Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I'm not sure I understand how anyone (let alone EU), can claim this either. That's one of the things driving me in all of this, I guess.
I'm also not convinced that Peratt has generalised relativistic plasmas everywhere. He does make effort to separate the different types of 'plasmas' which may be hypothesised to exist in different places at different densities, at different energies. He says their characteristics are different and thus, so too, should be the detection methods.
The second paper (not yet discussed herein) shows the outputs of his simulations and he appears to have created double spirals in his simulations. How he's done this, I haven't read up on yet.
It is difficult reading as he jumps into and out of high relativistic plasmas very frequently. This could have lead to confusion and may have given rise to the entire EU camp. Sloppy science writing, creates a problem for mainstream science .. (perhaps). If this is the case, you get to be right again, Carl, as you have already said this .. many times over.
Cheers |
You mean the claim of the Birkeland currents etc.
He makes an effort to separate the different types of plasma but then makes generalisations about what a plasma is...he is including "dusty" plasmas, neutral HI regions etc. Even the free electrons in a conductor, he is calling a plasma. Where do you stop?? Do you call superconductors a plasma??
Double spiral systems can be simulated and created in many different types of systems and situations...you can create one just by pulling the plug out of your sink after washing up. That doesn't mean that particular version is applicable to the formation of spiral galaxies. Neither does his simulations of plasma double spirals. The mathematics describing each system may have much in common and produce the same results, but the causative mechanisms do not.