IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Tags cosmology , electric universe

Reply
Old 9th April 2012, 11:51 AM   #161
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
So, we can conclude that the distinction between plasma cosmology and plasma astrophysics is certainly nothing objective, despite what Dunning-Davies said (and what you've tried to claim). Just as ben m wrote: ["Hey, it's the standard Plasma Cosmology Two-Step! (...)"]
Quite misunderstood. The link is that Plasma Cosmology and Plasma Astrophysics have a historical foundation constituted by the same scientists, and some of them helped pioneer Plasma Cosmology, which e.g. can be seen in the quote below.

Anthony Peratt for instance, a Plasma Cosmology advocate, is still involved with plasma science. So the two fields can't be separated entirely. Still, the work on Plasma Cosmology is historically attributable to the ones having been involved with doing studies along that framework - clearly. Radio Astronomy, Plasma Science and -Astrophysics are still doing observations and experiments that may be relevant for the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe framework.

Here's Anthony Peratt's own words (IEEE Guest Editorial from 2007) in regards to the history of Plasma Cosmology:
Another OT post.

Here are my words again: "the distinction between plasma cosmology and plasma astrophysics is certainly nothing objective".

Can you point to where, in your post, you provided an objective means of determining what is plasma cosmology and what is plasma astrophysics?

Staying on-topic, which of the 57 references in Smith's OAJ paper are plasma cosmology and which are plasma astrophysics (and which neither)?

In particular, those in his section 3 ("THE PLASMA UNIVERSE PERSPECTIVE"), i.e. from [46] to [57], and including [35].

Oh, and what's the relationship between Smith's "plasma universe", and plasma cosmology?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2012, 12:16 PM   #162
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Originally Posted by Reality Check
the Electric Universe stuff is not established science, (...)
It's not "established science" as it is clearly not the standard cosmological model, but a different model. It can't be labeled "non-science" as it is a study of observations using internally consistent principles and an attempt to produce a useful model of the universe. Perhaps somewhere in-between protoscience and established physics, if you need a label.
Staying with the OAJ Special Issue ...

Here's what Thornhill has to say, in the introduction of his paper:
Originally Posted by Thornhill
Cosmology is defined as the study of the origin, history, structure and dynamics of the universe. As such it provides a global context for both our science and culture so that cosmology is sometimes called ‘the queen of the sciences.’ To live up to this title, cosmology must be a broad and coherent natural philosophy since to be valid there can be no exceptions based on all of our experience. In particular, cosmology must address issues of life and the human condition.
Later he writes this:
Quote:
The Big Bang hypothesis is a highly adjustable model for which supporters claim success after failing tests.
Quote:
Strictly, theories are hypotheses that have been tested and found valid. So technically, the Big Bang was never a theory. It is a hypothesis that ignores the physics principle that prohibits creation from nothing
Clearly whatever it is you are describing Siggy, it is not what Thornhill is talking about.

As I said in an earlier post, we can take the four papers and one editorial and use them as a crude test of the kind of "science" the EU is.

And it doesn't take much reading to learn that it is acceptable, in standard EU methodology, to lie, and to completely ignore directly relevant, published observations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
a review starts with a description of what is being reviewed. This is not present in this issue because there is no such thing as Electric Universe theory, just a bunch of often mutually exclusive and often invalid theories collected together using some arbitrary rules.
The Electric Universe is a study of the universe interpreting astrophysical and cosmic phenomena in light of electric currents and plasma processes.
You might want to re-read the Thornhill paper.

He all but says "Velikovsky was a great scientist!" Thornhill wants insists that the EU include psychology, evolution, biology, linguistics, economics, comparative literature, and religion.

Quote:
The components are certainly not invalid theories *. It also embraces such processes from large scale (galactic) to planetary and comet-sized observasions. If people finds these interpretations unlikely, or not in line with the standard model, it's not really a counter argument for this being an internally consistent framework for a cosmology IMHO.
As ben has already pointed out, it is pretty clear that the EU is not a science, in the sense that there's something objective and independently verifiable.

For example, the very few objective, quantified, independently verifiable EU predictions are inconsistent with the totality of the directly relevant, objective, quantitative, independently verifiable experimental results and observations. So for you to say that finding the EU interpretations unlikely is "not really a counter argument for this being an internally consistent framework for a cosmology", you're making a pretty bald declaration of the non-science nature of the EU.

But further discussion of this is surely a topic for your new thread, eh?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2012, 12:18 PM   #163
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
In addition to the papers discussed here, and previously published papers related to Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe (electric stars etc.), the "Essential guide to the EU" gives an overview of what the Electric Universe is and which processes are considered upon interpretation of observations:

Essential Guide to the EU

If this kind of linking is inappropriate, feel free to remove this post. It is merely an attempt to point to further descriptions of which principles the Electric Universe framework is based on, as a response to Reality Check's degrading of it.
When are you going to start that new thread, on the EU?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2012, 04:25 PM   #164
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
As mentioned above, the papers bear a signature of having been reviewed.
As mentioned above, the the papers bear a signature of not having been reviewed otherwise the missing citations would have been picked up.

Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Where does it state that the papers are only a review? In the end section of the Editorial it says:
Quote:
These short notes, although capable of standing alone, are meant to act as an introduction to the following articles devoted to an introduction to the ideas of plasma cosmology or, as it referred to by some, the electric universe. The first article by Dave Smith is meant to be a general overall view of the field and its general ideas. The other articles by Donald Scott, C. J. Ransom, and Wallace Thornhill give much more detail of some specific topics."
That makes the possibility of peer- review even less likely.
A review is usualy not peer reviviewed.
An "introduction" that consists of a "general overall view" and some papers on random topics is even less likely to be peer reviewed.

Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
It's not "established science" as it is clearly not the standard cosmological model, but a different model.
It's not "established science" as it is clearly not a cosmological model at all. If there was such a model then you would have cited the literature containing it.

Astrophysics is a study of the universe interpreting astrophysical and cosmic phenomena in light of magnetic fields, electric currents and plasma processes. It also embraces such processes from large scale (galactic) to planetary and comet-sized observations.


The Electric Universe is a couple of crank books and some rather bad papers - just look at the abysmal quality of the papers in that issue !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2012, 07:09 AM   #165
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
Can you point to where, in your post, you provided an objective means of determining what is plasma cosmology and what is plasma astrophysics?
It is objectively verifiable. Those that have studied astrophysical processes along the Plasma Cosmology framework are the ones attributable for it, and that info can be found in papers, editorials and books related to Plasma Cosmology. Even Wikipedia's semi ok article embraces parts of this. I don't see why the statement from Peratt, a main advocate and contributor of Plasma Cosmology, couldn't be regarded a reliable source for the historical attribution.

And as already noted, plasma physics and plasma astrophysics does studies that obviously are relevant for Plasma Cosmology. As can also be seen, objectively verifiable, is that some of the pioneers of Plasma Cosmology also were important contributors to the early decades of plasma physics and astrophysics.

(As a comparison, if we were to discuss who are historically attributable for the Big Bang theory, it would be relevant to mention those that promoted and worked along that framework, such as Friedmann, Lemaitre, Gamov and indirectly Einstein. Including every physicist that has worked on relevant physics or observations, but that haven't worked specifically on the Big Bang theory, would be less relevant).

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
Staying on-topic, which of the 57 references in Smith's OAJ paper are plasma cosmology and which are plasma astrophysics (and which neither)?

In particular, those in his section 3 ("THE PLASMA UNIVERSE PERSPECTIVE"), i.e. from [46] to [57], and including [35].
I don't see the reason for explaining the references point by point or take them out of the context. I.e. the related sections in the paper text explains quite explicitly what processes are based on 'physics in the plasma universe' and what has been observed; herby some attributable to plasma astrophysics (however, where we sometimes see odd terminology such as 'flux ropes').

