Electric universe theories here.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88 is such a great intellect that he does not even have to read the web pages he links to !

Current-free double layers

Somehow that does not surprise me since that would imply that Sol88 is interested in learning anything rather than just parroting the stuff Sol88 found on a book advertisement web site.

Thanks RC!!!!

Quote:

FYI: The ions that are accelerated by double layers can travel beyond the double layers. The distance that the ions travel is determined by their energy and their interaction with the surrounding medium. Note that the electron beam above stops at the end of the device as expected.

What greater than the DeBye length??? And they were limited to the length of the machine of course which astrophysical plasma are not!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

That's were you are wrong!

try Crab Pulsar

Another random post from someone that cannot read.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Thanks RC!!!!



What greater than the DeBye length??? And they were limited to the length of the machine of course which astrophysical plasma are not!

What is "What greater than the DeBye length??? ".

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent (hi Sol88 ) who is currently ignoring basic physics: allow the beams to extend further then the separation by a factor of a 10,000 million (10 billion). What scale would this beam extend over? A few thousand thousand million kilometers rounded up is 10000 billion kilometers. This is ~1 light year and just into interstellar scales.

And then some idiot posts a link to the Crab Nebula!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

What is "What greater than the DeBye length??? ".

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent (hi Sol88 ) who is currently ignoring basic physics: allow the beams to extend further then the separation by a factor of a 10,000 million (10 billion). What scale would this beam extend over? A few thousand thousand million kilometers rounded up is 10000 billion kilometers. This is ~1 light year and just into interstellar scales.

And then some idiot posts a link to the Crab Nebula!

Open your eyes, Dude!

Quote:

n visible light, the Crab Nebula consists of a broadly oval-shaped mass of filaments, about 6 arcminutes long and 4 arcminutes wide (by comparison, the full moon is 30 arcminutes across) surrounding a diffuse blue central region. In three dimensions, the nebula is thought to be shaped like a prolate spheroid.[3] The filaments are the remnants of the progenitor star's atmosphere, and consist largely of ionised helium and hydrogen, along with carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, neon and sulfur. The filaments' temperatures are typically between 11,000 and 18,000 K, and their densities are about 1,300 particles per cm³.[9]

In 1953 Iosif Shklovsky proposed that the diffuse blue region is predominantly produced by synchrotron radiation, which is radiation given off by the curving of electrons moving at speeds up to half the speed of light.[10] Three years later the theory was confirmed by observations. In the 1960s it was found that the source of the electron curved paths was the strong magnetic field produced by a neutron star at the center of the nebula.[11]

what A PLASMA! doing you know, plasma stuff? not gas stuff

Quote:

At the center of the nebula lies the Crab Pulsar, a rotating neutron star, which emits pulses of radiation from gamma rays to radio waves with a spin rate of 30.2 times per second. The nebula was the first astronomical object identified with a historical supernova explosion.

An Exploding double layer! And a Neutron star? hang on I thought the star that exploded (supernovae) was too small? What's going on here? oHhhh... wait I see, standard theoretical models are...lacking!

Quote:

Theoretical models of supernova explosions suggest that the star that exploded to produce the Crab Nebula must have had a mass of between 9 and 11 M☉.[18][28] Stars with masses lower than 8 solar masses are thought to be too small to produce supernova explosions, and end their lives by producing a planetary nebula instead, while a star heavier than 12 solar masses would have produced a nebula with a different chemical composition to that observed in the Crab.[29]

A significant problem in studies of the Crab Nebula is that the combined mass of the nebula and the pulsar add up to considerably less than the predicted mass of the progenitor star, and the question of where the 'missing mass' is remains unresolved.[17] Estimates of the mass of the nebula are made by measuring the total amount of light emitted, and calculating the mass required, given the measured temperature and density of the nebula. Estimates range from about 1–5 solar masses, with 2–3 solar masses being the generally accepted value.[29] The neutron star mass is estimated to be between 1.4 and 2 solar masses.

The predominant theory to account for the missing mass of the Crab is that a substantial proportion of the mass of the progenitor was carried away before the supernova explosion in a fast stellar wind. However, this would have created a shell around the nebula. Although attempts have been made at several different wavelengths to observe a shell, none has yet been found.[30]

Oh wait they do know about the role ELECTRICITY takes in the ENERGY transfer that is going on in the center!

Quote:

Tracing back its expansion consistently yields a date for the creation of the nebula several decades after 1054, implying that its outward velocity has accelerated since the supernova explosion.[14] This acceleration is believed to be caused by energy from the pulsar that feeds into the nebula's magnetic field, which expands and forces the nebula's filaments outwards.[15]

BZzzzzzzzzzzz......is that an electric current we can hear coming from the Crab?

Quote:

The pulsar's extreme energy output creates an unusually dynamic region at the centre of the Crab Nebula. While most astronomical objects evolve so slowly that changes are visible only over timescales of many years, the inner parts of the Crab show changes over timescales of only a few days.[27] The most dynamic feature in the inner part of the nebula is the point where the pulsar's equatorial wind slams into the bulk of the nebula, forming a shock front. The shape and position of this feature shifts rapidly, with the equatorial wind appearing as a series of wisp-like features that steepen, brighten, then fade as they move away from the pulsar to well out into the main body of the nebula.

Ohhh oHhh.....pulsar's equatorial wind slams into the bulk of the nebula, forming a shock front.

can we reword that to

The pulsar's equatorial plasma flow slams into the bulk of the nebula's plasma, forming a double layer (and accelerating charged particles!).

How many light years is that RC?

[tusenfem]

Okay, from now on I am going to ignore Sol88, all the blatantly ignorance that he is spreading around, confusing the particle beams that exit a DL with the DL itself, thinking that supernovae are "exploding double layers" (please show us the currents that flow through the start that goes SN, because they are there, according to your interpretation of Fälthammar's text), and basically the total lack of knowledge about plasma physics and astrophysics.

Like Reality Check says: Somehow that does not surprise me since that would imply that Sol88 is interested in learning anything rather than just parroting the stuff Sol88 found on a book advertisement web site.

There is no discussion here in this thread, if I or RC or SI or TT explains something Sol88 comes up with another unrelated quote that might have some of the same words in the text, and he (Sol88) thinks it is the same.

Let's no longer feed the troll.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Open your eyes, Dude!

My eyes are open, Dude!
What is better is that I have a brain that is not obsessed with pretty pictures.

