ITN: Primordial Deep Space Magnetic Fields

[renormalised (Carl)]

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...

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]

Bojan (& others);

The final paragraph in the Healy & Peratt paper mentions:

As noted earlier, our results support the 'planetary magnetosphere' view (Michel 1982) where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission. We are currently investigating this phenomenon with simulations of the global environment.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

.........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........

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.........

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bojan

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 :-)

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 (Carl)]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bojan had a point regarding "Frequency Glitches".... now ask yourself... if you have an insanely heavy super dense star 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.

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bojan

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 :-)

There are many types of relaxation oscillators, as you would know. You could call a cepheid's pulsations a type of RO.

[renormalised (Carl)]

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, 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 (Humayun)]

Epic post is epic.

Fail science is fail.

H

[CraigS]

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]

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]

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Outbackmanyep

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!

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)...

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.

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

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]

MAN! Are they missing a chromosome or what?

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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, 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.

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?

Originally Posted by renormalised

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??

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.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Now, if you also add the numbers of spectroscopic binaries that aren't contact binaries but still close orbiting stars, the numbers skyrocket.

As above, this is not proposed. Red herring.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Then if you add the small numbers of cataclysmic variable stars that have real neutron stars/pulsars as part of a binary system

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

Neutron stars are an adhock invention, beyond experimental stability.

Originally Posted by renormalised

, the whole premise of their "relaxation oscillator" theory and mechanism (as it stands) not only doesn't add up, it is totally preposterous.

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

Originally Posted by renormalised

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).

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.

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!

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

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 (Carl)]

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?

The only one confused here is you, Alex. I haven't "mixed" anything.

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.

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

As above, this is not proposed. Red herring.

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.

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

Neutron stars are an adhock invention, beyond experimental stability.

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.

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.

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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.

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 (Carl)]

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.

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.