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
Oh, and what's the relationship between Smith's "plasma universe", and plasma cosmology?
Smith's references to the 'Plasma Universe' would be similar to that of Alfvén's and Peratt's. The term is describing a model and general acceptence that the very most of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state. Hence electric currents, magnetic fields and plasma processes are highly important for structures and dynamics throughout the Universe. Alfvén used the term "Cosmology in the Plasma Universe" which emphasized the formentioned more than the Standard Model.
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2012, 07:19 AM   #166
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
Staying with the OAJ Special Issue ...

Clearly whatever it is you are describing Siggy, it is not what Thornhill is talking about.
In the discussed paper, Thornhill points to how cosmology has turned out to be highly mathematically driven. The emphasis is not just on math as a method and tool, but in terms of the underlying assumptions and hypothetical/exotic entities it has breed. Much of the paper also addresses current issues in cosmology and confronts what the Big Bang theory doesn't bother to explain. (Further content for another thread perhaps).

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
You might want to re-read the Thornhill paper.

He all but says "Velikovsky was a great scientist!" Thornhill wants insists that the EU include psychology, evolution, biology, linguistics, economics, comparative literature, and religion.
Heh, perhaps not that broad of a meaning.. And true, he doesn't say "Velikovsky was a great scientist" (Both Thornhill and Talbott has said that Velikvsky's methods weren't scientifically good, but some of his ideas and confrontations were important). His point in the section I think you are refering to is, with references to some of Peratt's and Talbott's work, that ancient observations could account for what today has been obscured into mythology and religion. In brief, ancient encounters of bypassing celestial objects and resulting plasma processes may give clues as to why we the see similar stories and trends recorded globally. The archetypes, figures and myths seem to suggest a red line within the holocene period. He claims that such recordings ought to be taken into account, and should be explained by, a the branch of science that addresses the history, structure and dynamics of the Universe (including our solar system).

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
So for you to say that finding the EU interpretations unlikely is "not really a counter argument for this being an internally consistent framework for a cosmology", you're making a pretty bald declaration of the non-science nature of the EU.
Please distinguish between "finding unlikely" and "having falsified". The former suggest that it doesn't fit into a scientist's perspective and the latter is a scientific counter argument. Also, making hypotheses based on physics is a part of a scientific process. Implying that it is non-science untill models and hypotheses are finalized into a theory, is incorrect.

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
But further discussion of this is surely a topic for your new thread, eh?
Probably, yes. I'll see if I can find the time to gather an opening post and engage in a new discussion there.
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2012, 07:24 AM   #167
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
As mentioned above, the papers bear a signature of not having been reviewed otherwise the missing citations would have been picked up.
Perhaps you thought I gave a summery of my opinion. I meant that, besides the Editorial, the papers literally bear a signature in the end section of having been reviewed ('Received', 'Revised', 'Accepted').

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That makes the possibility of peer- review even less likely. A review is usualy not peer reviviewed. An "introduction" that consists of a "general overall view" and some papers on random topics is even less likely to be peer reviewed.
Thanks for your opinion. This is the case for the Editorial, which is introductional, but not for the following papers discussed here. There exist peer reviewed papers that give an overview of a hypothesis or model.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Astrophysics is a study of the universe interpreting astrophysical and cosmic phenomena in light of magnetic fields, electric currents and plasma processes. It also embraces such processes from large scale (galactic) to planetary and comet-sized observations.
Sure, Astrophysics (its subfields) do investigate such aspects. It could seem from your statement that a lot of the work isn't gravity centric and GR related at all - and that most of the work is merely related to magnetic fields, electric currents and plasma processes. I could pose an argument about revisionism. On the other hand, I should maybe have written "with focus on" instead of "in light of" [electric currents and plasma processes], to clarify my point on what EU interpretations have emphasis on.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It's not "established science" as it is clearly not a cosmological model at all. If there was such a model then you would have cited the literature containing it. (...) The Electric Universe is a couple of crank books and some rather bad papers (...)
As mentioned before, it is first of all based on foundation of numerous peer reviewed papers by Alfvén (et al.) and Peratt - in addition to Thornhill's papers on electric stars/comets/craters (IEEE 2007) as an extension. Dr Scott's book includes related descriptions, figures and research. (In addition, there are documentary and eBook material which make an intriguing case for the EU, but it can't be labeled peer reviewed work.)

Last edited by Siggy_G; 17th April 2012 at 07:26 AM.
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2012, 09:06 AM   #168
pjvanerp
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I'd like to point out some other oddities in the editorial board.

Let's look at the board of directors of a company called "Steriwave":
Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Francesco Fucilla, Waldyr Rodriguez, Franco Selleri ...

Let's look at the board of staff of a company called "Yellow Energy PLC":
Waldyr Rodriguez, Francesco Fucilla, Franco Selleri, Christian Corda ...

Let's look at the editorial board of Ruggero Santilli's personal crackpot journal "Hadronic Mechanics":
Ruggero Santilli, Christian Corda (editor in chief), Jeremy Dunning-Davies ...

Let's look at the board of directors of the crackpot-award-giving "Telesio Galilei Academy of Sciences":

Waldyr Rodriguez, Franco Selleri, Jeremy Dunning-Davies. In the membership list we see Christian Corda, Wallace Thornhill. Let's keep reading: there's Reginald Cahill, Florentin Smarandache, and (for crying out loud) Wladimir Guglinski.

Who has WON the Telesio Galilei awards? Why, look! It's Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Wallace Thornhill, Stephen Crothers, Wladimir Guglinski, Franco Selleri, Florentin Smarandache. (Keep reading: Myron Evans!!)

Draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is that the Santilli-ites and the plasma cosmologists have built a "walled garden". They found institutes to give one another awards, they take over journals and give one another special issues, and every so often their fake-prestige is enough to get a government grant or two. Bentham got roped in.
There is an interesting article on sott.net, a website I wouldn't normally give much credit as a skeptic, but now it looks like they struck upon a real conspiracy (sorry can't post working links yet).

Corruption in Science: Francesco Fucilla and the Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science. (link: w_w_w.sott.net/articles/show/244011-Corruption-in-Science-Francesco-Fucilla-and-the-Telesio-Galilei-Academy-of-Science#)

I came upon this Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science (TGA) a little while ago, while doing some research on Ruggero Santilli. I thought that this foundation was just a rather harmless club of fringe scientists who love to give each other medailles every year. But in the last few weeks on the forum , which is connected to sott.net, commenters dug into the business of Fransesco Fucilla, the founding father of the TGA. And it doesn't look nice...

Fucilla runs dozens of firms which claim to invest in risky innovations (amongst which are clearly nonsense technologies, like hho-generators a well known scam product). It doesn't seem to be his goal to sell scam products, but he uses those to lure investors in buying penny stocks in his firms. After money is collected, nothing is done on development and money is invested in other firms owned by Fucilla.

Well, for all the dirty details you will have to read the article itself or if you master the Dutch language, you could read the blog I wrote about it: Pseudowetenschap als dekmantel? (link: w_w_w.kloptdatwel.nl/2012/04/17/pseudowetenschap-als-dekmantel/)

There is also a shorter Press Release by sott.net (link: w_w_w.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Science/Telesio_Galilei_Academy_of_Science_Investigated_by _Sott.net_873964.html). Just to give the side of Fucilla a fair hearing, here is his statement concerning the allegations (link: telesio-galilei.com/tg/images/stories/documents/Academy_News/telesio-galilei%20disclaimer%202012.pdf)
pjvanerp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2012, 09:51 AM   #169
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by pjvanerp View Post
I came upon this Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science (TGA) a little while ago, while doing some research on Ruggero Santilli. I thought that this foundation was just a rather harmless club of fringe scientists who love to give each other medailles every year. But in the last few weeks on the forum , which is connected to sott.net, commenters dug into the business of Fransesco Fucilla, the founding father of the TGA. And it doesn't look nice...