The rest of your post is your usual spewing of ignorance so I will ignore it.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Okay, from now on I am going to ignore Sol88, all the blatantly ignorance that he is spreading around, confusing the particle beams that exit a DL with the DL itself, thinking that supernovae are "exploding double layers" (please show us the currents that flow through the start that goes SN, because they are there, according to your interpretation of Fälthammar's text), and basically the total lack of knowledge about plasma physics and astrophysics.

Like Reality Check says: Somehow that does not surprise me since that would imply that Sol88 is interested in learning anything rather than just parroting the stuff Sol88 found on a book advertisement web site.

There is no discussion here in this thread, if I or RC or SI or TT explains something Sol88 comes up with another unrelated quote that might have some of the same words in the text, and he (Sol88) thinks it is the same.

Let's no longer feed the troll.

Ditto

[Dancing David]

But he is sooo cute, and his antics are very entertaining.

[Reality Check]

So back to the actual topic of this thread: the electric universe hypothesis.
N.B. I call EU a hypothesis rather than a theory since the EU models lack predictive power as they rarely produce actual numbers that can be compared to observations.

Let us start with a link to the web site written by W.T. ("Tom") Bridgman, Ph.D. His main interest is creationism in astronomy but he has also written a review of Donald Scott's Electric Sky: The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited.
His blog also has several articles on EU (this article is a good place to start).
Tom Bridgman also has a list of the main EU sites at Electric Cosmos along with a link to another good (old but still applicable) site listing the problems with EU - Tim Thompson's On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis.

A little something to emphasis the woo nature of EU:
The EU model to power the Sun (and all other stars) seems to be that an enormous electric current flows through the Sun and that something (Z-pinches?) produces fusion on the surface of the Sun and thus the observed solar neutrinos.

There are several problems with this (read the links above) but I may have come up with another one - the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect. There is good evidence for neutrino oscillation which is thought to be caused by the neutrinos having a tiny mass. When neutrinos travel through matter, their effective mass changes and this effects their oscillation. This leads to the prediction that high and low energy electron neutrinos produced in the Sun will have different probabilities of being detected as electron neutrinos at a detector (P_ee). The 2 different probabilities are observed.
This is evidence that the electron neutrinos produced by the Sun are produced deep within it so that they have to pass through a lot of matter before they arrive at the Earth.

[Sol88]

RC wrote:

Quote:

There is no discussion here in this thread, if I or RC or SI or TT explains something Sol88 comes up with another unrelated quote that might have some of the same words in the text, and he (Sol88) thinks it is the same.

Oh sorry RC

How's about this for some random link that has EVERY thing to do with EU

Magnetic Fields Dominate Young Stars of all Sizes?

Quote:

Quote:

They say that this magnetic energy dominates over the other energies at play — e.g., centrifugal force and turbulence — and suggest that the role of the magnetic field in the early stages of star formation could be very similar for both small and massive stars.

Magnetic Energy? (Warning pretty picture below!!)



That's a pretty good artist impression of a Birkeland current!

Sorry for the delay in replying, been travling to europe to see the rellie's!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

RC wrote:

Oh sorry RC

How's about this for some random link that has EVERY thing to do with EU

Magnetic Fields Dominate Young Stars of all Sizes?


Magnetic Energy? (Warning pretty picture below!!)

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...09/06/mag2.jpg

That's a pretty good artist impression of a Birkeland current!

Sorry for the delay in replying, been travling to europe to see the rellie's!

Still cannot read Sol88 ?
Or is it just your pretty picture obsession coupled with general ignorance ?

Looks like exactly what the caption states:

Quote:

The background shows a false-color Spitzer image of the massive star-forming region G31.41, with the colors indicating various wavelengths of light. The zoom-in region represents the dust emission from the massive hot core (color and contour image) superposed with bars showing the structure of the magnetic field

(emphasis added)

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Sol88

How's about this for some random link that has EVERY thing to do with EU

It also has EVERY thing to do with common mainstream astrophysics, which actually pre-dates any of the EU ramblings. So, does this mean you now admit that there is absolutely no difference at all between EU and mainstream astrophysics?

Of course not.

Once again the discussion has descended into useless silliness. As I have said before, and repeat now, standard mainstream astrophysics and cosmology involve a great deal of plasma physics and electromagnetism, including electric currents in space. The link Sol88 posted is just plain ordinary long standing mainstream astrophysics, as is the case for nearly everything he posts, falsely implying that there is some strange off beat "theory" at work. It's all too silly.

Now I will tell you what you need to do to make it non-silly, and I have said this before too, although the message continually falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). Whatever EU is or is supposed to be, we can assume there is something which differentiates between EU and mainstream. It means nothing to say that magnetic fields are involved in star formation under the auspices of EU, since the same is true in mainstream. How does one tell the difference between EU & mainstream?

That's the key. That's what I want to see Sol88 do. Describe some phenomenon which cannot be true in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology, but can be true (preferably must be true) in the EU hypothesis. Then show that the phenomenon in question is observed to be true. It's just that simple, and that's the right way to advance any alternative idea in science.

We have yet to see anything except an endless stream of mainstream astrophysics re-packaged to look EU. Who cares about that? Show me the difference, and then we might have something to talk about.

[Sol88]

Quote:

It also has EVERY thing to do with common mainstream astrophysics, which actually pre-dates any of the EU ramblings. So, does this mean you now admit that there is absolutely no difference at all between EU and mainstream astrophysics?

Tim Thompson what a cheap cop out

Mainstream explination is purely dominated by GRAVITY, this "new" finding confirms the EU understanding that they (stars) form in a Bennett pinch and are powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), taking on a classic "hourgalss" shape along with broadband radiation and filamentry structure on the extremites!

As observed!

Not saying the PR makes it true, but makes you think!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Now I will tell you what you need to do to make it non-silly, and I have said this before too, although the message continually falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). Whatever EU is or is supposed to be, we can assume there is something which differentiates between EU and mainstream. It means nothing to say that magnetic fields are involved in star formation under the auspices of EU, since the same is true in mainstream. How does one tell the difference between EU & mainstream?

That's the key. That's what I want to see Sol88 do. Describe some phenomenon which cannot be true in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology, but can be true (preferably must be true) in the EU hypothesis. Then show that the phenomenon in question is observed to be true. It's just that simple, and that's the right way to advance any alternative idea in science.

We have yet to see anything except an endless stream of mainstream astrophysics re-packaged to look EU. Who cares about that? Show me the difference, and then we might have something to talk about.

