Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Sol88 said:
sorry my bad, :rolleyes:

Interesting shapes there DD!



[qimg]http://www.orbitals.com/orb/orb/2p0.gif[/qimg]

Is that a dipole I see?

From Holoscience

[qimg]http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/The%20atom.jpg[/qimg]



[qimg]http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Electric%20gravity.jpg[/qimg]

And an image from orbitals.com

[qimg]http://www.orbitals.com/orb/orb/3p0.gif[/qimg]

Mmmm....
Click to expand...


Dio you know about QM?

The electron can appear anywhere within a given shell following a probabibility given by the wvaeform.

So do planets hop around in a shell around the sun?


Hmmmm?
 
Sol88 said:
It was in the link, did you have a squiz at it?

The pioneer anomaly



The effect is very small, but so is the spacecraft compared to the Sun!
Click to expand...

And now for the exciting part, what is the motion of the Pioneer probe over a year and what size is the 'effect' as a ratio of the total distance travelled over the year?

And then what is causing the effect can be considered.
 
Better late than never ...

ben m said:
Let me just say two things:

Peratt and Snell, 1995
Abstract The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show lsquoflatrsquo rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations.
Click to expand...

I want to be perfectly unambiguous about this.

There is a simple experimental result which unambiguously rules out Peratt's model. The Eot-Wash test was a measurement of the forces on a test mass in a laboratory. Their test mass---a carefully-shielded metal object---was sensitive to (a) its acceleration towards the Moon, (b) its acceleration towards the Sun, and (c) its acceleration towards the Galactic Center.

The experiments (there were several) showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Moon at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Moon. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Moon also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity.
Click to expand...
There's another piece of quite independent research that bolsters this conclusion - LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging, see this APOLLO webpage for an intro).

In a nutshell, the distance between various (up to four) retroreflector arrays on the Moon's surface and the center of "the [APOLLO] telescope mount, where the azimuth axis and elevation axis intersect each other" is measured to mm precision. Once various known systematic effects are taken into consideration*, the observations can be compared with models of the Moon's orbit, taking into account all sorts of solar system body masses ... and based on GR.

One result of this work is to constrain any non-gravitational effect on the orbit of the Moon ... IOW, of pertinence to this part of this thread, any EM effects.

The net? No such forces detected (see the APOLLO website for links to publications).

The experiment showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Sun at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Sun. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Sun also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity.

The experiment showed that the metal mass was accelerated towards the Galactic Center at exactly the same acceleration as the Earth had towards the Galactic Center. That tells you that whatever accelerates the Earth towards the Galactic Center also accelerates the shielded test mass, directly, in exactly the same way. Just what you expect if the entirety of this acceleration is due to gravity---and explicitly the opposite of what you expect if this acceleration is due to electromagnetism[/I]. If the Earth/Sun system were, as Peratt alleges, getting Lorentz-force-law'ed towards the Galactic center, this force would not act directly on Eot-Wash's shielded, neutral test mass---it would only act on the test mass via the Earth and the lab dragging the mass along.

The fact that Eot-Wash observed zero non-gravitational acceleration towards the Galactic center tells us that Peratt's hypothesis is wrong. Sorry. No way around it.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/equivalencePrinciple/epDone.html
Click to expand...

As with LLR, wrt the Moon, there are also independent research results which constrain the size of any EM effects on the motion of the solar system barycentre wrt SgrA* (or other 'fixed' points in the galaxy).

One that I remember, but have not been able to track down, is the use of ring lasers to measure acceleration; IIRC, there was one result that is similar to the Eot-Wash one; namely, that the solar system barycentre motion around the galaxy centre of mass is just that predicted from GR (or Newton; the differences are not measurable, for this test).

The other is a little indirect ... but only because the researchers didn't explicitly test for modelled EM effects: Constraints on the Acceleration of the Solar System from High-Precision Timing (link is to the ADS abstract).

In a nutshell, this test involves exquisitely precise timing of many pulsars, and analysis of that data - together with the best solar system ephemeris available - to see if there are any unmodelled accelerations. Should there be any, they could be the signature of distant planets (way beyond Neptune), CDM, MOND, ... or EM effects. Now a null result doesn't rule out any of these absolutely; all it does it put constraints on the size of any such signature, and - by running the calculations 'backward' - so on the existence of various distant planets, CDM mass distributions, MOND locally, ... and EM effects.

As with the Eot-Wash result, the most obvious implication for the Snell-Peratt paper is that the force/acceleration mechanisms proposed can be ruled out. How strong these constraints are - IOW how many orders of magnitude Snell-Peratt are out - depends on analyses an EU/PC proponent would have to perform .... another calculation for you, Z?

* it is fascinating to read what these are, and how the APOLLO team went about robustly estimating them!
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Better late than never ...


There's another piece of quite independent research that bolsters this conclusion - LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging, see this APOLLO webpage for an intro).

In a nutshell, the distance between various (up to four) retroreflector arrays on the Moon's surface and the center of "the [APOLLO] telescope mount, where the azimuth axis and elevation axis intersect each other" is measured to mm precision. Once various known systematic effects are taken into consideration*, the observations can be compared with models of the Moon's orbit, taking into account all sorts of solar system body masses ... and based on GR.

One result of this work is to constrain any non-gravitational effect on the orbit of the Moon ... IOW, of pertinence to this part of this thread, any EM effects.

The net? No such forces detected (see the APOLLO website for links to publications).


As with LLR, wrt the Moon, there are also independent research results which constrain the size of any EM effects on the motion of the solar system barycentre wrt SgrA* (or other 'fixed' points in the galaxy).

One that I remember, but have not been able to track down, is the use of ring lasers to measure acceleration; IIRC, there was one result that is similar to the Eot-Wash one; namely, that the solar system barycentre motion around the galaxy centre of mass is just that predicted from GR (or Newton; the differences are not measurable, for this test).

The other is a little indirect ... but only because the researchers didn't explicitly test for modelled EM effects: Constraints on the Acceleration of the Solar System from High-Precision Timing (link is to the ADS abstract).

