PDA

View Full Version here: : ITN: Primordial Deep Space Magnetic Fields


CraigS
22-09-2010, 06:30 AM
In the News:

Universal, primordial magnetic fields discovered in deep space (http://www.physorg.com/news204298215.html)



They compiled a composite image of 170 black holes and began to ponder why the images weren't as sharp as expected.

I wonder if this might lead to an explanation of redshift anomalies from Quasars ? :question:

Cheers

renormalised
22-09-2010, 12:31 PM
Maybe.....having e-p pairs popping into and out of existence from high energy photons emitted from the quasars colliding with others in the back/foreground would probably cause some anomaly in the redshift, if not taken into account.

The EU will love this, you watch the "charge separation" come out and rear its head..."no magnetic fields without a flow of charge" they'll say:P

CraigS
22-09-2010, 01:22 PM
Interesting. I have the paper (haven't read it yet).

I wonder how this meshes with the thread I posted the other day about the possibility that Intergalactic Magnetic fields may originate from SR's spacetime distortions ..

"Origin of magnetic fields may lie in special relativity's spacetime distortions" (http://www.physorg.com/news203241923.html)

Must be a reasonably hot topic.

Will read up & report later.

Cheers

CraigS
23-09-2010, 10:11 AM
Your friends won't be happy about this (from the paper's Introduction) ..



Chuckle, chuckle … :)

Interesting to see them putting a value to the field strengths.

Cheers
PS: That should read ten to the minus 9 Gauss and ten to the minus 30 Gauss.
Also, 1 Tesla (SI Units) = 1000 Gauss (cgs Units).

renormalised
23-09-2010, 10:44 AM
They're no friends of mine!!!:):P

Your average galactic magnetic field is in the nanotesla range in strength...barely even there!!!!. As they say, it's even worse for fields in the IGMF. You'd have a better chance of detecting the field around a bar magnet from 10 billion light years than you would of finding an IGMF.

CraigS
23-09-2010, 11:39 AM
Yep.

It almost qualifies as a Higgs field .. or aether .. or a quantum field (?).

Like perhaps, what ended up as a Big Bang ?

Cheers

avandonk
23-09-2010, 03:41 PM
The tiny bit of magnetite in a pigeons brain has a bigger field. Some humans have this as well as has been shown by experiment. They have an innate sense of direction! I once found the only western pub in Tsukuba Japan by following my nose!

Bert

snas
24-09-2010, 06:20 AM
Bert

I always thought that I had an excellent innate sense of direction. Even when I was working on a little 2 250 000 acre cattle station in the territory where I had never been before. We were droving cattle from the top of the property back to a set of yards. The aboriginal stockmen knew the property very well and had certainly been there way longer than I had. They said, we gotta go dis way. I said, no, we gotta go that way. Wiser heads prevailed and we went their way. After several hours, we came out of the scrub into a clearing and there, about 3km to our west, was the windmill where the set of yards was, right where I said we should have been heading.
But a few years later I went to work in England.On my first day at work there I was sent to assist a cow in labour. Go down this road, then head north on the motorway I was told. So I went down the road and promptly headed south. Not because I could see the sun and therefore assumed that was north (well, the sun had always been to my north at home). The sun was nowhere to be seen. it was my innate sense of direction that "knew" that way was north. It took me a few months to get my head around British direction. Then I went to go surfing in Cornwall and stood, for the first time in my life, on a west coast. That stuffed me up again. Coast had always been east.
Hmm, no wonder I never bumped into you in a Japanese pub.

Stuart

snas
24-09-2010, 06:22 AM
By the way, when I told the poms that the cattle station I had worked on was 5 times bigger than the area within the M25 (motorway circling London), they said I was lying.

But, I wasn't

Stuart

renormalised
25-09-2010, 11:32 AM
Get a load of this bunch of science illiterate twits trying to understand something they have no idea about....

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3732

Alex hasn't a clue....neither he or the others have probably even read the article and understood what it says. It's pretty obvious from their statements.

CraigS
25-09-2010, 12:29 PM
So, they seem to have fogotten that the subject is about Intergalactic Magnetic Fields … from the paper (as distinct from the article):



Alex then jumps on the band-wagon and explains the distortion of a distant black hole 'image' as being due to the magnetic field interference disrupting photons. He does this with a picture of a quasar followed by some plasma looking thingy .. the implication being that the plasma thingy IS what mainstream thinks of as a black hole … and then reverses the spin by saying that the plasma thingy IS the black hole and mainstream has got cause & effect mixed up, because that's what the holy scriptures tell him.

Then of course, to triumph over all, (and win his domination game play) he shows mainstream that, out of his benevolence, he sees that mainstream will eventually get there … someday.

Then we end up with a closing photo of a plasmaball in Wiki which is used by Wiki as an example to explain the term "anisotropy", because plasma balls do display 'Magnetic anisotropy' quite nicely.

What a screw around and changes in spin to deflect anyone from delving into the mish-mash of issues and coming to a mainstream view !

Man he must be drawing some kind of huge salary from doing this !!
Wonder where it comes from ?

Cheers

bojan
25-09-2010, 03:25 PM
And that was despite the fact that you just arrived there from southern hemisphere?
It must have been something else apart from magnetic field that your nose was telling you ;)




I was extremely and hopelessly disoriented for more than a year after migrating here to Melbourne from Europe... Always mixing directions, until I bought me a compass... But on my first business trip to North (to HK and Macau) I felt like at home instantly, always knowing which direction I am facing.

These days I am OK...

avandonk
26-09-2010, 05:03 PM
It was mere chance Bojan I will admit it. Everybody at the Synchrotron said the chances of me finding the place were miniscule. The place was run by an expatriate Aussie and a Canadian They were open but could not sell alcoholic drinks until 6PM. The strange thing was like nearly everything in Japan they could legally give me free drinks and if I decided to pay later it was totally up to me, it was not obligatory. Needless to say after 6PM I paid for all the previous drinks for one simple reason I would not get any more drinks! Even the Japanese blokes at the Synchrotron were amazed I found the place. Galactic magnetic fields had nothing to do with it. It was blind faith that got me there!
Or at least I was blind when I left!

Bert

Jarvamundo
27-09-2010, 10:51 AM
Hi Craig, it might be best to clarify a few things as you are reading threads with an audience that might be more well versed in PC literature... so some confusion might arise.


No. This is an expected feature of plasma cosmology. Those who have absorbed the PC literature are well aware of the intergalactic nature of these fields, as described by Alfven, Peratt. There is also no confusion that the "intergalactic" magnetic fields may or may not be directly connected with the nucleus being studied. The irony is that the "expected" magnetic fields are getting "in the way" of photographing a "gravity-blackhole".

What may also challenge mainstream "gas" model is that the galaxies seem to align their rotation and essentially form knots on Intergalactic birkeland currents. This can be found from the anisotrophy link you mentioned, have a look around on that wiki entry. The galactic rotation anisotropies are expected features of this PC model. Again this is well know to PCers and the majority of the audience at TB, and part of the danger of Carl mining from differing intended audiences to form a psuedo-skeptical argument.


Again Alfven and Peratt have described their models. The "cause and effect" mixup is that with the PC hypothesis, galaxies are fed current from outside and are not "powered by" the hypothesised black hole.

Notably this z-pinch behaviour can be both computer modeled, and experimented with in the lab. You have no doubt seen the image of a z-pinch i posted. Why quote Lerner so much, well he amongst other groups is currently using these natural instabilities of plasma to form pinches to; produce temperatures required for fusion and also to model in the lab the waveforms of solar activity.


No game play, the models and cause and effect are clearly different.
1) Gravity dominated galaxy formation models have do not make predictions of galaxy alignment
2) PC it is a clear lab demonstrated feature


nice pictures aye.... now... put some pinched plasma activity or knots in those 'flux toobs' and youll have the picture for the model of galaxy-rotation-axis anisotropy. Can gravity neutral gas models predict that?


The audience at TB is well aware of the PC models and so would understand many of these existing dichotomies, i accept IIS-ers may not be, thus causing some uncomfort to you and those who are only familiar with neutral "gas" style models.

The two models are different, and testable predictions exist between them. These observations come as no "surprise" to the existing bank of PC literature.

The name calling and suggestion that my passionate curiosity, to explore this model amongst others, is fueled by a monetary benefit is just distracting nonsense.

All the best,

Jarvamundo
27-09-2010, 11:04 AM
Hi Craig, it might be best to clarify a few things as you are reading threads with an audience that might be more well versed in PC literature... so some confusion might arise.


No. This is an expected feature of plasma cosmology. Those who have absorbed the PC literature are well aware of the intergalactic nature of these fields, as described by Alfven, Peratt.

What may also challenge a mainstream "gas" model is that the galaxies align their rotation and essentially form knots on Intergalactic birkeland currents. This can be found from the anisotrophy link you mentioned. The galactic rotation anisotropies are expected features of this model. Again this is well know to PCers and the majority of the audience at TB.


Again Alfven and Peratt have described their models. The "cause and effect" mixup is that with the PC hypothesis, galaxies are fed current from outside and are not "powered by" the hypothesised black hole.

Notably this behaviour can be both computer modeled, and experimented with in the lab. You have no doubt seen the image of a z-pinch i posted.


No game play, the models and cause and effect are clearly different.
1) Gravity dominated galaxy formation models have do not make predictions of galaxy alignment
2) PC it is a clear lab demonstrated feature


nice pictures


The audience at TB is well aware of the PC models and so would understand many of these existing dichotomies, i accept IIS-ers may not be, thus causing some uncomfort to you and those who are only familiar with neutral "gas" style models.

The two models are different, and testable predictions exist between them. These observations come as no "surprise" to the existing bank of PC literature.

The name calling and suggestion that my passionate curiosity, to explore this model amongst others, is fueled by a monetary benefit is just distracting nonsense.

All the best,

CraigS
27-09-2010, 11:18 AM
G'Day Alex;

Welcome back.
I'll have a ponder on your clarifications before commenting further.

Actually after I wrote my analysis below, I did feel guilty for the personal comment at the end. That was uncalled for and I apologise.

In your absence however, I have followed up many, many paths you left behind previously and I just keep coming up with blanks and blind alleyways. I honestly have tried to keep an open mind on the PC material but I'm afraid it just doesn't latch.

I will have more of a think on your critique below.

Once again apologies for the personal comment.
It was out of frustration from attempting the quantum leap in thinking and having spent a considerable amount of time in so doing, with little reward for the effort.

Good of you to keep me honest. Lesson learnt.

Cheers

renormalised
27-09-2010, 01:28 PM
Right Alex, let's put this nonsense of yours to bed once and for all, because quite frankly the amount of drivel I have seen over at Thunderbolts and here written by you and others is just more of the same old garbage I have regularly seen coming from your camp.