Fucilla runs dozens of firms which claim to invest in risky innovations (amongst which are clearly nonsense technologies, like hho-generators a well known scam product). It doesn't seem to be his goal to sell scam products, but he uses those to lure investors in buying penny stocks in his firms. After money is collected, nothing is done on development and money is invested in other firms owned by Fucilla.
Wow.

Quote:
There is an interesting article on sott.net, a website I wouldn't normally give much credit as a skeptic, but now it looks like they struck upon a real conspiracy (sorry can't post working links yet).
I've never heard of sott.net, but they cite a similar investigation by Motley Fool, which is a well-known and respected site. (And the Fucilla people sued Motley Fool for defamation, and lost the case.)
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2012, 04:24 PM   #170
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
Can you point to where, in your post, you provided an objective means of determining what is plasma cosmology and what is plasma astrophysics?
It is objectively verifiable. Those that have studied astrophysical processes along the Plasma Cosmology framework are the ones attributable for it, and that info can be found in papers, editorials and books related to Plasma Cosmology. Even Wikipedia's semi ok article embraces parts of this. I don't see why the statement from Peratt, a main advocate and contributor of Plasma Cosmology, couldn't be regarded a reliable source for the historical attribution.

And as already noted, plasma physics and plasma astrophysics does studies that obviously are relevant for Plasma Cosmology. As can also be seen, objectively verifiable, is that some of the pioneers of Plasma Cosmology also were important contributors to the early decades of plasma physics and astrophysics.

(As a comparison, if we were to discuss who are historically attributable for the Big Bang theory, it would be relevant to mention those that promoted and worked along that framework, such as Friedmann, Lemaitre, Gamov and indirectly Einstein. Including every physicist that has worked on relevant physics or observations, but that haven't worked specifically on the Big Bang theory, would be less relevant).
In case any reader has forgotten, here is the Siggy_G post I referred to:

Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Quite misunderstood. The link is that Plasma Cosmology and Plasma Astrophysics have a historical foundation constituted by the same scientists, and some of them helped pioneer Plasma Cosmology, which e.g. can be seen in the quote below.

Anthony Peratt for instance, a Plasma Cosmology advocate, is still involved with plasma science. So the two fields can't be separated entirely. Still, the work on Plasma Cosmology is historically attributable to the ones having been involved with doing studies along that framework - clearly. Radio Astronomy, Plasma Science and -Astrophysics are still doing observations and experiments that may be relevant for the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe framework.

Here's Anthony Peratt's own words (IEEE Guest Editorial from 2007) in regards to the history of Plasma Cosmology:
Quote:
Plasma Cosmology, or cosmology in the plasma universe [6], as derived by K. Birkeland, H. Alfvén, C.-G. Fälthammar, N. Herlofson, B. Lehnert, L. P. Block, P. Carlqvist, and a host of others since Anders Celcius first identified the aurora as an electromagnetic phenomena nearly 300 years ago, has long associated the plasma pinch as the progenitor of many objects in the cosmos (...) W. Thornhill revisits plasma cosmology adding new insights that link together plasma phenomena ranging from auroras to supernovae.
Taking Siggy at his word, the following, by definition, must be plasma cosmology (and not plasma astrophysics):

* any paper, conference proceeding, etc which "associates" (whatever that means) "the plasma pinch" (whatever that means) "as the progenitor of many objects in the cosmos" (whatever that means)

* any paper, conference proceeding, etc which "link together plasma phenomena ranging from auroras to supernovae"

* any paper, conference proceeding, etc by "K. Birkeland, H. Alfvén, C.-G. Fälthammar, N. Herlofson, B. Lehnert, L. P. Block, P. Carlqvist, and a host of others".

By this definition, the following are plasma cosmology papers (or conference proceedings) and not plasma astrophysics: Laser and Z-pinch Simulation of High Energy Density Planetary Interactions, Magnetic Tower Outflows from a Radial Wire Array Z-pinch, and The pinch-type instability of helical magnetic fields.

Now as far as I know, K. Birkeland, H. Alfvén, C.-G. Fälthammar, N. Herlofson, B. Lehnert, L. P. Block, P. Carlqvist, Peratt, Dunning-Davies, Smith, Scott, Ransom, and Thornhill - none of them - have cited G. Ruediger, M. Schultz, D. Elstner, John L. Remo, Stein B. Jacobsen, S.V. Lebedev, A. Ciardi, D. Ampleford, S.N. Bland, S.C. Bott, J.P. Chittenden, G. Hall, J. Rapley, A. Frank, E. G. Blackman, or T. Lery in any of their papers*

I guess my test of your objective criteria proves those criteria to be false.

Care to try again?

Quote:
Quote:
Staying on-topic, which of the 57 references in Smith's OAJ paper are plasma cosmology and which are plasma astrophysics (and which neither)?

In particular, those in his section 3 ("THE PLASMA UNIVERSE PERSPECTIVE"), i.e. from [46] to [57], and including [35].
I don't see the reason for explaining the references point by point or take them out of the context. I.e. the related sections in the paper text explains quite explicitly what processes are based on 'physics in the plasma universe' and what has been observed; herby some attributable to plasma astrophysics (however, where we sometimes see odd terminology such as 'flux ropes').
OK.

I guess there's not much point, then, in actually testing your claims, is there?

Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and what's the relationship between Smith's "plasma universe", and plasma cosmology?
Smith's references to the 'Plasma Universe' would be similar to that of Alfvén's and Peratt's. The term is describing a model and general acceptence that the very most of the matter in the observable universe is in the plasma state. Hence electric currents, magnetic fields and plasma processes are highly important for structures and dynamics throughout the Universe. Alfvén used the term "Cosmology in the Plasma Universe" which emphasized the formentioned more than the Standard Model.
OK.

And where, in the five papers in the OAJ Special Issue, are these fine distinctions made clear?

To a complete outsider, understandable confused as to why plasma cosmology is not regarded as a part of plasma astrophysics (or vice versa), elaborating on this distinction would be rather critical, wouldn't you say?

In short, Siggy, what you seem to be saying is that plasma cosmology is what Smith, Ransom, Scott, Dunning-Davies, and Thornhill write on (and perhaps Alfvén and Peratt); no one else has ever written a pure plasma cosmology paper. What sets plasma cosmology apart from plasma astrophysics is nothing more than who the author(s) of the paper is (are).

* of course, some - such as K. Birkeland and H. Alfvén - are excused, having died before any of these three papers were published.
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2012, 04:53 PM   #171
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
Staying with the OAJ Special Issue ...

Clearly whatever it is you are describing Siggy, it is not what Thornhill is talking about.
In the discussed paper, Thornhill points to how cosmology has turned out to be highly mathematically driven. The emphasis is not just on math as a method and tool, but in terms of the underlying assumptions and hypothetical/exotic entities it has breed. Much of the paper also addresses current issues in cosmology and confronts what the Big Bang theory doesn't bother to explain. (Further content for another thread perhaps).
Quote:
You might want to re-read the Thornhill paper.

He all but says "Velikovsky was a great scientist!" Thornhill wants insists that the EU include psychology, evolution, biology, linguistics, economics, comparative literature, and religion.
Heh, perhaps not that broad of a meaning.. And true, he doesn't say "Velikovsky was a great scientist" (Both Thornhill and Talbott has said that Velikvsky's methods weren't scientifically good, but some of his ideas and confrontations were important). His point in the section I think you are refering to is, with references to some of Peratt's and Talbott's work, that ancient observations could account for what today has been obscured into mythology and religion. In brief, ancient encounters of bypassing celestial objects and resulting plasma processes may give clues as to why we the see similar stories and trends recorded globally. The archetypes, figures and myths seem to suggest a red line within the holocene period. He claims that such recordings ought to be taken into account, and should be explained by, a the branch of science that addresses the history, structure and dynamics of the Universe (including our solar system).
Nice try.