Ok I'll bite

Lets talk comets shall we specificaly electric comets (under the banner of EU).

Tim Thompson what is your and I presume mainstream majority view of a comet? Lets pick Hale-Bopp for instance.

Tim?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ok I'll bite

Lets talk comets shall we specificaly electric comets (under the banner of EU).

Tim Thompson what is your and I presume mainstream majority view of a comet? Lets pick Hale-Bopp for instance.

Tim?

Sql88:
This is an EU (not actual science) thread so you start:

• What is the EU idea of a comet?
• What observational evidence does EU have for their idea?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Tim Thompson what a cheap cop out

Mainstream explination is purely dominated by GRAVITY, this "new" finding confirms the EU understanding that they (stars) form in a Bennett pinch and are powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), taking on a classic "hourgalss" shape along with broadband radiation and filamentry structure on the extremites!

As observed!

Not saying the PR makes it true, but makes you think!

Sol88 what a cheap cop out

Mianstream astronomy is not "purely dominated by gravity". Mainstream astronomy knows basic physics and that there are situations where gravity dominates and situations when EM forces dominate.
Mainstream astronomy uses the scientific method so that it produces predictions with actual numbers (e.g. if the Sun is powered by fusion in its core then it will produce a certain flux of neutrinos). It then does experiments to test the predictions, e.g. the flux of solar neutrinos matches that predicted (taking in account the neutrino oscillations).

Stars are not "powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), " because FAC's do not produce ANY neutrinos.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Tim Thompson what a cheap cop out

Mainstream explination is purely dominated by GRAVITY, this "new" finding confirms the EU understanding that they (stars) form in a Bennett pinch and are powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), taking on a classic "hourgalss" shape along with broadband radiation and filamentry structure on the extremites!

As observed!

Not saying the PR makes it true, but makes you think!

And where did anything say that in what you linked to?

I sure don't see the hour glass shape, I see mainly a circle with a blob.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sol88 what a cheap cop out

Mianstream astronomy is not "purely dominated by gravity". Mainstream astronomy knows basic physics and that there are situations where gravity dominates and situations when EM forces dominate.
Mainstream astronomy uses the scientific method so that it produces predictions with actual numbers (e.g. if the Sun is powered by fusion in its core then it will produce a certain flux of neutrinos). It then does experiments to test the predictions, e.g. the flux of solar neutrinos matches that predicted (taking in account the neutrino oscillations).

Stars are not "powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), " because FAC's do not produce ANY neutrinos.

To be fair, the neutrino debate is far from settled.

Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report an Analysis

Quote:

A sentence from the conclusion of the report
In the conclusion of the Sudbury report it states:
"Comparison of the (neutrino) flux deduced from the ES reaction assuming no neutrino oscillations, to that measured by the CC reaction can provide clear evidence of flavor transformation without reference to solar model flux calculations. If neutrinos from the Sun change into other active flavors, then CC flux < ES flux."

But

Quote:

There simply is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel. The only way such conclusions can be made is when observations have been made at more than one place along the path! Further measurements (MiniBooNE 2007) have found no evidence to support the SNO 2001 announcement.

Simple really.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Sol88

To be fair, the neutrino debate is far from settled.

Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report an Analysis





But



Simple really.

Sorry but this is a a load of rubbish. Not only do we have strong evidence for solar neutrino oscillation we have evidence for atmospheric neutrino oscillation and reactor produced oscillations. In the latter case we know exactly the quantity and type of neutrinos being observed and we know the quantity being observed. This utterly decimates the article you just posted.
FWIW we can also looking at solar neutrinos at day time and night time too.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sql88:
This is an EU (not actual science) thread so you start:

• What is the EU idea of a comet?
• What observational evidence does EU have for their idea?

No I think it would be more productive to list a few points between standard mainsteam understanding and an electric univere understanding!

Lets start with jets?

Mainstream:

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers

Quote:

Abstract

Observations of the inner coma of Comet 19P/Borrelly with the camera on the Deep Space 1 spacecraft revealed several highly collimated dust jets emanating from the nucleus. The observed jets can be produced by acceleration of evolved gas from a subsurface cavity through a narrow orifice to the surface. As long as the cavity is larger than the orifice, the pressure in the cavity will be greater than the ambient pressure in the coma and the flow from the geyser will be supersonic. The gas flow becomes collimated as the sound speed is approached and dust entrainment in the gas flow creates the observed jets. Outside the cavity, the expanding gas loses its collimated character, but the density drops rapidly decoupling the dust and gas, allowing the dust to continue in a collimated beam. The hypothesis proposed here can explain the jets seen in the inner coma of Comet 1P/Halley as well, and may be a primary mechanism for cometary activity.

or EU

The Jets of Comet Wild 2

Quote:

In the electrical hypothesis, a rock moving rapidly through the electric field of the Sun will develop a plasma sheath that stretches into a coma thousands of kilometers across and a filamentary tail that remains coherent over millions of kilometers. Arcing to the surface will generate high temperatures in small areas. The electrical activity will produce X-rays and ultraviolet light. The predictions of the model are testable, and the implications reach far beyond modern comet theory.

Seems pretty simple!

[Sol88]

W. Thornhill has a good summary HERE


20 July 2004
Comets Impact Cosmology

Quote:

Weaver goes on, "'Detailed geometrical analyses of the jets have been used to identify the sources of activity on the nucleus, which is one of the outstanding unresolved issues in cometary science. Surprisingly, the largest depressions on the surface of Wild 2 are apparently devoid of activity. ...most of the jets apparently originate near the latitude of the subsolar point and nine of the jets appear to rise from two depressed regions on the surface."' These are not surprises in the electrical model. Cathode arcs tend to strike from high points or sharp edges, in preference to flat surfaces. They will tend to strike where the electric field is strongest, at the subsolar point. The depressions are caused by steep arc erosion of the crater edges. One of the research articles (p. 1764) states '"The flat floors [of the depressions, bounded by nearly vertical cliffs] seem to be inert at the present time and resistant to sublimation because none of them are detectably associated with observed jets."' Later, (p. 1766) we find, '"...it is not clear why sublimation processes, driven by solar illumination on a spinning body, would form globally distributed circular structures."' There is only one process that will do that '– electric arc machining!

Energetic sputtering anyone?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

No I think it would be more productive to list a few points between standard mainsteam understanding and an electric univere understanding!

Lets start with jets?

Mainstream:

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers

or EU

The Jets of Comet Wild 2

Seems pretty simple!