If you read the paper and actually understood what they had to say, you'd know it's the particle interactions caused by the fields that is the problem...i.e. the e-p pairs that are popping up and being deflected that are causing the problems (from Physics.org)....

So, get your facts straight Alex before you go accusing me of mining from "different audiences", which is a load of nonsense to begin with. The galactic fields of Alfven and Peratt are that many orders of magnitude out of kilter it's not funny...you have actual measured fields on the order of femto gauss and smaller, whereas Peratt et al expect to see tesla range fields!!!!

You have been challenged any number of times in the past to show observationally verifiable evidence for your next contention here and yet all you have done, as before is quote the same old ideological line. Alfven and Peratt have said this and that....not good enough Alex. They have no proof and neither do you. All they have is unverifiable and rather sketchy hypotheses based on dubious lab models at best, which bear no relationship to anything that has been found and all your scientifically illiterate mob have done is take the fantasy nonsense of Talbott and Thornhill and made some mish-mash of it. Pseudo-skepticism.....what's this, another byword of EU. And what makes things even worse is that you're so willing to take Peratt and Alfven at their word yet you immediately decry anyone else with a differing opinion and make comment on the invalidity of their maths. I hate to tell you this, Alex, but your "mentors" use maths too, you know. The same maths that everyone else uses. That same maths you call into question and think is unnecessary. You're full of it, you and the rest of your mob.

Where's this "current" coming from Alex. From "outside" the galaxies, I see. Then if that's the case, where are the magnetic fields being generated by these currents??. They most certainly wouldn't be generating femto gauss scale magnetic fields, Alex. To be able to generate the currents you propose to power stars, nebulae, galactic rotation etc etc, you'd need massive amounts of current being generated. This would generate all sorts of high energy radiation in vast and copious quantities. Where's your observational evidence, Alex. You don't have any because it doesn't exist. And, as I said previously, where is this current coming from and what is generating it. You can't say where it's coming from or what's generating it because it doesn't exist. If it did, they would have found it years ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be a moot point.

What a lot of complete and utter BS. In answer to your first statement, there is no alignment in the first place except that which maybe an aberration of your own observations. And as far as your second one is concerned, there is no lab tested evidence for PC or galaxy alignment whatsoever except according to the hearsay of those trying to push it.

The audience at TB is doing nothing more than paraphrasing what Peratt, Lerner, Scott and other have said. I would seriously doubt that anyone of you would have the background to be able to actually understand the science behind it in the first place. How many of you actually have degrees in plasma physics, astrophysics or anything for that matter. Maybe a few of you have science or other degrees....basic degrees. The rest of you have nothing but high school education at best. And yet you declare yourselves competent and qualified enough to be able to make definitive pronouncements in these fields??!!!! Give me a break!!!. What amount of work and study has Peratt and Co done in astrophysics and astronomy??? Not much, or they've completely forgotten what they had been taught, if they did do any.

It's a waste of time arguing with you, Alex. All you do is roll out the same old EU/PC nonsense, post the same old diatribe with the same old examples and use the same old arguments in order to try and justify the same old nonsense that you've always had the gall to post. You have consistently dodged all attempts at getting you to cough up the proof we have asked of you, to explain it in proper scientific terms and examples of reasoning...not based on paraphrasing of others and posting links to Youtube and journal papers. Anyone can do that to make it look like they're onto something. You explain it in your own words and your own knowledge of the subjects. How much physics and astronomy do you really know, Alex?? I suspect very little. Those of us who have been arguing in the negative here having nothing to prove. Many of us have higher degrees in the fields we've been talking about. Some have degrees in related fields. That's why we get annoyed when people such as yourself come along and claim you have alternatives to accepted theory and empirical knowledge, when you have little or no background in any of it to begin with. And you expect us to just sit hear and listen to the tripe you go on with??. Until you can sit down and show us the proof based on your own understanding of the subject, not some endless stream of drivel based on quotations and dubious links to questionable sites and links to whatever journal paper you've cherry picked in order to make a mockery of the science, then forget about it entirely. And as for your proselytising, trying to make "converts" of the newbies here, that would be typical of nothing more than what EU really is....quasi-religious nonsense no better than scientology and making just as much sense.

CraigS
27-09-2010, 01:44 PM
To my knowledge, (which may be incomplete), there is no evidence of such fields. A quote from the paper …



Once again, if there is no evidence of Intergalactic birkeland currents, then presumably, there will be no knots and hence no basis for assumptions on the cause of axis alignment ?

Mainstream, it appears, still hasn't concluded cause and effect. Interaction, it seems. But once again .. external magnetic fields in the orders of nanoTeslas is the closest I've seen to what PC/EU guys are talking about …

Once again, where is the evidence of these in Intergalactic space ? Eg: where are the measurements of intergalactic synchrotron radiation ? What are the magnitudes of these measurements ?


But no evidence of Intergalactic currents of strengths greater than nanoTesla magnitudes ?


Yep. That's all, though.


The issue isn't discomfort. The concern is that so many believe in that which seems to have no measured foundations in space. And then a concern about those who keep re-assuring these folk that there is.


One of these models has no evidence at its foundations, in intergalactic space .. and its not the mainstream model.

Why don't Perratt, Alven et al sort all this out and publish in mainstream AstroPhysics publications ? Even if they get knocked back, they could publish the reasons for the knockbacks and at least gain some sympathy and hence, some respect for at least having had a go at it ! .. You know … like you … for venturing forth into this realm, yet again !
:)
Cheers

renormalised
27-09-2010, 01:55 PM
There's no evidence for it anywhere, Craig. The only thing they have done is taken plasma physics and misused it in order to justify their own ideas, which have little or no basis in any observational or theoretical instance. Plasma physicists know where their field applies to...otherwise you'd be getting a lot more controversy than you are at present. Most competent plasma and astrophysicists have already looked at this matter and rejected it. If it had any basis in reality, they would be studying it and giving it some consideration. Despite what they (the EU/PC crowd) might otherwise believe.

Outbackmanyep
27-09-2010, 02:36 PM
I would hardly think that lab experiments could be just up-scaled to explain what happens in the real universe.
That crater-chain explanation of EU's is so funny "oh we made it in the lab so it can be done on a planet"

Hilarious!

renormalised
27-09-2010, 02:45 PM
Very few lab models have been successful in explaining real life situations. All that has been done with plasma physics is that they've seen natural phenomenon and tried to reproduce them in the lab, with varying results of success and/or failure. But even those successes do not explain the natural phenomena being studied except at their most basic level. The physics and understanding still has a long way to go.

But even a plasma physicist wouldn't go as far as the EU mob has. As I have said previously, much of their nonsense has been looked at by the vast majority of physicists...plasma, astro' or otherwise, and been rejected.

Rob_K
27-09-2010, 03:11 PM
You sure said a bibful there Carl! :thumbsup: Just because 'plasma machining' can produce something in the lab that looks like the washout gully behind my block doesn't mean it was created by 'plasma machining'. In fact it wasn't and I have watched it grow year by year! But EU takes the lab work and extends it to claim, not that my little gully was created by 'plasma machining', but that the Grand Canyon was! :lol: This is their logic. The same logic that extends their other lab stuff to cosmological scales, against the observational evidence.

Same with 'plasma machined' craters on the Moon. We have craters on the Earth too, and we recover meteoric fragments from them that confirm their origins. We don't need plasma. But apparently different processes operate on the Moon. ;) :rofl:

Cheers -

CraigS
27-09-2010, 03:15 PM
Tom Bridgman (http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.b logspot.com/2010/09/electric-universe-plasma-physics-for.html) has a blog article about how real plasma physicists use mathematical models:



He goes on to list a bunch of, (about 10), freely available tools (& instructions on how to use them), which PC/EU could use to model the physics, rather than looking at photos.

Then he says ..



Good questions. How about it, Alex ?

Cheers

renormalised
27-09-2010, 03:22 PM
Watch what Alex says about Bridgman. You'll get the usual EU diatribe about him, and his encounters with Don Scott etc etc etc.

renormalised
27-09-2010, 03:25 PM
Maybe it was Slartybartfast with a plasma cutter:lol::D:P:P:rofl:

He did do the fjords in Norway, you know:):P:P

CraigS
27-09-2010, 03:35 PM
Geez Carl;

I found out about Bridgman by reading a post at ThunderBolts !!
Surely they'll have more depth about my question than you suggest !?

Cheers

renormalised
27-09-2010, 03:49 PM
Nope, they try and denigrate him, as per usual, then come about "disproving" his rebuttal of their ideas by quoting more of the same from Peratt et al. They may bring the Scott encounter (see below) up as a means to show how "arrogant and ridged" in his ways he is. He's a mainstream scientist you know...can't be trusted or believed:P

I suggest that in order to follow this properly, you grab a copy of Bridgman's rebuttal of Scott (too large to post here).

One of TB's admins has tried and tried to make a rebuttal stick but it's quite obvious from the posts he just doesn't know what he's on about. Like all the others, he only paraphrases what he's read and does the usual quoting etc etc . When he's called to question, he does an "Alex".

sjastro
27-09-2010, 04:37 PM
Scott's rebuttal is laughable.
For example in the section on the "(Non) useful products of astrophysics" where he claims that GPS correction does not require GR by referring to a paper by Fliegel and DeEsposti. The paper is flawed as revealed by Bridgeman.

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.b logspot.com/2009/04/scott-rebuttal-i-gps-relativity.html

Once again EU proponents need to cherry pick to build an argument.

Regards

Steven

renormalised
27-09-2010, 04:40 PM
Precisely Steven....completely laughable.

CraigS
27-09-2010, 04:41 PM
Ah gee;
Another 15 pager !!!

Ah just don't got the stamina .. !!

Last time I read one of your 'assignments' it got me all tired & agro … and I took it out on Alex.

I feel like escalating this by calling in the Bert …. the head of the IIS University !
:eyepop:

Cheers
PS: I said I didn't like emoticons !! Oh hang on … that was in another forum. They're Ok to use here … :)

renormalised
27-09-2010, 05:37 PM
If you want a copy of Tom Bridgman's article (48 pages, with homework!!), let me know:)

CraigS
28-09-2010, 06:08 AM
Huh ?

I could've sworn I saw a reply from Alex here before I signed off last night!?? I was tired, so I thought I might tackle it this morning.

(Maybe I was already asleep ?)

Something about current densities, synchrotron radiation, lightbulbs, currents going through walls and why they don't glow like a lightbulb … and science's inability to detect such low current densities. A bit of a hornet's nest this one, as any reasonable current through space, having any gas present will produce spectra, regardless of the density. This should be detectable, particularly as if they can detect nanoTesla magnetic fields, the currents associated with these should also be either; calculable or directly detectable.
Need to consider the scales involved in this statement, also.