In a nutshell, this test involves exquisitely precise timing of many pulsars, and analysis of that data - together with the best solar system ephemeris available - to see if there are any unmodelled accelerations. Should there be any, they could be the signature of distant planets (way beyond Neptune), CDM, MOND, ... or EM effects. Now a null result doesn't rule out any of these absolutely; all it does it put constraints on the size of any such signature, and - by running the calculations 'backward' - so on the existence of various distant planets, CDM mass distributions, MOND locally, ... and EM effects.

As with the Eot-Wash result, the most obvious implication for the Snell-Peratt paper is that the force/acceleration mechanisms proposed can be ruled out. How strong these constraints are - IOW how many orders of magnitude Snell-Peratt are out - depends on analyses an EU/PC proponent would have to perform .... another calculation for you, Z?

* it is fascinating to read what these are, and how the APOLLO team went about robustly estimating them!
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm missing something. These tests are measuring possible minute EM forces. Is it not true that that the forces required for the kind of cosmological effects promulgated by the believers in EU/PC must much greater?
 
Perpetual Student said:
Perhaps I'm missing something. These tests are measuring possible minute EM forces. Is it not true that that the forces required for the kind of cosmological effects promulgated by the believers in EU/PC must much greater?
Click to expand...

Stop the presses; to first order, I was incorrect about the interpretation of this particular Eot-Wash work. Their main, ultrasensitive result may not be sensitive to the particular weird force posited by PC, which would act through the center of mass of their pendulum, but only to actual modified gravities which act on the pendulum arms directly.
 
Slightly off topic but...
Ziggurat said:
Bwahahahahaha! No, it is not.

I see we can now add quantum mechanics to the list of things you've demonstrated that you don't understand. That's not a dipole. It's an electron orbital, so both lobes are negatively charged. The color difference indicates a change in sign of the complex phase of the wave function, not its charge. But that is clearly too difficult an idea for you to understand. If you actually calculate the expectation value for the dipole moment for that wave function, you will (not surprisingly) find that it is zero.
Click to expand...

Quantum mechanics, Bwahahahahaha! :rolleyes:

Z, you don't get it do you?

From the website http://www.orbitals.com/orb/index.html

Atomic Orbitals

Electron orbitals are the probability distribution of an electron in a atom or molecule.
Click to expand...

probability distribution?
Click to expand...
We can never know where the electron is in it's ORBIT around the nucleus?

An electron would have a certain probability of being based on particular energy states?
Click to expand...
The more energy the less certain we are, until enough energy has been added the probability of the electron being anywhere in ORBIT around the atom becomes certain, it pisses off and becomes a free electron, a plasma! ( when talking about more than a single atom)
In a higher energy state, the shapes become lobes and rings?
Click to expand...
Hell may even become pixy snot or elf dandruff?

The blue color indicates a positive phase, while the orange color indicates a negative phase, with the phase taken as defined by Condon and Shortley. The colors become important when molecular orbitals are computed.
Click to expand...
And when the electrons of adjacent atoms are all in phase with each other?

DD wrote:
Small point of clarification!

You do know that electron do not orbit the nucelus?

It is more that they exist in a quantum state of probability in the arae of the nucleus.

Orbital is an old term which has a new meaning.
Click to expand...

And when those quantum state's of probabilities all oscillate together in harmonic resonance?

Uncle Wal's maybe on the money I think!

Electric%20gravity.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Quantum mechanics, Bwahahahahaha! :rolleyes:

Z, you don't get it do you?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who can't understand the difference between phase and charge. I'm not the one who thinks that a p-state orbital has an electric dipole moment. If you want to, I can even go through the math and calculate the electric dipole moment of that orbital and demonstrate that it's zero. But that's probably of no use to you: you wouldn't understand the math anyways, and hey, you've already got your pretty pictures, no need to actually understand where they came from or what they mean.
 
davefoc wrote over in the thread Quantum entanglement?

It seems like a lot of modern physics is inaccessible to those unwilling or unable to plow through the math. But this seems like a simple enough issue that it should be understandable by the less mathematically capable amongst us.
Click to expand...

Amen!

When faced with a fundamental challenge to the current theory, a lot of followers of said theory demand the proponent of the other theory to do the math and show us the calculation! :mad:

But didn't we invent computers to do all the hard work involved in the math?

Or do you math nuts do the stereotypical mad scientists thing?

And this one sounds familiar when explaining the Big Bang
5994_chemistry_cartoon.gif


Just don't divide by Zero!!!
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not the one who can't understand the difference between phase and charge. I'm not the one who thinks that a p-state orbital has an electric dipole moment. If you want to, I can even go through the math and calculate the electric dipole moment of that orbital and demonstrate that it's zero. But that's probably of no use to you: you wouldn't understand the math anyways, and hey, you've already got your pretty pictures, no need to actually understand where they came from or what they mean.
Click to expand...

If maths blows the wind thru your hair, go ahead! You and I are not the only one reading this thread.

I am not a mathematician by a long shot! And maths is no substitute for common sense!

The Electron cloud

Experimental evidence suggests that the probability density is not just a theoretical model for the uncertainty in the location of the electron, but rather that it reflects the actual state of the electron. This carries an enormous philosophical implication, indicating that point-like particles do not actually exist, and that the universe's evolution may be fundamentally uncertain. The fundamental source of quantum uncertainty is an unsolved problem in physics.
Click to expand...

Therefore a Gravitational singularity does not exists?

This is just so funny
The simplest Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all timelike geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spatial dimensions, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature.
Click to expand...
Therefore it never existed, perfect! Something that never was can never be!!!

See THE BIG BANG-what-caused-the-big-bang

So my math's fiends, do you maths starting from the start, using the above variables, should be easy!

Or maybe the maths to these problems might blow more wind thru your hair!

* Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems
* 0-dimensional singularity: magnetic monopole
* 1-dimensional singularity: cosmic string
* 2-dimensional singularity: domain wall
Click to expand...