It is pretty simple: Once EU puts numbers to their "predictions" they will be testable.

Poor Sol88: still dumb enough to believe a book advertisement web site - like David Hannum said - "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute".

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

W. Thornhill has a good summary HERE


20 July 2004
Comets Impact Cosmology

Energetic sputtering anyone?

Yes - W. Thornhill is energtically sputtering.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

. In the latter case we know exactly the quantity and type of neutrinos being observed and we know the quantity being observed.

Oops. That should be "In the latter case we know the quantity and type of neutrinos being produced and we know the quantity being observed."

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Mainstream explination is purely dominated by GRAVITY, ...

No it is not. Mainstream astrophysics & cosmology are not as simple minded as you & the EU are. Sometimes gravity dominates. Sometimes electromagnetism dominates. Sometimes gravity establishes the background and dominates globally, while electromagnetism dominates locally. And we must not forget the ability of nuclear forces to whip the tar out of both gravity and electromagnetism locally, such as in stellar nuclear reactions.

You have to be specific. You have describe a specific physical scenario before you can determine the relative roles of gravity & electromagnetism in any astrophysical system.

Originally Posted by Sol88

... this "new" finding confirms the EU understanding that they (stars) form in a Bennett pinch and are powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), taking on a classic "hourgalss" shape along with broadband radiation and filamentry structure on the extremites!

That's a complete fairy tale. At best it allows you to argue that an EU scenario is plausible, but only on a very general, heuristic level. But it certainly does not "confirm" the EU hypothesis for the very simple reason that there is no EU hypothesis to confirm.

One thing you will notice that is common to all EU arguments ever presented anywhere, in books or on websites or anywhere else, is that they are never specific about anything. There is a reason for this. As long as you don't say anything specific then nobody can pin you down.

So, for instance, exactly why would any kind of plasma pinch give an "hour glass" shape? And more importantly, how do you get a pinch to sit around and keep on pinching for zillions of years? What specific field strengths and current densities allow for this? and where does all that charge separation come from? After all, you need an electric field to separate charges, but you need to separate charges to get an electric field. So which one is the "chicken" and which one is the "egg"? We never get specific answers to specific questions. Hence, there is in reality no EU hypothesis to defend.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Not saying the PR makes it true, but makes you think!

The only thing it makes me think about is how anyone could believe such nonsense.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Lets talk comets shall we specificaly electric comets (under the banner of EU). Tim Thompson what is your and I presume mainstream majority view of a comet? Lets pick Hale-Bopp for instance. Tim?

I refer the curious reader to the book Introduction to Comets by John C. Brandt & Robert D. Chapman, Cambridge University Press 2004 (2nd edition). The bulk of the comet is dominated by ices (water and other kinds of ice), with dissolved gases mixed in. There is an outer "crust" and a porous dust mantle. The ices are both amorphous and crystalline. There are undoubtedly specific differences in structural & compositional details from one comet to another, but that's a fairly good general picture. Specificity of detail can be found in the Brandt & Chapman book.

Originally Posted by Sol88

The Jets of Comet Wild 2

Quote:

In the electrical hypothesis, a rock moving rapidly through the electric field of the Sun will develop a plasma sheath that stretches into a coma thousands of kilometers across and a filamentary tail that remains coherent over millions of kilometers. Arcing to the surface will generate high temperatures in small areas. The electrical activity will produce X-rays and ultraviolet light. The predictions of the model are testable, and the implications reach far beyond modern comet theory.

Well, to start with, the predictions of the model are not really testable because there is no model to test, just some vague and unsupported comments about rocks in space. However, there are some general tests one can apply to the general idea, such that the EU idea in fact fails immediately. No use wasting time on specific models I guess.

Arcing is episodic, it flashes like lightning. The X-ray emission from lightning comes in bursts, not as a steady background. The X-ray emission from comets does not come in bursts, so the actual observed X-ray emission from comets is not consistent with the idea given in the EU link.

The bursts of X-ray emission are broad band. The non-bursty X-ray emission from comets is a mix of broad band and narrow line. The narrow line emission is readily identified with known charge exchange mechanisms and other known narrow line production mechanisms supported by comparison with laboratory experiments. The broad band emission is readily identified as bow shock emission, and bremsstrahlung (neither of which, by the way, is consistent with arcing).

So what we have is that the known, observed X-ray emission from comets is well understood in terms of well known, standard physics, while simultaneously inconsistent with the vague claims from the EU crow. This state of affairs in fact tends to falsify the vague ideas put forth as a "model" by the EU crowd.

As for comet Hale-Bopp specifically, there is a great deal of literature on that specific comet. What, specifically, did you have in mind?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Sql88:
This is an EU (not actual science) thread so you start:

• What is the EU idea of a comet?
• What observational evidence does EU have for their idea?

Basically, from what I remember, the "model" (and I use the term loosely) in the EU "theory" of EC goes as follows:

• there is a radial electric field from the sun to the heliopause (what else would drive the solar wind?)
• comets move from the outer to the inner regions of the solar system
• as they move inward they get charged more and more (how remains a mystery, it seems to have to do something with maintaining the same potential as which they are located at)
• this charged piece of rock (there is NO ice or water on an EC) starts to be machined by discharges (again how and why remains a mystery) similar like the laboratory tool of EDM (electric discharge machining) which is used to see e.g. how electrical components hold up in strong radiation fields
• this EDM works out the oxygen from the minerals which build the EC
• this oxygen combines with the solar wind protons to generate water, which is then released as the EC tail that is observed

Now, this fairytale is nice however, I never got any answers on my questions

1. How exactly does the EC nucleus get charged?
2. What makes that on the charged surface EDM can take place? (aparently it is not in balance with its surroundings, the one fact that seems to be charging the nucleus)
3. Why would EDM on the surface of the nucleus of the EC create negatively charged oxygen ions?
4. Is the reaction of O^- + H⁺ possible to create OH (and later to create H₂O⁺) when one looks at the energetics of the H⁺?

Now, one of the "useful" things about EU and EC is that there are as many theories as there are proponents. So I guess an ignored member of the board will come up with lots of quotes from thundercrap (all but meaningless because they give no numbers with which to compare the real observations) or from holocrap, of probably from the electric sun ideas etc. etc. However, none of these proponents have EVER produced a quantitative model of how things should work.