Perhaps this was why the post was deleted ? Good idea to think this one through, before proceeding. Maybe Peratt has made statements about this ?
I know you have,Carl .. multiple times … :)

What I was going to ask was if the current density is so small, how can it generate sufficient torque to rotate galaxies (induced from the outside) ?

He also gave a bunch of references/publications by Lerner, Peratt etc. I was actually going to follow up and have a read of some of them.

He pointed out that I was indeed incorrect .. Alven is dead .. so how could he publish ? (I meant to type 'Lerner' in my post below .. but Alven came out .. I think I need a vacation !)

Oh well .. maybe we'll get another visit sometime later.

Cheers

bojan
28-09-2010, 07:24 AM
No, you were not dreaming.. I saw 3 (three !!!) copies of a reply, before they disappeared. And I have read one of them...
Still no mention of the promised description of the mechanism of the stellar relaxation oscillator (the alleged mechanism behind pulsars).

CraigS
28-09-2010, 08:24 AM
Ah Bojan;

.. my therapist !!

Thanks for saving my sanity. I only saw two .. I thought I was having double vision … which is what finally sent me to bed !

:)

Cheers & Rgds.

renormalised
28-09-2010, 10:56 AM
Alex up to his tricks again...probably deleted them so that Steven or I couldn't get to read them and explain why it doesn't add up. The only lightbulb that Alex has is the broken one sitting above his head:):P

In any case, what has lightbulbs and currents traveling through walls got anything to do with astrophysics:P:screwy:

More like a bit of a furphy.

Current densities unable to be detected by science...they can detect the charge polarity on individual molecules so a current density would have to be almost non existent to not be detected using modern equipment.

Peratt's models deal with large current densities, or large current flows and charge separation, at least. An undetectable current density would mean bugger all flow as the density is proportional to the flow, which means stuff all (if any) magnetic field. You can bet Alex will use this to explain the low intensities of the galactic EM fields. Problem is that won't cut the mustard because such a low current density won't support the Birkeland currents needed to make the spiral arms (or any of their other claims) and keep the galaxies rotating as the EU crowd proclaim. As a matter of fact, you won't get any current at all...at such low energies, the electrons would barely be able to undergo ionisation from the atoms the orbited. It'd be like tickling them with a feather!!!

I wouldn't bother with his references...it's just a rehash of all the old tripe from Lerner and Peratt (at least Peratt has the qualifications to be a genuine research plasma physicist, Lerner hasn't). Given where these references are published they bear no relevance on astrophysics to begin with, otherwise they'd be published in the appropriate journals and studied by the faculty concerned.

He is right about Alfven being dead, though (Geez, that's a first!!!). 1995 I believe.

renormalised
28-09-2010, 10:59 AM
It won't be forthcoming, Bojan, and even if you did get a sort of explanation I wouldn't expect it to be useful. He tried before and failed miserably because he doesn't really understand it himself. All he did was repeated what he had read of Don Scott's nonsense.

Jarvamundo
28-09-2010, 12:13 PM
Bojan is correct, where is my response... i did write a few but did remove 1, since there was a new copy with the reference to papers. bugga

Craig: http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

I'm glad you saw that transmission line description of densities and modes of plasma, this is critical when studying the PC model.

As much as the "hot gas" analogies are interchange by mainstream when describing plasmas, we should keep in mind the largest structure in our solar system is a plasma current sheet in dark mode. This is where the power cable feeding into the filament light-bulb analogies are important when conceptualizing plasma behavior, since plasma like a transmission-line is natures conductor of electrical current.

'not a real scientist'?
I'm not sure why the sledging of Lerner's credibility continues here by some? JPL, ESO and The Astro Physical Journal have funded, supported and published his original works. Maybe an ESO Visiting Senior Scientist is different to a mustard cutter? who knows.

Some people are able to show true skepticism of the model without refraining to clearly nonsensical adhom attacks on individuals. Craig you (along with the Astro Physical Journals past editors) seem to harbour this inquisitive spirit. kudos. The questions you raise are valid and familiar.

All the best,

PS Boj: Flat out mate... lets start another thread to explore Peratt's Pulsar model, and try keep some of these discussions on topic: Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf). K. Healy and A. Peratt, Astrophys. Space Sci

CraigS
28-09-2010, 01:24 PM
Ok initial observations from an initial glimpse at the "Published papers" list:

Cosmology:
- Peratt has published 2 papers in Sky & Tel 1985, 1992
- Peratt has published 3 papers in APSS 1997, 1998 & 1998
Energy Density and Temperature of the Universe:
- Peratt has published 2 papers in Astrophys. Space Sci, 1995, 1995
Galaxies:
- Arp 1 in Astrophys 1966 (Seminal paper of Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies)
- IEEE Special Issues on Plasma Astrophys & Cosmology (1vol)
Laboratory Astrophysics:
- James, M. P. Savedoff, and E. Wolf, Astrophysical Journal;
Solar System, Interstellar Galactic Plasma etc:
- Peratt 1 paper in AstroPhys 1988.
- Verschuur, 1 paper in Astrophys. 1995
- Healy and A. Peratt, 1 paper in Astrophys 1995
SPace Plasma Pioneers:
- Chandrasekhar and E. Fermi 1 paper in Astrophys 1953.
Energetic Auroras:
- Chandrasekhar and E. Fermi, 1 paper in Astrophys, 1953.

Initial comment/observation is that these are all pretty old papers.
There are many other Peratt etc papers, mostly published in IEEE and other publications.

Gotta go. More later.

Cheers

renormalised
28-09-2010, 01:59 PM
I've told you why, a number of times and yet it just doesn't seem to sink in. It's not who or what funds his work, or what he may have published that makes him what he is, it's his qualifications. Example....Tesla had years of experience working with electrical systems, so did Edison, but neither of them were an electrical engineer, nor could they claim to be. Lerner may have an undergrad degree in physics but he is not a plasma physicist. He doesn't have the necessary qualifications. He doesn't have any graduate degrees, let alone a PhD or post doctoral research experience under the supervision of a professor/lecturer at an university. All he has is the right to claim to be a CEO of his own company that deals in this area of physics...nothing more or less. Now, do I have to tell you for the umpteenth time again and again???

How thick can you be??

As for your last paragraph, don't try and hide behind it to make me out as being nonsensical. Crawling to Craig by appealing to him (or others by proxy) will not help you out one little bit. This has nothing to do with inquisitiveness or anything else. This has to do with your inability to to be able to show any verifiable evidence for anything you say....

What has the current density in a transmission line and modes of plasma got to do with plasma cosmology or anything in astrophysics??!!!. You have been told on any number of occasions by not only Steven and myself, but by others, that you cannot apply a lab experiment to a real life situation just by scaling things up (or down). At the very best, you only have an approximation of what is going on, and in most cases you cannot tell what is happening simply because you cannot scale many of the factors involved in order to get a reasonable analogue. But that doesn't seem to sink in.

You have no idea about plasmas...do you??? Dark mode...you guys also love to trot that out as some mysterious factor hiding these currents. Do you even know what dark mode actually is??? Where is either the synchrotron radiation or bremsstrahlung from your said dark mode current??? It must be there, Alex...it's the nature of the current running through a resistive medium (the plasma and interplanetary gas/dust) or electrons accelerated in a magnetic field. Dark current doesn't mean hidden, it's the current that runs through a device (or in this case a plasma sheet) when there is no external input via another source (in the case of a CCD, photons....the plasma sheet, solar wind and CME's). Oh that's right, something is masking it. If something masks a current, Alex, the current breaks down because the separation of charge is negated in the plasma by the other ions present there. Go and read up on your plasmas, Alex. As a matter of fact, describing the plasma sheet as having a dark current is a furphy as there is always an input occurring via the solar wind. So trying to apply some engineering term to an astrophysical process is erroneous to begin with as there is no analogue present.

Here is a definition of dark (mode) current....

You can't even apply it with respect to planetary aurorae for exactly the same reasons. It is not being hidden by anything as any flow of electrons will generate a detectable source of radiation thermal and/or non thermal (synchrotron, x-ray, radio etc). Anything which can mask a current's flow or emissions will collapse the generation of that current...and in the case of the aurorae, there's goes your Birkeland currents.

So, Alex, I suggest it's back to the drawing boards for you all.

Outbackmanyep
28-09-2010, 02:33 PM
I found evidence that there was a huge crater on a planet, and from it stemmed an electrical discharge that had a distinct green appearance about it, it shot out from the rims and centre of the crater and travelled through space to arrive at a destination which caused catastrophic destruction.
It was called the "Dantooine" effect.
Here is a photo of the effect.

renormalised
28-09-2010, 02:39 PM
As would be expected....he is an electrical engineer after all, not an astrophysicist/astronomer/particle/nuclear physicist. The few he has published in astronomy journals have been in those (except for maybe 2 papers) with more lax peer review procedures and low citation rates.

S & T would hardly be classed as a peer reviewed journal!!!!. I wouldn't even bother to cite something as ridiculous as that and quite frankly it wouldn't even get a look at if someone were to cite that as a source for a paper:P

It's just a good read of popular astronomy. Keeps amateurs informed on what's happening.

renormalised
28-09-2010, 02:40 PM
Clever:):P

Jarvamundo
28-09-2010, 09:23 PM
You absolute fool.
You do nothing but clutch to copying and pasting wikipedia articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_current_%28physics%29) in some vein attempt to come across as knowledgeable?

There are 3 modes of plasma emission, which track a non linear voltage gradients, all very well understood and scalable.
Dark = yep, generally dark (solar wind etc)... occasionally radio emissions exist.
Glow = yep.. it glows... go figure (flouro lamps, auroras).
Arc = yep... arcs... (lightning).

Sydney Chapman (http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtmmC0Ldws1Gx4QR XdkBNTS9W_nlaK5ynXCszIrV40TFGdUGg&t=1&usg=__si_T8O67BWf-DoVzKP1tg_iYNHs=) tried to tell Kristian Birkeland (http://www.aldebaran.cz/actions/2002_aurora/various/birkeland.jpg) he couldn't scale plasmas... guess who had the last laugh (http://www.plasma-universe.com/images/thumb/5/5b/Kristian-birkeland-bank-note-portrait.jpg/256px-Kristian-birkeland-bank-note-portrait.jpg), once spaceprobes could take insitu measurements (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/image09/090429currents.jpg) (nasa themis image)?

Plasmas can and do scale, this is a well established empirical fact.

All the best,

PS: only you have said that plasmas and experiments cannot scale, Steven has not.
PS: "It's not who or what funds his work, or what he may have published that makes him what he is, it's his qualifications"
sorry mate... Oliver Heaviside was brilliant... should we begin on countless others? I'd rather go off their achievements and contributions rather than pieces of paper with fancy embossing... maybe we've found our difference here carl?

