|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
11th February 2009, 08:35 AM | #1121 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 270
|
|
11th February 2009, 08:35 AM | #1122 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
11th February 2009, 08:48 AM | #1123 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
11th February 2009, 08:53 AM | #1124 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
11th February 2009, 08:55 AM | #1125 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
11th February 2009, 09:00 AM | #1126 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
11th February 2009, 09:57 AM | #1127 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Uh sure, so you do know how science works, don't you? So tell me what observable predictions does Plasma Cosmology make? 1. What is the model? 2. What is the data that it explains? Please discuss cosmology, please avoid, 'bunny' pictures where someone posts a pictures and says "It looks like a bunny". So far, the batting record is zero on this forums, so please do tell us: 1. What model? 2. What predictions? 3. What observations? |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
11th February 2009, 09:59 AM | #1128 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
GHi,
On this forum, you make a claim and then you support it: 1. What did Rutherford calculate? 2. How did he calculate it? 3. What model did he use? 4. How does it explain the data? So far you are making an appeal to authority. then 1. Which model of the BBE are you refering to? 2. What time? |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
11th February 2009, 10:03 AM | #1129 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
No go. Magnetic fields can't provide a net confining force (any magnetic pressure inwards must be balanced by a magnetic pressure outwards - it works with plasma containment vessels because the vessel uses solid structures to keep the magnets in place). And we've already crunched the numbers on gravity: the upper limit on charge is just WAY too small to provide the required energy.
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
11th February 2009, 10:04 AM | #1130 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
I think you are being disingeuine and most likely you know exactly why your argument is specious. 1. How is a cathode comparable to a star in composition? 2. What charge does the sun have? 3. How much of a charge would be needed to generate the amount of light the sun exhibits? 4. How much material would need to be in the incoming current to generate the sunshine? 5. What evidence do you have for the charge on the sun? 6. What evidence do you have for the currents of charged material needed to make the sun shine? 7. How do you overcome the repulsive force that such a charge on the sun would have? (Saying double layers will violate Gauss's law) |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
11th February 2009, 10:07 AM | #1131 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Real Plasma Physics
Well, then somebody in the EU crowd is a pretty poor communicator. I have been repeatedly told that MHD is wrong as a primary tenet of the Electric Universe (which is of course not the same as "plasma cosmology", the two being remarkably different). I do wish you folks could get a consistent story together.
As does everyone else, so what's the point? Just because somebody wins the Nobel Prize does not mean they are the last & final word on the topic. Einstein was a fairly smart guy, and he won a Nobel Prize too. Then he wasted half his life in the vain pursuit of a unified field theory when he denied the validity of quantum mechanics (despite having been one of its founding fathers). Plasma physicists today are far more knowledgeable than was Alfven, simply because they have the advantage of an extra 50 years or so to study the topic. So if you are serious, that you trust only the MHD of Alfven, then you live in yesterday's world, and adhere to yesterday's physics, and are simply being left behind while intelligence marches forward and you stand still. Just compare Alfven's level of MHD sophistication with what we can do today. See, for instance, the text book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications (Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000), or Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics (Dieter Biskamp, Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics, 1993). Alfven's level of sophistication is primitive by comparison, and he totally ignores the entire field of radiative transfer in plasmas (i.e., Radiation Hydrodynamics; Mihalas & Mihalas, Oxford University Press 1984; Dover reprint 1999). You can't stick with Alfven & only Alfven unless you are simply willing to abandon science altogether. A disingenuous response, since I have explained all of this to you before. The only way to precisely predict the current CMB temperature is to have sufficiently precise knowledge of the initial conditions of the universe, and its expansion history, which certainly lies beyond the bounds of common practicality. The best one can do is an order of magnitude estimate, which Gamow actually did quite well. The correct procedure is to observe the CMB temperature, and then use that observation to cull out invalid theories. Remember, "big bang cosmology" is not a theory, but rather a family of theories. So it is a perfectly valid scientific exercise to use observation to weed out invalid efforts from the family of theories available for further study. That's because he is writing for an audience who already knew that. In fact, Richard Chase Tolman determined that the background had to be thermal (i.e., a Planck Law spectral shape) in his book Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Oxford University Press, 1934 (still available as a Dover reprint). See especially chapter X, part III, "The Application of Relativistic Thermodynamics to Non-Static Homogenous Cosmological Models". A totally bogus paper that makes the same mistake Mozina made, by insisting that Eddington had predicted the background temperature, when he clearly did not. Just read Eddington. He was calculating the effective temperature of non-thermal integrated star light, which peaks in the visible or near ultraviolet, and does not show any sign of thermal equilibrium (which point Eddington makes explicitly). But the CMB must have a Planck Law shape, a trait common to all big bang theories based on general relativity. That shape has been measured by the FIRAS instrument on COBE and fits as well as, or better than, any laboratory controlled black body. And it peaks at a wavelength about 2 millimeters, far beyond the range that Eddington was even aware could exist. You really have to torture the science into insanity to hold the position that Eddington even came close to measuring the CMB temperature. With all due humility & respect, etc., etc., I have no sympathy for anyone who claims to be a physicist, and then tries to tell me there is no real difference between Planck's Law & Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, when the shape of the curve is a critical part of the argument. |
11th February 2009, 10:13 AM | #1132 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
Driven by an external power source. What's the power source for an electric sun? Where does all that energy come from? "Currents" isn't an answer. The only proposed answer I've seen is the potential energy from a massive net charge on the sun. But the charge required to provide enough energy to do that is simply ridiculous. It would indeed explode from Coulomb repulsion. I've been through the numbers: the net charge would literally explode off the sun and reach relativistic speeds in less than a second.
