I've been curious about why it's so hard to get hold of the landmark PC papers by Thornhill, W. W. that Zeuzzz has referenced several times. You'll readily recall his style: sweeping generalisations about paradigm-shattering discoveries, followed by some quotes that don't seem to say anything much and many links. If you follow the links and read the papers (if you can), keeping Zeuzzz' posts on hand so you know the context, you'll be nearly always in turn frustrated, disappointed, and amused; Zeuzzz' case is, in almost all his posts, a strange mixture of waffle, ignorance, and cynical deception.
Here's a good example:
Blah blah....
Shortly after Zeuzzz introduced 'electric stars' as yet another part of 'plasma cosmology', I asked this simple question: "Q:
In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"?
After several exchanges of posts, filled with vintage Zeuzzz waffle, word salad quotes, and ignorance, I asked the question again, with a rider:
Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).
If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so."
Zeuzzz' reply is yet more classic Zeuzzz.
And my final attempt to get an answer,
here, is where Zeuzzz ran away.
But why didn't he simply answer the question?
I think the reason is his cynical deception (or perhaps his ignorance) ...
I did answer the question. More than once infact. It just be one of those dark postings that no one can see or detect.
You keep claiming that i've run away, but I've never run away. Here I am
And I keep coming back no matter how many times you say that I've
"run away".
Whatever you think I ran away from, please bring it up. I'll be happy to respond.
Take
The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars, for example, from which he quoted in an earlier post.
This document is quite difficult to get hold of (or it was for me), which is perhaps just as well, given how awful it is.
I did offer to mail it to anyone that pm'd me. Guess you couldn't bring yourself to ask me. Weird. Would've certainly saved you the time and effort.
It does, as Zeuzzz stated, contain a section on the HR diagram ("X. Hertzsprung-Russell
Diagram"), and another five directly related to it.
It also does, as Zeuzzz stated, relate the HR diagram to the (or an) "electric star model".
So the above questions you have been repetitively reposting I did actually answer before when I listed this paper the very fist time you asked, and every time afterwards.
However, contrary to what you'd expect to find for an academic, technical paper in a physics journal, there are no equations, no numbers, ... and no model!
You cant simply dismiss an entire scientific publication just for the reason that the material addressed does not have equations in it. I could list plently of papers that talk in detail about various conceptual models, and have no need for specific numbers and limitations in the paper in question.
The publication in question seems primarily to be setting a ground for future work to be done on this relatively new model. It was received well by the IEEE, as they tend to be more open to new theories than other astro journals are, which tend to take a similar line of thought to you DRD, denounce them as crackpot and not adhering to what we know is the 'truth' in space. A position I feel is most unscientific.
Worse, Thornhill includes a figure (two actually) that even undergrad students would get an "F" for ... it has a grossly misleading axis label*.
Hardly, thats why its in brackets. The axis can represent two things, the old model, and the new interpretation.
I could go through a publication that you endorse and use the same reasoning in reverese and say
"This author has used misleading SI units on the X axis of his graph." Yes. That is true. But somehow, in your mind, this statement equates to
"This author has used misleading SI units on the X axis of his graph, so therefore the entire paper is compromised and does not deserve discussion"
Talk about picking out the fine minutia and being pedantic.
In short then, Thornhill's paradigm-shattering "model" is a waffly word-salad supported by a sloppy figure. Oh, and his list of references includes a couple of articles from KRONOS, several press releases, articles in Scientific American, New Scientist, some popsci books, commentary (not papers) in Science ... and Scott's crackpot book!
Crackpot book? nice. Do you have any reason to assume this? Have you read the book? or you just following the crowd and guessing what is in the book?
A lot of respected astronomers have endorsed Scotts book, and I have to say that its very interesting, with much completely new and intriguing material.
One can only wonder who the reviewers of this so-called paper were.
The same ones that review the transactions on plasma science like every other publication. In this edition, Peratt and Eastman were the directors, and other very prominent scientists reviewed Thornhills paper, along with all the other publications in the journal.
Heres a couple;
>>>Anthony L. Peratt - Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy, see this recent webpage for more:
Anthony L. Peratt, MD Inducted into Cambridge Who's Who Executive, Professional and Entrepreneurial Registry
>>>Timothy Eastman - Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups, Director of Plasmas international, see his other qualifications and awards on the last page of this document;
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Editorial-IEEETPSAug07-CosmicPlasma.pdf
>>>Carl-Gunne Fälthammar - Succeeded Hannes Alfvén as Professor of Plasma Physics, and became Director of the Department of Plasma Physics at the Royal Institute of Technology. Professor Emeritus. See last page on here for more;
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/IEEE.GuestEditorialDec03.pdf
>>>Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and its Director since its establishment in 1998 until January of 2007. Previously he was director of the Geophysical Institute since 1986. See his wiki page for more;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu
>>>Gerrit L. Verschuur - Professor in the Physics Department, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN. Consulting Chief Scientist for the WSPackaging Group, Algoma, WI. Written eight books including The Invisible Universe: The Story of Radio Astronomy (Springer, 2007), Impact: The Threat of Comets and Asteroids (Oxford University Press, 1996), Interstellar Matters (Springer Verlag, 1989); and Hidden Attraction: The History and Mystery of Magnetism (Oxford University Press, 1993). Author of numerous popular articles on astronomy and some 100 papers in refereed journals in astronomy and limnology.
I could list more of the reviewers, but I think you get the point.
Really wierd that they didn't come to the conclusion you came to considering their expertise. They seemed to find Thornhills publication an interesting perspective that was worthy of inclusion in their journal.
They are all considered world leading authorities in plasma and space physics, who are you to speak so disparagingly of them? What are
your qualifications?
I guess the most charitable interpretation you could give to this is that for Thornhill 'science' is done quite differently; certain requirements on rigour and precision are optional (to take just one aspect).
If it were just Thornhill, who cares?
What's more distressing is that this awful paper got published in "IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science" - do the editors not care? Or did Peratt somehow 'help'?
(to be continued)
"do the editors not care?" About What?
So your not going to comment on one single thing actually discussed in the paper?
oh, I think that he missed a closing bracket on page 11. Surely this makes the entire rest of the publication wrong, means Thornhill is a fraud, and not even worthy of consideration
).
eye-poppi) has given anything other than what would earn a C in a creative writing class on "this approach"!