CraigS
29-09-2010, 06:53 AM
Ok.
So, I had a quick read of Peratt's 1995 paper on Pulsar Magnetospheres yesterday. I intend to have a closer read when I get a chance. It appears he has created an electrical transmission line model, done some (limited) measurements on equipment available at the time, and developed some hypotheses. At the moment, I can't see any big problems with that approach (except the age of the paper). I should look at mainstream's critiques of this paper, in order to absorb it all (this'll probably be a spaghetti jungle, however).

On a different scale, is the Intergalactic Magnetic Field strength issue:

THEMIS measured 650K amp, Sun sourced flux ropes flowing into the Earth's Magnetosphere. The Intergalactic magnetic field strength discussed in the original paper is about 1.2 nanoTeslas - a huge difference !

Frankly, one would expect there to be all sorts of 'flux rope' equivalents interconnecting close proximity active stars/quasars/BHs/magnetars/planets etc. There's likely to be an entire network out there .. good material for further research would be to attempt to map it all, so everyone could get a view on it.

As far as these fields extending across intergalactic space and being comparable with obvious intergalactic gravitational fields however, depends on a leap of faith - the scalability issue.

There appears to be no indicators of intergalactic magnetic field strengths of the necessary magnitudes that would make a difference to shaping galaxies, effect orbits etc - ie: intergalactic synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung spectra, for instance. Lab experiments scaled up requires an extrapolation of small scale physics, but unless someone can produce measurements of some kind, of significant magnitudes in intergalactic space, it just seems to be an intellectual exercise.

I'm not sure I have the energy to argue over intellectual exercises. I'm happy to keep them as such and pursue them independently, however. I mean, what are we trying to say here ? Gravity rules over Electromagnetism ?? What's the point in this ? Seems we are trying to pursue some kind of Grand Unification Theory without the measurements .. others are in a far better situation than us to do this, I would have thought !!

Cheers & Regards.
PS: A suggestion for the Moderators - I reckon IIS needs an "Alternative Science Forum", for those wanting to discuss Alternative concepts… every other site like IIS seems to have one .. so why not here ?? Would certainly beat having to lock threads all the time and I can see another one coming up, right here !!
And Carl would be the perfect person to moderate it !! :lol::lol:
(Ok .. I'm a stirrer … but hey .. what can you expect from a Hamster ?? Witten's Hamster, that is !!)

bojan
29-09-2010, 07:59 AM
I do see a lot of problems here.
It looks very much as RF engineer-like approach... and this is what is wrong here.
Being myself a RF engineer, I cant see how oscillations are generated in this model.
Also I don't see anu explanation for sudden glitches (in neutron star model, this was explained as star-quake).

Interesting mind-game, intellectual exercise..... but that's all me thinks.

CraigS
29-09-2010, 08:22 AM
Ah .. you're saying that the problems stem from the model chosen, huh? (As distinct from the approach)?

Maybe the explanation comes in 'the next chapter' .. its an old paper.

Cheers

renormalised
29-09-2010, 08:33 AM
The approach is faulty too....you can't just compartmentalise astrophysical process like they do in engineering parlance. There's no "black box" approach to any problem in astrophysics and as a matter of fact, astrophysicists would tell you that if you do this, you're missing most of the problem. Astrophysical phenomena occur in a continuum...the boundaries between physical interactions within systems isn't cut and dried and you can't divorce one part of the system from the other in order to model what's happening. The whole has to be considered.

You want to find out about pulsar magnetospheres....here's 559 papers (http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+pulsar+magnetospheres/0/1/0/all/0/1) on the subject.

bojan
29-09-2010, 09:16 AM
Both model and approach are dubious (as Carl pointed out nicely).
We are not dealing with electronics circuit here (even if we say it is a circuit with distributed parameters), however we (or them, actually) would want to...

You can't even input this model into one of those RF simulation programs...no model for active element could be built, without full understanding of mechanism of the process (a neutron star is not a transistor.. or valve). And this understanding is not shown there
Also, he was mentioning relaxation oscillators earlier. This is not a relaxation oscillator, it looks to me like oscillator with transmission line as frequency control element.

As I said, it is just a mind game, nothing else. Waste of time.

CraigS
29-09-2010, 09:33 AM
Ok .. so, remember guys … I'm no 'believer' in PC/EU ...

In the Peratt/Healy paper, the initial 'model' used for simulations is crude and they do pay credence to the fact that it has shortcomings. Consideration is given to the boundary definitions. They consider the effects of adding plasma flowing between current boundaries and then make observations on the simulated waveforms (page 244). So what they are in effect are doing, is creating a strawman model, relating it to outcomes observable via simulations and then coming to a conclusion that further work needs to be done to explain further observations in space.

This is a typical iterative modelling approach. It is an old paper. I'd like to understand where it ended up ... with the 21st Century updates.

For compariative purposes, I pulled out a copy of a random sample of paper (from Carl's arXiV search), called: "The magnetar emission in the IR band: the role of magnetospheric currents" which is dated, April 2010. The Abstract reads:



The conclusions …



Whilst I can relate to the more modern paper more closely, the older Peratt/Healy paper follows a similar approach, considers defiencies in the model, and comes to more or less, similar conclusions.

Having said that, I agree that I can't see the relaxation oscillator model, as Bojan points out. I am prepared to look into where it all ended up in modern times.

Carl .. you have always said, you have to read the whole saga of anyone writing scientific papers in order to understand where they're coming from .. and perhaps then … trash 'em !! Sometimes this journey results in an increased understanding …. of something !

Bojan .. I'm not assuming that this paper is necessarily the answer to your original question .. even though it was presented to you in that way. The abstract describes its intention as being an 'exploratory' paper.

I feel the 'usual' frustration experienced in encounters with EU stuff. You are not alone … ;)

Cheers & Rgds.

renormalised
29-09-2010, 10:04 AM
The problem with all of Peratt's simulations is that they were restrictive in the number of parameters they dealt with, excluded a lot of others that are essential to modeling these systems (e.g. gravity, for instance) and were done on computers an average netbook computer could outperform these days. The code for the simulation software could be vastly improved and implemented on a modern computer, but neither Peratt or any of the EU/PC crowd have bothered. They just keep rehashing the same old, tired simulations and quoting from the results. That's not science.

Like I said, this "black box" approach is faulty.

Creating "strawman" models then concluding more work needs to be done is a waste of time. It's basically saying a lot of stuff for nothing. They could've written their whole paper in one or maybe two paragraphs. If they were really honest about it, they probably could've done it in a couple of sentences.

renormalised
29-09-2010, 10:21 AM
Their whole premise for the mechanism behind pulsars (EM interactions in close binary systems) is so easy to shoot down it's not funny. Simple observation of these objects is enough to make their ideas a laughing stock. For one, most pulsars are single objects and that is observationally verifiable, whether the pulsar is part of a remnant or not. If they were close binaries, where's the spectroscopic evidence, let alone evidence from light curve/photometric and astrometric analysis. There is none and never has been. The EU/PC crowd seem to forget about these glaringly obvious astrophysical questions and just assume that their assumptions are correct despite all the evidence and observations to the contrary.

It's like seeing a tsunami coming straight at your face and then denying it exists..."Oh, I'll be OK, it's not really there." Too bad when you get crushed and washed away by the wave.

CraigS
29-09-2010, 11:22 AM
This is the kind of stuff that pre-peer review should sort out.

The 1995 paper was published in "Astrophys. Space Sci.".

I presume this is the AstroPhysical Journal (am I wrong ?)

Cheers

Outbackmanyep
29-09-2010, 11:28 AM
It's tantamount to a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there!

renormalised
29-09-2010, 11:28 AM
No, it's not ApJ...it's a different journal. ApJ is far more cited and used than Ap&SS and the peer review process in ApJ is far more stringent.

CraigS
29-09-2010, 12:33 PM
Fair enough, then …

Comes back to writing outside of the review process/world you're attempting to live in .. and the formal training/background of the writer ..

…I'm cool with that…

:)

Cheers

renormalised
29-09-2010, 12:44 PM
I wouldn't mind betting that most of the gripe that the EU/PC guys go on about peer review stems from Peratt, Scott and Co trying to get their papers accepted into journals such as ApJ, MNRAS, AJ, PR Letters etc and then being told to go and write a science fiction novel based on their submissions because that's all they were good for. So, they hunted down those journals they knew they could publish in....in their own fields (IEEE PPT), those with lax peer review and such, plus some of the left of centre "alternative" science "journals" and magazines including those popular amateur astronomy ones.

CraigS
29-09-2010, 02:03 PM
The thing I find very unsettling is the problem that is created when these guys are told things like what you mention. They don't just go away because someone has rejected their ideas. They go on, and on, and on, and develop entire communities of faith based followers which then comes back around and undermines the science/scientists who rejected them, in the first place.

It becomes a problem created by (i) the rejection process itself and (ii) a perfectly understandable, incomplete knowledge of the topic, by the applicant.

Science has created pseudoscientists !!

There has to be a more mature way of handling these issues, showing an acceptance of the fundamental responsibility for handling people.

Especially as the material becomes more and more complex.

I am reminded of Ted Haggard (evangelist) grappling with Dawkins: .."Excuse me sir, this is exactly the reason why so many join our faith .. the arrogance of: 'you don't have such and such a book .. so you you'll never understand'." .. or words to that effect.

Its a real problem, because it eventually impacts funding for mainstream Scientific research !

Cheers

bojan
29-09-2010, 02:07 PM
Yes, you are very right here.

Many times in my life I wanted to react to arrogance of mainstream scientists (not on this forum, though) but what was the alternative?
To send sheep straight into lion's den! Or to just allow them going there by themselves if they choose so..
So I kept quiet, thinking that this way I am doing less damage.

The right way of popularisation (without vulgarisation) of science is soo important...

CraigS
29-09-2010, 02:10 PM
Did you satisfy your inquisitiveness and further your knowledge in any way by taking this approach ?

Cheers

PS: Our posts got out of synch here .. sorry 'bout that.

renormalised
29-09-2010, 02:14 PM
They wouldn't be literally told by the peer review committees that their submission was like that, not unless it was really bad science. They would be told it was rejected and why. So if they wanted to resubmit it at a later date, they would be told where to fix the problems that were seen in it and how to resubmit it with the corrections in place.

Although, the recommendations may appear to be harsh, they're tough for a reason. The big problem is that the paper, or pet project/idea, of the person submitting it may just not be up to standard. Quite a few can't handle being told that, or think because they have "x" years of experience etc, that their papers should automatically be accepted and they react badly to the review. That's why some go off in a huff and start publishing it anywhere they can get away with it...usually in the less stringent journals and the popular press, or they publish it as their own book or create a journal of their own, like Aeon and the JIDS (Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies).

bojan
29-09-2010, 02:14 PM
Yes.. but I am not the problem here.. I know what I know.
The problem is that others don't know what they could know.
And I don't know (sometimes) how to show them what there is to know..

