Quasar Time Dilation

[bojan]

They are not.

And I am still waiting for schematic ...

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Power source, capacitor bank, spark gap? seems pretty stable to me?
Wave reflections on plasma 'flux toobs'?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

It is only with this natural philosophy of real things can we be reasonably confident we are describing actual reality. Science must lead mathematics, in astro i tend to feel we have it the other way.

And do you agree that mathematics encompasses the logic which ensures that we are describing the physical world, free of human interpretation ?

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

the model is this:

Scott says: “As I see it, [variable] binaries operate generally as follows: Each of the stars has an electrical capacitance. These two capacitances are permanently connected by a plasma (cloud). This plasma exhibits (as do all plasmas) a nonlinear resistance. If one of the stars charges up to a high enough voltage ... , then the plasma will go into the arc mode and emit brilliant light, perhaps x-rays and gamma-rays. Electrical energy will be transferred from the first capacitor (star) to the other. It doesn't make any difference which star is bigger.
“The "bridge" between the two stars probably doesn't go away. After the arc discharge is over (the voltage difference between the two capacitors is dissipated), the plasma bridge goes back into its normal glow or dark current mode and waits for the next discharge.”

now is this oscillation linked to mechanics... interesting question bojan, i feel capacities of the bodies and distance and available plasma to be the dominant variables.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

And do you agree that mathematics encompasses the logic which ensures that we are describing the physical world, free of human interpretation ?

Cheers

That is a great sales pitch... but really...Free of human interpretation? Is this not exactly what point-particles and probability clouds are?

I'm concerned that the underlying nature might be ignored or missed by applying man's maths.

Was it Einstein that said God doesn't play dice?

Mathematical tools are averaging tools, often very handy at covering detail, yes for the benefit of mans quick modeling.... but is this maths really free of human interpretation? are we not applying it to nature?

You have described the math's leading science paradigm, that seems to be prevalent today.

We should not forget that mathematics can describe any amount of realities. Repeatable experiment only 1. Of theory and empiricism, the choice is always the latter..... unless we are happy to settle for paradoxes.

and why we continue to throw billions at gravity-wave antennas for things that 'must be there', are we expecting a result that is free of human interpretation.

what was einteins quote of insanity.... (gee even i'm quoting einstein alot here).

proceed with humility fellow explorer

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

What do you propose causes the magnetic fields Gaensler and many other teams are mapping?

Since plasma dominates the inter-stellar regions of space, would it be a giant leap to conclude it is an electric current? Is this not well the simplest of Maxwell... ? one and the same? Are you proposing bar magnets? Gaensler certainly is not.

Gaensler is ofcourse not proposing an externally powered sun, or Alfven like galactic system, his work (to my knowledge) is focusing on a dynamo style theory, unfortunately the issue of where the seed current (or m-field) comes from.

Either way, Gaenslers work and others are reporting... the magnetic fields, and there for large currents (since they are one an the same) are there, awaiting explanation.

Where do these fields come from??

Well, whilst they're not certain as to where the original field in the galaxies came from (although there are ideas....namely a primordial field generated by the first stars and such, as well as a dynamo generated by the flowing ionised gases), the field of the galaxies are generated from several sources...namely photo-ionisation and shock waves traveling through the ISM (from supernovae, stellar winds of various kinds and other sources). They basically ionise all the gas that's present and electrifies the dust grains through the photoelectric effect. That generates the magnetic field. The fields themselves are pitifully weak...on the order on 10 nanotesla on the average!!!. Well, that's some 50000 times less intense than the earth's own field. The fact that these field are present in the spiral arms is no big deal....that's where much of the ionised gases and dust are, where most of the supernovae occur and where nearly all the massive stars which are able to ionise the ISM through their starlight and stellar winds, etc, are located. But what might also come as a surprise to you and the rest of the EU crowd is that the galaxy doesn't end at the spiral arms. Most of the gas and the stars in the galaxy doesn't even reside in the arms. All the arms are areas of over density...around 10-20% higher than average. The arms are generated by a spiral density wave that the materials within the galaxies move through. The density waves themselves only move slowly through the galaxies or not at all. All those other stars and ionised gases also maintain a very weak field as well. There are no large Birkeland currents traveling through the ISM creating spiral arms or anything else. There maybe electrical currents in the ISM, yes, but nothing of the scale or extent that are being bandied about by the EU fraternity. Nothing of the extent that could effectively confine the gases and dust to spiral arms without generating far more radio waves, synchrotron radiation and bremsstrahlung than what is actually present. And this is just for a start. Plus as has been mentioned before, where is the source of the charge separation and what is maintaining it to be able to generate all these currents?? Especially currents of the extent proposed. What currents are there don't even rate with the currents experienced in interplanetary space or on the planets themselves. There's no comparison.