And why QM and GR/SR will never be able to agree! So which one is wrong?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
I am not a mathematician by a long shot! And maths is no substitute for common sense!
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should put that on a T-shirt? You could sell it and fund PC/EU research. That or write a book ‘Big Bang Cures Then Don’t Want You to Know About.’ and have Kevin Trudue make an infomercial. Oh, but that’s right without math how are you ever going to tally up and distribute all the money. Don’t worry, Kevin can take care of that for you, he’s got experience with that kind of common sense.
 
Last edited:
Weird logic from Soll88 yet again

Sol88 said:
The MAJOR problem here is we have no idea what gravity IS?
Click to expand...
That is right.
We have no idea what gravity IS!

But...
We have no idea what electromagentism IS!
We have no idea what the weak force IS!
We have no idea what the stron force IS!

Therefore all science is wrong!

Thank you for clearing that up Sol88 :rolleyes: !
 
Sol88 said:
The paper you linked to HERE by L. Neslusan in post 2166 his paper? or another paper by Anthony L. Peraat:?
Click to expand...
Where in the paper by "Anthony L. Peraat" does he calculate the ration between the EM force on a charged star by the galctic magntic field

Is the value that he gets about 10-22 (EM force/G force) or something else?
 
Sol88 said:
RC wrote

WTF!!!

Please re read your post :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
WTF!!! What post :rolleyes: ?

The fact that the EM forces on a charged star moving in a galactic magnetic field are 10-22 less than the gravitational force is not "irrefutable proof against Plasma cosmology".
This is because "plasma cosmology" does not exist. Instead there is a thing that that fools people into thinking it is science but is really a collection of mutually inconsistent and mostly wrong theories.

The fact that the EM forces on a charged star moving in a galactic magnetic field are 10-22 less than the gravitational force is irrefutable proof against Perrat's model of galaxy formation because he states in his 1995 paper (Rotation velocity and neutral hydrogen distribution dependency on magnetic field strength in spiral galaxies) that his computer simulation explains the velocity curve, i.e. the motion of plasma (ans so stars) in the galaxy.
 
Sol88 said:
And standard cosmology does????

No body I repeate NO one knows what gravity is, there for YOUR model will always be some ad hoced made up pixy snot variables to bang that square peg into that round hole.

And you, like many others, are BLIND to see that! you base your whole cosmology on some 300 odd year old mathematical model.

That's your problem, it's so passe!
Click to expand...
Standard cosmology does make testable, falsifiable predictions (e.g. the CMB existence, temperature, thermal spectrum and power spectrum)

But this thread is about "plasma cosmology" so perhaps you will like to list the testable, falsifiable predictions of "plasma cosmology"?

What is this "300 odd year old mathematical model" that Standard cosmology is based on?
 
Sol88 said:
No body I repeate NO one knows what gravity is, there for YOUR model will always be some ad hoced made up pixy snot variables to bang that square peg into that round hole.
Click to expand...
Hello all PC proponents out there. Sol88 has just disproved PC and BBT!
His really, really simple, logic is above for BBT and repeated here for PC:

No body I repeate NO one knows what electromagnetics is , there for YOUR model will always be some ad hoced made up pixy snot variables to bang that square peg into that round hole.
 
Tubbythin said:
Brilliant! Sol88 wants to do away with the last 104 years of scientific progress.
Click to expand...
Actually he wants to throw away all scientific progress in the last 300 years (and demonstrate his ignorance)!

Sol88 said:
...snip...
And you, like many others, are BLIND to see that! you base your whole cosmology on some 300 odd year old mathematical model.
...snip...
Click to expand...
 
Sol88 said:
There is nothing to "win" here, and no amount of maths is going to prove the point!

Case in hand SR and GR!! :confused: :rolleyes: :blush:

But observation will!!
Click to expand...
You really are confused (:confused:) about SR and GR if you think that they have not been experimentally confirmed.
Experimental basis of Special Relativity
Tests of general relativity

N.B. Every experimental test of SR is also an experimental test of GR since GR incorporates SR.

The first link is especially interesting. It was written by a scientist and so he has actually added a section on "Experiments that Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR" as any good scientists would.

Sol88 said:
How many times are you going to ad hoc something before re examining the under lying assumption, namely the Universe is NOT electrically neutral!! It's a fully charged environment :)
Click to expand...

Please present your proof that there are more positive charges than negative charges in the Universe (or vice versa).
 
Sol88 said:
If maths blows the wind thru your hair, go ahead! You and I are not the only one reading this thread.

I am not a mathematician by a long shot! And maths is no substitute for common sense!
Click to expand...
So how does your "common sense" explain the fact that electrons act like particles (e.g. bounce off things like magnetic fields) and also act like waves (e.g. cause interference patterns when passed through slits)?

What you seem to mean is: You do not understand the maths. You cannot understand the explanations of the maths. You cannot understand the explanations of the consequences of the maths. Therefore you will ignore the maths.

Sol88 said:
And why QM and GR/SR will never be able to agree! So which one is wrong?
Click to expand...
Firstly QM and SR already agree (quantum field theory).
Secondly both QM and GR are right - in their own areas of application. They even "agree" since GR can be restated in terms of the
quantum mechanics of interacting theoretical spin-2 massless particles (called gravitons).WP
Click to expand...

Scientists however think that neither is complete until they can be combined into one theory (Quantum gravity).
 
Sol88 said:
Yes they do, read the electric gravity link!

We've smashed enough elementary particles together to know about spin, charge etc etc

But gravity is all about mass and unless you find your holy grail, the Higgs Boson, in your 6 billion dollar toy (the LHC) then your Farked!

Easy to work out when you consider the orbits of electron around a nucleus, that's why electric gravity makes alot more sense than it just attracts!

There are parallels between electric gravity and why ferromagnetisim does what it does, .i.e. all the electron moving in lock step with each other!
Click to expand...
The electric gravity link is interesting: No mathematics and a lot of pretty pictures. I can see why you like that web page Sol88 :rolleyes: !