CraigS
29-09-2010, 02:17 PM
Me, too .. I'm in the same boat

Cheers

renormalised
29-09-2010, 02:21 PM
You have to be careful about what's being popularised, though. It maybe science, but is it "science"...i.e. does it have any validity in theory and practice or is it just "pie in the sky" speculation being paraded as such. It could still be very fringe but have strong scientific underpinnings. Or it could be just science taken out of context and used to make assumptions about anything and everything the originator of the speculation may care to take up.

bojan
29-09-2010, 02:22 PM
Well, we are all just people.
Some take this harder, some don't.

I am sure that harsh rejection is not always productive, like you are saying.
Those who reject are also just people, with their pet ideas..
But they are already there, in their positions.
And that is sometimes hard to swallow for some individuals, so they react in a neurotic ways.. Heels in the ground approach. Not scientific behaviour, but very human actually..

renormalised
29-09-2010, 02:24 PM
Hmmm....so it's a case of you know what you know, but they don't know what they could or should know and you don't know how to show them what they should or could know and they just don't know how to know what it is they should or could or maybe would know if they only did know what you know:):P

(I sound like Sir Humphrey Appleby!!!!!:):P)

(Or Bernard:):P)

bojan
29-09-2010, 02:24 PM
I had the proper science popularisation in mind.

CraigS
29-09-2010, 02:25 PM
Its gotta have a lot to do with tolerance !

Difficult to achieve in a busy workplace, thesedays .. but it's got to be there to avoid the problem it creates.

bojan
29-09-2010, 02:29 PM
Exactly right.
Otherwise, you are just sending sheep into a lion's den.
And, at the end of the day, there will be no-one in your own camp to provide support (finance.. ). Pseudo-science may prevail...

(have a look at what is going on with Aussie space program in another thread...)

renormalised
29-09-2010, 02:30 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong. I do know of quite a few instances where the treatment of those before the review committees has been rather bad and unfair. Getting that first couple of papers passed can make or break careers and sometimes the reviewers can be too critical, for whatever reason. But in many cases, they are valid in their rejections because sometimes things just don't add up. If they accepted every paper and idea that came to their attention, no questions asked or just gave them a cursory inspection, then science would be mired in garbage and nothing would get done.

CraigS
29-09-2010, 02:34 PM
I've read some rejections from publications (albeit from Medical journals .. directed at fully fledged Doctors/researchers/applicants).

They didn't contain anything other than .. "Not at this time" … "insufficient reviewer resources", etc, etc.

Politeness needs accompanying justification to be meaningful. I didn't see it in these rejection letters.

Cheers

PS: This is not a complete sample, however.

bojan
29-09-2010, 02:45 PM
Don't worry, I don't..
I just wanted to add something to overall balance of things.
I am fully aware that review process is OK in majority of cases.

Outbackmanyep
29-09-2010, 02:58 PM
I came across this little piece, i bet you any money that EU will take this as their weapon of choice.
It's very interesting and is a result of scientific methods for real science:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/berlin04/presentations/beck.pdf

Not a mention of Perratt, Alfven, Thornhill etc

CraigS
29-09-2010, 03:08 PM
So, coming back to the Peratt/Healy paper, I still reckon I'd like to see what became of that 'thread' before dismissing the whole thing outright.

After I find out what happens .. then I'll dismiss it outright !! :):P:)

Sorry Alex .. :)

Cheers
PS: Sorry outbackmanyep .. I'll have a read of what you sent, shortly. Cheers.

CraigS
29-09-2010, 03:36 PM
What's the date on this presentation ? Is there a paper underpinning it ?(ie: that we can read ?)

One of the last slides summarises the presentation nicely. (Authors are: Rainer Beck, Bryan Gaensler, Luigina Ferretti):



Very interesting …

Thanks, Outbackmanyep.

Worthwhile following up on that one.

Cheers

renormalised
29-09-2010, 03:48 PM
If you want, Craig, I can give you Bryan's email and you can ask him directly:)

CraigS
29-09-2010, 03:55 PM
Just found it: "Magnetism in Nearby Galaxies, Prospects with the SKA, and Synergies with the E-ELT", 10 -14 May 2010.

Cheers

renormalised
29-09-2010, 04:03 PM
Got the paper...still want the email??

CraigS
29-09-2010, 04:07 PM
Apologies if everyone's lost interest in the original topic .. I haven't .. so, to punish all involved even more .. here's the Abstract of the below newly found paper:



So, some more field strengths given inside the arms, central starburst regions, interarm regions and Faraday rotation etc.

All good stuff !

Cheers
PS: Detention will be held after the school bell !

Jarvamundo
29-09-2010, 04:08 PM
Absolute sheer nonsense.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~drl/publications/clf+00.pdf

CraigS
29-09-2010, 04:08 PM
Are you trying to get out of detention ??
:):)

CraigS
29-09-2010, 04:14 PM
G'Day Alex;

The guys in this paper say they've measured heaps of pulsars & their fields ..



Cheers

renormalised
29-09-2010, 04:16 PM
A further nail in the EU/PC coffin...despite the contents of the paper:)

Jarvamundo
29-09-2010, 04:17 PM
link?

renormalised
29-09-2010, 04:18 PM
I didn't think I was a candidate for it:)

CraigS
29-09-2010, 04:37 PM
http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3806

I'll see if I can upload the PDF if you want.
Cheers

Here ya go (see attachment).

bojan
29-09-2010, 05:30 PM
I am afraid you got it wrong Alex.

The fact that pulsar is part of binary system doesn't mean it is pulsar BECAUSE it is pulsing as a consequence of interaction between binary components.
(relaxation oscillator.. still waiting for mechanism explanation...)

BTW, novae are binary system phenomenon.. So it is expected that pulsars (being collapsed cores of stars) will be part of binary system more often than single objects.

CraigS
29-09-2010, 05:40 PM
Am I seeing double again ??
:)

renormalised
29-09-2010, 05:44 PM
Now, well see just who's wrong here....

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/16_2/hopkins/paper/node7.html (http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/16_2/hopkins/paper/node7.html)

750 known pulsars (as of 1997, there's currently some 2000 or so known pulsars)....less than 10% of the known pulsars (remember...observationally verifiable (or known) is what I said) are millisecond pulsars. So, that means less than 75 (in 1997, something like 100-200 today) of all the known pulsars are millisecond pulsars, hence are/were members of binary systems. That they may be quite numerous in the overall scheme of things in no way confirms any of the theories you espouse. I seriously doubt you know very much about the millisecond pulsar mechanism or process of formation, otherwise you'd have not made the comment you did.

As a matter of fact, you have little idea of the pulsar mechanism and that can be clearly seen by the nonsense you espouse as "hard fact":P

So, Alex, who's sprouting the "absolute nonsense" now???:P

bojan
29-09-2010, 05:44 PM
No..

I have no idea why there are two.. I was editing my reply and the post doubled for some mysterious reason.

EDIT:
I deleted the second one.

renormalised
29-09-2010, 05:47 PM
"107" years old is actually less than 10 million years (10E7):)

CraigS
29-09-2010, 06:01 PM
As an aside .. just reading the conclusion of the paper I uploaded:



Faraday rotation measures:



That sounds like fantastic news !! 20,000 new pulsars !! And a 3D magnetic landscape !
Amazing !

Cheers

Outbackmanyep
29-09-2010, 06:19 PM
I attended Bryan Gaenslers talk at the Bok Lecture in Coonabarabran last year and he did this talk on Magnetic Universe, he explained it quite clearly and it made sense.

Here it is here:
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~bmg/papers/stories/301Gaensler-3.pdf

And links to his other works (bottom of the page):
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~bmg/

Cheers!

CraigS
29-09-2010, 06:30 PM
Very cool, Outbackmanyep !!

Thanks for that info !!

Wouldn't have known they were doing all this great stuff if ya hadn't turned up!

Good onya ! Thanks.

Cheers

renormalised
29-09-2010, 07:13 PM
Just for the record, there are approximately 140 millisecond pulsars known.

CraigS
29-09-2010, 07:28 PM
Source ?

renormalised
29-09-2010, 10:36 PM
Hot chili:):P

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1928

But that's hardly the only source...just type "population of pulsars", or, "population of neutron stars" at arXiv. Or goto wiki for neutron stars/pulsars. or pick up a recent textbook on astrophysics (you can do all three if you're in the position to do so).

CraigS
30-09-2010, 07:37 AM
Thats another interesting paper, Carl.

In the Final Thoughts Section:


All great stuff ! (I don't know the terms LMXBs and MSPs ?? Help ?)
Thanks for the 'heads-up' !!

Cheers

renormalised
30-09-2010, 08:24 AM
LMXB = Low mass Xray Binary

MSP = Millisecond pulsar

:)

Jarvamundo
30-09-2010, 05:04 PM
flip flop and flap?

The paper i posted merely pointed out that the majority (20 out of 20) of millisecond pulsars found in Tuc47 in that paper were indeed binary systems.

This was only in response to you saying they did not exist... let us repeat...


So when Thornhill / Scott point out that we are finding out that pulsars are proving to be part of binary systems, they are indeed quite correct.

Peratt's model is slightly different and does not depend on binary per se.... But the point with both of these models is that a far more plausible function of emission exists, rather than invoking a rotating gravity blob that spins at 25% of light. We have these relaxation oscillators well developed in technology and Peratt's paper includes physical experimentation that matches the waveforms detected.

The hypothesis here is that electrical effects 'can' provide an emission function to match our observations, including the waveform which tracks very much like lightning and other plasma emissions.

As we find faster and faster pulse rates, the rotating gravity beacon model will require yet more inventions to hold the star together as it moves beyond 25% of C in velocity. See Strange-Matter-Stars. The relaxation discharge models do not suffer from these inherent weaknesses.

Bojan had a point regarding "Frequency Glitches".... now ask yourself... if you have an insanely heavy super dense start spinning faster than a dentist drill, what is the energy involved to provide the torque to (1) slow the star, (2) speed it back up... It is massive.... yes acoustic modeling and "star quakes" have attempted to provide some answers for this. For an oscillation of a plasma emission, this is far simpler explanation requiring far less energy.

2 models, 2 very different predictions.

bojan
30-09-2010, 05:20 PM
And where is that relaxation model, finally?
I am still waiting for plausible mechanism explanation...

renormalised
30-09-2010, 05:51 PM
No, and you know precisely what I meant by pulsars being close binary systems...it had nothing to do with millisecond pulsars or actual binary systems of neutron stars or combinations of neutron stars/ordinary stars etc. It had to do with the actual mechanism that produces the pulsars....a relaxation oscillator generated between two closely orbiting stars (as per Don Scott and Co). Which, by the way, you have avoided explaining to any degree of satisfaction to anyone here, including Bojan (who is an electrical engineer).

