach piece of evidence"?
To what extent must the provenance (for want of a better word) of the 'evidence' also be considered in such determinations?
For example, The microwave background temperature at the redshift of 2.33771 (http://babbage.sissa.it/abs/astro-ph/0012222); abstract:
The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is a fundamental prediction of Hot Big Bang cosmology. The temperature of its black-body spectrum has been measured at the present time, $T_{\rm CMBR,0}$ = 2.726$\pm$ 0.010 K, and is predicted to have been higher in the past. At earlier time, the temperature can be measured, in principle, using the excitation of atomic fine structure levels by the radiation field. All previous measurements however give only upper limits as they assume that no other significant source of excitation is present. Here we report the detection of absorption from the first {\sl and} second fine-structure levels of neutral carbon atoms in an isolated remote cloud at a redshift of 2.33771. In addition, the unusual detection of molecular hydrogen in several rotational levels and the presence of ionized carbon in its excited fine structure level make the absorption system unique to constrain, directly from observation, the different excitation processes at play. It is shown for the first time that the cosmic radiation was warmer in the past. We find 6.0 {is less than} T_{\rm CMBR} {is less than} 14 K at z = 2.33771 when 9.1 K is expected in the Hot Big Bang cosmology.
(the related ESO PR is here: http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/pr-27-00.html).
This reports the results of some very difficult astronomical observations, with the detailed quantitative support for 'Hot Big Bang Cosmology' explained using both the wonderful capabilities of the UVES spectrograph on the KUEYEN VLT and details from quantum theory of the atom ('atomic fine structure levels').
Or, saying this another way, the relevance of the data collected from UVES depends critically upon the accuracy of the (physics) *theories* used to design, build, and operate UVES (and the VLT), and (physics) *theories* on atomic transitions (which may not be testable in the lab, because no lab can create a plasma which mimics the relevant one in the interstellar medium (ISM)).
You and others like you do not consider something worthy of investigating unless there exists mathematical models that can demonstrate it is so.
Please do not try to side-track my questions.
Besides, how do you know what I do (or do not) consider worthy of investigating?
Perhaps you 'know' in the same way you 'know' that I "actively silenc[e] alternative views" (I note that you didn't reply to this)? May one conclude that making unsubstantiated, pejorative statements about other SD writers is an acceptable to you? For example, I could state - without any substantiation whatsoever - that pln2bz is a well-known convicted felon?
For avoidance of doubt: I am not, repeat NOT, asserting that pln2bz is a well-known convicted felon!
There are forms of evidence which can elevate an idea to a level of consideration as plausible, and for which mathematics really doesn't have a lot to say about.
If you say so ... with respect to astronomy and space studies, what are these 'forms of evidence'?
For these, what are the methods which an independent, objective third party could use to test, judge, evaluate, etc the 'plausibility' of any such ideas?
{omitting a large part of your comment, as it concerns your assumptions of what I might, or might not, do with respect to evaluation etc.}
To repeat: dear pln2bz, would you please
Different cosmologies offer different sets of evidence, and they have to be evaluated on their own terms.
You've lost me I'm afraid; I thought we were talking about (my bold):
the American public is being asked to pay for a mission to the planet to study these supposed cracks, and presumably to eventually study the supposed ocean beneath the ice. I think that most Americans would appreciate hearing more than just one viewpoint on how their money is being spent.
What does '[d]ifferent cosmologies' have to do with 'a mission to the planet to study these supposed cracks'?
... for the 'EU Theory', what are the terms by which the strongest 'sets of evidence' should be evaluated (I assume there is, in some sense, a 'cosmology' in 'EU Theory')?
Anyway
The problem that you appear to be having is that you're used to a more centralized forum where threads can be deleted if they are deemed to be heretical.
I do? How did you arrive at this conclusion? What fora are you referring to?
So, the idea that you should be actively silencing alternative views for interpretations is a bit out of line.
Huh?!?!
I've been here in Slashdot but days and you are accusing me of 'actively silencing alternative views'?!? I mean, have you read the Slashdot FAQs lately?
But perhaps I misunderstand you (seems I do that a lot); in what way is asking questions, about material that you have written, here in SD, 'actively silencing alternative views'?