Pity that Thornhill directly, and quite explicitly, contradicts you: "Cosmology is defined as the study of the origin, history, structure and dynamics of the universe. As such it provides a global context for both our science and culture so that cosmology is sometimes called ‘the queen of the sciences.’ To live up to this title, cosmology must be a broad and coherent natural philosophy since to be valid there can be no exceptions based on all of our experience. In particular, cosmology must address issues of life and the human condition." (my emphasis; italics in the original).

If Thornhill wanted to limit his scope to "ancient encounters of bypassing celestial objects and resulting plasma processes may give clues as to why we the see similar stories and trends recorded globally", he surely would have said so, wouldn't you say?

Instead, he deliberately made the scope of his definition of "cosmology" so broad as to encompass every aspect of the human condition. In short, Thornhill regards plasma cosmology as a religion.

Quote:
Quote:
So for you to say that finding the EU interpretations unlikely is "not really a counter argument for this being an internally consistent framework for a cosmology", you're making a pretty bald declaration of the non-science nature of the EU.
Please distinguish between "finding unlikely" and "having falsified". The former suggest that it doesn't fit into a scientist's perspective and the latter is a scientific counter argument. Also, making hypotheses based on physics is a part of a scientific process. Implying that it is non-science untill models and hypotheses are finalized into a theory, is incorrect.
Um, you conveniently left off this part of my post: "For example, the very few objective, quantified, independently verifiable EU predictions are inconsistent with the totality of the directly relevant, objective, quantitative, independently verifiable experimental results and observations."

So, in ~100 years (taking Peratt at his word), the so-called scientific discipline of plasma cosmology (as defined by Dunning-Davies) has produced precisely zero validated models and hypotheses; 'validated' as in internally consistent and consistent with the totality of the directly relevant, objective, quantitative, independently verifiable experimental results and observations. This despite the fact that - per Peratt - it has been actively worked on by at least eight, and as many as 13 (add Dunning-Davies, Smith, Scott, Ransom, and Thornhill to Peratt's list) people for much of those 100 years.

Add to which the fact that, per Peratt's definition, a great many people have researched questions directly relevant to plasma cosmology, and published results (models, hypotheses) which are consistent with the totality of the directly relevant, objective, quantitative, independently verifiable experimental results and observations. But, per you, none of that is plasma cosmology.

What else could we call it, if not non-science?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2012, 05:01 PM   #172
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
I meant that, besides the Editorial, the papers literally bear a signature in the end section of having been reviewed ('Received', 'Revised', 'Accepted').
What 'Received', 'Revised', 'Accepted' means to me is editorial review, e.g. fixing spelling mistakes.
You managed to pick up obvious mistakes in your review. That means that there was either no peer review or the reviewers were incompetent.

Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
It could seem from your statement that a lot of the work isn't gravity centric and GR related at all ...
Astronomers use gravity centric physics when gravity dominates, EM centric physics where EM dominates, gravity and EM centric physics where neither dominate. GR is mostly used in cosmology and high gravitational field situations (black holes).

Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
As mentioned before, ...
As mentioned before, the Electric Universe is a couple of crank books and some rather bad papers.

It is not based on many peer reviewed papers.
It is not based on any work by valid Alfvén or Peratt. It may cite them (and others) but that is done by all sorts of cranks.

Alfvén and Peratt have not published any work on the Electric Universe crackpottery.
Alfvén's Plasma Universe theory has been invalidated for decades. Peratt's model of galaxy formation was fundamentally flawed and later debunked by Peratt himself ( Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2012, 05:18 PM   #173
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
It is objectively verifiable.
An unsupported assertion is not an answer to the question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
Can you point to where, in your post, you provided an objective means of determining what is plasma cosmology and what is plasma astrophysics?
You may want to start by giving an actual definition of plasma cosmology.

But if we want to talk about plasma csomology we should take it to the appropriate thread, i.e. Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2012, 11:51 AM   #174
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
Taking Siggy at his word, the following, by definition, must be plasma cosmology (and not plasma astrophysics): (...)

By this definition, the following are plasma cosmology papers (or conference proceedings) and not plasma astrophysics: Laser and Z-pinch Simulation of High Energy Density Planetary Interactions, Magnetic Tower Outflows from a Radial Wire Array Z-pinch, and The pinch-type instability of helical magnetic fields.

Now as far as I know, K. Birkeland, H. Alfvén, C.-G. Fälthammar, N. Herlofson, B. Lehnert, L. P. Block, P. Carlqvist, Peratt, Dunning-Davies, Smith, Scott, Ransom, and Thornhill - none of them - have cited G. Ruediger, M. Schultz, D. Elstner, John L. Remo, Stein B. Jacobsen, S.V. Lebedev, A. Ciardi, D. Ampleford, S.N. Bland, S.C. Bott, J.P. Chittenden, G. Hall, J. Rapley, A. Frank, E. G. Blackman, or T. Lery in any of their papers*

I guess my test of your objective criteria proves those criteria to be false. Care to try again?
These criterias aren't entirely correct, also in terms of how they were analyzed. First of all, Plasma Astrophysics is a sub-field of Astronomy, while Cosmology is a framework putting various such sub-fields into a coherent system as an attempt to understand the Universe. So the direct comparison you're requesting is not applicable.

As a comparison, BB theory related papers would reference to other papers that include relevant research that is embraced by the BB framework (such as cold dark matter, metric expansion of spacetime, inflation theory, black holes etc.). The same goes for Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe: there are references to research that is relevant for the framework putting variuos sub-fields into a coherent system as an attempt to understand the Universe.

While we're at it, the majority of papers that can be linked to Plasma Cosmology are from the decades prior to the papers/authors you cited (2003-2011), so the references obviously weren't there. For the later papers, such as Thornhill's on the Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987a and Electric Stars (2007), the papers you cited don't tangent the Z-pinch principle in the same manner. Astrophysical papers on 'cosmic batteries' and 'galactic jets' always assume electric currents a secondary effect driven by gravity. That's different from Plasma Cosmology where gravity certainly isn't the proposed cause for currents - another distinction.

When Charles Bruce, Alfvén, Peratt, Scott or Thornhill e.g. refer to a supernova as a 'collapsing double layer' system, or to timeglass shaped nebuales as a result of a large scale z-pinch, then those are interpretations are explicitly different from how standard astrophysics view the same observations. Yet, they are no less based on plasma physics and verifiable electric mechnisms - and they certainly are a part of both the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe model.
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2012, 11:54 AM   #175
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
In short, Siggy, what you seem to be saying is that plasma cosmology is what Smith, Ransom, Scott, Dunning-Davies, and Thornhill write on (and perhaps Alfvén and Peratt); no one else has ever written a pure plasma cosmology paper. What sets plasma cosmology apart from plasma astrophysics is nothing more than who the author(s) of the paper is (are).
It seems the debate you want to have and question you want answered is whether or not 'Plasma Cosmology' is an existing term and existing model. Although Smith and Thornhill mention several aspects of this, the best place to start to get an description about what Plasma Cosmology is to read Alfvén and Peratt's papers on it. I suspect you already are familiar with such papers and articles, so I don't see where you're heading with this, except obfuscating the subject.

There are books, articles and papers that explicitly mention Plasma Cosmology, Electric Stars, Electric Space or 'cosmology in the plasma universe'. I agree that there could have been more, but research within Astrophysics (hereby Plasma Astrophysics) and The Standard Model have chosen certain tunnels to dig deeper into.
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2012, 11:56 AM   #176
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
If Thornhill wanted to limit his scope to "ancient encounters of bypassing celestial objects and resulting plasma processes may give clues as to why we the see similar stories and trends recorded globally", he surely would have said so, wouldn't you say?