What I wrote was in reference to this mechanism, precisely. If this was the mechanism that generated the pulses, and it was a close system of binary stars, there would be ample evidence for their existence. Since there is no evidence whatsoever for this mechanism's existence in any observations of pulsars/neutron stars, then it doesn't exist. Where are the spectroscopic analyses done of the light coming from these systems, radial velocity measurements, orbital parameter determinations (vSinI, orbital nodes, semi-major axes, plane of orbit etc etc etc), radiometric observations, light curve determinations, theoretical modeling of the systems etc etc etc. All this in order to determine what is actually going on. There are none, because there is no need to do any in this matter. You have no idea of what goes on in studying stars, do you. If you did, you'd know what's needed to prove or disprove an observation and you'd know whether your contentions had any merit because you'd also know what was in the literature, both in journals and the textbooks. You certainly aren't qualified to undertake the necessary observations and as a matter of fact none of the EU devotees are, so who will you get to prove your point??

So your argument to the contrary is moot.

The simple fact that you and your mates cannot get your heads around a neutron star only goes to show your lack of knowledge concerning physics in general and stellar/atomic/quantum and relativity physics in particular. Also, the simple fact that even with plenty of observational proof, you continue to deny their (neutron stars) existence, only goes to show how ridiculous your own contentions are, considering you espouse a causal mechanism and object type for which there is no observational evidence at all.

CraigS
30-09-2010, 05:53 PM
Bojan (& others);

The final paragraph in the Healy & Peratt paper mentions:



The list Alex forwarded doesn't seem to contain the 1982 paper alluded to.

The next chapter in the story may have a description of the Relaxation Oscillator. At the moment, all we have is a transmission line model.

Cheers

PS: The list doesn't contain any Thornhill/Scott papers.

bojan
30-09-2010, 06:17 PM
The only model of the stellar relaxation oscillator I know of is a variable star.. Cepheid variables, for example.
The pulsations are the result of oscillations, involving ionisation... It could be called the relaxation oscillator.. but it is NOT of electrical/electronics type.

Another example is Sun's 11 years cycle...

It is interesting that EU people are not mentioning it at all :-)

sjastro
30-09-2010, 06:41 PM
A spinning object has an angular velocity. The speed of light is a linear velocity.

The dimensions of angular velocity is L(0)T(-1). L(0) is dimensionless.
The dimensions of linear velocity is L(1)T(-1). L is length, T is time.

Expressing an angular velocity in terms of a linear velocity makes no sense at all.

Regards

Steven

xelasnave
30-09-2010, 06:58 PM
My push gravity black hole model requires a binary system as no doubt would a pulsar in the push universe...and the flow is probably electric and the space time is bent as determined by General relativity...there now the universes are united.

I have enjoyed this thread but have the good sense not to say anything...or not to say nothing.
alex

CraigS
30-09-2010, 07:34 PM
Steady on there, fella …
One model at a time, eh ? I'm having enough trouble keeping up with this one!
:):)
Cheers
PS: They have huge Sun/Star theories .. that is one of their primary sources.

renormalised
30-09-2010, 08:03 PM
That fact that some pulsars (<5-10%) are members of binary systems is a moot point, in so far as the generating mechanism for the pulsations is concerned...which is what they're contending.

But what makes this even more ridiculous is that you're taking the word of Thornhill and Scott, who aren't even qualified to be talking about these objects or the mechanisms behind their generation. The only one who actually has any research experience and the qualifications to be talking about anything to do with electrical matters is Scott. Thornhill barely has a degree, no graduate work to speak of that has been completed and is just a writer of ridiculous pseudoscientific fantasy (Neo Velikovskian catastrophism).

You seem to take us for fools.


He we go again, trying to create analogues from terrestrial experiments for objects and mechanisms which have no connection whatsoever. And we see the dreaded relaxation oscillator rear its head again. You prove that the mechanism is a relaxation oscillator...where is the maths/equations and the physical observations proving this mechanism. Where is the theory defining the observations....you outline it. No paraphrasing others or posting links to youtube videos and nonsense sites.

You prove the neutron star/pulsar mechanism is a fallacy with the appropriate maths and theory, plus the observation needed to back this contention up.

You don't even understand what drives the pulsar mechanism!!!. Whilst the formation of the object has a lot to do with gravitational forces, the pulsation mechanism is driven by relativistic beam of electrons (creating synchrotron radiation, amongst other types of radiation) confined within a highly energetic magnetic field that is generated by neutron star due to its rotation (just like all similar dynamos). The pulsations are timed in relation with the rotation of the neutron star itself. The relativistic beams of electrons are emitted along the axis of the magnetic field.

Now what do you think is the mechanism which generates the high rotational velocities of the neutron stars??? I'll let you ponder that, as well as the reasons as to why they can remain whole even though they rotate at such high velocities. If you know anything about physics, that is.

However consider this....most neutron stars/pulsars have rotation rates between 0.25 to 2 seconds. Work out their rotational velocities, then.

It seems pretty clear you have no idea of the forces involved with neutron stars/pulsars.

Yes, the energy involved in the formation of a neutron star is enormous, so are the energies being generated by the neutron star itself. So, you've answered the question yourself, the reasons why there are glitches in the pulse timings. There are several mechanism which may cause these glitches....one being starquakes caused by internal stresses within the neutron star as it rotates (cracking the stiff crust), another being changes in the superfluid regions of the neutron star that are generated by transitions in metastability within vortices in the superfluid. As they changed from a high energy state to a lower one, they cause the star to temporarily speed up (due to a decoupling of the vortices from the crust) and the resulting release of energy (via a jolting of the outer layers/crust) increases the star's moment of inertia (but not the angular momentum). Once the energy is released, the star returns to its former state and shrinks slightly. The initial cause of all these changes is the slowing down of the pulse rate as the star ages. In slowing down, its internal EOS (Equation of State) changes and the structure of the star has to change to compensate (it's basically losing energy as it ages).

I doubt you have any idea of the physics and the physical characteristics of neutron stars and that's why you have so much trouble understanding them....and why you deny they exist.

renormalised
30-09-2010, 08:05 PM
There are many types of relaxation oscillators, as you would know. You could call a cepheid's pulsations a type of RO.

renormalised
01-10-2010, 12:54 AM
Now, let me take up a point I made in a previous post (#101) about pulsar mechanisms and their origin as relaxation oscillators in close binary systems. Let's follow the EU lead here and ignore neutron stars for the time being.

Given the number of binary stars that are close contact binaries, spectroscopic binaries and such, there should be a great number of pulsars around...far more than the 2000 or so known objects. Not only that, their positions would be quite well known as all the known contact binaries and spectroscopic binaries have their positions already plotted on any number of star charts and stored in astronomical databases. Stars such as W Ursae Majoris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_Ursae_Majoris_variables), by definition of the EU's theories, should be pulsars. They're close to one another (actually they are close enough to be touching and sharing their outer envelopes) and therefore the interplay between their respective magnetic fields (if any) should be quite substantial. They should be acting as relaxation oscillators with the interactions between their shared gaseous (plasma) envelopes. Considering the numbers they represent (1% of all stars), that means in this galaxy alone, if you believe the EU, there should be 4 billion pulsars!!!!!!!!!. Even if only 1/1000 of them was magnetically active enough, that still leaves 4 million pulsars. Where is the observational evidence for all these pulsars?? With 4 billion (or 4 million) of them alone, the amount of synchrotron radiation (let alone radiation at various other wavelengths typically emitted by pulsars) would be absolutely staggering!!!. Many orders of magnitude greater than any observable flux detected in any galaxy...it would even be greater than the synchrotron and radio flux emitted by a typical quasar!!!.

Now, if you also add the numbers of spectroscopic binaries that aren't contact binaries but still close orbiting stars, the numbers skyrocket. Then if you add the small numbers of cataclysmic variable stars that have real neutron stars/pulsars as part of a binary system, the whole premise of their "relaxation oscillator" theory and mechanism (as it stands) not only doesn't add up, it is totally preposterous.

Now if we look at their other proposal, by Peratt, of a relaxation oscillator within a "magnetosphere" mechanism, this is all predicated on the existence of a powerful enough magnetic field to generate a magnetosphere strong enough to support such a mechanism. Peratt doesn't seem to realise that over a certain spectral type (F4), the magnetic fields surrounding stars is almost nonexistent. A brief glance at any astronomy textbook would explain to you why this is so, but it seems Peratt and the proponents of EU have skipped that little exercise. It has to do with the internal structure of the stars and the amount of convection present in their outer layers. This is all driven by the laws of thermodynamics and the relative densities of the material within the bodies of the stars (which is determined by the gas laws). Now we'll exclude these stars, and we'll also exclude stars above the spectral class of K8-M0, because the relative depths of their convection zones (which generate the magnetic fields seen in stars) are quite shallow (5-30% of the star's radius, for mature stars..can be more for younger stars). Below this cutoff, the magnetic activity displayed by stars can become quite substantial, convection within the body of the star may reach up to 100% and this convection drives the activity. It's the reason why low mass M class stars are flare stars. They are highly magnetic stars with much sunspot activity on their surfaces, very hot coronas (20 million K or more) and emit more x-rays than what our Sun does. Given all this activity, why don't we see some of these stars display a pulsar mechanism?? Despite the fields in some of these stars reaching a few T (tesla) in strength, they are nowhere near the observed field strengths of a typical pulsar, or even of a non pulsating (old) neutron star. The weakest of pulsar mechanisms are many orders of magnitude stronger than the most magnetically active M dwarf. RO mechanisms do occur, during flare episodes and in the magnetospheres of the stars during normal activity (the same happens with our own Sun, to a greater or lesser extent), but nothing on the order of typical pulsars. Nor do the rotational periods of the pulsations in neutron stars/pulsars match any of the activity seen in the magnetospheres of stars.

Going back to what I have also said previously, even the rotation and orbital velocities of close binary systems and their attendant magnetic fields hardly match the activity and strength of pulsars.

So where are their answers??. In typical fashion, they will dismiss the science that is presented to them and all the evidence that is there, to invent mechanisms pulled from a lab experiment and then somehow scale them up, with no consideration as to the the scaling difficulties which are inherently present in such an effort. They take mechanisms which despite a superficial resemblance in some cases to observed occurrences, once modeled fully and applied at the level of astrophysical phenomena, fail miserably when put under the light of scrutiny or are taken out the context in which they do apply and are applied to systems they have little relevance to. Or they invent supposed "verifiable" evidence from very flimsy observations at their very best or "simulations" of what's supposed to be happening, that are inherently flawed to begin with.

Misunderstandings, misinterpretations, misuse and abuse of science is all they deal with. Then when it's mixed in with the fantasy worlds of Neo Velikovskian catastrophism (holoscience.org etc) and other crackpot nonsense, you get the grand hallucination that is EU. Despite PC (plasma cosmology) having some basis in real science (plasma physics), even the premise that it keeps as it's raison detre has been taken by the proponents of EU and stretched beyond credulity.

