PDA

View Full Version : "Electric Universe" & Voyager 1



wd40
2012-Oct-24, 02:20 AM
The Electricians claim in this new clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98GdebTOIak
that a report on the Voyager 1 anomaly states that it has "left scientists without a working model for the outer solar system".

Is this correct?

Is there any way that parts of the "Electric Universe" model could yet be incorporated in to the Main Stream model?

Is it a case of "Majority scientific opinion" vs "Minority scientific opinion"?

Or is their model fatally flawed in all its aspects?

Are they to be viewed in the same category of pseudo-science as the YECs? Or not quite?

Jens
2012-Oct-24, 03:01 AM
The Electricians claim in this new clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98GdebTOIak
that a report on the Voyager 1 anomaly states that it has "left scientists without a working model for the outer solar system".

Is this correct?

Are you sure you don't mean Pioneer? Or are you quoting directly from the video?

Shaula
2012-Oct-24, 05:58 AM
They are talking rubbish to promote their own discredited theory. We have a good explanation for the effect, we have good models for the outer solar system. EU theory are still junk. The mainstream takes into account electric and magnetic phenomena already.

tnjrp
2012-Oct-24, 06:44 AM
Are they to be viewed in the same category of pseudo-science as the YECs? Or not quite?As Shaula already outlined my general understanding of the electric universe hypothesis, I'll just address this. The answer is "not really even close". Young Earth creationism is trying to overthrow most all established science just because it conflicts with a literal interrpetation of a book collecting myths and legends of bronze-age goatherders known as the (Holy) Bible. It isn't even properly pseudoscience because there is nothing scientific to mention about it. ElUni isn't nearly as clearly about a particular religious belief trying to supercede science with sheer faith.

Swift
2012-Oct-24, 02:10 PM
... a literal interrpetation of a book collecting myths and legends of bronze-age goatherders known as the (Holy) Bible.
Could we please find less inflammatory ways of phrasing this. Discussions about creationism are among the allowed excpetions to our "no-religion" rule, but we don't have to be insulting about it.

wd40
2012-Oct-24, 06:37 PM
Are you sure you don't mean Pioneer? Or are you quoting directly from the video?

Pioneer 1 was launched in 1958. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977.

antoniseb
2012-Oct-24, 06:50 PM
Pioneer 1 was launched in 1958. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977.

I'm pretty sure that you are correct to be referencing the recent Voyager I data about the direction and velocities of the particles it is detecting. Jens seems to have assumed you were discussing some variation on the "Pioneer Anomaly" which is about the (now explained) difference between observed and expected acceleration of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft. This is a frequently referenced topic... but the unexpected charged particle directions in the heliosheath are probably what you were referencing. It would be nice if you'd been more clear about what you were talking about so no one had to guess. (No one wants to watch cranks-on-YouTube without good reason).

Jens
2012-Oct-25, 12:03 AM
Jens seems to have assumed you were discussing some variation on the "Pioneer Anomaly" which is about the (now explained) difference between observed and expected acceleration of the Pioneer 10 spacecraft. This is a frequently referenced topic... but the unexpected charged particle directions in the heliosheath are probably what you were referencing.

You're right, that's what I was assuming. I don't particularly want to watch the video, so maybe I'll look around a bit.

Hornblower
2012-Oct-25, 01:04 AM
Pioneer 1 was launched in 1958. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977.

Jens must have been referring to Pioneers 10 and 11, which were launched in the early 1970s.

Solfe
2012-Oct-25, 01:40 AM
I listened for about 60 seconds. First things first. This Video is from Oct. 2012. Second thing second. Voyager 1 entered a region of space where there is no net velocity of the solar wind, this started around Dec. 2010. A few months later, data indicated that there were magnetic bubbles in the heliosphere. Additionally it was noted that the heliosphere is asymmetrical.

These craft are taking data from an environment that has not been directly explored, data are details unknown until collected.