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
11th February 2009, 11:00 AM | #1133 |
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
|
|
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ |
|
11th February 2009, 01:22 PM | #1134 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
And as long as you keep "postdicting" new numbers because the old one's don't jive with observation, it's hard to consider this "strong evidence" in support of your idea.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th February 2009, 01:24 PM | #1135 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
If you could get the right "power spectrum" without resorting to ad hoc "explanations", you might have something to complain about. As it stands your trying to claim your invisible elephant theory is superior to another theory because it predicts the right "power spectrum". I fail to see how "inflation" has any affect whatsoever on a "power spectrum" since you can't demonstrate it has any affect on nature in the first place.
|
11th February 2009, 01:26 PM | #1136 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Evidently I can finally post links which is quite helpful:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V02N3ASS.PDF |
11th February 2009, 01:30 PM | #1137 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
It doesn't need to. Gravity confines plasma just fine. The charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere simply causes the outer particles to be accelerated toward the heliosphere. There is no need for a "magnetic field" of any sort. The magnetic field is simply a function of the current flow through the plasma.
|
11th February 2009, 01:41 PM | #1138 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
The depends on what solar model you choose to use. I tend to be a "Birkeland purist" in that regard.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th February 2009, 02:08 PM | #1139 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
Indeed it does: that's the standard model for stars. But the question was about how to confine a large net charge. Gravity cannot do so. And without a large net charge (ridiculously large, in fact) proposed by some electric sun proponents, where does the energy for the sun come from? The standard fusion model is the only one which can provide enough energy.
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
11th February 2009, 02:17 PM | #1140 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
It would be a lot easier to be a "good communicator" if the mainstream websites allowed for honest and real conversations of these ideas and didn't ban all the effective communicators for having "heretical" beliefs.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When you guy "postdict" all these new numbers and then dress them up as "accurate predictions", don't you figure that turns off the skeptics?
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th February 2009, 02:30 PM | #1141 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 270
|
No argument there. I picked Alfvén because as far as I am aware, he was the first to come up with MHD, and then the first to say that it does not apply to all plasmas.
I wasn't aware of anyone else who says the same, and didn't need anyone else, no matter how much smarter they may be, to say the same thing. Thanks also for the Richard Chase Tolman 1934 book. I was wondering when the background was first characterized as thermal (i.e., a Planck Law spectral shape). |
11th February 2009, 02:45 PM | #1142 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
When your ideas can't compete, just blame someone else.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
11th February 2009, 04:20 PM | #1143 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
11th February 2009, 04:26 PM | #1144 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
My theory? Huh?
That fact that early predictions of the CMBR temperature were a bit off is of no real significance. As Zig pointed out, the important point is the shape. Just like the important bit of Newtonian gravity is the proportionality to the two masses and the fact its an inverse square law. The fact that Newton didn't know the value of the constant of proportionality didn't somehow make his theory wrong did it? |
11th February 2009, 04:36 PM | #1145 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
11th February 2009, 06:24 PM | #1146 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Hi Michael,
The explanation of the CMBR has nothing to do with inflation. It was established 300,000 years after the inflationary period. The CMBR anisotropy is evidence of the density perturbation of the universe when it was 300,000 years old. Perhaps you can give us a list of the "ad hoc and make-believe entities" that explain the CMBR. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
11th February 2009, 06:37 PM | #1147 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
And your first link is the the "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" paper!
What relevance do you think that it has to plasma cosmology (the topic of this thread)? FYI, the CMB is much more than just its temperature. IMHO the black body thermal spectrum is more important. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
11th February 2009, 07:03 PM | #1148 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Huh? What does that have to do with the kind of junk we see over at BAUT where they have witch hunts and no one can even discuss an EU issue for more than 30 days? They'll prattle on about inflation forever, but a whole cosmology theory is limited to a 30 day discussion? Give me a break. This industry operates more like a cult than a branch of science. They even conduct witch hunts and everything. It's pitiful.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th February 2009, 07:07 PM | #1149 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
I'm simply noting that BB theory isn't the only theory that "predicts" a background radiation.