Octane
01-10-2010, 01:29 AM
Epic post is epic.

Fail science is fail.

H

CraigS
01-10-2010, 08:02 AM
Despite the frustration always present in discussing EU material, that was a great post, Carl.

I learnt heaps from that one.

Thanks for that - much appreciated.

Cheers

CraigS
01-10-2010, 02:22 PM
For the sake of the record, I’d just like to summarize my observations on the topic of modeling in the Cosmos. This seems to be where Alex has been focusing his dialog with me, in places throughout this thread.

On modelling:

1) Starting with a trivial example: a spring is a simple device which stores mechanical energy.

A capacitor is a device which stores electric charge.

The physics defining the behaviour of both devices is directly analogous. The mathematical relationships, thus look similar.

But this does not make a spring a capacitor.

2) Is there a need to connect models to the real world, if they explain some macro behaviours adequately, and make predictions ?

The connection with the real world is achieved by relating the known physical behaviours of the actual object in detail, to the model.

If the connections line up, then it can be used to achieve the next level of understanding and make credible predictions.

There seems to be a gap in the step connecting the real world to the EU models.

3) The weaknesses in the mainstream models sometimes emerge towards the end of the process but they have their strengths in real-world connectedness, thus going a long way towards establishing credibility for the strangeness which sometimes results, at the end.

4) I can see now why EU points to lab experiments as a way of achieving some credibility. The cosmos objects we are talking about however, are not lab objects. Scaling is modelling in itself, and thus should be explained in the same descriptive language as the objects themselves.

5) At this stage, the best I can suggest, in support of the EU models, is that they might be used as analogies, (or mind experiments), to explain some limited AstroPhysical phenomena for Electrical Engineering mindsets, but as far as real-world connectedness, there are major gaps and shortcomings. Some say they don’t even fit this bill.

6) The real science of Plasma Physics tackles the behaviour of Plasmas in the lab, in order to explain the behaviour of this substance, where it is shown to exist in the Universe. This is a common approach of mainstream science and I cannot see any major issues with this. In my mind, this aspect is clearly separate from linkage relationships established independently, by the EU folk.

Cheers

Outbackmanyep
05-10-2010, 11:28 AM
Yet they seem to pretend they can claim that crater chains are made from electric discharges and yet they dismiss the idea of how the moons and planets were formed in the first place!

renormalised
05-10-2010, 11:49 AM
If you believed their great "scientific geniuses" Talbott and Thornhill (just got holoscience.org to see), the planets and moons were all formed from discharged material from the cores of stars...especially dwarf and giant stars....and I quote (from Holoscience.org (http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=7))...

Venus apparently was "ejected" from Saturn or Jupiter (can't remember which one):screwy::P

These guys and their followers are certifiable, if they truly believe this in this rubbish and think that science has the proof for their delusions.

Outbackmanyep
05-10-2010, 12:30 PM
MAN! Are they missing a chromosome or what?

Jarvamundo
05-10-2010, 01:37 PM
EU's hypothesis is that the electrical environment, particularly the current that is being received by the body, in this case the star or system determines. There is no claim that all binary systems are pulsars.

You are mixing standard with EU to intentionally or unintentionally, create confusion?



Again here we are mixing standards model of stars with the EU hypothesis. Many of the components are not interchangeable and will lead to this confusion.


As above, this is not proposed. Red herring.


Real neutron stars? This is the science of reification of a model.

Neutron stars are an adhock invention, beyond experimental stability.



Again complete misunderstanding of the ES model, they are not interchangeable like this.



These are only models tho Carl. The many failures of the convection models is what the EU hypothesis seeks to address.

ie.. "The Coronal Heating Problem", "The Neutrino Flux Problem" etc.




1) Crater chains are an experimentally verified action of EDM. Lab-Verified Fact.

2) Yes it is a different, or extended hypothesis, although EU is not exclusive of all impacts.... it is an extension that provides a mechanism for many anomalies.

Why not explore these differences and anomalies?

Jarvamundo
05-10-2010, 01:51 PM
Quite correct there Steven. I should've included "25% of C at the surface of the hypothesized equator of this hypothetical star"? This would be a tangental.

But i think you see where we are going with this. None the less a valid clarification there.

"Postulating this theory as an explanation for observed pulsar emissions is far less of a stretch of one's sense of reality than proposing that an incredibly massive star rotates with the speed of a dentist's drill. Healy & Peratt"

So xray pulsars are up to what now? 20,000+... 60,000 RPM? cmon.

renormalised
05-10-2010, 01:51 PM
The only one confused here is you, Alex. I haven't "mixed" anything.



You need to read your mentor's work again, carefully. As I said previously, it's you who is confused.



Scott states that the pulsar mechanism is due to interactions of close binary systems of stars....what do you think a spectroscopic binary is?? Swiss cheese??!!!. Go and learn your basic astronomy before you go making comments like you have, otherwise you're going to get shot down every time.



Once again, Alex, go learn your basic astronomy first, then go learn some physics before you make comment on neutron stars. You have no idea of what you're talking about....I doubt you actually no very much astronomy at all, let alone the physics you need to understand it well enough to be able to comprehend it.



What failures?? Coronal heating and neutrino flux have little to do directly with convection currents within stars. One's an EM problem and the other is nuclear. Like I said, Alex, go read the textbooks, you might actually learn some real science instead of falling for the rubbish you seem to believe in, which is only appealing to your own ignorance in order to satisfy it.

Jarvamundo
05-10-2010, 02:38 PM
With the Electric Star model (Jeurgens), the star is 'powered' by an external current.

Thornhill/Scott theorize that a resonant relaxation oscillator (capacitor, resistor, discharge) circuit exists to extend the ES model to pulsars.

It's pretty simple to then work out this hypothesis is dependent many components including the electric current being delivered to the body(ies), along with an coupling of the two charged bodies.

Peratt's model also mentions that this oscillation *may* be powered by an external current, this is also consistent with the ES hypothesis.

So from this...
1) We do not *have* to have a binary system, although yes having 2 stars containing their own capacitive environments linked by a discharge medium would seem logical.
2) the electrical environment, particularly the size and plasma state of the body is critical.... ie think is this star experiencing a shift up, or down in current.
3) the mechanics may also play a part

To dance in and out of standards frozen in magnetic field models and MHD models of 'bodies', confuses much of what ES and EU is getting at with electrodynamics with an external source. Yes you can 'shoot it down' with mainstream models... but it's just not all that relevant to the ES theory, since it's an entirely different paradigm.

renormalised
05-10-2010, 02:49 PM
I've also mentioned all the other ideas of Scott and Perrat et al, so you can't get away with that. It doesn't matter what paradigm it is Alex, you're trying to skip around the crux of the matter and it's not working.

Scott's and Perrat's ideas don't stand up to scrutiny nor do they stand up to any measurable evidence, observational and/or theoretical. Scott's ideas are completely proposterous. Do the maths and look at the observational evidence and theory. They don't stack up at all.

CraigS
05-10-2010, 03:09 PM
Alex;

It seems that all of these models are all very much under construction.

They do have some historical basis however, most of this information seems to be superseded by now available (space bound) measurements.

You refer to models, but a model must be documented. So far, those I've looked at are outdated.

To discuss these matters requires focus and knowledge of the models. Very difficult to achieve when we can't find things like circuit diags etc, for the relaxation oscillators etc.

If the models only exist in online articles and youtubes, how can we grasp the basics underpinning them ?

Cheers

sjastro
05-10-2010, 03:19 PM
Let's put tangential velocity in the correct perspective.
First of all it represents the velocity of a single point on the circumference of a circle. If your angular velocity is constant then the tangential velocity is purely a function of the radius of the circle.
Increase the radius and you increase the tangential velocity. There is no force parallel to the direction of the tangent and no expenditure of further energy.
In fact one can exceed C by simply increasing the radius.
This forms the basis of the lighthouse thought experiment.



There is nothing incredulous about this at all.

A neutron star represents a state change. Initially neutron stars existed as massive supergiants that went supernova. Angular momentum is still conserved from going from state A to state B. Since neutron stars are much smaller and have less mass than the pregenitor stars, the angular velocity must increase substantially in order for angular momentum to be conserved.

Regards

Steven

renormalised
05-10-2010, 03:27 PM
The basics underpinning them are faulty to begin with. What we have here is a bunch of electrical engineers trying to paste their "black box" circuitry and electrical theory onto astrophysical processes without any clue as to how these astrophysical processes actually work or in what context they are found. YouTube vidoes and such are not an answer to anyone's questions. All they are is a diversion from the reality of the problem, in order to hide the truth of their ignorance. They offer little in the way of answers and are nothing more than propaganda. A way of selling their books on the subject, which is the real reason behind all these sites.

Promulgating their trash is just an ends to a means.

renormalised
05-10-2010, 03:30 PM
Precisely Steven, but I doubt Alex will understand what you wrote, or won't bother to try to because he'll come out with his usual arguments to the "contrary".

It's what I asked him to think about on, earlier in this thread. Seems my suggestion has fallen on deaf ears.

CraigS
05-10-2010, 03:31 PM
I think the objection they have on this one is how does the neutron stay intact at these rotational velocities …

Cheers

sjastro
05-10-2010, 03:51 PM
The rotational velocity is totally insignificant compared to why the supernova core isn't oblitered due to the negative pressure effects of the Pauli exclusion principle (some very serious QM here). It shows that gravity even defeats QM.:)

Steven

renormalised
05-10-2010, 04:00 PM
For an object to fly apart, it must reach the breakup velocity (due to centrifugal motion) that will overcome both the force of gravity on the object and the stiffness of the material it's made out of. Simple, back of the envelope calculations will show you that the despite the high velocities exhibited by the rotation of neutron stars, the force of gravity of these stars, alone, is sufficient to keep them from flying apart...let alone the stiffness of the material they're made out of. If it was easy to write the equations down in these posts, I would, and you could the calculations yourself, but these forums don't allow you to write the equations (except for simple ones) very easily.

renormalised
05-10-2010, 04:03 PM
That as well....the neutron degeneracy pressure, all things being equal, would cause the neutron star to fly apart explosively...and with greater force than the original supernova explosion!!!!. That it doesn't is a testament to the gravity holding the star together (and it's also the reason why the star is as compact as it is).

Outbackmanyep
05-10-2010, 04:03 PM
EDM? Give me an example of EDM on a large scale that has been verified as being the result of EDM?

Again, you can't just scale-up a lab experiment!
Just because you got some pits to form in a lab does not mean that crater chains can form that way on a large scale! You're talking many tens to hundreds of kilometres in diameter....what size current are you saying can form a crater hundreds of kilometres in diameter?