But, your appeals to formalism within astrophysics (the idea that Thornhill should just write a paper documenting his prediction in greater depth) do not work as a mechanism for convincing me that he's wrong.
I'm beginning to think that you are - quite deliberately - misunderstanding what I write.
For the record, here's what I said (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=387489&cid=21744046):
APODNereid (bold added):
Second, within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), Wallace Thornhill did not make any predictions, much less any accurate predictions!
pln2bz:
I would be wary of relying upon arguments that depend upon a lack of awareness within the public, for if large numbers of people finally learn about the prediction, and you are still arguing that he made no prediction, people will consider your approach to be a bit "unique". I fail to believe that the public will adopt your more nuanced definition of what a prediction is (whatever that is).
APODNereid (bold in the original)
Here's where I expected more of you.
As my comment - that you are quoting - clearly states ("From the post of yours that I'm replying to, I can't tell; however, you do seem to be asking for acceptance of the ideas you are so obviously promoting on the basis of their (traditional) scientific legitimacy. As I have to start somewhere, the rest of my comment will assume this is the case."), I was working within the assumption that you were presenting a case within the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science !
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).
What I'm (patiently, so far) waiting for is for you to tell me (and any other reader) what the paradigm is, within which you may be convinced of anything (to do with astronomy and space).
I'll ask again: dear pln2bz, would you please be so kind as to tell me how you d
Second, thanks for the clarity with which you state the gulf between your 'viewpoint' and the nature of modern (astro)physics.
FWIW (for what it's worth), in astrophysics, 'non-baryonic dark matter' is extraordinary
The 'seeing' of 'filaments of plasma in space' and 'surrounded by helical magnetic fields' is done through long chains of logic, a great many mathematical models, and the application of a wide range of modern (physics) theories.
To the extent that you are willing to cite this rich mix of data and theory as 'fact', to what extent are you also irrevocably binding yourself to the detailed, quantitative world of modern (plasma) physics?
The answer is, of course, that you can't avoid it
But here's a question in return: when the various spacecraft reached, and landed on, the Moon, Venus, Mars, Titan, and Eros, were there any flashes? If not, can the absence of such flashes 'legitimately be interpreted' as falsifying the hypothesis 'that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charges'?
If the IPM (inter-planetary medium) is a plasma, and since plasmas are good (electrical) conductors, how is it 'that bodies in space can acquire [...] electrical charges'? When (if) you answer this question, please be sure to include relevant discussion of the Debye length.
One of the disadvantages to operating outside this paradigm is that key terms lose their precision, communication becomes fuzzy, misunderstandings all too common, and so on.
If by the above you are referring to the solar wind, then of course you're right, and we can turn to any number of standard textbooks and scientific papers to explore the topic in as much depth as any reader wishes.
However, if by the above you mean something like Juergen's currents, or the idea that the Sun is powered (largely) by a giant inter-stellar current, then we are adrift without a paddle
However, the difficulty comes once you accept that *possibility*
a) you reject - out of hand - any testing done within the standard scientific paradigm of plasma physics or space science;
b) you offer no alternative means by which any such testing could be done. I'm just trying to have a conversation, really, because I honestly don't trust the establishment to admit that it is wrong on this issue. What they're going to do is work their way to the same conclusions the hard way, by fighting tooth and nail to avoid considering the possibility that electricity does things of importance in space, and people like you and I will probably be dead by the time it happens. Ah, the eternal excuse - I can't tell you anything about my electromachining (or whatever you call it) idea, nor can I suggest any way anyone could even *begin* to draft a programme to test it, because I honestly don't trust the establishment to admit that it is wrong on this issue!
Would you mind explaining the logic here please? The plume on Io, for god's sake, looks *exactly* like the output of a plasma gun. It does? '*exactly*'?
How did you come to that conclusion?
In what - quantitative - sense is it *exact*? Images from Kristian Birkeland's terrella experiments from 100 years go are so identical to eclipsed shots of Io (with its hot point sources) that the two images are literally impossible to distinguish. They are?