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe
Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.[18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.
Click to expand...


Problems that are immediately obvious
  1. "protons, neutrons and electrons" move. Thus their dipoles can never be "radially oriented".
  2. "protons, neutrons and electrons" (and the atoms that they are are in) are not spread over a "given surface". They are spread in volumes.
  3. Atoms in solids actually move (thermal vibrations). Molecules rotate. But Thornhill's "radially oriented" on a surface electric dipoles need to keep their orientation.
  4. Atoms in the gas state also generate gravity - where are the surfaces in the gas?
We have smashed enough elementary particles together to know about spin, charge etc etc - and to know about electrostatic charges (dipole moments). So what does science actually tell us?
  • The proton has an electric dipole moment of < 5.4×10−24 e cm
  • The neutron has an electric dipole moment of < 2.9×10−26 e cm
  • The electron has an electric dipole moment of < < 1.6 × 10−27 e cm
Therefore your next task Sol88 is to point out these values to Thornhill and ask him to plug them into his equations for electric gravity and pass the results back to us.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Uncle Wal's maybe on the money I think!

[qimg]http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Electric%20gravity.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Uncle Wal has not invented this, he can only copy from other's peeps works!
If you would really read stuff you would find that it is from a certain Sansbury.

And just to repeat myself, the stupidity of the texts on holoscience:

But then he says:
The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.
Click to expand...

Ehhhhh wait! say that again?
Gravity is weak because the distortion of the subatomic particles is minute in a gravitational field?


But, in this theory it is the distortion of the subatomic particles, the so called dipoles, that create gravity. Talking about a snake biting itself in its tail.


nuff sed, no moor is needs, bunks is as bunks does
(adopting Sol's grammar skills, so he might understand)
 
Sol88 said:
And why QM and GR/SR will never be able to agree! So which one is wrong?
Click to expand...

QM and SR already agree and are both tested to very high precision. And yet you want to reject both completely! And then you wonder why nobody is taking you seriously?
 
Sol88 said:
davefoc wrote over in the thread Quantum entanglement?



Amen!

When faced with a fundamental challenge to the current theory, a lot of followers of said theory demand the proponent of the other theory to do the math and show us the calculation! :mad:

But didn't we invent computers to do all the hard work involved in the math?

Or do you math nuts do the stereotypical mad scientists thing?

And this one sounds familiar when explaining the Big Bang [qimg]http://members.pioneer.net/%7Emchumor/00images/5994_chemistry_cartoon.gif[/qimg]

Just don't divide by Zero!!!
Click to expand...


Nope, your ignorance is amazing: in that you have not examined the subject.

QM , since it's inception has defied acting "simple enough issue".

QM does not act the way we want it to, it acts teh way it does.

And you are really quite silly.

Here is the deal the misapplied term 'dipole' that you refer to in the orbitals comes straight out of QM:

Common use of dipole: refer to separate and opposite charge values + and -

What the picture which represent the space that the electron potentialy exists in:
Pauli numbers of the exclusion principle: spin.

Then you mention that they are called 'orbitals', because originally after the 'plum pudding' model someone thought that maybe electrons orbit the nucleus. This is now know to be not true, but the term has stuck.
 

When faced with a fundamental challenge to the current theory, a lot of followers of said theory demand the proponent of the other theory to do the math and show us the calculation! :mad:


The burden of proof is on you silly.

You made the silly statement, you made the claim!

You say that you have something that 'challenges' the mainstream, yeah?

So what?

the issue is upon you to show the YOUR CLAIM has merit.

That is called the burden of proof. Your claim, you defend it.

That is not mean old science.

That is the JREF. I get challenged all the time on stuff that i right, so does everyone here. It is not some conspiracy to fight the new innovations, it is called 'critical thinking'.

You are just earning your wings newbie. Maybe you could try defending your ideas instead of whining and pouting.

That is what the JREF is all about.
(Just a suggestion, but maybe you are here to promote a political and philospohical agenda.)
 
PC/EU Comments from the Peanut Gallery

I kind of gave up when the thread degenerated into a new depth of silliness. But I would like to point out a few key issues, in the possibly forlorn hope that this might actually become an intelligent conversation.

Point one: What is "electric universe"? (EU)
Point Two: What is "plasma cosmology"? (PC)
Neither of these alternative ideas have been well defined or explained anywhere in this entire thread. I submit that we really don't know what we are even talking about, at any level. I would like to see not a general description, but a precise definition, of both hypotheses. How, specifically, do EU & PC differ from each other, and with equal specificity, how do they differ from mainstream theories, upon which they claim to improve? All we have so far is vague references to some mythical notion that every mention of plasma or electromagnetism somehow falsifies mainstream theories. In reality, we are simply being told what we have known for years & decades, as if it were a revelation.

Point three: How can we observationally distinguish between alternative hypotheses and mainstream theory?
There is a well established and perfectly reasonable process for distinguishing between alternative explanations for natural phenomena, which has been routinely ignored throughout this discussion. That process is to use the differences derived from the definitions as described above to identify specific observations which will reveal those differences for all to see. We want to design & execute a program of astronomical observations and/or laboratory experiments, the results of which can be predicted (either literally or not) from the formal structure of the competing hypotheses or theories. Comparing the results of the observations to the results of the predictions, we can then determine unambiguously which of the competing theories or hypotheses actually describes what really happens in nature. There has been no mention of such observations in this discussion, but that should in fact be the primary topic. Anybody can claim anything, but the facts of nature & observation are inescapable. I would like to see the enthusiastic proponents of alternative ideas spell out in detail what observations need to be made (or perhaps have already been made) which will falsify one while simultaneously verifying the other idea. That's how arguments like this are settled when real science is the goal.