As I have repeatedly said to you on numerous occasions, I have no problems with plasma physics or it's importance in astrophysics. However, I have a concern where that physics gets taken out of its proper context and used in situations in which there have been little or no observational or theoretical evidence for its existence, or no need for it. Where that happens and claims are made to the contrary, then those claims have to be backed up by extremely solid evidence (not just one or two experiments cited umpteen number of times, as Peratt has.), or otherwise they have no valid basis. That's how science works. If you can't falsify a hypothesis then it was never valid to begin with. It becomes nothing more than speculation.

No, Gaensler never proposed that, but Scott, Peratt and those two Neo Velikovskian twits who wrote "Thunderbolts of the Gods" are. Gaensler wouldn't be so stupid to treat other scientist as fools by proposing that sort of tripe. Plus, he'd make a mockery of his own career and most likely jeopardise it by holding onto notions like this.

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Does this align with PC/EU expectations? Well one simple look at Alfven's circuit and Peratt's simulations makes it kinda obvious. What are the other explanations?


I'll continue to explore mainstreams ideas for pulsars, but we are now hitting 25%c rotation, and other fantastic forms of matter, relaxation oscillators are (to me) a far far simpler explanation, i am more at ease with these ideas. It does require that pulsars occur as binary pairs. The EU pulsar model was a bucket of pennies dropping for me, after years of following the lighthouse theory.... i simply find the RPM involved in these fantastic beacons of light to be to much of a stretch.

Alfven's circuit ideas and Peratt's few simulations have no bearings on what's there in reality. If they did, they would be readily accepted and studied accordingly. However the reasons why they aren't accepted are the fact that their ideas have been tested and found wanting. They may hold for certain situations....with the interplanetary environment, the planets themselves and with certain aspects of astrophysical phenomenon, but they have not been found applicable as a overall general phenomenon to be applied to all situations.

Like I said, Alex, get some textbooks and read them if you want to learn about this. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to. Read the books written by those that have the track records in these fields of astrophysics. They're the ones to learn off if you need to. None of us here have been able to talk any sense to you, so you might as well go to the source and learn from there. As a matter of fact....here....

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...s=astrophysics

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...s=astrophysics

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...s=astrophysics

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...s=astrophysics

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...s=astrophysics

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...+neutron+stars

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...+neutron+stars

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...+neutron+stars

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...+neutron+stars

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...+neutron+stars

There you are....you said you were serious about wanting to find out about mainstream science theories and observations. Here's some books then for you to buy. You may not want to buy all of them, and there are a great many more I could've listed but if you're serious and honest about this, then get the books that you can.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

We have been through this in a prior series of discussions, where we came to a head over inverse Gaussian curvature vs the radius. "the r" in the Schwartzchild solution, which you now admit is not his actual solution?

Where do you come to this stunning conclusion???

Schwartzchild solution is based on the assumption that space-time has a spherical symmetry, so r is a radial measurement. End of argument.

I respectfully. left that discussion still uneasy with the sharp step like event horison of a SMBH. As you continue to point out... "it's the smaller black holes you need to watch out for". If you just stand back from this, it is a bit contradictory (that is without the hilberts derivation imprint).

What has Hilbert got to do with Kerr, given that Hilbert had the termerity for being dead for twenty years when Kerr came up with the metric for rotating black holes?

The discussion revolved around Kerr's metric. Nothing to do with Schwarzchild and nothing to do with Hilbert. Rotating black holes don't even have "real" singularities.
There is no contradiction.

To me it seems, still to this day, un-intuitive for a geometric model, to have a SMBH appear less dangerous than a BH. Granted this is not the basis for Crothers proof, but you just see where my curious-laymen headspace is here.