I thought Birkeland's 'images' are on photographic emulsion, and 'images' of 'eclipsed shots of Io (with its hot point sources)' are the result of an extremely complex chain of processing, using many, detailed, mathematical models (the spacecraft to ground station commslink alone is a marvel of modern technology). Am I mistaken? People who argue that we should not investigate these things are basically assuming their way to their own conclusions. Who so argues? Certainly not the dozens of PhDs who write papers on the landforms of Mars, etc! These ideas should not be judged within the assumptions of papers. Not even - Flying Spaghetti Monster forfend! - within the assumptions of 'EU Theory' papers (should any ever get written)? We should evaluate the concept of electrical terraforming instead within the conclusions. What does this mean? What 'conclusions'? Reached how? Using which parts of plasma (or related) physics?
What I meant was, given the hundreds (if not thousands) of (other) 'viewpoints' that have scientific merit that is similar to 'EU Theory', what method(s) do you suggest Joan Chardonnay and Joe Sixpack (or Dr Zhou and Herr Professor Georg) use to evaluate (test, assess, check,
Few members of the American public (or citizens of Germany, or
Saying this another way, as I have said several times now, in other SD comments, I'm trying to get you to state/suggest/recommend/etc a method/framework/paradigm within which ideas such as 'EU Theory' should - in your own view - be judged/assessed/tested.
Much more difficult is to come up with a demonstration that you would regard as acceptable.
Why?
For starters, as our dialogue (if it can be called that) in various SD comment strings attests, you do not accept the standard (plasma physics, space science,
So what would work?
Well, if you'd be so kind as to tell me (and all others who would read your reply) what you regard as acceptable forms of judgment, assessment, testing, evaluation, and so on (of material such as that in 'the link I posted') are, then I could start to prepare such a demonstration.
Of course, it's entirely possible that no such demonstration, within your evaluation paradigm, is possible, even in principle. Saying this another way, it may be that, within your worldview, 'the link I posted' cannot be shown to be wrong, ever.
In fact, if you read my other SD comments, you'll see that I have been independently investigating pln2bz's 429 (as of today) SD comments, from Day 2 of my SD existence.
FWIW (for what it's worth), I have found a number of replies to pln2bz's SD comments helpful and informative, not least because some were followed by further pln2bz's SD comments (and so on). In particular, I have formed the (provisional, tentative) opinion that pln2bz:
a) does not often respond to questions about material in his (her?) SD comments;
b) writes (deliberately?) using words which have sometimes quite idiosyncratic meanings, but doesn't spell these personal meanings out, thus making communication unnecessarily difficult;
c) (deliberately?) mis-states, mis-interprets, or misunderstands many so-called facts, observational or experimental results;
d) is confused about, or (worse) deliberately mis-construes, the nature of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, space science,
FWIW(2): anyone reading this comment is free to assume anything they wish about any connection between APODNereid and any user/member/participant in any other internet discussion forum, whether with the handle/name/avatar of Nereid or not. Myself, I wish what I write here to be read solely within the context of the SD comment strings in which they appear or reference.
FWIW(3): my current goal, wrt (with regard to) pln2bz is to establish clear guidelines on what she (he?) considers legitimate frameworks within which the EU ideas he (she?) promotes may be judged, assessed, tested, evaluated, etc. To the extent that I have formed any opinion, it seems that, as a hypothesis, 'there is only one true word, and that is the word of {Thornhill, Scott, insert other names here}' is not falsified by anything pln2bz has written in SD (that I've read so far). pln2bz, if you're reading this, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to comments you've written in SD which do, in fact, falsify this hypothesis.
I've asked you similar questions, when replying to other comments by you, but you've chosen not to reply; I hope you reply this time. After all, to the extent you deign to describe the PhD students in Space Science and Plasma Physics (whether in university Departments of Electrical Engineering or not) as 'astrophysicists' (or not), it's a bit rich to say they 'refuse to consider the *possibility* that electricity in space does things of importance'. Would you be interested to read some of the papers by these folk, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which falsify your assertion? Even when the evidence is compelling, they refuse to take part in any serious investigation that the conventional theories may be seriously wrong. What compelling evidence?
And how would you suggest 'serious investigation' be done? This is another serious question - what methods, tools, techniques, analyses, etc do you feel should be brought to bear in a study of such so-called compelling evidence? There is a huge disconnect right now between the more over-zealous astrophysicists and reasonable, objective people. And you know this because
Or you're merely stating something you personally feel, but have no objective data worth anything to back it up?