Instead, he deliberately made the scope of his definition of "cosmology" so broad as to encompass every aspect of the human condition. In short, Thornhill regards plasma cosmology as a religion.
Regarding this aspect of EU, Thornhill should probably have included a section to describe this further. By saying "there can be no exceptions in our experience" he referes to including and explaining prehistoric recordings that in sum may point to events and human experiences that we have not encountered in the relatively brief modern times of telescopes, space missions and basis for extrapolations.

The basis for this notion, is the realization that all mythologies have archetypes and scenarios that are globally similar, which in turn may point to relatively recent events within our solar system. In addition, a thorough research of hundreds of abstract petroglyphs have shown to have little natural connection but resembles (mega auroral) discharge patterns; and such figures are recorded globally. My previous summary: "ancient encounters of bypassing celestial objects and resulting plasma processes may give clues as to why we the see similar stories and trends recorded globally" is then in line with what Thornhill points to in the start and end section of the paper, hereby his references:

It is the work of mainly Talbott and Peratt (different kind of studies) that is embraced by the Electric Universe. Hence, it is a cosmology that may be cross referenced to both astrophysical, archeological and certain cultural means. Also, as Thornhill has mentioned in this paper, a cosmology that doesn't have to recourse to hypothetical matter, energies and forces, but is based on physics that is coherent with that studied within a laborathory, is a far more uniting approach.

Last edited by Siggy_G; 28th April 2012 at 12:05 PM. Reason: quote formating
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2012, 11:57 AM   #177
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
So, in ~100 years (taking Peratt at his word), the so-called scientific discipline of plasma cosmology (as defined by Dunning-Davies) has produced precisely zero validated models and hypotheses; 'validated' as in internally consistent and consistent with the totality of the directly relevant, objective, quantitative, independently verifiable experimental results and observations. This despite the fact that - per Peratt - it has been actively worked on by at least eight, and as many as 13 (add Dunning-Davies, Smith, Scott, Ransom, and Thornhill to Peratt's list) people for much of those 100 years.

Add to which the fact that, per Peratt's definition, a great many people have researched questions directly relevant to plasma cosmology, and published results (models, hypotheses) which are consistent with the totality of the directly relevant, objective, quantitative, independently verifiable experimental results and observations. But, per you, none of that is plasma cosmology.

What else could we call it, if not non-science?
It would be beyond the scope of this thread to start discussing new papers, but I can say that the work of Eric Lerner from 1995 and onwards offers Plasma Cosmology related calculations for the COBE data on CBR (he uses Plasma Cosmology and CMB as the Key words), in accordance with your criteria.

Other observational results is related to how high to low density plasmas behave under various conditions and the approach of plasma scaling (Alfvén, Fälthammar, Marklund et al), just like the same method of scaling and extrapolation is used in gravity centered models. The set of principles are certianly internally consistent. As I stated above, Plasma Astrophysics are often bound to gravitationally driven processes in contrast to Plasma Cosmology, while many established plasma processes (from the lab and larger scales) are of course applicable like e.g. Alfvén and Fälthammar have underlined. The degree of verification is still dependant on how exact the collection and interpretation of the source data is - but there is nothing unscientific about the framework. The research goes on while dark matter models stumble and struggle these days.
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2012, 11:59 AM   #178
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
[The Electric Universe] is not based on many peer reviewed papers.
It is not based on any work by valid Alfvén or Peratt. It may cite them (and others) but that is done by all sorts of cranks.

Alfvén and Peratt have not published any work on the Electric Universe (...)
You're correct about Alfvén and Peratt not having written Electric Universe papers. Yet, the Electric Universe is consistently based on the Plasma Cosmology foundation (as opposed to being based on the Big Bang theory) of the dynamics and morphology within the Universe. The extension towards EU is related to how stars could be formed and sustained by energy from the galaxy, through the initial large scale currents within cosmic plasma, followed by the z-pinch, Marklund Convection, charge separation and double layer mechanisms (mechanisms also described within Plasma Cosmology on larger scale, but not including stars). These are described mainly by Thornhill and Dr Scott the last decade. C E R Bruce and Jürgens touched upon these subjects as well some decades ago.

I should add that these posts will proably be my last in this thread, as you may tell from my highly delayed replies. Some of the acid tests by DeiRenDopa, Reality Check and Ben is appreciated and will be taken into consideration for upcoming work.

Last edited by Siggy_G; 28th April 2012 at 12:01 PM. Reason: typo
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2012, 02:36 PM   #179
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Yet, the Electric Universe is consistently based on the Plasma Cosmology foundation (as opposed to being based on the Big Bang theory) of the dynamics and morphology within the Universe.
Then the Electric Universe is based on Alfvén's invalidated theory and is itself invalid. That makes the special edition that is the subject of this thread really suspect since the reviewers should have known this.
So once again we are back to the implication of either no peer review of this edition or incompetent peer review.

Or maybe you are talking about the non-science of plasma cosmology (note the lower case) which is a pitiful attempt to create a "cosmology" that is merely personal collections of often mutually exclusive, mostly debunked theories with the biased assumption that Big Bang theory is wrong (rather than looking at the actual evidence).
And .... once again we are back to the implication of either no peer review of this edition or incompetent peer review.

But if we want to talk about plasma csomology we should take it to the appropriate thread, i.e. Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not.

Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
C E R Bruce and Jürgens touched upon these subjects as well some decades ago.
Oh dear - citing C E R Bruce as a credible source of astrophysical theory is rather uninformed, Siggy_G. You need to read his work. This is a person who was ignorant enough to think that there is actual lightning on the Sun!

Even worse is citing Jürgens, a Velikovskian supporter :
R. E. Juergens, "Plasma in Interplanetary Space: Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism," Penseé IVR II (Fall 1972), pp. 6-12; Velikovsky Reconsidered (N. Y., 1976), pp. 137-155. First presented at the Lewis & Clark Symposium, Portland, OR, August 15-17, 1972.

R. E. Juergens ideas about comets have not withstood the test of time. The tails of comets act just as if hey are sublimated gases from the ices that have been measured to be in comets. The EM activity in the tails is what is expected from ionization of the gases by the solar wind.
The actual Eclectic Comet idea is so bad that it is not even wrong: The Electric Comet theory.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2012 at 02:38 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2012, 03:02 PM   #180
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
First of all, Plasma Astrophysics is a sub-field of Astronomy, while Cosmology is a framework putting various such sub-fields into a coherent system as an attempt to understand the Universe.
This is where the problem lies, Siggy_G: plasma cosnology is not a " coherent system as an attempt to understand the Universe": read Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not or actually present that "coherent system".

Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
When Charles Bruce, Alfvén, Peratt, Scott or Thornhill e.g. refer to a supernova as a 'collapsing double layer' system, or to timeglass shaped nebuales as a result of a large scale z-pinch, then those are interpretations are explicitly different from how standard astrophysics view the same observations. Yet, they are no less based on plasma physics and verifiable electric mechnisms - and they certainly are a part of both the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe model.
And you have just debunked the plasma cosmology and Electric Universe yet model again :Supernovae are not 'collapsing double layer' systems.
The ignorance of interpreting timeglass shaped nebulae as a result of a large scale z-pinch is obvious (think about the Debye length of plasmas and the lightyear scales of nebulae ).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2012, 08:26 AM   #181
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
In short, Siggy, what you seem to be saying is that plasma cosmology is what Smith, Ransom, Scott, Dunning-Davies, and Thornhill write on (and perhaps Alfvén and Peratt); no one else has ever written a pure plasma cosmology paper. What sets plasma cosmology apart from plasma astrophysics is nothing more than who the author(s) of the paper is (are).
It seems the debate you want to have and question you want answered is whether or not 'Plasma Cosmology' is an existing term and existing model. Although Smith and Thornhill mention several aspects of this, the best place to start to get an description about what Plasma Cosmology is to read Alfvén and Peratt's papers on it. I suspect you already are familiar with such papers and articles, so I don't see where you're heading with this, except obfuscating the subject.