The maker of the video characterized unknown detail as an phenomenon that completely destroys current understanding of the outer planets. This wrong description seems to be aping the 2010 data. Second, the video maker has blended this with a more recent news story about the drop off of particles detected. (Click here.) (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/has-voyager-1-entered-interstellar-space/263706/) Since the video has used images from this new news story, they have must be aware of it. Either they have no idea what they are talking about or... nevermind. They simply don't know what they are talking about.

Don J
2012-Oct-25, 03:53 AM
Snip....., we have good models for the outer solar system.
Recent observations challenge these models for the outer solar system

Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/
Ibex mission page
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/index.html
more
http://mobile.nasa.gov/mcs/mobile/showDetailView.jsp?paramItem=/mission_pages/ibex/news/nobowshock

Mystery of the Giant Ribbon, Solved?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jan_ibex2/

Shaula
2012-Oct-25, 05:29 AM
Recent observations challenge these models for the outer solar system
Not really. They have added some extra details in areas which we didn't have any observations to fully determine what we expected to see. We assumed the simplest variant, observations show us that things are a bit more complex. They are still solved and solvable within the current models and in no way, shape or form support the EU idea. The massive irony about EU: its proponents cheery pick what they can and cannot explain massively. They really have to subset what is out there to even sound vaguely plausible. Then claim the mainstream is broken whenever any complicating observation comes in... I stand by my comment that we have good models. Certain orders of magnitude better then the car crash that is EU.

Jens
2012-Oct-25, 05:41 AM
Certain orders of magnitude better then the car crash that is EU.

That really threw me. At first, I thought you were talking about the other EU that is a car crash (at the moment) as well!

Tensor
2012-Oct-25, 05:59 AM
Recent observations challenge these models for the outer solar system

Not even close. Just an attempt to sensationalize an article describing refinements caused real science being done.


Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/
Ibex mission page
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/index.html
more
http://mobile.nasa.gov/mcs/mobile/showDetailView.jsp?paramItem=/mission_pages/ibex/news/nobowshock

Trying to do science by popular science article again, eh?

From the UT article:

"From IBEX data, McComas and his team were able to make refinements in relative speed of our system, as well as finding more information about the local interstellar magnetic field strength. IBEX data have shown that the heliosphere actually moves through the local interstellar cloud at about 52,000 miles per hour, roughly 7,000 miles per hour slower than previously thought. "

Gee, they sent spacecraft and IBEX found that instead of the solar system moving through the IGM at 59,000 mph, it's moving at 52,000 mph. Since the existence of a bow shock is dependent on speed, solar wind, and magnetic fields in the area, finding that the solar system is moving slower that previously thought create more of a bow “wave” than a bow "shock". There is still an interaction. If there was no interaction, then there would be a challenge to the models. Making refinements of a model, by adjusting the relative speed by 10% is hardly challenging the model.


Mystery of the Giant Ribbon, Solved?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jan_ibex2/

Send out systems to gather data, got previously unknown data, developed a model. Not even a challenge to previous models, just new data. How is that a challenge to the current models? We do have models for the Termination Shock Heliopause and ISM, are saying there is something wrong with those models?

Nothing more than unwarranted claims here.

Don J
2012-Oct-25, 07:41 PM
Send out systems to gather data, got previously unknown data, developed a model. Not even a challenge to previous models, just new data. How is that a challenge to the current models? We do have models for the Termination Shock Heliopause and ISM, are saying there is something wrong with those models?

Nothing more than unwarranted claims here.
Here a claim made by the leading scientist Arik Posner
http://www.universetoday.com/86446/voyagers-find-giant-jacuzzi-like-bubbles-at-edge-of-solar-system/


Voyagers Find Giant Jacuzzi-like Bubbles at Edge of Solar System
The venerable Voyager spacecraft have detected a huge, turbulent sea of magnetic bubbles in the heliosheath — the interface between the heliosphere and interstellar space
.....
At a briefing today, scientists said the finding is significant as “we now will have to change our view of how the Sun interacts with the Solar System,” said Arik Posner, Voyager program scientist at NASA Headquarters. But it also means that the “force field” that surrounds the entire Solar System may be letting in more harmful cosmic rays and energetic particles than previously thought.