I wonder if our local crackpot is giong to present something real for once, but I doubt it.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Arcing is episodic, it flashes like lightning. The X-ray emission from lightning comes in bursts, not as a steady background. The X-ray emission from comets does not come in bursts, so the actual observed X-ray emission from comets is not consistent with the idea given in the EU link.

The bursts of X-ray emission are broad band. The non-bursty X-ray emission from comets is a mix of broad band and narrow line. The narrow line emission is readily identified with known charge exchange mechanisms and other known narrow line production mechanisms supported by comparison with laboratory experiments. The broad band emission is readily identified as bow shock emission, and bremsstrahlung (neither of which, by the way, is consistent with arcing).

I am sorry Tom, but as an astrophysicist you are not allowed to believe in laboratory experiments, because theys works with the plasmagasses, and thoses not exist in the astrophissies. Therefore, your model is probably bunk (well at least to anyone except the whole of mainstream physics).

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Yes - W. Thornhill is energtically sputtering.

Wow, the first quotes of that Thorncrap page were quotes from 1871 though 1897, just the time after Maxwell's equations were beginning to get known (I think published in the 1860s) and naturally, EVERYTHING at that time was tried to be explained using this wonderous thing of electricity. Now, ofcourse, Max's Exes are VERY important (also at comets) but to say:

Originally Posted by holocrap

Science at the end of the 19th century was closer to the truth about comets than we are now!

is laughable, at the least.

I have no idea what thornbull wants to explain on that page. It is clear that comets are flying around the sun in an orbit explained by Keppies laws (how else can we predict when Halley and numerous other comets will pass by).

It is also clear that the comet loosing its tail (as Vourlidas et al have shown) is an electromagnetic process, because of reconnection (and yes, there is now also evidence for reconnnection Venus's induced magnetotail, see Volwerk et al 2009 in Annales Geophysicae).

But anywhooooooooooo, there are sooooooooo many observations from comets right now, from the ground and from close fly-bys. If, e.g. EDM would be a significant source for the production of whatever, then we would have measured it in the observations, because discharges emit specific radiation, just like lightning.

But hey, we cannot expect the peeps from EU/ES/EC (and probably EP electric planet) to really LOOK at the data, and really DO SOME WORK, and really make QUALITATIVE models. That would be too much, and also unnecessary because we know that electricity is 10³⁷ stronger than gravity and plasma scales up over at least 10¹⁹ orders of magnitude.

What me worry?

[Tim Thompson]

I would like to expand a bit on my previous post by including some reference material. First, I will refer to the book I recommended earlier, Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition), specifically section 6.4.4 (Cometary X-rays), page 230.

Brandt & Chapman reference Lisse, et al., 2001, and point out that there are only two plausible sources for cometary X-rays: charge exchange and electron-neutral thermal bremsstrahlung.

Originally Posted by Brandt & Chapman page 230

Lisse, et al. (2001) obtained observations of comet C/LINEAR 1999 S4 using the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Line emission was detected as shown in Fig. 6.24. The fit to the observations contains a six-line charge exchange model plus a thermal bremsstrahlung contribution. The clear peak at 570 eV is caused by charge exchange of O⁺⁵. The agreement with the observations is excellent, but the contribution from thermal bremsstrahlung could decrease as spectral resolution imporves

As an example of one common charge exchange reaction, Brandt & Chapman give ...

O⁶⁺ + M = O^5+* + M⁺

Where the M is any one of many different possible neutral molecules or atoms in the cometary coma, most commonly perhaps H₂O, OH, O & H. The '*' symbol indicates that the O⁵⁺ ion could be either in the ground state (O⁵⁺), or in an excited state (O^5+*). If the latter, then there will be additional X-ray or gamma-ray photons, which are also consistent with astronomical observations.

Also worth noting:

Originally Posted by Brandt & Chapman page 229

Subsequent analysis of 15 comets showed that the emission was confined to the coma volume between the nucleus and the sun. No correlation was found between the X-ray emission and dust or plasma tails or the sun's X-ray flux.

This is noteworthy because the draping of the solar wind magnetic field over he comet would inhibit the build up of charge along the leading edge, where the X-rays are observed to originate, and encourage charge build up either along the sides or through the tail (the latter being the mechanism that our group uncovered to explain the correlation between the solar wind and Jovian radio emission; Bolton, et al., 1989). So in the EU "model" arcing and X-rays should be generated where the charge builds up, away from the region where the X-rays are actually observed to originate. So one more reason becomes apparent for doubting the EU idea.

A more complete review of cometary X-ray & UV emission can be found in Krasnopolsky, Greenwood & Stancil, 2004 (not freely available, you will have to look it up the old fashioned way).

I also said that the astronomical observations compared favorably with laboratory observations of charge exchange spectra. See, for instance, the paper Beiersdorfer, et al., 2005a and the AGU abstract Beiersdorfer, et al., 2005b.

The emission of X-rays and UV from comets is readily explained via well understood mainstream physics, and supported by agreement between ground based laboratory experiments & astronomical observations. Furthermore, the observed properties of cometary X-rays, while supported by mainstream physics, is simultaneously inconsistent with the expectations of the naieve EU ideas.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

I would like to expand a bit on my previous post by including some reference material. First, I will refer to the book I recommended earlier, Introduction to Comets by Brandt & Chapman (Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd edition), specifically section 6.4.4 (Cometary X-rays), page 230.

snip

The emission of X-rays and UV from comets is readily explained via well understood mainstream physics, and supported by agreement between ground based laboratory experiments & astronomical observations. Furthermore, the observed properties of cometary X-rays, while supported by mainstream physics, is simultaneously inconsistent with the expectations of the naieve EU ideas.

Ummm.....no Tim Thompson I believe you would be wrong there


What would really be going on is the comet (a rock) that has assumed the local space charge for longer than it has spent travailing in closer proximity to the Sun (inside Jupiter's orbit) is basically at a different potential than the now increasing (inbound) potential difference from a less charged region to a more charged region of local space (IPM).

Now plasma doing what it does, sets up a charge sheath (Langmuir sheath or DL) around said rock of which the leading edge, as Tim Thompson states, is where all the X-Ray action is coming from and if the EU thinking (or at least my understanding of it) is where the strongest potential difference in the DL is caused by the comets motion toward the Sun (+) and last time I read about Tusenfems DL wiki page, would be a good particle accelerator, say to X-ray energies!!!

And the induced charge on the nucleus does some highly energetic "stuff" and electric discharge is one of them, this would be responsible for the "fine" dust of which at one stage was very hot, presumably while it was being discharged off the surface and recombining down the neutral area of the plasma tail.