There are books, articles and papers that explicitly mention Plasma Cosmology, Electric Stars, Electric Space or 'cosmology in the plasma universe'. I agree that there could have been more, but research within Astrophysics (hereby Plasma Astrophysics) and The Standard Model have chosen certain tunnels to dig deeper into.
Ah, so Dunning-Davies got it wrong then, in the OAJ Special Issue's Editorial?

Originally Posted by Dunning-Davies
However, precisely what is the Electric Universe? In truth, it is really simply an hypothesis, a new way of interpreting known data by utilising both new and wellestablished knowledge relating to electricity and plasma. It should be emphasised immediately that, in this new interpretation, gravity still has a role to play but it is a secondary one since the electric force is so much more powerful. A major point to be stressed from the outset is that, in this interpretation of astronomical phenomena, scientists are able to call on evidence from laboratory based experiments to help form and support suggested explanations for a wide variety of phenomena.

[...]

It might be noted that, to some, the terms ‘plasma cosmology’ and ‘electric universe’ refer to somewhat different topics but here the terms are being used almost interchangeably and the whole purpose of this collection of articles is to draw the attention of a wider audience to the possible importance of electromagnetic effects in cosmology.
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2012, 08:53 AM   #182
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
If Thornhill wanted to limit his scope to "ancient encounters of bypassing celestial objects and resulting plasma processes may give clues as to why we the see similar stories and trends recorded globally", he surely would have said so, wouldn't you say?

Instead, he deliberately made the scope of his definition of "cosmology" so broad as to encompass every aspect of the human condition. In short, Thornhill regards plasma cosmology as a religion.
Regarding this aspect of EU, Thornhill should probably have included a section to describe this further.
Ah, so now we know that you, Siggy_G, are a better spokesperson for the EU than Scott, Thornhill, Smith, or Dunning-Davies!

Quote:
By saying "there can be no exceptions in our experience" he referes to including and explaining prehistoric recordings that in sum may point to events and human experiences that we have not encountered in the relatively brief modern times of telescopes, space missions and basis for extrapolations.
Curious omission there: historic recordings.

Odd that you choose to omit the written records of many societies (Chinese, in the Middle-East, in the Indian subcontinent, to name just a few), records which almost certainly overlap - in time - many of the prehistoric recordings of other groups of humans.

Thornhill certainly didn't intend for such to be omitted; could it be that you've left it out for a reason?

Quote:
The basis for this notion, is the realization that all mythologies have archetypes and scenarios that are globally similar,
Ah yes, Velikovsky again; why not come out and say it? That the EU is little more than crackpot Velikovsky ideas, draped with selected bits of Alfvén's?

Quote:
which in turn may point to relatively recent events within our solar system. In addition, a thorough research of hundreds of abstract petroglyphs have shown to have little natural connection but resembles (mega auroral) discharge patterns; and such figures are recorded globally.
Oh yes, Velikovsky is alive and well!

And the work done to show the relevant petroglyphs are contemporaneous is published, where exactly?

And the corresponding geological work?

Quote:
My previous summary: "ancient encounters of bypassing celestial objects and resulting plasma processes may give clues as to why we the see similar stories and trends recorded globally" is then in line with what Thornhill points to in the start and end section of the paper, hereby his references:

It is the work of mainly Talbott and Peratt (different kind of studies) that is embraced by the Electric Universe.
"Embraced" eh?

There's that whiff of religion again. And the exclusive nature of the EU too; only certain eminent figures may declare what is, and what is not, the EU.

Quote:
Hence, it is a cosmology that may be cross referenced to both astrophysical, archeological and certain cultural means.
Confirmation bias, no?

And, to repeat, that's not what Thornhill wrote.

Quote:
Also, as Thornhill has mentioned in this paper, a cosmology that doesn't have to recourse to hypothetical matter, energies and forces, but is based on physics that is coherent with that studied within a laborathory, is a far more uniting approach.
Instead, the EU relies on undated, cherry-picked petroglyphs, which are interpreted subjectively (and hence are incapable of being objectively analyzed, much less falsified), with no quantitative models and no links to anything ever studied in any laboratory.

Too harsh? Not a bit. The plasma physics of the laboratory is quantitative; the plasma temperatures, pressures, compositions, magnetic field strengths, electric field strengths, etc, etc, are all carefully recorded. If a particular petroglyph is thought to be an eye-witness record of some plasma phenomenon, then the allowed parameter space of that phenomenon can be stated and studied, quantitatively. After, what, three decades of work on this, by several people, such quantitative analyses have been published, where exactly?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2012, 09:02 AM   #183
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
So, in ~100 years (taking Peratt at his word), the so-called scientific discipline of plasma cosmology (as defined by Dunning-Davies) has produced precisely zero validated models and hypotheses; 'validated' as in internally consistent and consistent with the totality of the directly relevant, objective, quantitative, independently verifiable experimental results and observations. This despite the fact that - per Peratt - it has been actively worked on by at least eight, and as many as 13 (add Dunning-Davies, Smith, Scott, Ransom, and Thornhill to Peratt's list) people for much of those 100 years.

Add to which the fact that, per Peratt's definition, a great many people have researched questions directly relevant to plasma cosmology, and published results (models, hypotheses) which are consistent with the totality of the directly relevant, objective, quantitative, independently verifiable experimental results and observations. But, per you, none of that is plasma cosmology.

What else could we call it, if not non-science?
It would be beyond the scope of this thread to start discussing new papers, but I can say that the work of Eric Lerner from 1995 and onwards offers Plasma Cosmology related calculations for the COBE data on CBR (he uses Plasma Cosmology and CMB as the Key words), in accordance with your criteria.
Yes, you can say it.

And I can say there is no such material; none, zip, nada.

If you have any evidence, please, start a new thread (or continue one of the several, older, EU/PC ones), and present your case.

Quote:
Other observational results is related to how high to low density plasmas behave under various conditions and the approach of plasma scaling (Alfvén, Fälthammar, Marklund et al), just like the same method of scaling and extrapolation is used in gravity centered models. The set of principles are certianly internally consistent.
So you say.

I say none of this exists. I say that you do not understand the papers, by those authors; that the application of the scaling relationships - by other authors - is internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with published astronomical (quantitative) observations; and that you're making all this up.

If you have any evidence, please, start a new thread (or continue one of the several, older, EU/PC ones), and present your case.

Quote:
As I stated above, Plasma Astrophysics are often bound to gravitationally driven processes in contrast to Plasma Cosmology, while many established plasma processes (from the lab and larger scales) are of course applicable like e.g. Alfvén and Fälthammar have underlined. The degree of verification is still dependant on how exact the collection and interpretation of the source data is - but there is nothing unscientific about the framework.
To quote from Dunning-Davies again:

Originally Posted by Dunning-Davies
However, precisely what is the Electric Universe? In truth, it is really simply an hypothesis, a new way of interpreting known data by utilising both new and well established knowledge relating to electricity and plasma. It should be emphasised immediately that, in this new interpretation, gravity still has a role to play but it is a secondary one since the electric force is so much more powerful.
In short, there's nothing objective that separates plasma astrophysics from plasma cosmology, per your elaborations.
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2012, 09:35 AM   #184
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
Taking Siggy at his word, the following, by definition, must be plasma cosmology (and not plasma astrophysics): (...)

By this definition, the following are plasma cosmology papers (or conference proceedings) and not plasma astrophysics: Laser and Z-pinch Simulation of High Energy Density Planetary Interactions, Magnetic Tower Outflows from a Radial Wire Array Z-pinch, and The pinch-type instability of helical magnetic fields.