Shaula
2012-Oct-25, 07:52 PM
Ahhh, selective quoting. Gotta love it. Along with science by pop-sci. From the same article:

But the implications of this new finding, said Opher, is also that the heliosheath is very different from what scientists expected. She prefaced by saying that any earlier ideas about the region was only conjecture since no spacecraft has been there before. “We thought heliopause would be a smooth surface and shield us from intergalactic cosmic rays,” she said. “It is not a shield but more like a membrane that is a sea of bubbles.”

But when we did get a craft there we found things could be explained quite happily by current models. We just had to factor in the conditions we actually found there. Nothing to see here.

Don J
2012-Oct-25, 08:06 PM
Ahhh, selective quoting. Gotta love it. Along with science by pop-sci. From the same article:


But the implications of this new finding, said Opher, is also that the heliosheath is very different from what scientists expected. She prefaced by saying that any earlier ideas about the region was only conjecture since no spacecraft has been there before. “We thought heliopause would be a smooth surface and shield us from intergalactic cosmic rays,” she said. “It is not a shield but more like a membrane that is a sea of bubbles.”


But when we did get a craft there we found things could be explained quite happily by current models. We just had to factor in the conditions we actually found there. Nothing to see here.
Quoting Opher


One argument would say the bubbles would seem to be a very porous shield, allowing lots of cosmic rays through the gaps. But another view would be that cosmic rays could get trapped inside the bubbles, making the bubbling froth a very good shield indeed.
There seem to have some holes in the shield (you could find reference to the paper in the text)as well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2142886/The-outer-limits-Nasa-probe-sees-edge-solar-time--completely-different-thought.html


Flying through space: Nasa scientists have discovered atoms including helium, hydrogen, oxygen and neon blowing into our solar system on the interstellar wind.

Shaula
2012-Oct-25, 10:20 PM
Which were, again, explicable within current models. Invalidating the apparent point of your continual selectively quoting and over-extending pop-sci pieces to try to pretend that these observations in some way strengthen the case for anything like an EU theory. They don't.

Jerry
2012-Oct-26, 01:06 AM
In retrospect, we should not be too surprised there is no bow shock, as the accumulation along the seam of the shock line should/would have from-a-distance observables.

It is yet another failure of existing theory to successfully extrapolate and predict what is happening in near space.

What it does say about our models is that they are immature - we really don't understand solar and galactic dynamics.

Is there a better EU model? Nobody has a working model for how the energy in cosmic rays or very hard gamma rays is released. It is widely assumed conversion of gravitational to EM forces fits into the equation somewhere, somehow; but until the fundamental properties of gravity are better understood, there is a gap in current knowledge.

Shaula
2012-Oct-26, 06:01 AM
Is there a better EU model?
I can answer that one. No. Nearly every piece of work I have seen on it is poor, cherry picked science that is rightly refused publication by most journals.

Just because there are some gaps where we lack sufficiently detailed observations does not make the theory a failure that should be thrown out. It makes it incomplete, which we already knew.

tusenfem
2012-Oct-26, 06:38 AM
This thread is not going to be an apologetic for Electric Universe (EU) ideas.
This thread is not going to be a place for alternative gravity ideas.
Nor is doing "science" by press-release a good idea as people usually try to sensationalize the message, to make it more interesting for the press (otherwise it will not get into the papers), or sometimes actually say completely wrong things (I just noticed a scientist saying that Greenland was actually green in the 1200s).

KEEP TO THE REAL SCIENCE

This would be a good starting point (http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2012Sci...336.1291M), the IBEX Science paper. (unfortunately I am not at the office, so I cannot download a pdf of this paper, maybe on monday)

Don J
2012-Oct-26, 07:37 PM
Arixv paper
Is the magnetic field in the heliosheath laminar or a turbulent bath of bubbles?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2236


All the current global models of the heliosphere are based on the assumption that the magnetic field in the heliosheath, in the region close to the heliopause is laminar. We argue that in that region the heliospheric magnetic field is not laminar but instead consists of magnetic bubbles. Recently, we proposed that the annihilation of the "sectored" magnetic field within the heliosheath as it is compressed on its approach to the heliopause produces the anomalous cosmic rays and also energetic electrons. As a product of the annihilation of the sectored magnetic field, densely-packed magnetic islands/bubbles are produced.