The DL interface at the leading edge of the comets motion would do some pretty funky stuff wrt DL behaviour especial the more charge differential between the comet and Sol, with comet Holmes and McNaught being memorable.

Quote:

Well, to start with, the predictions of the model are not really testable because there is no model to test, just some vague and unsupported comments about rocks in space. However, there are some general tests one can apply to the general idea, such that the EU idea in fact fails immediately. No use wasting time on specific models I guess.

Arcing is episodic, it flashes like lightning. The X-ray emission from lightning comes in bursts, not as a steady background. The X-ray emission from comets does not come in bursts, so the actual observed X-ray emission from comets is not consistent with the idea given in the EU link.

The bursts of X-ray emission are broad band. The non-bursty X-ray emission from comets is a mix of broad band and narrow line. The narrow line emission is readily identified with known charge exchange mechanisms and other known narrow line production mechanisms supported by comparison with laboratory experiments. The broad band emission is readily identified as bow shock emission, and bremsstrahlung (neither of which, by the way, is consistent with arcing).

Sorry Tim Thompson sounds like you may be confused here, arcing is happening at the SURFACE of the comet and the main X-ray production is happening at the DL interface. The comet is acting as a foreign plasma body inside the local IPM, why would you NOT expect plasma phenomena to going on??

I mean lets take another random EU orientated PR shall we and it's not even from those snake oil book selling crack pots at Thunderbolts

First direct evidence of lightning on Mars detected

Quote:

"What we saw on Mars was a series of huge and sudden electrical discharges caused by a large dust storm," Ruf said. "Clearly, there was no rain associated with the electrical discharges on Mars. However, the implied possibilities are exciting."

Quote:

On June 8, 2006 both an unusual pattern of non-thermal radiation and an intense Martian dust storm occurred, the only time that non-thermal radiation was detected. Non-thermal radiation would suggest the presence of lightning.

Now Tim Thompson where else can we see Non Theraml radiation in comets?

Hell Thunderbolts sums it up much better than me here

Comet X-rays

Quote:

A comet is believed to be a dirty snowball slowly wasting away in the heat of the Sun. But this ROSAT image from March 27, 1996 reveals a comet radiating x-rays as intense as those from the x- ray stars that are ROSAT's usual target.

Quote:

The x-rays flickered over a matter of hours like a failing fluorescent lamp. The Electric Universe contends that this is more than a simile: A comet is a light-producing load in the circuit of an electrically powered Sun.

Quote:

Most of the voltage difference between the comet and the solar plasma is taken up in a double layer of charge, called a plasma sheath, that surrounds the comet. When the electrical stress is great enough, the sheath glows and appears as the typical comet coma and tail. Diffuse electrical discharges occur in the sheath and at the nucleus, radiating a variety of frequencies, including x-rays. The highest voltage differences occur at the comet nucleus and across the plasma sheath. So where the sheath is most compressed, in the sunward direction, the electric field is strong enough to accelerate charged particles to x-ray energies. That explains the crescent-shaped x-ray image in relation to the comet nucleus and the Sun. Flickering and occasional flare-ups are expected because plasma discharges behave in a non-linear manner.

Hell even goto Comet Borrelly rocks core scientific beliefs and 'ave a geezer at that!!

Quote:

In May, 1996, the Ulysses spacecraft, which is studying the Sun, surprised scientists when it encountered the ion tail of Comet Hyakutake. The comet was then 360 million miles from the spacecraft! That is four times the distance of the Earth from the Sun. To remain intact over that distance the tail of a comet must carry electrical current to prevent its dispersal. That is because an electric current in space takes the form of a twisted filament known as a "Birkeland current", rather like an invisible braided copper wire. When the current is strong enough such filaments are visible. They can be seen when comets are close to the Sun and they are ubiquitous in images from deep space.

Snip

Quote:

Scientists were surprised when Giotto images of Comet Halley showed that the dust and gas was being emitted from just a few small craters on the sunlit nucleus. Comet Borrelly showed the same behaviour. It has been said that the human facility for self delusion is the most highly developed of all. One of the finest examples is when scientists explain the pencil thin jets from a comet as the sublimation of ices from the bottoms of craters. The presence of neatly circular craters on a comet nucleus is oddity enough, if gas is merely blowing off bits of a dirty crust. The craters would need to be more like gun barrels than pits to form thin jets. There is also the problem of concentrating the heat of the Sun at the bottoms of holes that are not pointing at the Sun. To make it more difficult, the dark, heat absorbing regions are not where the jets are issuing from. As for the off-center coma, in 1985 the International Cometary Explorer (ICE) spacecraft found that cometary effects were asymmetric around comet Giacobini-Zinner. So it seems symptomatic of rigid scientific beliefs that NASA scientists were caught again by surprise in 2001!

The answer to all of these conundrums is simple if a comet is highly negatively charged with respect to the Sun. As the comet accelerates toward the Sun electrons begin to be stripped from the nucleus like a "cold-cathode". It develops a visible glow discharge and Birkeland current tail. These electrical effects we call a comet. At some point, more powerful arcs strike on the comet nucleus and give rise to "cathode-jets" which move about and burn circular craters. The electrical discharges to a cometary cathode will follow the magnetic field lines in the vicinity of the comet. So it will be interesting to compare the jet directions with the solar wind field direction which, because it spirals out from the Sun, does not coincide with the comet-Sun line. There is no "shock wave" to be understood in the usual sense. A charged body in the plasma of space will form a sheath to protect itself from its electrical environment. The boundary of the comet's coma defines the virtual anode region of a plasma glow discharge. Electrons are accelerated outward and positive ions inward across the sheath. Strong X-rays are generated where these particles recombine.

As observed!

Hows that for a goal post shifting random wild tangent!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Basically, from what I remember, the "model" (and I use the term loosely) in the EU "theory" of EC goes as follows:


Now, this fairytale is nice however, I never got any answers on my questions

1. How exactly does the EC nucleus get charged?
2. What makes that on the charged surface EDM can take place? (aparently it is not in balance with its surroundings, the one fact that seems to be charging the nucleus)
3. Why would EDM on the surface of the nucleus of the EC create negatively charged oxygen ions?
4. Is the reaction of O^- + H⁺ possible to create OH (and later to create H₂O⁺) when one looks at the energetics of the H⁺?

I wonder if our local crackpot is giong to present something real for once, but I doubt it.