Point four: The role of plasma physics & electromagnetism in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology
One myth which the enthusiastic fans of EU & PC have advanced in my presence is the myth that "astronomers" (that should rather be "astrophysicists") do not study plasma physics and electromagnetism, and are therefore biased by ignorance, while the alternative thinkers, armed with a deep knowledge of plasma physics and electromagnetism, have the intellectual advantage. In fact, both plasma physics and electromagnetism are deeply involved in the mainstream disciplines of astrophysics and cosmology. One need only look to the books and extensive published papers to see this. This thread is dominated by this myth, with enthusiastic fans cheering every mention of "plasma" as if it were the downfall of astrophysics as we know it, while that in fact could not be farther from the truth. Do not fall for the myth.
 
Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."

Writers are linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and also a dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Mathematicians are even more linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and an even more dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.

Experiments? No. Pure mathematicians don't engage in experiment, other than "thought experiments".

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.

These folks, here, are just stringing you along, Sol88, and Zeuss, you energies and knowledge can be more effectively employed elsewhere.

These pure mathmaticians need to be sealed in there little Platonic Cave and left to their shadows in perpetuity.

Yes, I have no math skills, but math is a description, but it is not an explanation. For that you need words, and concepts. Mathematicians will never understand that.

"What of Lazarus?"

Sol88, come out of this cave of perpetual shadow and leave these people to their fate.

They play you off, so you can't spend your time persuading people who have an open-mind.

These people don't have an open-mind.

The mathematics of "big bang, black holes" has already been falsified, once they used the "infinity" concept.

Infinity can't be quantified. Yet, that is exactly what these people do.

"Big bang, black hole" hypothesis likes to give the impression that it is rigorous and quantified -- that is false. Any "science" that relies on infinity for their basic constructs which is what "modern" astronomy does, today, is not a science, it is a farse, and these guys know it.

It is reification at its most deceptive level. Mathematics gives a patina or thin veneer of scientific respectability, but only mathematics that doesn't rely on the "infinity" concept has any value in the physical sciences.

These guys, here, and indeed, "modern" astronomy are shaman that use mathematics as a cover for fancy.

Sol88 and Zeusss, come out of this loathesome cave and let's seal it up after ourselves.

UniverseToday, any number of website are better than this arena of closed minds.
 
Tim Thompson said:
Point one: What is "electric universe"? (EU)
Point Two: What is "plasma cosmology"? (PC)
Neither of these alternative ideas have been well defined or explained anywhere in this entire thread. I submit that we really don't know what we are even talking about, at any level. I would like to see not a general description, but a precise definition, of both hypotheses. How, specifically, do EU & PC differ from each other, and with equal specificity, how do they differ from mainstream theories, upon which they claim to improve? All we have so far is vague references to some mythical notion that every mention of plasma or electromagnetism somehow falsifies mainstream theories. In reality, we are simply being told what we have known for years & decades, as if it were a revelation.
Click to expand...

Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable. So far, the result has been a torrent of dodges, whines, and squirms, containing nothing even close to a contender. That's about the best evidence that PC/EU is not science one could attain in this thread at least, so I consider the matter long since settled.

But the challenge remains open, on one condition - that if the PC/EU explanation is shown false, Zeuzzz (or whoever proposes it) will agree to stop posting about PC/EU.
 
Last edited:
Anaconda said:
Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."

Writers are linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and also a dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Mathematicians are even more linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and an even more dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.

Experiments? No. Pure mathematicians don't engage in experiment, other than "thought experiments".

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.

These folks, here, are just stringing you along, Sol88, and Zeuss, you energies and knowledge can be more effectively employed elsewhere.

These pure mathmaticians need to be sealed in there little Platonic Cave and left to their shadows in perpetuity.

Yes, I have no math skills, but math is a description, but it is not an explanation. For that you need words, and concepts. Mathematicians will never understand that.

"What of Lazarus?"

Sol88, come out of this cave of perpetual shadow and leave these people to their fate.

They play you off, so you can't spend your time persuading people who have an open-mind.

These people don't have an open-mind.

The mathematics of "big bang, black holes" has already been falsified, once they used the "infinity" concept.

Infinity can't be quantified. Yet, that is exactly what these people do.

"Big bang, black hole" hypothesis likes to give the impression that it is rigorous and quantified -- that is false. Any "science" that relies on infinity for their basic constructs which is what "modern" astronomy does, today, is not a science, it is a farse, and these guys know it.

It is reification at its most deceptive level. Mathematics gives a patina or thin veneer of scientific respectability, but only mathematics that doesn't rely on the "infinity" concept has any value in the physical sciences.

These guys, here, and indeed, "modern" astronomy are shaman that use mathematics as a cover for fancy.

Sol88 and Zeusss, come out of this loathesome cave and let's seal it up after ourselves.

UniverseToday, any number of website are better than this arena of closed minds.
Click to expand...

I am not a physicist, astronomer or a cosmologist -- but I do have a serious interest in these subjects and I came here with an open mind.
Neither you nor your two colleagues have contributed one credible thought to these EU/PC threads. When I ask questions, I get a bunch of links and pictures with no connection to my questions. The sad truth (for you) is that the universe behaves mathematically -- to an astonishing degree. The lack of mathematical skills that you and your colleagues demonstrate is your undoing.

If EM forces dominate the universe, proving it with a little mathematical demonstration is not much to ask. EM forces do behave mathematically to the same degree the rest of the universe does. You have mastered a lot of jargon with no real knowledge. You and your two friends are nothing but bluster, wind and smoke!

By the way, not being able to construct a paragraph without misspellings, childlike sentence structure and a profound ignorance of word meanings does not help your cause. You desperately need to be re-educated in the subjects of English (and/or your native tongue), mathematics and physics. A primer in logic would also help.
 
Last edited:
Anaconda said:
Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."

Writers are linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and also a dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Mathematicians are even more linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and an even more dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.
Click to expand...
Common sense is invariably found to be wrong in modern physics. Why? Because common sense is based on everyday "prejudices". For non-physicists everyday experience doesn't include studying the really really tiny, travelling close to the speed of light or studying the Universe on cosmological scales. So an appeal to common sense isn't any kind of physics argument at all.
On the other hand the requirement that any physical theory should be logical and devoid of self-contradiction is mandatory. Unfortunately for you and your friends, what you propose is invariably self-contradictory and illogical (just see Sol88's recent posting on electrical gravity for an excellent example).