But let's assume you have done the research - how did you decide which 'astrophysicists' are 'over-zealous'? and which 'people' are 'reasonable, objective'? They consider people like myself as spreading "misinformation". I can only speak for myself, but based on what I've read so far of your comments here in SD, I'd say you are ignorant, confused, and hypocritical.
Ignorant because of the so-called 'facts' you cite, those that I myself have investigated, you more often than not mis-state, mis-represent, or misunderstand them.
Confused because you seem to want people who read your comments to take them seriously, in a scientific sense, but almost in the same breath admit that there's no scientific basis for them, that you do not wish them to be investigated using such methods, and are unwilling or unable to answer very simple questions about them.
Hypocritical because, on the one hand, you insist that there's something going on in the heavens that should be investigated but isn't being so investigated; on the other hand, you baulk at even the idea that your pet 'EU Theory' should also be investigated, much less questioned or challenged.
So tell us, if you'd be so kind pln2bz, how do you suggest anyone - scientist, non-scientist; member of the American public, citizen of Germany; and so on - should judge, evaluate, test, assess and otherwise check up on the dozens, hundreds, thousands, ... of other 'viewpoints'?
It's a serious question; I hope you'll give it some thought, and give us the benefit of your serious consideration on it.
I was wondering how long before a chance to ask this came up; not long at all, as it turns out.
... if you do not have direct, personal experience of anything astronomical (beyond the Earth's atmosphere), whence comes your understanding of it?
... like those which go into the design, construction, launch, etc of the spacecraft which gathered the data you so conveniently use to heap scorn on the work of the professionals.
Have you, yourself, stood on the surface of Enceladus pln2bz? No? Then how do you know it's real?
No, this is a serious question
Perhaps you've got a telescope from Meade or a competitor in your backyard; perhaps you've observed Saturn through the eyepiece, and seen a spot of light which you concludes is Enceladus? If so, how did you work out that there's ice on it?
Why is it important to ask these questions? Because if you choose to tilt at modern astronomy (planetary science, space science, astrophysics, etc), you should be prepared to construct an alternative universe, free of all the inputs which depend crucially on the 'mathematical models' you reject
Most of the comments I've read so far are either addressed already or will likely come up again.
However this one is just too rich to pass up (and, it seems, no one has responded yet).
the similarities we observe between space plasmas and laboratory plasmas are completely coincidental and unimportant to an extent that they should not even be investigated, and that instead, we should look to invisible particles to explain the motions of large-scale structures of the universe.
That's the assertion; let's go through some of the specific examples cited, to see a) how well they align with the assertion, and b) how accurate they are.
The fact that a spiral galaxy is in fact the same thing as a cross-section of two rotating Birkeland Currents?
To put it politely, bollocks ... they have little, if any, similarity beyond the apparent visual appearance in some (deliberately) selected examples by Peratt. In particular, the central portions of spiral galaxies bear little, if any, similarity with Peratt's pictures (which, in an ironic twist, are quintessentially the very mathematical models you are so dismissive of in other comments).
The fact that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets?
And what is the claimed similarity with any lab plasmas?
The fact that Kristin Birkeland was able to reproduce many of the major features we're observing in our local solar system 100 years ago with his electrical plasma terrella experiments?
He was? How many? How many was he NOT able to reproduce? How did you determine the degree of similarity?
To take one example, was he able to reproduce the perihelion advance of Mercury's orbit (one of the classic facts that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was able to account for)?
The fact that electrical plasmas continue to conduct current, and thus exert force, during their "dark mode"?
And the similarity with 'space plasmas' is ... what, exactly?
The fact that the Colorado River goes straight through the Kaibab Upwarp, even though rivers typically do not penetrate mile-high plateaus?
How is this even relevant?? It's neither a 'space plasma' nor a 'laboratory plasma'!
[skipping two]
The fact that the Deep Impact impactor elicited two separate flashes at the time of impact even though the impactor was traveling at something like 23,000 mph?
Ah, the Deep Impact 'prediction'!
And what is the similarity with lab plasmas?
The fact that astrophysicists have to use a different value of G for the Sun in their calculations than is used for other objects (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2814)?
What does this have to do with space plasmas? And what is the similarity with lab plasmas?