Of course you don't understand because you are mathematically illiterate.
What is unintuitive to you is straightforward to anyone who understand the maths.

It was after this I discovered the works of Stephen Crothers, so far i have not seen his hypothesis been refuted. Rather he was flown to the German Royal Society to present this, and continues to. You mention that "even an undergraduate can spot his errors".... well why would his PHD professor need to fly to London to consult his Nobel laureate peer? Surely consulting an undergraduate would've been easier?

Anyways it's all irrelevant, i'd be very interested in where you can show Crothers to be wrong, i'm sure he would too?

Let me explain to you without any mathematics.
Einstein's field equations are so difficult that it is not possible to solve from first principles like an algebraic equation or simple ordinary differential equation.
Solving Einstein's equations is done in reverse. You construct a potential solution where the mathematics of the solution are based on certain physical assumptions. You then plug the solution into the field equations to see if it works.

Schwarzchild's solution is based on this principle. One of the physical assumptions made in the Schwarzchild solution is that space-time around a body has a spherical symmetry and r is a radial distance. There is no other way to interpret r.

The other issue is the singularity. Schwarzchild's solution is an example of learning to crawl before you can walk. It represents a simple solution of a non rotating black hole. Non rotating black holes probably don't exist in nature. Rotating black holes despite your protestations do exist without being burdened with singularities.

So it is a moot point to discuss singulariities in nature as the source of the singularities, non rotating black holes probably don't exist.

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Correct - a requirement for the relaxation oscillator hypothesis (for me) was that the shape of the pulse match empirical experience with plasma emissions.

Then we move onto the required speeds.

Again, i just explore these side by side... on pulsars in particular the relaxation hypothesis sits FAR FAR better than super dooper heavy mass whizzing at 25% c.

What happens when it's > 25%C... well we start inventing strange matter stars etc etc...

What about the oscillator model? well bojan will tell you varying the rate upto the GHz is a simple terrestrial experiment.

All one needs to to picture that electrical discharge is taking place between 2 orbiting bodies...

GIANT MAGNETIC LOOP SWEEPS BETWEEN STELLAR PAIR
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=64043


again... question: WHAT IF NOT AN ELECTRIC CURRENT THROUGH PLASMA is causing this magnetic field.

We have birkeland currents powering auroras... (fact, verified by space probes measuring them)

Tell me how many pulsars are found orbiting a partner... ? Granted mainstream has many explanations... just saying during my investigations some far simpler ones appear in PC theory. Not for all... but for pulsars... for me... well it's pretty simple.

Apart from the fact that you need to go back and learn basic physics (ever heard about conservation of angular momentum??), the fact that you've mentioned aurorae and the instance of Algol and it's companion is neither here nor there. I have to tell you again....and again and again and you still don't hear. I...we...have no problems with plasma physics where it's applicable to the situations it is an important factor in. But where there are no observational or theoretical reasons for its influence at all, except for maybe some circumstantial evidence in a few cases, then you have no reason to apply it. This idea that what you see in experiments must apply to all other situations because it applies to some is bad experimental procedure and design. It's also faulty theory. In all of science it has never applied that because you can produce results at one scale that those results must by definition scale upwards to all scales and apply in all situations. That has never been the case, despite what Alfven might've like to think and what yourself and your EU compatriots like to think. Most of you have no training in any science, most haven't even gone beyond senior or in some cases junior high school. And they expect to be able to understand the sciences they like to believe they have some handle on??. It's hard enough for those that actually have the training in those sciences to understand them, let alone for people that have little or no experience at all!!!!. Then to come out and say that those experts don't know what they talking about and castigating them, well that's just going way to far. That is arrogance based entirely on complete ignorance, conceit, jealousy and intellectual hubris.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Thanks Steven and Carl.

Carl, i really cannot understand how you can be absolutely sure that electrical currents do not exist. How are you able to map dark mode plasma current flow? I'm not aware this is well developed?

Plus as has been mentioned before, where is the source of the charge separation and what is maintaining it to be able to generate all these currents??

http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream...pdf?sequence=1

An rf modulated plasma (no generator) is what it may take. Cosmic plasma's have much work to be done, Alfven himself said MHD was insufficient to describe observations, more work still to be done. Lerner and his team, though you may bag em, are developing these models along side their empirical investigations with regard to z-pinch.