Experiments? No. Pure mathematicians don't engage in experiment, other than "thought experiments".
Click to expand...
What about all those experiments you've been reffered to that have falsified PC/EU?

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.
Click to expand...
What is ""big bang, black hole" theory"?

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.
Click to expand...
I hope you've got clear evidence on that. Otherwise I think accusing someone of "doctoring pictures" without evidence could amount to libel.

These folks, here, are just stringing you along, Sol88, and Zeuss, you energies and knowledge can be more effectively employed elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Yeah, stringing them along by presenting evidence that falsifies their theories. I suppose we've doctored that evidence too?

These pure mathmaticians need to be sealed in there little Platonic Cave and left to their shadows in perpetuity.

Yes, I have no math skills, but math is a description, but it is not an explanation. For that you need words, and concepts. Mathematicians will never understand that.
Click to expand...
Physics is a mathematical science. If you can't do the maths take up sociology (no offense meant to sociologists).

"What of Lazarus?"

Sol88, come out of this cave of perpetual shadow and leave these people to their fate.

They play you off, so you can't spend your time persuading people who have an open-mind.

These people don't have an open-mind.
Click to expand...
If ignoring the last 100 years of advance in physics for a self-contradictory theory of electric gravity is having "an open-mind" I'd rather keep my mind closed thanks.

The mathematics of "big bang, black holes" has already been falsified, once they used the "infinity" concept.

Infinity can't be quantified. Yet, that is exactly what these people do.

"Big bang, black hole" hypothesis likes to give the impression that it is rigorous and quantified -- that is false. Any "science" that relies on infinity for their basic constructs which is what "modern" astronomy does, today, is not a science, it is a farse, and these guys know it.
Click to expand...
Please tell us... at what distance does the EM force between two electrons go to zero?

It is reification at its most deceptive level. Mathematics gives a patina or thin veneer of scientific respectability, but only mathematics that doesn't rely on the "infinity" concept has any value in the physical sciences.
Click to expand...
So I suppose you reject the idea of an infinitely old Universe?

These guys, here, and indeed, "modern" astronomy are shaman that use mathematics as a cover for fancy.
Click to expand...
How could you possibly know? You've made pretty clear to everybody that you have no idea what actually goes on in modern astronomy.

Sol88 and Zeusss, come out of this loathesome cave and let's seal it up after ourselves.

UniverseToday, any number of website are better than this arena of closed minds.
Click to expand...
Bye. I can't imagine you'll be missed.
 
Last edited:
Anaconda said:
Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."
Click to expand...

"I haven't presented any evidence, but just imagine if I did and imagine that you continued saying no! If that happened, you would be shown to be dogmatic fools! Therefore you are dogmatic fools!" Any therefore, presumably, why bother showing evidence?

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.
Click to expand...

Mathematics took over when Tycho Brahe took measurements to a precision of ten arcminutes, or perhaps when Newton showed that calculus was a good way of describing the world.

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.
Click to expand...

Nobody asked you for the (complex) math describing black holes; we asked you for the (Freshman-level) math describing the force on a charged particle in a magnetic field.

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.
Click to expand...

The photos are not doctored; you have been shown raw data and you chose to ignore it. If you want to allege fraud ... well, then you can deny (quite literally) anything you like about any field of science whatsoever.
 
Tim Thompson said:
I kind of gave up when the thread degenerated into a new depth of silliness. But I would like to point out a few key issues, in the possibly forlorn hope that this might actually become an intelligent conversation.

Point one: What is "electric universe"? (EU)
Point Two: What is "plasma cosmology"? (PC)
Neither of these alternative ideas have been well defined or explained anywhere in this entire thread. I submit that we really don't know what we are even talking about, at any level. I would like to see not a general description, but a precise definition, of both hypotheses. How, specifically, do EU & PC differ from each other, and with equal specificity, how do they differ from mainstream theories, upon which they claim to improve? All we have so far is vague references to some mythical notion that every mention of plasma or electromagnetism somehow falsifies mainstream theories. In reality, we are simply being told what we have known for years & decades, as if it were a revelation.

[...]
Click to expand...
Actually, Z did provide a concise description of Plasma Cosmology.

He had been asked, repeatedly, to do so, from the very start of this thread, and, in post #684 he did so:

Overview

Plasma cosmology posits that the most important feature of the universe is that the matter it contains is composed almost entirely of astrophysical plasma. The state of matter known as plasma is an electrically-conductive collection of charged particles, possibly together with neutral particles or dust, that exhibits collective behavior and that responds as a whole to electromagnetic forces. The charged particles are usually ions and electrons resulting from heating a gas. Stars and the interstellar medium are composed of plasma of different densities. Plasma physics is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena.

The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from standard cosmology are:

1. Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.[10].
2. An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[11] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[12]
3. Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).

Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos; as many cosmological processes as possible are explained by the behaviour of a plasma in the laboratory.[13] Proponents contrast this with the big bang theory which has over the course of its existence required the introduction of such features as inflation, dark matter and dark energy that have not been detectable yet in laboratory experiments.
Click to expand...
Now that is a quote, from Eric Lerner.

Z went on:
Concise enough?

A little extra. Reference 10 reads; "H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics (2nd edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation. In order to illustrate this, let us suppose that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance RE ((the position vector being RE) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by the solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm RE/RE3. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)"
Click to expand...
Well before then, RC had started compiling a list of things which seemed, from Z's posts, to be an operational definition of PC ... and he (RC) has added to it as Z continued to post, and as others chipped in.

It's now a quite long list, and a real hodge-podge of things.

Along the way, "EU" has crept in, and I think it's accurate to say that folk like MM, Z, and BAC tend to blur whatever distinctions there might be (though Z has, several times, tried to make it clear that he himself sees a distinction).