The fact that we can see jets of charged particles in space with helical magnetic fields around them that extend thousands of light years in length? Do you understand what James Maxwell would say?
We can? I thought the only thing we can 'see' beyond the solar system is photons (and some cosmic rays)? I thought that 'jets of charged particles' and 'helical magnetic fields' could only be inferred by using exquisitely detailed mathematical models (of the kind you apparently disdain)?
The fact that we can observe "moving geysers" on Enceladus, and that Wallace Thornhill predicted as much before it was observed?
What does this have to do with space plasmas? And what is the similarity with lab plasmas? Where did Wallace Thornhill publish his prediction?
The fact that Io possesses moving plumes, that these vents are much hotter than lava, and that the supposed "lava lakes" are not hot as would be expected from a
Oops (where's the 'red face' smilie)!
... apologies for the error (I was quoting the reference to 'Deep Impact flash predictions').
By 'DT' I meant 'Wallace Thornhill', per the earlier comments (for some reasons I got 'David Thornhill' stuck in my mind)
There are other mechanisms to validate timestamps for predictions. We could just as easily identify Internet cross-references to the prediction. And in fact, it's easy to do just that ...
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/03/1246254
The idea that Thornhill's prediction does not mean anything unless the people who are threatened by it in fact sanction it is hardly a strong argument.
I guess one can take this non-answer as an answer ... DT did NOT publish any (scientific) details of how he worked out his so-called prediction, and certainly none that anyone - plasma physicists, electrical engineer, or slavish follower of mythology - could independently verify.
But thanks: it's becoming clearer that others' who've commented on what you've written in SD were right - you are pushing non-science, and using the idea of some kind of giant conspiracy as an excuse for why there is nothing at all in the way of (plasma) science behind these ideas.
Actually, the quantitative nature of the prediction is readily apparent to most people: *two* flashes is a different number than *one* flash. Your requirements for his prediction are completely meaningless within the context of the number of flashes. How does order of magnitude make any sense whatsoever with respect to a prediction on the number of flashes?
Good point.
So DT's 'prediction' of 'flashes' came with at least an OOM (order of magnitude), or two, estimate of their brightness? I mean, how else did he know that they'd be bright enough to register in the cameras/detectors, but not too bright to vapourise the mother ship?
Does the fact that Thornhill did not predict the exact magnitude of the flash or delay between the two flashes discount the fact that he got the number of flashes right? No, not at all, unless you can demonstrate how it is possible that he could have been so lucky.
Wrong question; if no one (else) can work out how he made the predictions, in what way are they any different from reading tea leaves? What hypotheses can be formulated, based on these so-called predictions, that can be independently tested, even in principle? Or must NASA employ DT as an oracle, given that only he can make (according to you) accurate predictions?
Oh, and let me not pass up acknowledging the centrality of 'IF you can't show me I'm wrong THEN I must be right!' logic. Is it acceptable - to you - for anyone to use this logic? or can it be applied only to words of wisdom from DT?
Does the existence of two flashes demonstrate that Thornhill's explanation of what happened deserves consideration in future missions? Yes, it does.
Good job you're not running NASA!
Now if DT were to write up, in a logical and consistent fashion, the full details of his so-called explanation - full of the necessary references to the underlying plasma physics of course - that'd be a start. Then he could get it reviewed (doesn't have to be by peers, Physics Forums has a quite good IR section, for example), and maybe we could revisit your comment.
In the meantime, how about we scour the internet (and beyond) for any other 'accurate predictions', and put all the explanations from all the others on the table, for serious consideration (by you).
So, I've been patient so far, but you seem really desperate here. Rather than propose a reasonable mechanism for the two flashes, it seems that all you can do is to cast doubt on the actual prediction itself and argue that it wasn't stated properly. If I'm to believe that Thornhill got lucky, then by what mechanism do you credit the double flashes? If you cannot explain this, from what do you derive your confidence that Thornhill is so wrong? It seems to me that you are judging his prediction on the basis of his theory's conclusions -- which would seem to i
Sorry you feel that way ... I was looking forward to your answers (as I said, I've been reading your other comment in SD, and it seems you have been much more, shall we say, expressive, and willing to engage in dialogue with others ... even when the topics have been highly abstract ...).