Thankyou for acknowledging the role of charge separation in our solar system. The new tools becoming available will shed more light on this, charge separation does exist, it continues to be examined.

Thanks Steven, again looking forward to any rebuke you may offer Crothers on his work. Also a photo of a black hole would also be of use.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

the model is this:

Scott says: “As I see it, [variable] binaries operate generally as follows: Each of the stars has an electrical capacitance. These two capacitances are permanently connected by a plasma (cloud). This plasma exhibits (as do all plasmas) a non-linear resistance. If one of the stars charges up to a high enough voltage ... , then the plasma will go into the arc mode and emit brilliant light, perhaps x-rays and gamma-rays. Electrical energy will be transferred from the first capacitor (star) to the other. It doesn't make any difference which star is bigger.
“The "bridge" between the two stars probably doesn't go away. After the arc discharge is over (the voltage difference between the two capacitors is dissipated), the plasma bridge goes back into its normal glow or dark current mode and waits for the next discharge.”



now is this oscillation linked to mechanics... interesting question bojan, i feel capacities of the bodies and distance and available plasma to be the dominant variables.

This, as described doesn't look like the oscillator to me at all
This guy tried to describe something analogous to oscillator with negative impedance.. but I can't see the mechanism of it at all. How does it work?

To be able to use plasma in oscillator, couple of conditions must be satisfied (mathematics!)
- there must be present a resonant circuit capable of turning the phase of the signal by 180°. That means, you have to have inductance and capacitance in the circuit. If only one of those are present, there are no conditions to start and maintain oscillations (mathematics again, sorry..)
Also, the size of the circuit must be much smaller than the wavelength of the oscillations. Otherwise, the oscillator becomes much more complicated, with distributed parameters - meaning the oscillation frequency (if the conditions for oscillations ate met at all) becomes dependent of the physical size of the system.
- there must be present the suitable source of the energy (OK, lets say there is.. but how does it work?

Now, the "terrestrial" model of this type of oscillator was realised a long time ago by Heinrich Hertz (in his time there were no valves yet, so he used spark as active element - negative impedance) in his circuit to generate short bursts of oscillations..
Tesla used the same for his high voltage experiments.

However, this is not a pulsar. The size of double star system would suggests oscillations with fundamental periods in the range of minutes to
hours - VERY long wavelengths.. not easy to detect at all.
The sparking itself was NOT part of the oscillator - it only provided the very short duration plasma cloud which behaved like negative impedance, but it lasted long enough compared to the period of oscillations (they were in GHz band), so the relatively narrow-band waves of sufficient duration were radiated from his contraption and detected couple of metres away by another resonant circuit.

Also, plasma will have negative impedance ONLY at certain current density, and ONLY immediately before it is becoming plasma - when the current increase is causing the voltage to drop. and this is happening in a moment of spark formation (when ionisation is starting, forming plasma out of neutral, high-density, isolation medium like air at normal atmospheric pressure).

Nope.. the cosmic version of this doesn't look plausible at all.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

That is a great sales pitch... but really...Free of human interpretation? Is this not exactly what point-particles and probability clouds are?

I'm concerned that the underlying nature might be ignored or missed by applying man's maths.

Was it Einstein that said God doesn't play dice?

Mathematical tools are averaging tools, often very handy at covering detail, yes for the benefit of mans quick modeling.... but is this maths really free of human interpretation? are we not applying it to nature?

You have described the math's leading science paradigm, that seems to be prevalent today.

We should not forget that mathematics can describe any amount of realities. Repeatable experiment only 1. Of theory and empiricism, the choice is always the latter..... unless we are happy to settle for paradoxes.


what was einteins quote of insanity.... (gee even i'm quoting einstein alot here).

proceed with humility fellow explorer

A recent term that has come into the vernacular is the "Anti Rationlist Principle" where an opinion outweighs any facts that may support that opinion.

All you are doing is creating fiction to support your feeble arguments.

and why we continue to throw billions at gravity-wave antennas for things that 'must be there', are we expecting a result that is free of human interpretation.

