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!
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.
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.
You sure said a bibful there Carl! 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! 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.
Tom Bridgman has a blog article about how real plasma physicists use mathematical models:
Quote:
If, as EU supporters like to claim, plasmas are so intractable mathematically that no one can compute any model with any accuracy, why are commercial-grade software for modeling plasma systems on the market? The fact that such systems exist at all is evidence that plasmas behave under the influence of natural laws and are not mystical, incomprehensible things.
There is plenty of published evidence of this fact.
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 ..
Quote:
Why haven't any of these codes been found (and utilized) by the EU 'theorists'? There is sufficient documentation available that any interested party could run what currently exists, or write their own version in their programming language of choice. Why aren't the Electric Universe books full of results of detailed simulations from which we can derive numbers which we can compare to actual measurements by spacecraft?
Why do we see nothing from EU but pictures (often taken by others doing legitimate research) and 'stories' indistinguishable from mythology?
...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'...
...Same with 'plasma machined' craters on the Moon...
I found out about Bridgman by reading a post at ThunderBolts !!
Surely they'll have more depth about my question than you suggest !?
Cheers
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
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".
Last edited by renormalised; 27-09-2010 at 05:04 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
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".
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.
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.
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 ?)
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).
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).
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 !
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
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
In any case, what has lightbulbs and currents traveling through walls got anything to do with astrophysics
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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....
Quote:
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.
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....
Quote:
In physics and in electronic engineering, dark current is the relatively small electric current that flows through photosensitive devices such as a photomultiplier tube, photodiode, or charge-coupled device even when no photons are entering the device. It is referred to as reverse bias leakage current in non-optical devices and is present in all diodes. Physically, dark current is due to the random generation of electrons and holes within the depletion region of the device that are then swept by the high electric field.
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.
Last edited by renormalised; 28-09-2010 at 03:12 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.
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! 
This is their logic. The same logic that extends their other lab stuff to cosmological scales, against the observational evidence.