BTW, would you mind re-stating the 'specific facts' that you think you have brought up? Just the top five will do. I'm interested to understand how you could possibly have concluded that I 'refused to deal with a single one of them'.
Sarcasm noted.
...
However, I really don't know what you're talking about
For starters, that page does NOT say "that the Earth's surface can be described as a leaky capacitor"! (Perhaps you should read it again?)
Second, "the Earth" in this article means something slightly different from what you mean by the term (in your comment); if you would like to re-read, and then re-write, you'll quickly see your misunderstanding.
Third, though moot now, I can't believe you'd cite a Canadian Forest Service webpage as an authoritative source for planetary science!
I was hoping, but not expecting, better than this from you, pln2bz. First, there's no such thing as 'EU Theory', in the standard, scientific meaning of 'Theory' (think of 'Theory of General Relativity', for example). Well, surely, if you cover your eyes with your hands, you will not see it. So, uncover my eyes (and those of anyone else reading this)
Just one request: please make sure that these papers have been cited (referenced) by the other papers you will be quoting, whenever you invoke 'EU Theory'.
Alternatively, be honest enough to admit that there is no such scientific theory. Second, within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), Wallace Thornhill did not make any predictions, much less any accurate predictions! I would be wary of relying upon arguments that depend upon a lack of awareness within the public, for if large numbers of people finally learn about the prediction, and you are still arguing that he made no prediction, people will consider your approach to be a bit "unique". I fail to believe that the public will adopt your more nuanced definition of what a prediction is (whatever that is). Here's where I expected more of you.
As my comment - that you are quoting - clearly states ("From the post of yours that I'm replying to, I can't tell; however, you do seem to be asking for acceptance of the ideas you are so obviously promoting on the basis of their (traditional) scientific legitimacy. As I have to start somewhere, the rest of my comment will assume this is the case."), I was working within the assumption that you were presenting a case within the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science !
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. But more than that, I also wonder what your purpose is in denying these things rather than arguing against them? It appears to be less of an attempt to understand your surroundings than an attempt to *define* your surroundings. Glad you asked; I do hope you will be willing to listen to the answer.
Communication requires a certain minimum in terms of common understanding.
If I wish to communicate with you - and any others who happen along with comments - I need to make sure that the relevant parts of such a common understanding are in place. Otherwise, we will just be talking past each other for quite a while before realising it.
So, in this regard, I have achieved something very important: whatever case it is that you are so keen on presenting, I must not assume that you intend it to be taken seriously as one that has scientific merit.
If, at any time, you do intend something you assert to be taken seriously (scientifically), then please say so, and I (and others) may engage in science-based discourse with you.
Back to the topic
I can identify some fundamental problems within astrophysics without having to get a degree. Can you explain, for instance, the root cause of the two flashes in the Deep Impact Mission?
More 'semantical issues' I'm afraid.
... if so, rather odd, since even Popper (whose idea it is) only proposed it as a foil.
First, for whatever reason, stuff which happens inside the solar system is (largely) the domain of 'space science', or 'plasma physics', or 'geophysics' (go figure) than 'astrophysics'.
Second, in whatever field you're working, calling the root causes of the two DI flashes a 'fundamental problem' shows either a profound ignorance of the fields, or crackpottery.
However, I've been reading some of your other Slashdot comments, and I gather that you have a view of the nature of science (well, physics anyway, which includes plasma physics, space science, astrophysics, and geophysics) different than that of those who actually do research (and publish papers, etc). I can't be sure, but it seems you take the naive falsificationist position
Wallace Thornhill was the only one who accurately predicted that there would be two separate flashes. I thought that accurate predictions were important within astrophysics, but it seems as though after-the-fact simulations are just as good, if not better.
I see you trot this out quite a often, and perhaps you've already addressed my comment on it elsewhere ...
...), it's not a prediction unless it's quantitative, at least to an OOM (order of magnitude).
Not to worry, let's examine it, shall we?
Let's assume something resembling modern science, in terms of protocols and methods (we can look at alternatives later).
Let's assume that DT doesn't intend to base his ideas on 'new physics' (such as a fifth force, or branes, for example).
Let's further assume that DT has not extended plasma physics in radically new ways.