Nasa page about the subject
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/20110609_briefing_materials_prt.htm

Shaula
2012-Oct-26, 08:02 PM
And your point is? This is all using the current models incorporating what we find when we are able to make observations. The OP was asking whether what was found was more in line with the EU hand waving that they call predictions. It wasn't and isn't. Not sure why you are quoting these papers at us.

Tensor
2012-Oct-26, 09:04 PM
Arixv paper Is the magnetic field in the heliosheath laminar or a turbulent bath of bubbles?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2236

How does this overturn the model with sectored magnetic fields (you know, bubbles) predicted by Smith in 2001, based on the various solar wind parameters? Or the three-dimensional MHD model adding the effects of solar cycles by Riley, Linker, and Mikić in 2002?


Nasa page about the subject
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/20110609_briefing_materials_prt.htm

And how does this model of the heliosheath have anything to do with EU claims about the heliopause in the OP link? And why would you present a paper that in 2011, further refined a model that was originally partially proposed in 2001, was added too in 2002, 2006, 2008, and 2010. Seems kinda silly for the EU pseudo-science types to claim in 2012 that there isn't a working model, when you present one, which is really a refinement of earlier models. Unless, of course, you can show how that paper overturns those earlier models, instead of extending them. Can you?

Don J
2012-Oct-27, 12:15 AM
The OP was asking whether what was found was more in line with the EU hand waving that they call predictions. It wasn't and isn't. Not sure why you are quoting these papers at us.
I have not watch the video in the OP due to my slow internet connection...so i am definitively not quoting these papers in favor of the EU theory but only for general information.
Maybe because you have left us without info about the cause of the effect.


We have a good explanation for the effect (post 3)


Edited
Just find the pdf paper which is an addendum to the Video in the Youtube page. Is it the mechanism and prediction proposed by the PU crowd in the video ?
Pdf paper link:
http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Felectric-cosmos.org%2FNewsRelease102012.pdf&session_token=iPg9sIiJbCgLfcoxBhNamI4HZFF8MTM1MTM4 NDM3NkAxMzUxMjk3OTc2

BTW judging by Tusenfem warning(post 21) there is no discussion allowed about that so i left that as it is.

Don J
2012-Oct-27, 01:06 AM
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/20110609_briefing_materials_prt.htm
And how does this model of the heliosheath have anything to do with EU claims about the heliopause in the OP link?
It seem that you have obviously missed the section about the heliopause in the Nasa page:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/20110609_briefing_materials_prt.htm
Visual: 4

Artist's interpretation depicting“standard” old view of the heliosphere: the magnetic field lines in the heliosheath connect back to the Sun everywhere (Some field lines are shown in red and blue). In this view,scientists expected the heliopause, the boundary that separates where the solar wind dominates from where the interstellar wind dominates, to be smooth and the associated smooth magnetic field to shield us from the interstellar medium and galactic cosmic rays. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/CI Lab

Visual 5


Artist's interpretation depicting the new view of the heliosphere. The heliosheath is filled with “magnetic bubbles” (shown in the red pattern) that fill out the region ahead of the heliopause. In this new view, the heliopause is not a continuous shield that separates the solar domain from the interstellar medium, but a porous membrane with fingers and indentations. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/CI Lab

Tensor
2012-Oct-27, 01:55 AM
Because that you have obviously missed it

Actually, I didn't miss it, you just refused to answer my first comment. I'll give you another chance further on in this post. But just relinking didn't answer the questions. Why is it you don't want to answer the questions Don?


http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/20110609_briefing_materials_prt.htm
Visual: 4
Artist's interpretation depicting“standard” old view of the heliosphere: the magnetic field lines in the heliosheath connect back to the Sun everywhere (Some field lines are shown in red and blue). In this view,scientists expected the heliopause, the boundary that separates where the solar wind dominates from where the interstellar wind dominates, to be smooth and the associated smooth magnetic field to shield us from the interstellar medium and galactic cosmic rays. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/CI Lab

Where exactly in that "artist conception" are Smith's Sectored Magnetic Fields? Where are the changes to those magnetic fields due to the changes in the Solar Cycle? Where in those artist conceptions are the additions of the third dimension and MHD interactions?