Now as far as I know, K. Birkeland, H. Alfvén, C.-G. Fälthammar, N. Herlofson, B. Lehnert, L. P. Block, P. Carlqvist, Peratt, Dunning-Davies, Smith, Scott, Ransom, and Thornhill - none of them - have cited G. Ruediger, M. Schultz, D. Elstner, John L. Remo, Stein B. Jacobsen, S.V. Lebedev, A. Ciardi, D. Ampleford, S.N. Bland, S.C. Bott, J.P. Chittenden, G. Hall, J. Rapley, A. Frank, E. G. Blackman, or T. Lery in any of their papers*

I guess my test of your objective criteria proves those criteria to be false. Care to try again?
These criterias aren't entirely correct, also in terms of how they were analyzed. First of all, Plasma Astrophysics is a sub-field of Astronomy, while Cosmology is a framework putting various such sub-fields into a coherent system as an attempt to understand the Universe. So the direct comparison you're requesting is not applicable.
Nonsense.

Read again what Thornhill wrote (emphasis in original):

Originally Posted by Thornhill
Cosmology is defined as the study of the origin, history,
structure and dynamics of the universe. As such it provides a global context for both our science and culture so that cosmology is sometimes called 'the queen of the sciences.' To live up to this title, cosmology must be a broad and coherent natural philosophy since to be valid there can be no exceptions based on all of our experience. In particular, cosmology must address issues of life and the human condition. So cosmology must be a truly interdisciplinary pursuit.
Per Thornhill, plasma astrophysics is a sub-field of cosmology.

Quote:
As a comparison, BB theory related papers would reference to other papers that include relevant research that is embraced by the BB framework (such as cold dark matter, metric expansion of spacetime, inflation theory, black holes etc.).
This is plain silly, Siggy_G.

The astronomical observations - of the CMB, of stellar spectra, of galactic spectra, etc - are published and can be used by anyone, to test any hypothesis.

The Standard Model of particle physics, as published, does not assume "BB theory" or the EU, or anything else. It can be used by anyone, to develop models of significance to any astronomical phenomenon.

And so on.

You don't need a separate label (the EU) for the application of plasma physics to astronomical observations (plasma astrophysics is perfectly OK).

Quote:
The same goes for Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe: there are references to research that is relevant for the framework putting variuos sub-fields into a coherent system as an attempt to understand the Universe.
If that is so - and so far you haven't done a very good job of making such a case - then PC and the EU are dismal failures.

Why?

Because they have not yet succeeded in putting any scientific sub-field into a coherent system, one that can point to quantitative success in understanding the Universe.

Quote:
While we're at it, the majority of papers that can be linked to Plasma Cosmology are from the decades prior to the papers/authors you cited (2003-2011), so the references obviously weren't there. For the later papers, such as Thornhill's on the Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987a and Electric Stars (2007), the papers you cited don't tangent the Z-pinch principle in the same manner.
OK, I get it now: the key difference is that plasma astrophysics is quantitative, and hypotheses must be rigorously tested, quantitatively.

On the other hand, the EU is limited to hand-waving, qualitative arguments, and subjective interpretations. EU results, published in papers (of which there are only two, right?) cannot be objectively assessed and independently verified.

Or, in short, the EU is non-science.

Quote:
Astrophysical papers on 'cosmic batteries' and 'galactic jets' always assume electric currents a secondary effect driven by gravity.
(bold added)

And you know this is true - the "always" part - how, exactly?

Quote:
That's different from Plasma Cosmology where gravity certainly isn't the proposed cause for currents - another distinction.
So, in PC, what is the proposed cause for currents?

Quote:
When Charles Bruce, Alfvén, Peratt, Scott or Thornhill e.g. refer to a supernova as a 'collapsing double layer' system, or to timeglass shaped nebuales as a result of a large scale z-pinch, then those are interpretations are explicitly different from how standard astrophysics view the same observations.
On this, we agree.

Charles Bruce, Alfvén, Peratt, Scott and Thornhill's descriptions/explanations/interpretations/etc* are purely qualitative, and subjective. Not only is there no way to test them, quantitatively, there is no way to independently verify how they reached their conclusions!

On the other hand, "standard astrophysics" is objective, independently verifiable, and - above all - quantitative.

Quote:
Yet, they are no less based on plasma physics and verifiable electric mechnisms - and they certainly are a part of both the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe model.
Not so.

There's nothing verifiable about PC or the EU; at least, not objectively, not independently.

* I do not claim to have read every paper by these four authors on supernovae; if you can cite any, on this topic by any of these authors, which contradict my characterization, please do so.
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2012, 08:20 AM   #185
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Why do I tend to disagree with most "EU" proponents here now?

Not seen a single bit of maths to prove a valid testable hypothesis since I posted Lerners seminal alternative explanation for traditional primordial nucleosynthesis complete with theory to explain all data at the time. Not even seen a link to one of the "local explanations" for the CMB other than a selection of disparate papers some posters have linked to here, which are far from conclusive. Beginning to grate on me, and that takes some doing.

References given to peer reviewed journals that actually contain some of the mathematical models and theories oft considered atypical "out of the box" alfven/peratt/lerner/carlqvist/Syun-Ichi Akasofu based work, thats actually worthy of publication in respected journals for real scientists (unlike some kneejerk reactionaries that comment here) to actually read, critique and reference in their own literature seem to still hold a degree of scientific credibility; despite some of their, indeed, now falsified theories, that do not.

I sense no trademarks of a crackpot in Lerner, Alfven, Carlqvist, Scott or Syuns work that could be touted as clear "crackpottery". I do see a little crackpot sometimes from them when touted as "EU proponents", including Scott, but very rarely, if ever, smell any hint of crackpot from his literature when I browse it. Similarly, Dunning Davies on rare occasions seems to blur the line between a useful productive scientist and a bitter one who happened to have worked on advanced, albeit largely failed theories in the past; but its truly off the scale with Thornhill, Talbott and a few of the other neo-velikphsky sycophants.

As soon as Thornhill or Talbott shows just a cursary few examples of college level integration, or even simple differentiaion of a simple non linear equations, they are nothing more than pop sci journalists to me now.

Last edited by Zeuzzz; 3rd May 2012 at 09:30 AM.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2012, 01:34 PM   #186
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Then the Electric Universe is based on Alfvén's invalidated theory and is itself invalid. That makes the special edition that is the subject of this thread really suspect since the reviewers should have known this.
So once again we are back to the implication of either no peer review of this edition or incompetent peer review.

Or maybe you are talking about the non-science of plasma cosmology (note the lower case) which is a pitiful attempt to create a "cosmology" that is merely personal collections of often mutually exclusive, mostly debunked theories with the biased assumption that Big Bang theory is wrong (rather than looking at the actual evidence).
And .... once again we are back to the implication of either no peer review of this edition or incompetent peer review.
You mean that the reviewers should have known that Plasma Cosmology is "invalidated" and therefore no future publication related to Plasma Cosmology can ever be done? What does that say about The Standard Model, which has undergone numerous modifications (after invalidations of various aspects)? To which extend and in which peer reviewed publications do you mean PC is invalidated?