This is an example of fiction refuted by simple logic. If we assume something "must be there" then why do we need to spend billions finding it???

What we are actually seeing is the scientific method at work. GR predicts the existence of gravity waves, it doesn't prove their existence. The proof or otherwise comes through testing and observation.

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

What we are actually seeing is the scientific method at work. GR predicts the existence of gravity waves, it doesn't prove their existence. The proof or otherwise comes through testing and observation.

30yrs... few billion... still waiting for a non-null result

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

30yrs... few billion... still waiting for a non-null result

It took over 250 years to prove Newton's description of launching bodies into orbit around Earth. It's called Sputnik.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

I'm concerned that the underlying nature might be ignored or missed by applying man's maths.
...
We should not forget that mathematics can describe any amount of realities. Repeatable experiment only 1. Of theory and empiricism, the choice is always the latter..... unless we are happy to settle for paradoxes.

Would you agree that both repeatable experimentation and theory are necessary steps to ensure models are as free from human interpretation as possible ? And then if there's a dilemma, then empirical results drive interpretation ?

If so, how would you then interpret those results ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Carl, i really cannot understand how you can be absolutely sure that electrical currents do not exist. How are you able to map dark mode plasma current flow? I'm not aware this is well developed?

Go back and reread what I have said in God knows how many posts you have found an imperative to post in....I have not denied the existence of electrical fields in space. What I have questioned is the insistence on this grand overarching omnipresence of electrical fields on scales and energies at which they have never been observed or even theorised at. Especially this ridiculous insistence on its complete dominance over gravity in pretty much every situation you care to apply it in. I suppose, now, it's electrical force holding everything down to the surface of the planet, or hey, why not have the Grand Canyon carved by some mega plasma discharged caused by Venus being ejected from the body of Saturn...all the while we're a supposed satellite of the giant planet....yes, that's what your revered Thornhill and Talbott would want us to believe. That is the most ridiculous piece of bad science fiction I have ever heard of or read. At least Velikovsky had the decency not to assail our collective common sense by suggesting such utter crud...at least he proposed that Venus may have been ejected from Jupiter, from where it orbited. He didn't completely rearranged the solar system to suit some wild psychotic mind snap. That's the sort of rot that we see the EU crowd falling for...just take a look at this rot from the holoscience website...Thornhill and Talbott's owned words..

Earth-like planets and moons are similarly "born" by electrical expulsion of part of the positively charged cores of dwarf stars and gas giants. That explains the dichotomy between the dense rocky planets and moons and the gaseous giant planets. In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force. So planetary orbits are stabilized against gravitational chaos by exchange of electric charge through their plasma tails (Venus is still doing so strongly, judging by its "cometary" magnetotail, and it has the most circular orbit of any planet) and consequent modification of the gravity of each body. Planets will quickly assume orbits that ensure the least electrical interaction. Impacts between large bodies are avoided and capture rendered more probable by exchange of electric charge between them. Capture of our Moon becomes the only option, it cannot have been created from the Earth. Evidence of past planetary instabilities is written large on the surfaces of all solid bodies in the solar system. That evidence is in the form of electric arc cratering.

What a heap of utter nonsense!!!!. It's that far off the planet (no pun intended) it's not even worth commenting about. Then we have this...Electric Galaxy, and this, Electric Stars, Electric Life...I'm not even going to bother with the rest.

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream...pdf?sequence=1

An rf modulated plasma (no generator) is what it may take. Cosmic plasma's have much work to be done, Alfven himself said MHD was insufficient to describe observations, more work still to be done. Lerner and his team, though you may bag em, are developing these models along side their empirical investigations.

RF modulation!!!! By what and from where?? You still need a transmitter and a transmitter needs a power source. That would mean in a galaxy you'd need multiple sources to generate the appropriate ionising radiation. Where are these RF sources?? Where have they been found in observations?? You can't have the plasma being self modulated, so don't even attempt to explain it that way. In any case, most of the plasma in space is neutral...there's charge separation but not net flow of charge. As for your "dark flow". Anyone familiar with how plasmas work would know that anything masking a plasma's charge separation in such a manner would cause any current flow to collapse and thereby render it neutral....no more Birkeland current. You have to remember, even when the emissions are not in the visible spectrum, these plasmas still have ions and electrons moving about in the plasma and emitting radiation of all kinds. The fact that Birkeland currents also generate radio waves and other radiation seems to be curiously tossed aside by EU proponents. I mean, are you going to deny the radio emissions from Jupiter and the other planets with magnetic fields???