I found this:
"The similarity between craters on cosmic bodies and craters in the lab does not prove that the craters seen in space were created by electric arcs."

here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/120707electriccraters.htm

along with this:
"The shallow craters in Dr. Ransom's experiments above have interesting parallels in cratering experiments undertaken by Zane Parker, using nothing more than dust on an electrified CRT screen."

Dust on a CRT screen, the scale is obviously tiny!

Well i have seen craters formed by "Antlions" but i don't go in and say that Hyperion must be full of Antlions because i have a photo of some i found in a field and that is fact, so therefore everything that 'looks like' something else must be!

Puhleeeease!

Jarvamundo
05-10-2010, 05:17 PM
OutbackManyEp... The antlions do not match the photographs of comets / plantary "crater chains". Plasma EDM does.

Yes the scales are different. Do you have a point here?

"Again, you can't just scale-up a lab experiment!"

You ofcourse do know that similar experiments, using compressed air canon projectiles impacted on soft material, were used to determine possibilities of impact craters on the moon, prior to apollo investigations?

renormalised
05-10-2010, 05:27 PM
All they did with these experiments, Alex, was "simulate" the craters...then they went and verified what formed them. It wasn't massive electrical discharges:P

There's no evidence, anywhere, showing that craters are formed from massive electrical discharges, no matter what your lab experiments say.

What is your real life evidence....apart from a few pits burnt into a metal or glass surface by a plasma arc torch:P

Go to Meteor Crater, in Arizona, and you dig me up the irrefutable evidence for a plasma arc discharge, and I'll change my mind. How's that.

You impress me with your geological knowledge and understanding of impact crater physics and I'll sit here and listen to what you have to say.

Write up a paper and have it published.

Jarvamundo
05-10-2010, 06:03 PM
How did they verify the crater chains were actually formed by impacts?

Were they filmed? No
Did they find buried meteors in the crater chains? No
Did they kinda look like crater chains? well maybe...
Does this exclude plasma EDM? no

Again EU does not exclude impacts, EU is an extension of some of the anomalies that impact theory and erosion does not cater for.



Eye witness verified evidence of EDM in nature: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_universo/electricuniverse34.jpg
Example of a powerful lightning strike at Baker, Florida in 1949. It furrowed the infield for 40 feet during a baseball game, killing 3 players and injuring 50 others. The more sinuous path taken by the lightning can be seen as a smaller trench in the bottom of the furrow. National Geographic, June 1950, p.827

So now we have:
Lab verfied small scale 10-20mm: check
Larger verified 10-20m scale: check

Is it extraordinary to scale to 1000m?

well this evidence suggests not.

bojan
05-10-2010, 07:17 PM
I am still waiting for this "relaxation oscillator" model Alex..
Instead of fooling around with others, how about fulfilling your promise loooong time ago?

CraigS
05-10-2010, 07:23 PM
Hi Bojan;
I've put in a request on your behalf on the 'Mars' thread.

cheers

renormalised
05-10-2010, 07:24 PM
I'm talking about any craters, chain or otherwise. If you knew anything about impact cratering, you'd also know that most impactors vapourise upon impact or breakup into millions of pieces. Your chances of finding any debris from the impactor is rather small. When you do find it, it's usually small spherules and pieces at distance from the impact site, usually in the ejecta blanket. Those that leave substantial pieces have been slowed down considerably by atmospheric friction before they hit, and are usually small bolides. They either fracture upon impact or just above the ground.

Where is the evidence for EDM?? Where are the effects of plasma discharge upon the various rocktypes, where are the structural, geochemical and other changes which will occur in such circumstances?? Where is the identifying geology?? There isn't any. Have you actually seen a fulgerite at all, Alex?? Seen the physical changes to rocks and soil caused by a lightning strike?? I have Alex. I've also studied what happens when a plasma discharge (lightning for instance) hits geology. There is nothing like impact cratering caused by plasma discharges. As a matter of fact, some rocks actually act as insulators to electrical strikes and most spall out over their surfaces. The only way a plasma discharge normally travels any distance within large bodies of rock is to travel down paths of least resistance....faults and fractures in the rock, or if it's porous, or has some electrical permittivity itself. If you knew anything about how electricity flows through soils, you'd know a little about resistivity and soil characteristics which allow electrical discharges to flow through soils and why some are less resistant than others. The movement of electrical discharges through soil has everything to do with soil minerals and chemistry, the degree of porosity of the soils, density of the soils, the moisture content of the soils, as well as the characteristics of the lightning/plasma discharge that allow it to travel through the soil. Your little article from National Geographic is no evidence at all of anything to do with impact cratering. All it's evidence of is the effect of a plasma discharge in soils...nothing that scientist don't already know about, including geologists.

As for the scaling, there is no evidence for scaling up from anything that can be observationally verified. Nor is there any evidence in the geological (or any other record) for plasma discharges on the scale that the EU propose (or espouse). As a matter of fact, if there was, the evidence would still be quite readily evident, especially for events that only occurred within the racial memory of mankind (as Talbott and Thornhill, etc, propose). You wouldn't need myths to verify any of the occurrences. So, where is your evidence, Alex??

renormalised
05-10-2010, 07:27 PM
You most likely won't get it.

CraigS
05-10-2010, 07:29 PM
Carl;

I've asked Alex to read your dissertation on neutrons/pulsars and comment. I hope he does. We'll see.

Cheers

renormalised
05-10-2010, 07:38 PM
He'll dismiss it. No matter what I say, I don't know what I'm talking about. Nor does Steven, or anyone else or any scientist that disagrees with their mindset. You only have to look at the way they talked about some of them over at Thunderbolts, or even about some of us (Les, especially).

They have all the answers (according to Alex and the others over there).

Outbackmanyep
06-10-2010, 09:22 AM
Im still waiting for an example of EDM

CraigS
06-10-2010, 01:17 PM
For Bojan (& other interested parties, of course :) ) .. and for the record .. here's copy of a post I just made on the 'Peratt' thread ...

I may have misjudged the Relaxation Oscillator thingy also.

Alex forwarded us a paper which contained a model of transmission lines.

What's that got to do with a Relaxation Oscillator ? I asked.

Apparently what they're saying is that a pulse entered into that system bounces up and down the transmission line (like what caused power blackouts in the Northern US). The pulse continues bouncing back and forth between impedance boundaries simulated by the combination of modelled elements in the transmission circuit model. This then, starts to emulate the behaviour of a Relaxation Oscillator. Mind you, each time the pulse rebounds, it loses energy and eventually dies out due to losses in the transmission line media.

I'll have to re-read the Peratt/Healy paper again on this one.

This post should also be on our 'Primordial Magnetic Fields' thread. I might copy it over there, for the record (& for Bojan & anyone to shoot me down on this .. be gentle .. I'm 'finely' balanced :) )

.. I'm not saying that any of this makes sense, yet .. I'm just seeing that there may be a lot of miscommunication going on as the Electrical speak comes together with AstroPhysics .. not of our making .. it's up to the PC authors to have explained all this much more clearly .. and they haven't.

Cheers

bojan
06-10-2010, 02:21 PM
You didn't misjudge anything.

For an 'oscillator' to be called an oscillator, you have to have amplifier and feedback.
The feedback must be of such a nature, that the 'open loop gain' is bigger than 1 (one), and the phase is close to 0° (or 360°)
If you don't have those elements. you don't have an oscillator.
Now, gain means, there must be an input of power from somewhere (even internal power source will do) to sustain oscillations, otherwise, as you pointed out, they will stop after couple od periods, sometimes even sooner (as in case of relaxation oscillator .. which, BTW, doesn't have frequency selective circuit, like transmission line.. it has TWO amplifiers, for phase shift of 180° each).
ANY model of the pulsar must firstly explain the unusual frequency stability - as we (RF electronics engineers) know, oscillators are very unstable circuits in terms of frequency, especially when Q factor of the circuit goes low (high losses in the circuit... which is radiation of energy in any form from the system).

As I said before, and I am repeating now, in Peratt's there is NOTHING that looks like an oscillator.
It is more like very crude and simplified equivalent circuit that tries to model currents in ionised environment over large distances (up to couple of hundreds of thousands kilometres.. to explain relatively low pulse repetition rate - milliseconds to seconds).
The only thing that looks like active element is that variable resistor... but there is no feedback path.. and energy source is not determined.
If I were the teacher in high school, noone with paper like this would pass the exam as far as I am concerned.

CraigS
06-10-2010, 02:55 PM
Hmm

This is tricky .. not what Bojan has said (totally agree with him), but the mish mash of information before us.

There are two circuit diagrams in two separate papers.

The first one (Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres, 1995) shows a transmission line model (Fig #6). This is the crude model used by Healy & Peratt to 'emulate' the signals emitted by a pulsar.

The second circuit diagram (called Figure #7), in the 'Advances' paper, 1998 (I believe), shows a generic model of a space plasma problem .. in this case, the flow of Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere/ionosphere. I can see a variable resistor in this one .. and a big EMF (potential difference source) ... 10e4 to 10e5 volts.

Neither is what you'd call a relaxation oscillator (for reasons Bojan has made clear).

Scott's lecture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBc6Owps9pY) on Youtube at the 8:30 mark refers to paper #1 (1995) above. In his lecture he mentions the reflected wave on a transmission line and then talks about how easy it is to recreate a relaxation oscillator in the lab. He highly recommends the 1995 paper. He says the paper provides simulations of "17 of the known properties of Pulsars". He flips between using the term "Relaxation Oscillator", and the transmission line model, with pulses injected into it.

The implication being that this is THE Relaxation Oscillator model.
If it is THE Relaxtion Model for Pulsars, then it does not demonstrate Relaxation Model characteristics, so I still don't understand the analogy, in modelling terms.

Just wanting to get this clear ..in spite of the poor written and lecture communications by Peratt, Healy and Scott.

Cheers & Rgds.
PS: In Scott's lecture, his slides say: "Stable frequencies in trapped-ion clocks are equal to the observed outputs from pulsars" .. and .. "Plasma transmission lines from one location on a star to another - or between members of a closely spaced binary pair can easily produce these oscillations".

bojan
06-10-2010, 03:44 PM
I would like to see Alex's explanation of that "easy".

CraigS
06-10-2010, 03:57 PM
Well .. the language in the slide sets that scene ..


;)
:)
Cheers

bojan
06-10-2010, 04:04 PM
Which is pure speculation.

CraigS
06-10-2010, 04:10 PM
Until we see more on this .. 'Yes'.

Cheers

Jarvamundo
06-10-2010, 09:42 PM
keep it in the peratt thread?

CraigS
07-10-2010, 09:23 AM
Nice try … & clever, Alex ..

The other thread doesn't contain the last six posts of this thread .. which serve to weaken the Relaxation Oscillator hypothesis/model down to speculation.

This post is just to denote that .. for continuity's sake.

I could make the same post on the other thread .. but I've lost interest in such games. If it becomes necessary, I'll reference back to this post.

Cheers