Points to the link then runs like a good night out on the vindaloo


NASA IBEX Spacecraft Detects Neutral Hydrogen Bouncing Off Moon

Quote:

The solar wind, the supersonic stream of charged particles that flows out from the sun, moves out into space in every direction at speeds of about a million mph. The Earth's strong magnetic field shields our planet from the solar wind. The moon, with its relatively weak magnetic field, has no such protection, causing the solar wind to slam onto the moon's sunward side.

From its vantage point in high earth orbit, IBEX sees about half of the moon — one quarter of it is dark and faces the nightside (away from the sun), while the other quarter faces the dayside (toward the sun). Solar wind particles impact only the dayside, where most of them are embedded in the lunar surface, while some scatter off in different directions. The scattered ones mostly become neutral atoms in this reflection process by picking up electrons from the lunar surface.

snip

Quote:

McComas says the results also shed light on the "recycling" process undertaken by particles throughout the solar system and beyond. The solar wind and other charged particles impact dust and larger objects as they travel through space, where they backscatter and are reprocessed as neutral atoms. These atoms can travel long distances before they are stripped of their electrons and become ions and the complicated process begins again.

Quote:

And the spacecraft is just getting started. Towards the end of the summer, the team will release the spacecraft's first all-sky map showing the energetic processes occurring at the edge of the solar system. The team will not comment until the image is complete, but McComas hints, "It doesn't look like any of the models."

Cool can't wait

Tusenfem?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

No it is not.



So, for instance, exactly why would any kind of plasma pinch give an "hour glass" shape? And more importantly, how do you get a pinch to sit around and keep on pinching for zillions of years? What specific field strengths and current densities allow for this? and where does all that charge separation come from? After all, you need an electric field to separate charges, but you need to separate charges to get an electric field. So which one is the "chicken" and which one is the "egg"? We never get specific answers to specific questions. Hence, there is in reality no EU hypothesis to defend.

I would refer you, Tim Thompson, to this page on Pinch (plasma physics) so we can all read from the same page

Z-Pinch (plasma physics)

Quote:

A pinch is the compression of an electrically conducting filament by magnetic forces. The conductor is usually a plasma, but could also be a solid or liquid metal. In a z-pinch, the current is axial (in the z direction in a cylindrical coordinate system) and the magnetic field azimuthal; in a theta-pinch, the current is azimuthal (in the theta direction in cylindrical coordinates) and the magnetic field is axial. The phenomenon may also be referred to as a "Bennett pinch"[1] (after Willard Harrison Bennett), "electromagnetic pinch",[2] "magnetic pinch",[3] "pinch effect"[4] or "plasma pinch".[5]

Pinches occur naturally in electrical discharges such as lightning bolts,[6] the aurora,[7] current sheets,[8] and solar flares.[9] They are also produced in the laboratory, primarily for research into fusion power, but also by hobbyists (crushing aluminum cans).

As for the power source...who knows?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

So, does this mean you now admit that there is absolutely no difference at all between EU and mainstream astrophysics?

....to butt in quickly and scamper again, although many EU theories are based on astrophysics there some pivotal differences. Mainly considering various events as starting with EM forces > Then gravity when sufficient mass (I know there are many mainstream explanations like this too, but this is EU's primary focus to pick up on new novel ideas), the large scale filaments in space (from planetary up to galactic+ scales) are a result of very large EM forces and not a balance of dark matter and mass, no magnetic reconnection (either current disruption, exploding double layers or electric discharges) and ..... ummm .... the link between small scale experiments on Earth with plasma scaled up to large dimensions (due primarily to maxwells EM equations and plasma similarity tranformations) when these links are scoffed at as insignificant by most mainstream views. And others. Too tired to get into EU stuff to be honest. Takes ages to separate the wrong from the possibly right.

Well, thats the general Impression I get anyway. You'll have to read some of Thornhills, Scotts, Alexeffs, etc etc, theories to get the main differences.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

....to butt in quickly and scamper again, although many EU theories are based on astrophysics there some pivotal differences. Mainly considering various events as starting with EM forces > Then gravity when sufficient mass (I know there are many mainstream explanations like this too, but this is EU's primary focus to pick up on new novel ideas), the large scale filaments in space (from planetary up to galactic+ scales) are a result of very large EM forces and not a balance of dark matter and mass,

Hi Zeuzz, I see you are still posting and running.

Would you care to explain how, what where , when and why, there is any data that EM forces models could do any of the things that the dark matter model does.

As I recall the magnetic field is too weak and the charges would have to be really large, for the EM model to account for galaxy rotation curves.


But that is why you post and run isn't it? You have found that you do not like to defend the models that can't explain things.

This has become really insincere on your part.

Why not stay around and defend your statement?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Hi Zeuzz, I see you are still posting and running.

Would you care to explain how, what where , when and why, there is any data that EM forces models could do any of the things that the dark matter model does.

As I recall the magnetic field is too weak and the charges would have to be really large, for the EM model to account for galaxy rotation curves.


But that is why you post and run isn't it? You have found that you do not like to defend the models that can't explain things.

This has become really insincere on your part.

Why not stay around and defend your statement?

Zeuzz will not probaby answer this because even he is not idiotic enough to think that the hand waving of EU is in any way a hypothesis (let alone a theory). It is hardly an idea and a good example of the worst scientific woo. He started this thread to get the obvious EU non-science away from the less obvious non-science of plasma cosmology.

EU has no explanation for dark matter other than EU proponents endlesly closing their eyes (and minds) to the evidence for dark matter. But then this is not surprising since that is all that EU proponents do (hi Sol88 ) for any evidence.


But if Zeuzzz does answer then he should consider that galaxy rotation curves are only one piece of evidence for dark matter. A fuller list of evidence is:

• galaxy rotation curves (which EU has no answer for)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (which EU and PC ignore)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (which EU and PC ignore)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (which EU and PC ignore)

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Zeuzz will not probaby answer this because even he is not idiotic enough to think that the hand waving of EU is in any way a hypothesis (let alone a theory).

Only an idiotic individual would fail to note that this *THEORY* has already been lab tested by Birkeland and mathematically quantified by Alfven and Bruce and Peratt and many others. Compare and contrast that with current theory that relies upon *THREE* different forms of metaphysical BS that never shows up in controlled experimentation.

Scientific "woo" is baloney that fails to show up in a *CONTROLLED* experiment, with real equipment and real physical tests of concept. That would be things like "dark evil stuff", "dark energy", "dark matter" and "inflation" faeries.