Quote:
|
11th February 2009, 07:09 PM | #1150 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
11th February 2009, 07:11 PM | #1151 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
I'm reading through it right now. Let's see: their first example calculates a temperature based on the energy density of starlight. Does starlight have a blackbody spectrum? Nope.
The second example considers extragalactic cosmic radiation. Again, they're deriving a temperature based on an energy density. But that energy density is dominated by high-energy particles. Again, not a low-temperature blackbody spectrum. The stuff he says about Nernst is nonsense (among other things, tired light theories don't work). Although in fairness, I can't tell if it's Nernst's nonsense or the author's. But cosmic background radiation rather obviously CANNOT be in thermal equilibrium with a 3K body: it's too high energy. That it's got about the same energy density as blackbody radiation at that temperature doesn't matter: the spectrum they discuss is not blackbody. Their fourth example is an experimental measurement of CN spectrum. Quite interesting, but the spectrum is not blackbody. In fact, they were looking at two particular emission lines, because CN does NOT behave like a blackbody at any temperature. Again, no blackbody lineshape. Their fifth example is another tired light idea. Which, again, doesn't work. Then they finally get to Gamow. And guess what they forget to mention? That's right, the lineshape.
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
11th February 2009, 07:25 PM | #1152 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
Well, the CMB, to start with. You've got absolutely no idea how to get a perfect blackbody lineshape, do you?
Or there's galactic rotation curves. Again, we've crunched the numbers in previous threads: the idea that magnetic fields can play any significant role is pure nonsense.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
11th February 2009, 08:32 PM | #1153 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
You mean to tell me that they don't calculate solar output based on black body calculations?
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th February 2009, 09:26 PM | #1154 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
What kind of bizarre question is that? Have you never seen a stellar spectrum?
Quote:
|
11th February 2009, 10:28 PM | #1155 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
Of course not. That would be stupid, since they are not black bodies. And it's beside the point anyways, since their temperature is very high anyways. All they did was calculate the energy density from the intensity of starlight (which you need to measure anyways), and then find the blackbody temperature which would give the same energy density. But it wouldn't give the same spectrum even if stars were blackbodies, because stars radiate at high temperatures.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
11th February 2009, 10:28 PM | #1156 |
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
|
So you claim “Magnetic lines don't even have physical substance” and “they form as a full continuum” while asserting a physical limitation “it is physically *impossible* for them to "reconnect"” on how that continuum which you say lacks “physical substance” might change? Magnetic field lines are just representations of the vector fields around an object or within a substance, oriented as loops. As the orientations of those vectors changes so do the lines used to represent that vector field and the configuration of those loops. When vectors pointing in generally opposing or even paralell directions which are represented by different loops in some area shift and now point in different directions now forming part of the same loop, the magnetic field lines we use to represent those vectors have “reconnected”. You can’t have it both ways, assert a lack of a physical nature for magnetic field lines and then try to assert some physical restriction that “it is physically *impossible* for them to "reconnect"”. |
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ |
|
11th February 2009, 11:20 PM | #1157 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Sure I've seen one. I also know that the output of the sun is calculated as though the photosphere is an opaque "black body" radiating at 6000K.
Quote:
Quote:
Magnetic reconnection theory is in fact an application of MHD theory to objects in space, so in a quirky way, it is in fact a part of EU/PC theory, abeit with a weird and quirky, and self conflicted title. The math is fine by the way, it's the *name* they assigned the process that is self conflicted nonsense. From Alfven in Cosmic Plasma, page 29.
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th February 2009, 11:32 PM | #1158 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Yep, that's pretty much the theory behind electrical engineering and Alfven was an electrical engineer. I suppose that is why he too rejected the notion of reconnecting magnetic lines.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The "reconnection" has nothing whatsoever to do with the magnetic lines and everything to do with the flow of particles inside the current sheet. The whole *circuit energy* will determine the rate of reconnection and not one single magnetic line disconnects or reconnects inside the current sheet. From Alfven in Cosmic Plasma, page 16.
Quote:
|
11th February 2009, 11:38 PM | #1159 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
12th February 2009, 03:21 AM | #1160 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
What the hell are you talking about? There is only one free parameter in the equation for a black body spectrum. What are you saying is metaphysics? A black body spectrum? The concept of temperature? What?
The shape of the CMBR spectrum is INDEPENDENT of whether inflation occurred or not. So please enlighten us all as to what the supposed "metaphysics" I'm talking about is. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|