Finally, let's assume that DT's so-called prediction is based on nothing more than plasma physics.
OK so far?
In modern science, it doesn't count as a prediction if it isn't published, with the details of how it was made laid out in sufficient detail that others (with the relevant training in the relevant parts of plasma physics) can independently verify how it was made (logical consistency, no errors in the math, and so on).
Further, in modern space science (or plasma physics, or astrophysics, or
To the best of my knowledge, DT did not publish anything at all like this.
Ergo, DT did not make any predictions, in the sense of a (space science, plasma physics) scientific prediction.
But I could be wrong; can you point me to the issue of the relevant peer-reviewed journal in which DT published his prediction?
I guess Thornhill could just be really lucky, but shouldn't we evaluate that within our conclusions rather than our assumptions?
Actually, we should evaluate his so-called prediction as non-science ... unless and until he publishes it, showing in sufficient detail how he made it (so anyone can check), and including the necessary parts of plasma physics he used. And, such publication should be at least reviewed (by others working in the relevant fields of physics, etc).
These seem like completely legitimate questions to me, and I'm very concerned that they are not taken more seriously because they go to the heart of the issue of whether or not bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge.
I see, from reading some of your other comments, that you do indeed feel this way, consistently.
However, it's not clear to me - yet - whether you consider 'legitimacy' from the perspective of contemporary physics. I hope you'll clarify that in due course.
As to being taken seriously: it seems to me there are only two choices, either you are OK to work with standard physics, or you want to i
If it's science, then either you sign on to the relevant methods, tools, techniques etc of the field you are interested in, or you start by admitting that you want to use a somewhat (or very) different set.
From the post of yours that I'm replying to, I can't tell; however, you do seem to be asking for acceptance of the ideas you are so obviously promoting on the basis of their (traditional) scientific legitimacy. As I have to start somewhere, the rest of my comment will assume this is the case. I've paid very close attention to the accurate predictions that Wallace Thornhill has made, and almost more importantly, the responses to those predictions. Taken as a whole, EU Theory survives the criticism fully intact. Right here, in the first paragraph, your programme runs into trouble.
First, there's no such thing as 'EU Theory', in the standard, scientific meaning of 'Theory' (think of 'Theory of General Relativity', for example).
Second, within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), Wallace Thornhill did not make any predictions, much less any accurate predictions!
Let's move on. Of the few who are trained to understand astrophysical issues [...] May one infer from this that you, yourself, feel that you are one of the few?
May one ask what training you have received, pertinent to understanding 'astrophysical issues'? The fact that the plasma physics portion of EU Theory claims are just being ignored though for the sole reason that it is the EU Theorists who are saying them I've not read enough of your other Slashdot comments to be able to conclude if you're joking, are quite serious, or something else entirely.
Staying within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), I'm aware of almost no such 'plasma physics portion of EU Theory claims' published in relevant, peer-reviewed scientific journals in the last decade or so (other than one or two papers by A. Peratt). If these so-called claims have (plasma physics, space science, astrophysics) scientific merit, why don't the authors write up papers and get them published in peer-reviewed journals? Goodness, there are even ways to get ideas 'published', with 'review', with a much lower standard than the relevant journals in the field - why haven't there been any? One thing is clear to me from my readings: conventional astrophysicists completely and consistently underestimate the legitimacy of the EU Theory arguments and evidence. Many don't even know enough about it to realize that they're siding with mathematical models against lab results. This will be the last quote, even though I'm barely a tenth of the way through your reply, it's already abundantly clear I made an incorrect assumption earlier.
Which textbooks, review papers, etc - by 'conventional astrophysicists' - did you read (that lead you to such a conclusion)?
Which 'lab results' (published where) did you read? To what extent did you check for the use of 'mathematical models' in the presentation of those 'lab results'?
In which lab was a test done, on a 2 x 10^30 kg mass of ~75% H, ~24% He, ~2% all other elements, of the legitimacy of 'EU Theory arguments and evidence' vs mainstream astrophysics?
But perhaps I have seriously misunderstood what you wrote. Would you be kind enough to state, as clearly as you can, the extent to which the cause/ideas/whatever you are promoting should (could?) be judged using the standard methods of science (of the fields of plasma physics, space science, or astrophysics)?