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Thankyou for acknowledging the role of charge separation in our solar system. The new tools becoming available will shed more light on this, charge separation does exist, it continues to be examined.

Thanks Steven, again looking forward to any rebuke you may offer Crothers on his work. Also a photo of a black hole would also be of use. Will look into the differences offered by rotational BH's.

There's nothing to thank for, considering I have never denied the existence of such currents within the solar system. And that last bit was a bit of a throw away line, Alex. Whatever tools they develop will be turned to whatever they decide to turn them to.

As for Crothers...anyone who carries on like he did and still does, doesn't deserve to be listened to in any capacity. Anyone who can't take advice and thinks he knows better than those who have all the mileage under their belts, then actively attacks them and their science doesn't even deserve to have an undergraduate degree, let alone a PhD. If he did the same to me as he did to those professors and scientists, he'd find himself in court faster than he could say "jack robertson".

[renormalised (Carl)]

And whilst we're busy quoting Einstein here, how about a reminder of another quote of his...."I know of only two things which maybe infinite, the Universe and human stupidity. I don't know about the former but I'm pretty certain about the latter".

Seems to have ring of truth about it when applied to the EU and it's followers.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Would you agree that both repeatable experimentation and theory are necessary steps to ensure models are as free from human interpretation as possible ? And then if there's a dilemma, then empirical results drive interpretation ?

If so, how would you then interpret those results ?

Cheers

Craig you continually raise some interesting questions...

Models inherently cannot be free from human interpretation.

Steven raised a good point above with regard to Newtonian dynamics, a human model, we now have galaxy rotation curves not giving 1 toss about this model... the results are violently different. We also have a little probe reaching the plasma double layer of our heliosphere that also doesn't fully follow the model.

Nature does not, will not, care about man's mathematical models. Never has.

As i raised before, by me, human mathematical models are handy, very handy, they help us average out, or provide quick "good enough" calculations to be used to better our experience.

[bojan]

I am still waiting from you to present the plausible model of cosmic relaxation oscillator, which will explain all properties of pulsars...In your own words.
Backed with calculations, of course.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by Carl

The fact that Birkeland currents also generate radio waves and other radiation seems to be curiously tossed aside by EU proponents. I

You continually raise misunderstandings that seem prevalent in some astronomy interpretations of plasma dynamics. Particularly the function and isolating nature of double layers.

I understand your frustration, many of your queries are explained when studying plasma double-layers. I'd be happy to work through some of these with you.

Originally Posted by Carl

Crothers: If he did the same to me as he did to those professors and scientists, he'd find himself in court faster than he could say "jack robertson".

I understand this invitation remains open.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Craig you continually raise some interesting questions...

Models inherently cannot be free from human interpretation.

Steven raised a good point above with regard to Newtonian dynamics, a human model, we now have galaxy rotation curves not giving 1 toss about this model... the results are violently different. We also have a little probe reaching the plasma double layer of our heliosphere that also doesn't fully follow the model.

Nature does not, will not, care about man's mathematical models. Never has.

As i raised before, by me, human mathematical models are handy, very handy, they help us average out, or provide quick "good enough" calculations to be used to better our experience.

Just trying to get where you're coming from. Let's not worry about the science, just yet .. another question ..

... Ultimately, does it upset you to see the models driving research funding?
(Ie: might that be your biggest issue ?)

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by bojan

I am still waiting from you for the plausible model of cosmic relaxation oscillator, which will explain all properties of pulsars...

Bojan, i have provided the links to the proposed model.

If you are seriously interested, it would be wise to follow through the progression of the electric model for the sun, then onto variable starts and the HR diagram and modes of plasma.

All these are inherently interlinked, you as an EE will no doubt find this easy to work through.

I can copy and paiste Professor Don Scott's entire site here if you really want, but the answers you seek have been summarized therein.

Beyond that search for his peer reviewed published works, or watch his 2009 presentation at NASA.