Visual 5
Artist's interpretation depicting the new view of the heliosphere. The heliosheath is filled with “magnetic bubbles” (shown in the red pattern) that fill out the region ahead of the heliopause. In this new view, the heliopause is not a continuous shield that separates the solar domain from the interstellar medium, but a porous membrane with fingers and indentations. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/CI Lab


The OP claimed there were no working models. How exactly does your presenting a refinement of a model of the heliosheath going back 12 years, updated a year and a half before the video linked in the OP, support the contention, in the video, that there isn't any working models of the Heliopause? For that matter, even if it was a new model, it's was still out a year and a half prior to the EU adherents claiming there was no working model.


I find it interesting that by providing that paper, you actually provided the support that there was a working model (even ignoring that it was a refinement of a previous model), a year and a half before that video, thus refuting the EU video.

I noticed you didn't provide an answer for this: can you show how that paper overturns those earlier models, instead of extending them? Because unless you can, there were working models.

Now come on Don tell us, not by quote, not by article. Using the paper in the link you provided, how does that data in that paper overturn the models in the papers of Smith and Riley, Linker, and Mikić, instead of extending them?

Don J
2012-Oct-27, 03:01 AM
I find it interesting that by providing that paper, you actually provided the support that there was a working model (even ignoring that it was a refinement of a previous model), a year and a half before that video, thus refuting the EU video.

I have said in post 25 in reply to Shaula that I have not watched the EU video due to my slow internet connection.... the paper i provided was obviously not in support for the EU theory but for general information. In other words i am on the mainstream side.

Edited to add:


The OP claimed there were no working models.

From what i gathered in the PDF paper linked in the Youtube page the citation came from a Space.com article citing a Voyager scientist not something made up by the EU crowd.
Did NASA's Voyager 1 Spacecraft Just Exit the Solar System?
9 october 2012


The probe's detectors indicated that the wind had suddenly died down, and all the surrounding solar particles were at a standstill.

This "stagnation region" came as a surprise. Scientists had expected to see the solar wind veer sideways when it met the heliopause, like water hitting a wall, rather than screech to a halt. As Voyager scientists explained in a paper published last month in Nature, the perplexing collapse of the solar wind at the edge of the heliosphere left them without a working model for the outer solar system.

I think you should not have problem to find the scientific paper published in the journal Nature.

Tensor
2012-Oct-27, 05:59 AM
I have said in post 25 in reply to Shaula that I have not watched the EU video due to my slow internet connection....

the paper i provided was obviously not in support for the EU theory but for general information.

Really? Then why in post #11, in response to Shaula's quote that "We have a good explanation for the effect, we have good models for the outer solar system. EU theory are still junk. The mainstream takes into account electric and magnetic phenomena already.", did you specifically state that new observations challenged those models? If you are just "putting it out there for general information", why say it challenges good explanations, good models, and the fact that the mainstream takes into account electric and magnetic phenomena? But then, you never bothered to answer the questions on how those observations weren't more refinement, than challenge. Are you now recanting that those links in post #11 are challenges to the mainstream model?


In other words i am on the mainstream side.

Which mainstream side? The one from the Opher et al's paper? From Posner's briefing? The one that agrees with the illustrations, but leaves out Smith's and Riley, Linker, and Mikić's models? You've provided links to all of them. Can you be a bit more specific?


After all, when I asked you specifically about mainstream models in post #14:


How is that a challenge to the current models? We do have models for the Termination Shock Heliopause and ISM, are saying there is something wrong with those models?

You brought up briefing quotes in post #15:

At a briefing today, scientists said the finding is significant as “we now will have to change our view of how the Sun interacts with the Solar System,” said Arik Posner, Voyager program scientist at NASA Headquarters. But it also means that the “force field” that surrounds the entire Solar System may be letting in more harmful cosmic rays and energetic particles than previously thought.