The usage of the terms 'non-science' and 'pitiful attempts' are a mixture of ignorance and arrogance in regards to the authors and research relevant to the topic. The overall description is somewhere in between a strawman and nonsense. See my next post as well.
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2012, 01:41 PM   #187
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
And you have just debunked the plasma cosmology and Electric Universe yet model again :

[1]Charles Bruce was ignorant enough to think that there was lightning on the Sun and then make everything he could see into lightning.
[2]Alfvén never wrote anything on plasma cosmology or Electric Universe so citing him is wrong. Alfvén agreed with standard astrophysics. He wrote a couple of standard astrophysics papers using circuit models of solar flares.
[3]Peratt's work on galaxy formation is wrong. He got that spriral galaxiers are not actually spiral galaxies! Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.
[4]Thornhill has a record of lying about the Electric Universe theory: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
[5]Scott's work is easily debunked: "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited" by W.T. Bridgman at Crank Astronomy. He deals with Scott's rebuttal on his blog.
Reality Check, your post is so full of errors that it simply can't stand uncorrected:

1) If you think electric arcs and discharges in the Sun's atmosphere are ignorant assumptions, then you're labeling everyone studing such to this date as incompetent (1) (2) (3). Charles Bruce was ahead of his time, and his work (over 100 published papers) is certainly by no means unscientific. Also, to be fair to Charles Bruce, we should have a likewize discussion of the BB theory, where we only take research up to 1975 and compare it with todays data / models..
2) If someone has done research that is usefull and relevant for a model, it is obviously not wrong to cite such research. I've already mentioned in which way Alfvén's work is relevant for EU.
3) Earlier failed or only partially confirmed galaxy models based on gravity didn't stop anyone from researching new models still based on gravity. Peratt's work is a proper application of coherent EM principles for the cosmology he worked along.
4) Thornhill didn't lie about the source material referenced to. The interpretations though seem to be up for discussion in that thread - but what a messy discussion!
5) Bridgman hasn't done this overnight ("easily debunked") - in fact he has spent years on this kind of work - and certainly not undebated. The debunk models are oversimplified and partially misunderstood. Yet, no EU proponent has claimed an Electric Sun model to be final.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Supernovae are not 'collapsing double layer' systems. The ignorance of interpreting timeglass shaped nebulae as a result of a large scale z-pinch is obvious (think about the Debye length of plasmas and the lightyear scales of nebulae ).
Somewhat paradoxally, the Debye length doesn't prevent electric currents from happening at cosmic scales nor does it prevent a z-pinch tendency (Of course, both Alfven and Peratt would take this into consideration!). The pinch is largely a magnetic component acting upon the current columns and Debye-Hückel screening is often strongly violated in scenarios outside equilibrium in low density plasmas. (1)

Last edited by Siggy_G; 5th May 2012 at 02:13 PM.
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2012, 04:00 AM   #188
Siggy_G
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
  • Alfvén never wrote anything on plasma cosmology or Electric Universe so citing him is wrong.
    Alfvén agreed with standard astrophysics. He wrote a couple of standard astrophysics papers using circuit models of solar flares.
I was assuming you merely repeated the "Alfvčn didn't write EU papers" argument, but realized that you're actually saying that "Alfvén never wrote anything on plasma cosmology" and that he agreed with standard astrophysics. (Perhaps you literally meant that he only wrote a couple of standard astrophysics papers as well). If your objections in this and other Plasma Cosmology related threads is based on this (mis)conception, a lot of your objections is invalidated.

In contrast to what you state, Alfvén wrote several papers on 'cosmology in the plasma universe' and also critized many of the standard astrophysics and cosmology interpreations of observations and guesses of billion years old history. He also critized how most used textbooks in astrohysics treated concepts like dobule layers, critical velocity, pinch effect and circuits. If you want to object to this, you need to read his work, especially those of late 80s and early 90s (the last decade of his life). You should be able to search this up. Peratt's work is in-line with and continued from Alfvén's work.

Last edited by Siggy_G; 6th May 2012 at 04:02 AM.
Siggy_G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 07:18 PM   #189
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
To which extend and in which peer reviewed publications do you mean PC is invalidated?

There are no peer reviewed refutations to any of Peratts numerous publications. A point I've continually pointed out on this forum to the members that tout him as a crackpot.

I think that by 'it's invalidated' RC means that whatever he considers PC to be has been shown on this forum to have problems vs a lot of modern data, and issues with applicability on certain scales. Such as Peratts galaxy formation model.

PC is more a different way of approaching cosmology with different initial assumptions on the nature of the universe than a concrete model. While a lot of the ideas that have been developed in support of such an approach to cosmology (non finite universe) have not proved fruitful in the long run, its still a paradigm that a lot of people believe and are working with. Either by critiquing BBT based models or by developing their own theories. There will always be alternative explanations for extra terrestrial electromagnetic data.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 07:27 PM   #190
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
OOOOOps this is about EU not PC, im muddling science with speculation.

The title of this thread is way too emotive for a level headed discussion in the science section, DRD.

Get rid of the c word from the title and I bet you would have had a more level headed discussion here than what has happened.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 03:16 PM   #191
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
You mean that the reviewers should have known that Plasma Cosmology is "invalidated" and therefore no future publication related to Plasma Cosmology can ever be done?
The reviwers shold have the basicv knowledge that Alfven's Plasma Cosmology is invalid and thus any paper that states that Plasma Cosmology is vaild has to back it up evidence.

This is nothing to do with the non-science that is plasma cosmology (note the small p and c).
But if we want to talk about plasma csomology we should take it to the appropriate thread, i.e. Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 03:31 PM   #192
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
You're correct about Alfvén and Peratt not having written Electric Universe papers. Yet, the Electric Universe is consistently based on the Plasma Cosmology foundation ..
Which makes the EU idea invalid: Siggy_G: "Electric Universe is consistently based on the Plasma Cosmology foundation"
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 03:42 PM   #193
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Siggy_G View Post
In contrast to what you state, Alfvén wrote several papers on 'cosmology in the plasma universe'
Siggy_G: Alfvén wrote about Plasma Cosmology not the nonsense of plasma cosmology.
P.S. Peratt's work that "continued from Alfvén's work" was his model of galaxy formation that was fundamentally flawed and later debunked by Peratt himself ( Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 03:49 PM   #194
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
I think that by 'it's invalidated' RC means that ....
By 'it's invalidated', I mean that it is invalid according to basic (undergraduate level!) astronomy knowledge at the time that he wrote his paper, i.e. that spiral galaxies actually have stars between the spiral arms (the density is ~20% less, not zero as in Peratt's model). There are several other reasons that it is invalid: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2012, 08:25 PM   #195
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Your like a forum link fact posting bot RC. You more a program than a person?

I didn't claim that Peratts galaxy model was correct. I just stated the fact that its been in the literature for decades, has received hundreds of references from people over the years, yet not received one single published peer reviewed refutation or critique. The references are more to do with cosmic plasma physics than directly referencing his galaxy model though.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2012, 11:10 PM   #196
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
This thread is just one long howl of outrage from people who will not tolerate free speech in science.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2012, 12:54 AM   #197
nvidiot
Botanical Jedi
 
nvidiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,121
It's an example of free speech Farsight. The thing about free speech is that you're free to say what you think. Others are also free to say you're wrong.

I don't see your speech being censored, can you show me where that's happening?
__________________
www.sq1gaming.com
nvidiot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2012, 01:23 AM   #198
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
I didn't claim that Peratts galaxy model was correct. I just stated the fact that its been in the literature for decades, has received hundreds of references from people over the years, yet not received one single published peer reviewed refutation or critique. The references are more to do with cosmic plasma physics than directly referencing his galaxy model though.
Refutations are usually only written in response to theories/models that have been widely adopted.

ETA Or interpretations of data they expect would/may otherwise be accepted.

Last edited by Tubbythin; 13th May 2012 at 01:51 AM.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2012, 04:48 AM   #199
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,850
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
This thread is just one long howl of outrage from people who will not tolerate free speech in science.
Rubbish. People, actual scientists, object to nonsensical pseudo-science being labeled as science by it's promoters.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2012, 05:41 AM   #200
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Your like a forum link fact posting bot RC. You more a program than a person?

I didn't claim that Peratts galaxy model was correct. I just stated the fact that its been in the literature for decades, has received hundreds of references from people over the years, yet not received one single published peer reviewed refutation or critique. The references are more to do with cosmic plasma physics than directly referencing his galaxy model though.
If his model isn't correct, then why would it matter. If you are talking about the one that involves large magnetic fields in a small area, then it is irrelevant.
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.