Perhaps the most interesting definition of PC (or EU/PC, or ...) is MM's, in another thread; it goes something like this: "the application of MHD and GR ... and any other theories in physics, which describe known laws of physics, to astronomy/cosmology".

Now back in post #85 of this thread, si wrote this:
The trouble is that there is no such thing as plasma cosmology. There is a set of ideas, ranging from the totally ridiculous (the sun is powered by electricity) to the merely stupid (flat galactic rotation curves can be explained by electromagnetic forces) to phenomena not fully understood by anyone (solar flares) to the totally mundane (most matter in the universe is plasma).

Every single concrete idea which has been put forward - of which there have not been many - has either been debunked or turns out to be consistent with mainstream astrophysics. After the fact, Zeuzzz has then declared that those ideas weren't PC after all. Every attempt to get him to produce a concrete or quantitative prediction of PC has failed, largely I think because he recognizes that it will probably be shown false in short order, leaving him with few options.

So instead he continues making vague statements about PC, and spends most of his posts attacking aspects of the standard cosmological model (relying on the logic of false dichotomy: if the standard theory is wrong mine must be right - even though I don't have one).
Click to expand...
While there have been some other proponents of PC (or EU or PC/EU or PU/EU or ...) than Z, especially this year, I think si's post is still a pretty darn good summary.

(to be continued)
 
Anaconda said:
Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."

Writers are linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and also a dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Mathematicians are even more linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and an even more dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.

Experiments? No. Pure mathematicians don't engage in experiment, other than "thought experiments".

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.

These folks, here, are just stringing you along, Sol88, and Zeuss, you energies and knowledge can be more effectively employed elsewhere.

These pure mathmaticians need to be sealed in there little Platonic Cave and left to their shadows in perpetuity.

Yes, I have no math skills, but math is a description, but it is not an explanation. For that you need words, and concepts. Mathematicians will never understand that.

"What of Lazarus?"

Sol88, come out of this cave of perpetual shadow and leave these people to their fate.

They play you off, so you can't spend your time persuading people who have an open-mind.

These people don't have an open-mind.

The mathematics of "big bang, black holes" has already been falsified, once they used the "infinity" concept.

Infinity can't be quantified. Yet, that is exactly what these people do.

"Big bang, black hole" hypothesis likes to give the impression that it is rigorous and quantified -- that is false. Any "science" that relies on infinity for their basic constructs which is what "modern" astronomy does, today, is not a science, it is a farse, and these guys know it.

It is reification at its most deceptive level. Mathematics gives a patina or thin veneer of scientific respectability, but only mathematics that doesn't rely on the "infinity" concept has any value in the physical sciences.

These guys, here, and indeed, "modern" astronomy are shaman that use mathematics as a cover for fancy.

Sol88 and Zeusss, come out of this loathesome cave and let's seal it up after ourselves.

UniverseToday, any number of website are better than this arena of closed minds.
Click to expand...
Is this the same Anaconda who wrote this (source)?
The two questions I put forward as possible discussion points were synchrotron radiation being a product of electric currents and double layers. Which one would you like to discuss?
Click to expand...
And this (source)?
Why are synchrotron radiation and double layers the two questions I'm interested in discussing?

Synchrotron radiation has been widely detected in deep-space. It is a product of electrons spiralling in a magnetic current, an electron flow, if you will, ordered movement of electrons, also known as electric current. This is the most solid piece of scientific evidence that electric currents exist in space.

Double layers are the fundamental driving force of acceleration of electrons and ions. It is the engine of electromagnetism.

Detection of electric currents in deep-space.

The engine of electromagnetism.

In my mind, at least, those two items are the foundation of any productive discussion of electromagnetism in space. The rest flows from there.
Click to expand...
And at least one JREF Forum member took you at your word, Anaconda, and focussed entirely on synchrotron radiation (with (electromagnetic) acceleration of charged particles promised), me.

May I ask why you have = apparently - chosen to ignore attempts to have a discussion within the bounds you yourself proposed?
 
sol invictus said:
Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable. So far, the result has been a torrent of dodges, whines, and squirms, containing nothing even close to a contender. That's about the best evidence that PC/EU is not science one could attain in this thread at least, so I consider the matter long since settled.

But the challenge remains open, on one condition - that if the PC/EU explanation is shown false, Zeuzzz (or whoever proposes it) will agree to stop posting about PC/EU.
Click to expand...

Ok, one single phenomena it is!!

I pick Mercuries spider crater!

First a picture

spider_strip.jpg


Larger image HERE


Using just a few points off of my list below in bold, but showing the whole list for continuity.

Quote:
1. 99.999% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
4. Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.
5. Plasma is an excellent electrical conductor.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.
Click to expand...


I propose this is an electrical discharge scar. A planetary sized lightning strike!! :jaw-dropp

The effect is easy to demonstrate, first build a layden jar then charge it, then finally (very carefully) discharge it


Look what happens!
spark3.JPG


now scale it from something like this
040901rille-2.jpg
in the lab to one we see on Earth
images
to the scale we see on Mercury
dn13257-1_250.jpg


Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....



So Mercury becomes charged most probably like our moon in it's exposure to the solar wind until a threshold is reached.

What it discharged to is another question, I'd posit a sungrazer comet a a good candidate.

No mathematical jiggry pokery, it can be REPRODUCED in the lab, it can be scaled and ALL the ingredients to make it happen are there i.e. PLASMA, CHARGE SEPARATION etc etc!


So, Sol invictus your turn. :)
 
Sol88 said:
Ok, one single phenomena it is!!

I pick Mercuries spider crater!

...


I propose this is an electrical discharge scar. A planetary sized lightning strike!! :jaw-dropp

...

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

So Mercury becomes charged most probably like our moon in it's exposure to the solar wind until a threshold is reached.

What it discharged to is another question, I'd posit a sungrazer comet a a good candidate.

No mathematical jiggry pokery, it can be REPRODUCED in the lab, it can be scaled and ALL the ingredients to make it happen are there i.e. PLASMA, CHARGE SEPARATION etc etc!