Then when I asked about how Osher's et al's paper overturned models, you link to illustrations. So which mainstream models, papers, data, briefings, popular science articles, combinations of the previous are you referencing as the "Mainstream"? And how, since you stated they were, are the papers you linked to in post #11 challenges, not refinements, to the previous models?



Edited to add:
The OP claimed there were no working models.


From what i gathered in the PDF paper linked in the Youtube page the citation came from a Space.com article citing a Voyager scientist not something made up by the EU crowd.
From what you gathered? So you really don't know and it appears that you didn't bother to actually research it. Actually, that is attributed to Natalie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer Date: 09 October 2012 Time: 09:57 AM, not a Voyager scientist. It's part of the article. And that PDF was put out by a proponent of EU. No where does it say they were citing a Voyager scientist. All it says is "scientists" were surprised. Else, why exactly weren't they able to produce the specific scientist's name who said the stagnation region came as a surprise? The only thing they are specific about, and the only time that the PDF actually names any scientists, is when they are talking about the criteria for when, exactly, a Voyager spacecraft to have left the solar system, you know, actual science.


Did NASA's Voyager 1 Spacecraft Just Exit the Solar System?
9 october 2012
The probe's detectors indicated that the wind had suddenly died down, and all the surrounding solar particles were at a standstill.
This "stagnation region" came as a surprise. Scientists had expected to see the solar wind veer sideways when it met the heliopause, like water hitting a wall, rather than screech to a halt. As Voyager scientists explained in a paper published last month in Nature, the perplexing collapse of the solar wind at the edge of the heliosphere left them without a working model for the outer solar system.

All the particles were at a standstill? And they knew this how? Who specifically said it was a surprise? And that solar wind veer sideways comment is highly technical and specific also. And, as I've been pointing out to you, which you continue to ignore and not answer the question, how is it that a paper you linked to provides a model a year and a half prior to this press release?


I think you should not have problem to find the scientific paper published in the journal Nature.

I've been asking you to show how the data, research, and paper (some of which you presented) showed how current models were overturned and you haven't even bothered to answer the questions. Now you want me to look up papers for you? Nice try. How about you provide the answers, or is it you can't?

And BTW, if you are on the mainstream side, why are you presenting a PDF news release put out by an EU proponent, instead of showing the actual mainstream data and research from the actual Nature paper?

Don J
2012-Oct-27, 06:20 AM
From what you gathered? So you really don't know and it appears that you didn't bother to actually research it. Actually, that is attributed to Natalie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer Date: 09 October 2012 Time: 09:57 AM, not a Voyager scientist. It's part of the article. And that PDF was put out by a proponent of EU. No where does it say they were citing a Voyager scientist.

Here the link to the space.com article cited in the PDF with the names of the scientists ...

http://www.space.com/17966-voyager-spacecraft-solar-system.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%28SPACE.com+H eadline+Feed%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
For example


Stamatios Krimigis, a space scientist at Johns Hopkins University and NASA principal investigator in charge of the Voyager spacecraft's Low-Energy Charged Particle instrument, told Life's Little Mysteries. "All theoretical models have been found wanting."

and about the Nature scientific paper:


author Robert Decker, a space physicist at Johns Hopkins University, .
Decker and his colleagues detail their findings in the Sept. 6 issue of the journal Nature.



Really? Then why in post #11, in response to Shaula's quote that "We have a good explanation for the effect, we have good models for the outer solar system. EU theory are still junk. The mainstream takes into account electric and magnetic phenomena already.", did you specifically state that new observations challenged those models? If you are just "putting it out there for general information", why say it challenges good explanations, good models, and the fact that the mainstream takes into account electric and magnetic phenomena?

Are you saying that the mainstream takes into account electric and magnetic phenomena similar to the one proposed in Scott's pdf paper ?
see the section explaining the Voyager data about
-The probe's detectors indicated that the wind had suddenly died down, and all the surrounding solar particles were at a standstill.

This "stagnation region" came as a surprise. Scientists had expected to see the solar wind veer sideways when it met the heliopause, like water hitting a wall, rather than screech to a halt.-
see
http://electric-cosmos.org/NewsRelease102012.pdf

By the way no one have explained why the proposed EU/PU mechanism- explaining the perplexing collapse of the solar wind at the edge of the heliosphere- is wrong ?



And BTW, if you are on the mainstream side, why are you presenting a PDF news release put out by an EU proponent, instead of showing the actual mainstream data and research from the actual Nature paper?
Because you need to be an accredited member and pay to have access to the Nature journal scientific papers.

Shaula
2012-Oct-27, 07:28 AM
OK the simple way to point out that EU hand waving is total garbage: They have to insert a huge wall of electrons at a range they derive from the Voyager results to make it work. This enormous negative charge would, of course, be a fairly effective shield for the mid-energy primarily positively charged non-solar cosmic rays we see. But we see them. So the electron region cannot be dense enough to support their idea. This sea of electrons would also produce a measurable Compton effect resulting in blurrier, lower energy views of the rest of the universe. It would also be easy to disrupt, the Oort cloud objects and TNOs would rip it to shreds unless they are suddenly magically able to plough through these electrons without effect.

In short another badly thought out theory that fails the second you think about anything other than the single tiny observational fact it is built to 'explain'.

Don J
2012-Oct-27, 07:34 AM
In short another badly thought out theory that fails the second you think about anything other than the single tiny observational fact it is built to 'explain'.

From your post (3)


We have a good explanation for the effect, we have good models for the outer solar system.

Maybe it is time to show the explanation for the effect and also if this effect was predicted before or after the IBEX and Voyagers data.

Shaula
2012-Oct-27, 07:45 AM
Aww, the goal posts moving again? You asked for a debunk of the EU ideas. You got one.

Tensor has already linked to papers showing the models. We have already said that they were heavily dependent on conditions out there and modified to fit.

I am not bashing the EU for not having predicted things happening out there. I am bashing them for being inconsistent with any observations other than the narrow band their particular 'theory' is trying to explain.

Don J
2012-Oct-27, 07:51 AM
OK the simple way to point out that EU hand waving is total garbage: They have to insert a huge wall of electrons at a range they derive from the Voyager results to make it work. This enormous negative charge would, of course, be a fairly effective shield for the mid-energy primarily positively charged non-solar cosmic rays we see. But we see them. So the electron region cannot be dense enough to support their idea. This sea of electrons would also produce a measurable Compton effect resulting in blurrier, lower energy views of the rest of the universe.

They have to insert a huge wall of electrons at a range they derive from the Voyager results to make it work.
http://electric-cosmos.org/NewsRelease102012.pdf

This huge wall of energetic electrons was detected by Voyager
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/20110609_briefing_materials_prt.htm
Visual: 6


› Download video
This animation shows the Voyager 2 observations of energetic electrons. Voyager 2 detected a dramatic drop of the flux of electrons as it left the sector region. The intense flux came back as soon as Voyager 2 was inside the sector region. Energetic particles have a hard time “navigating” through the sea of bubbles. The bubbles act like traps for these particles. When particles escape the sea of bubbles and access the field lines that connect back to the Sun, they quickly escape along the magnetic field lines, very much like entering a highway. These observations were the unexpected signature of the new scenario. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/CI Lab

Shaula
2012-Oct-27, 08:33 AM
What was detected by Voyager is not dense enough or long lived enough to be what the EU idea requires. If you think I am wrong then show me the maths. My point stands - they have to insert a huge negative charge sink which would have observable consequences. These are not seen. The sink is not there. EU is wrong. You can peck away at it as much as you like, claim you are on the mainstreams' side as much as you like but you are promoting a theory that is provably wrong.

Edit: long lived is the wrong term, what I mean is temporally stable enough on large lengths scales

Swift
2012-Oct-27, 03:03 PM
This thread is closed while the moderation team decides if it needs to be moved to ATM, particularly after participants reference EU websites.

Swift
2012-Oct-30, 01:01 AM
After further discussion among the moderators, this thread will remain closed.

Don J - You have a long history of advocating non-mainstream ideas outside of ATM. If you so much as hint at Electric Universe ideas outside of ATM again, you will be infracted and suspended.