EU theory is lab tested. You folks recognized the value of Birkelands work as it relates to aurora and you utterly ignore *EVERYTHING* else he "predicted" in his work. Your industry is *PITIFUL* and it's nothing but a math cult filled with dead religious inflation deities.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Sol88

What would really be going on is the comet (a rock) ...

If that's what you think, then the EU is toast already. Comets cannot be "rocks". While comet masses are hard to constrain, they are not so extremely uncertain as to confuse "ice" and "rock". Comet densities are constrained to the range of about 0.3 to 1.5 gm/cm³ in numerous different ways, from dynamic orbit modeling to direct observation. Compare this to the density of water ice, 1.0 gm/cm³, and light "rocks" which range from 2-3 gm/cm³ (coal is the lightest "rock" at 1.1-1.4 gm/cm³; do you propose that comets are made of coal?). The average density of Earth is about 5.5 gm/cm³ due to the presence of heavier elements like iron (7.9 gm/cm³). Nothing with a density as low as 1.5 gm/cm³ can be considered a "rock" in any reasonable sense of the word. Comets are already known not to be rocks. For comet density references, see for instance Sosa & Fernandez, 2009; Richardson, et al., 2007; Weissman & Lowry, 2006.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Now plasma doing what it does, sets up a charge sheath (Langmuir sheath or DL) around said rock of which the leading edge, as Tim Thompson states, is where all the X-Ray action is coming from ... arcing is happening at the SURFACE of the comet ...

I find it somewhat amusing how EU enthusiasts so readily ignore the very laws of physics they claim their hypothesis is built on, namely the laws of electromagnetism. It does not significantly matter where the X-ray action is, it matters what the X-ray action is. Arcing will produce flashes of emission simultaneously from gamma rays all the way down to radio waves. if there is arcing then those flashes must be observed. Those flashes are not observed. Therefore there is no arcing, there is no major discharge activity and no electric machining.

But you doubly violate the laws of electromagnetism. You casually overlook the fact that all of the X-ray emission that we do see is readily & easily explained by other processes, while being simultaneously inconsistent with arcing, or particle acceleration in a plasma sheath. We see narrow line emission at specific charge exchange energies verified by controlled laboratory experiments. Acceleration of electrons in a plasma sheath will not produce that kind of narrow line emission. We see broad band thermal X-ray emission that easily fits the known spectral energy distribution (SED) of thermal electron-neutral bremsstrahlung. Bremsstrahlung is what you get when electrons are slowed & stopped by a resisting medium and has a different SED from electrons accelerated in a plasma sheath. And finally, you expect plasma sheath X-ray emission to decrease in strength in a higher density medium because the mean free path of the accelerated electrons is collisionally reduced, which prevents acceleration to high energies. So the EU hypothesis predicts weaker X-ray emission from comets in the higher density inner solar system. But what we actually see is not consistent with this EU prediction.

So in fact all of the X-ray emission actually seen from comets in the solar system directly contradicts the necessary predictions from EU ideas.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Well, to start with, the predictions of the model are not really testable because there is no model to test, just some vague and unsupported comments about rocks in space.

What can we actually "test" about mainstream theory? Got a gram of dark matter? Got a example of a controlled experiment where "dark energy" or "inflation" actually had a tangible effect on something in a real experimental setting? There's nothing to "test" in mainstream theory. We could label "dark energy", "magic faerie" energy, slap on your same math formulas and viola, we have a "test" for magic faeries. Get real.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Only an idiotic individual would fail to note that this *THEORY* has already been lab tested by Birkeland and mathematically quantified by Alfven and Bruce and Peratt and many others. Compare and contrast that with current theory that relies upon *THREE* different forms of metaphysical BS that never shows up in controlled experimentation.

Scientific "woo" is baloney that fails to show up in a *CONTROLLED* experiment, with real equipment and real physical tests of concept. That would be things like "dark evil stuff", "dark energy", "dark matter" and "inflation" faeries.

EU theory is lab tested. You folks recognized the value of Birkelands work as it relates to aurora and you utterly ignore *EVERYTHING* else he "predicted" in his work. Your industry is *PITIFUL* and it's nothing but a math cult filled with dead religious inflation deities.

Nice to see all the cranks on one place !
Michael Mozina is here to dump his dumb "only things that we can test here on Earth are science" idea on us once more.

EU theory is (in Michael Mozina jargon) *NOT* lab tested. Newtonian dynamics, Maxwell's equations and General Relativity are "lab tested".


So lets see if he tell us why the evidence for dark matter is wrong. The following list only depends on Newtonian dynamics, Maxwell's equations and General Relativity.

• galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity)

Which of the these experimentally verified theories is wrong?

P.S. The first observation could be explained by a modified Newtonian dynamics theory and maybe the second observation. I certainly would be interested in MM's citations of scientific papers that use MOND to explain both observations with the same MOND theory.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What can we actually "test" about mainstream theory?

We have been over this ground before. Of course mainstream theories are very testable, as I have explained before ...

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Inflation is a testable hypothesis. Your assertion to the contrary, as an excuse for declaring it unscientific is a factually false statement. See, i.e., Mikheeva, 20008; Lesgourgues & Valkenburg, 2007; Alabidi & Lyth, 2006; Lidsey & Seery, 2006 ... Liddle, 1999.

Whether you choose to admit it or not, you have in fact decided to re-define the meaning of the word "science" to suit your own prejudice, quite ignoring the meaning common to practicing scientists. Confronted with obvious valid scientific tests of mainstream theory, you choose to retreat to an artificial definition of science, where only "controlled laboratory experiments" count as valid tests of am hypothesis. In a single stroke you simply deny that astronomy, astrophysics or cosmology count as "science" at all.

It was this intransigent insistence on your own artificial version of "science" which got me to start the thread Fundamental Question on the Nature of Science last April. That thread contains the meat of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Got a gram of dark matter? Got a example of a controlled experiment where "dark energy" or "inflation" actually had a tangible effect on something in a real experimental setting? There's nothing to "test" in mainstream theory. We could label "dark energy", "magic faerie" energy, slap on your same math formulas and viola, we have a "test" for magic faeries. Get real.

No, you get real. Better yet, get honest. I don't think you are at all capable of an intellectually honest exploration of any topic in science because you are rigid & blind, totally incapable of seeing beyond the limited horizon of your own preconceptions. Quite simply, you don't & can't understand what science is. So naturally, you are on the losing side.