So, Sol invictus your turn. :)
Click to expand...

It looks like an impact crater with some idiosyncratic features to me.
If one were to seriously propose and electrical explanation, one would have to estimate the charge required, demonstrate how that charge would be achieved on Mercury and propose a discharge mechanism -- yes -- with some convincing mathematics -- (how else?)! You have done neither. Your lab demonstration may be interesting and even provocative, but it does not even come close to the level of scientific evidence for anything happening on Mercury.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Ok, one single phenomena it is!!

I pick Mercuries spider crater!

First a picture

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/mercurysurprise/spider_strip.jpg

Larger image HERE


...snipped lightning "explanation" of the crater...
Click to expand...

You need to learn to read. This is what sol invictus said:
sol invictus said:
Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable. So far, the result has been a torrent of dodges, whines, and squirms, containing nothing even close to a contender. That's about the best evidence that PC/EU is not science one could attain in this thread at least, so I consider the matter long since settled.

But the challenge remains open, on one condition - that if the PC/EU explanation is shown false, Zeuzzz (or whoever proposes it) will agree to stop posting about PC/EU.
Click to expand...
The lightning theory is not quantitative or falsifiable. Pictures do not mean anything.

You have also come up with a phenomenon that has nothing to do with cosmolgy. Planets are a bit smaller than galactic clusters.

The likely mainstream explanation is that the Spider crater is the result of multiple impacts, e.g. one creating the rays and another leving the slghtly off-center crater.


You have come up with the easiest to show as unlikely - the crater was produced from an enormous lightning strike from some unknown source.
  • There is the typical PC nuttiness of: it looks like a duck then it must be a duck.
    Scientists say that if is looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has the DNA of a duck then it is a duck.
  • Where are the other craters produced from other lightning strikes?
  • Where did the lyden jar that caused the crater in the experiment picture come from on Mercury? Aliens maybe :rolleyes:?
ETA:
Did you actually look at the picture of the Spider crater?
One way to measure the relative age of features on planetary surfaces is to look at the density of craters on them. Younger features have fewer craters on them than older features.
Look at the Spider crater itself. I can see the typical central peak created by an impact. I can see 3-6 things which may be small craters.
Look at the terrain containing the crater. Take an area with a similar size to the crater. There are many more craters per area in the terrain than there are in the crater. The craters are even on top of the rays.
Thus: The crater is younger than the surrounding terrain, including the rays.
Therefore: The crater and the rays were created in two separate events.

This falsifies the lightning hypothesis which would create the crater and rays in one event.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
So Mercury becomes charged most probably like our moon in it's exposure to the solar wind until a threshold is reached.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you seem to be unawares that Mercury as its own magnetic field, and thus a magnetosphere which shields it from the solar wind. For an interesting view see Karl-Heinz Glassmeier's paper (note that is Glassmeier and not Gary A Glatzmaier). Therefore, Mercury will NOT behave like our moon, in the way that the Moon gets charged through UV radiation and solar wind interaction.

Sol88 said:
No mathematical jiggry pokery, it can be REPRODUCED in the lab, it can be scaled and ALL the ingredients to make it happen are there i.e. PLASMA, CHARGE SEPARATION etc etc!
Click to expand...

Yeah, god forbit that the EU community should do MATH! It is not like Hannes Alfven or Anthony Peratt bothered with that silly notion of math.

ETA: I see that there is an overview paper about atmospheric electricity by Yair, Y.; Fischer, G.; Simões, F.; Renno, N.; Zarka, P (of which I know at least 2 personally) I will ask one to send me the pdf of the paper on monday, anyone who wants it can have it then. I think this would be very interesting for th EU peeps.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
You need to learn to read. This is what sol invictus said:

The lightning theory is not quantitative or falsifiable. Pictures do not mean anything.

You have also come up with a phenomenon that has nothing to do with cosmolgy. Planets are a bit smaller than galactic clusters.

The likely mainstream explanation is that the Spider crater is the result of multiple impacts, e.g. one creating the rays and another leving the slghtly off-center crater.


You have come up with the easiest to show as unlikely - the crater was produced from an enormous lightning strike from some unknown source.
  • There is the typical PC nuttiness of: it looks like a duck then it must be a duck.
    Scientists say that if is looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has the DNA of a duck then it is a duck.
  • Where are the other craters produced from other lightning strikes?
  • Where did the lyden jar that caused the crater in the experiment picture come from on Mercury? Aliens maybe :rolleyes:?
ETA:
Did you actually look at the picture of the Spider crater?
One way to measure the relative age of features on planetary surfaces is to look at the density of craters on them. Younger features have fewer craters on them than older features.
Look at the Spider crater itself. I can see the typical central peak created by an impact. I can see 3-6 things which may be small craters.
Look at the terrain containing the crater. Take an area with a similar size to the crater. There are many more craters per area in the terrain than there are in the crater. The craters are even on top of the rays.
Thus: The crater is younger than the surrounding terrain, including the rays.
Therefore: The crater and the rays were created in two separate events.

This falsifies the lightning hypothesis which would create the crater and rays in one event.
Click to expand...

Mr Cranium, Richard...did you read Sol Invictus's post

I'll point it out if you didn't have your glasses on

Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable.
Click to expand...

Now I hope we both understand Sol Invictus's question?

To which, to your credit, where the only one to answer mainstream's standard answer.

To narrow the focus a little more, you state the spider feature was created in to separate events, correct?

i.e. Something formed the rays, then an impactor smashed into Mercury creating the crater, on a time scale that suggest two very distinct separate events.


How do you,(mainstream) think the rays where formed?

Care to answer Richard Cranium? :)


ELECTRIC DISCHARGE HYPOTHESIS NOT FALSIFIED!!!

Have another crack at it! :rolleyes:

You may want to read this before answering, LINK Nahh fark it you can embarrass yourself, don't need my help!

Oh chit forgot to add a prediction to my above post to make it falsifiable, it will have very different surface magnetic signature than the surrounding terrain.

Quack quack! :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom