Mars - A Planet of a Thousand Mysteries

[CraigS]

Alex;

Thanks for your reply.

The 'gap' I speak about followed two huge posts by Carl about neutron stars/pulsars the other day. His 'thesis' covered many detailed aspects of mainstream theory and there seemed to be no feedback (or equivalent) points coming from EU/PC. In my mind those gaps still exist.

If we change tack and go back to martian geology, I can see we're heading back to exactly the same place (except topic = Mars) and making no progress (again).

Bojan is still hangin' for his relaxation oscillator … ??

Cheers
PS: Weird stuff happening here with the board.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Bojan is still hangin' for his relaxation oscillator … ??

Did he not get Peratts paper? I saw this was discussed... or did we want to explore Scott/Thornhill.... i'm not sure if a detailed paper has been developed on this? Will have a dig... Ofcourse qualitatively it's quite simple to produce the relaxation oscillator... but yes... lets try stick to topics... I'll try jump over to Carl's detail and respond...

Re Weird stuff... I saw and read Carl's demand that i leave IIS... happy to dig up cache... or maybe you could repost Carl if anything worthwhile was in it?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Bojan is still hangin' for his relaxation oscillator … ??

Did he not get Peratts paper? I saw this was discussed…

No relaxation oscillator has been sighted in any Peratt paper. What we saw was a transmission line model for the 'ropes'.

or did we want to explore Scott/Thornhill.... i'm not sure if a detailed paper has been developed on this? Will have a dig… Of course qualitatively it's quite simple to produce the relaxation oscillator... but yes…

DOes this mean you'll keep looking for it ? I'm interested, also.
I've seen the PEratt circuit diag for the Sun/Earth 'circuit'. 'Twas interesting. The values of the components may be a little overstated.

lets try stick to topics... I'll try jump over to Carl's detail and respond...

Re Weird stuff... I saw and read Carl's demand that i leave IIS... happy to dig up cache... or maybe you could repost Carl if anything worthwhile was in it?

OK. Thanks. Not getting into that one. I think IIS needs an 'Alternatives' Forum to discuss models in the making. 'Twould go some way to avoiding the angst.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

OK. Thanks. Not getting into that one. I think IIS needs an 'Alternatives' Forum to discuss models in the making. 'Twould go some way to avoiding the angst.

Cheers

Thats on the edge of a white flag for rigorous discussion, i think you, sj and carl by this discussion have raised some great questions. Apart from the sledging and name calling ofcourse. irrelevant water off a ducks bum.

And...we'd kinda have to put DM, DE, etc in the "developing science" category though yeah? since well they are only extremely detailed hypothetical mathematical models, without any physical evidence.

I'm happy for an alternatives forum, only if we call this one Big Bang Standard Model Exclusive Cosmology or something like that. Since these EU/PC hypothesis' are being examined by NASA (see Don Scott @ NASA Goddard), and contain peer reviewed science papers we cannot seem dismiss them as 'crackpot'.

I guess i'm puzzled as to how science progresses functions without alternatives.... as i think we also have Malcom alluding to here.

I agree, It does seem that the 'alternatives' to create some angst here. We should not be afraid of rigorous discussion and dismiss potential ideas, i feel this is a dangerous and insulating way for science to progress.

anyways.. /end rant... back to mars!

No relaxation oscillator has been sighted in any Peratt paper. What we saw was a transmission line model for the 'ropes'.

If i remember correctly an external current was hypothesised to provide for this... Yes i will endevour to dig up more on ES-pulsars. Don Scott recently released the mathematical electrical model of the Sun's electric field, interestingly i think Bridgeman had mentioned he had apparently 'tried in vein to achieve'. You are quite correct, with only a handful of theorists, this is a quantitatively developing model, although qualitatively very different to MS with clear differences.

[ngcles]

Hi Alex,

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Contrare Les, you are often blunt and direct and rarely provide any meaningful detail to your bow-shots.

Well I'd invite you to take a look at a larger variety of my posts here.

You are fortunate Alex that Carl has the time, forebearance and patience to argue with and correct you. While I have a great deal of respect for Carl, it is not my approach here to dealing with E.U "theory".

As I see it, if I spend the time to argue with you I am giving this stuff a hint of respectability and legitimacy as a "competing theory" or "alternate explanation". I am dismissive with E.U on-purpose for that reason alone. It's not you Alex, it's what you are saying. I do the same with the Planet X / Nibiru proponents. I have an open mind, but it isn't open so far that my brains have fallen out.

And that leads me to recall an exchange between Arthur and Bedevere as they ride toward Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

Bedevere: "... and that my liege is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped."

Arthur: "This new learning amazes me Bedevere, explain once more how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."

Bedevere: "Certainly my liege!"


Best,

Les D

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

Hi Alex,



Well I'd invite you to take a look at a larger variety of my posts here.

You are fortunate Alex that Carl has the time, forebearance and patience to argue with and correct you. While I have a great deal of respect for Carl, it is not my approach here to dealing with E.U "theory".

As I see it, if I spend the time to argue with you I am giving this stuff a hint of respectability and legitimacy as a "competing theory" or "alternate explanation". I am dismissive with E.U on-purpose for that reason alone. It's not you Alex, it's what you are saying. I do the same with the Planet X / Nibiru proponents. I have an open mind, but it isn't open so far that my brains have fallen out.

And that leads me to recall an exchange between Arthur and Bedevere as they ride toward Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

Bedevere: "... and that my liege is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped."

Arthur: "This new learning amazes me Bedevere, explain once more how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."

Bedevere: "Certainly my liege!"


Best,

Les D

Yep... More of the same...

EU is being discussed at NASA and contains a body peer reviewed papers in well respected journals.... doesn't means it's correct, but it is being seriously considered....

If this does not 'concern' you why make the comment? and then allude to a connection to 'planet-x' theory and Monty python skits to dismiss? All due respect, this response is irrelevant misleading nonsense Lez.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Thats on the edge of a white flag for rigorous discussion,

Don't get carried away there, Alex … I'll probably get 'lynched' tomorrow !!

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Don't get carried away there, Alex … I'll probably get 'lynched' tomorrow !!

haha... it's a loud growl... peel it back, it reveals to not much of a bite..

kudos for your spirit though... i agree with much of your direction and insightful questions.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

haha... it's a loud growl... peel it back, it reveals to not much of a bite..

kudos for your spirit though... i agree with much of your direction and insightful questions.

I'll be clear for all ..

I'm here to learn. It started out to learn about mainstream science/ astronomy.

I can still achieve this goal by looking into your world to learn more about mainstream. (All without my brains dropping out .. I think …).

I have nothing to hide .. everyone has it all !!

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Yep... More of the same...

EU is being discussed at NASA and contains a body peer reviewed papers in well respected journals.... doesn't means it's correct, but it is being seriously considered....

If this does not 'concern' you why make the comment? and then allude to a connection to 'planet-x' theory and Monty python skits to dismiss? All due respect, this response is irrelevant misleading nonsense Lez.

The EU is not being discussed at NASA....Plasma Physics is, Alex. The EU only hijacked PC (plasma cosmology) for it's own purposes, it never originated it, nor has it helped the cause of PC in any way by espousing the nonsense that it has. As for the "respectable journals", it's mostly been published in journals that only IEEE members (electrical and electronic engineers....not astrophysicists and other astronomers and physicists) read, and where something is mentioned in the astronomical journals, it's been in journals with lax peer review standards and low citation indices (which means the quality of the science in those journals isn't as stringent or well regarded as with other journals).

The fact that Les was cynically commenting on what you have written is only a reflection of what you have written.

[sjastro]

Craig,

You should have a look at the list you recently compiled for how pseudoscience operates and note how this thread has been patterned on those principles.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Craig,

You should have a look at the list you recently compiled for how pseudoscience operates and note how this thread has been patterned on those principles.

Regards

Steven

Do you mean this one ? ..

Updated list of Pseudoscience distinctions (ie: ways of detecting pseudoscience):

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Recitation of conspiracy theories against science. (Eg: the peer review process being a "boys club");
(4) No evidence of ever having gone through 'Peer Review' and announcements made in mainstream media, before journal publication.
(5) Fudged tests or data: No signs of data, which may be used to disprove the theory.

I think this was the last revision ..

Hmm

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Do you mean this one ? ..

Updated list of Pseudoscience distinctions (ie: ways of detecting pseudoscience):

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Recitation of conspiracy theories against science. (Eg: the peer review process being a "boys club");
(4) No evidence of ever having gone through 'Peer Review' and announcements made in mainstream media, before journal publication.
(5) Fudged tests or data: No signs of data, which may be used to disprove the theory.

I think this was the last revision ..

Hmm

Cheers

That's correct. Note the none too subtle application of (1).

Steven

[CraigS]

Ok .. I've done some more thinking on all this .. there is clear evidence of pseudoscience.

There is also evidence of legitimate research in some of the links posted by Alex. (Not all .. just some).

I've just watched Don Scott's Youtubes (Alex's NASA link).

Scott's point he makes in this lecture is fairly innocuous. All he's saying (presumably, to mainstream AstroPhysicists), is 'try this on'.

Frankly, I can't see much wrong with this. Perhaps as the situation becomes more agitated, people revert to the extreme fringes in order to defend. This is just human nature .. nothing more.

The lack of maturity of the legitimate research when applying Plasma Physics to AstroPhysics could in fact be, the result of just what they claim .. that the concepts are rejected outright, without a lot of deliberation by those who reject it outright.

I'm not saying that legit scientists like Plait, Wright, etc aren't considering their ideas, but where it seems to fall apart is the lack of a track record of real supporting evidence in the cosmos, and the scalability of lab simulations.

But to use a recent example from here .. habitable zones/exoplanet life thread. It turns out that the search for life is driven purely from a 'matter of faith' motivator. There is no real evidence to drive the search. All these guys are asking for is a 'little faith' and support.

Is this so bad ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ok .. I've done some more thinking on all this .. there is clear evidence of pseudoscience.

There is also evidence of legitimate research in some of the links posted by Alex. (Not all .. just some).

I've just watched Don Scott's Youtubes (Alex's NASA link).

Scott's point he makes in this lecture is fairly innocuous. All he's saying (presumably, to mainstream AstroPhysicists), is 'try this on'.

Frankly, I can't see much wrong with this. Perhaps as the situation becomes more agitated, people revert to the extreme fringes in order to defend. This is just human nature .. nothing more.

The lack of maturity of the legitimate research when applying Plasma Physics to AstroPhysics could in fact be, the result of just what they claim .. that the concepts are rejected outright, without a lot of deliberation by those who reject it outright.

I'm not saying that legit scientists like Plait, Wright, etc aren't considering their ideas, but where it seems to fall apart is the lack of a track record of real supporting evidence in the cosmos, and the scalability of lab simulations.

But to use a recent example from here .. habitable zones/exoplanet life thread. It turns out that the search for life is driven purely from a 'matter of faith' motivator. There is no real evidence to drive the search. All these guys are asking for is a 'little faith' and support.

Is this so bad ?

Cheers

Scott would have to be careful about what he said at NASA, simply because if he started to propose to them most of his ideas, he'd be shown the door. The simple fact he toned it down, and that he is a credentialed electrical engineer allowed him to get away with a few small things.

The reason why scientists get narky about this stuff is exactly for the sames reasons we do. These people propose theories, which have little or no verifiable evidence, science that is ambiguous at best and fraudulent at worst, and the temerity to come out and spin their nonsense as being legitimate science. Then when you ask them for the proof and evidence, they get either defensive about it or run a mile to avoid having to answer for themselves. That's why most scientists don't even bother with them.

The "results" they come out with are rejected on the basis of their science content and its veracity. Regardless of any shortcomings of the peer review system, it's far better to have at least some sort of control over what is considered to be good science than having it an open door policy to every nutcase and bad idea that gets bandied about. I think it was Carl Sagan (or someone equally as famous) that once said "It's always good to keep an open mind, but not that open it becomes a sewer". Otherwise, keep open to new ideas and such, but don't believe everything that comes out, without having a critical and logical appraisal of what it is you're considering.

The HZ/Life search may have an element of "faith" about it, but it's hardly not a highly thought out and considered subject. Despite the fact we only really have one example, these guys aren't silly and they do know this. Actually, I feel they're not doing too bad a job at the science, despite the limitations and the obvious speculative nature of the subject.

They could do better, though

[CraigS]

Er .. the 'guys' I'm referring to would be the PC guys.

I was attempting to draw analogy from 'the search for life' clan. Sorry if my words weren't clear on this point.

Interesting analogy though … is SETI more credible than Alven, Peratt/Healy and/or Scott ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Far more....at least it's based on clear and good science, even if it is considered by some to be fringe.

You mentioned Scott and Co.

The only legitimate research in some of Alex's posts would be due to Perrat and others having their papers published in journals, where some of those papers were topics in but not exclusively dealing with PC. Or papers not directly connected with their ideas (Arp's papers etc), but used to "back" them up.

[xelasnave]

Mars is such an interesting planet as it offers the opportunity of debate on such unrelated matters.

You guys are not being very cool.

If a matter is science is can be called such..if a matter is speculation it can be called such.... and if we follow this simple principle folk should not have to get personal.

I live in a community where some folk believe in the most ridiculous things and yet I am polite and never rude or condescending and with such an approach I enjoy the companionship of many people with different views who still turn out to be decent folk.

If either of the Universes seeking domination are to have any cred then look up the areas of current concern in physics..sun's corona etc and go for it ..solve those problems with the t3eachings of your universe against all others...do some real stuff and answer the big questions but if that is too hard at least try to operate with respect for the individual without denigration of their character.

Sorry for getting off topic but this arguing without result is pointless.

Irrespective of which universe you like to support and irrespective of the science one can enlist the truth is humans know very little as they are confined to a very small part of the universe and can only ever speculate upon matters they profess to have absolute understanding upon... such conduct is arrogance and is best avoided if one wishes to be a decent person.


alex

[Outbackmanyep]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Speaking of which, OutbackManyEP (if you are out there)... do we have a standard-explanation for how a sublimating dirty snowball can form spikey pinnacles hundreds of meters high on it's surface? .... waiting.

I am here Alex.

Why not have a read:
http://www.astrochem.org/docs/Brownl...4)-Science.pdf

Show me where it says anything about "spikey pinnacles hundreds of meters high" ?

[Octane (Humayun)]

Alex (as in xelasnave),

Your post is all well and good, but, this is the science forum, not the pseudoscience forum.

H