PDA

View Full Version : "electric cosmos"



caravelair
2003-Sep-07, 03:26 PM
i really think this site should have a section debunking this crap:

http://electric-cosmos.org/

i haven't read the whole page, but the section on redshifts was nothing short of preposterous.

someone needs to put this guy in his place.

dgruss23
2003-Sep-07, 03:57 PM
We got into it a little bit on this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4086&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=150).

Tim Thompson
2003-Sep-11, 12:09 AM
See On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis (http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html), which I wrote back in 2001 to refute the elctric-sun part of the electric cosmos. It could use a few updates I suppose, but it should still be adequate to the task.

John T
2003-Sep-15, 10:11 PM
To me, your post was definitely not as you say "adequate to the task".

With respect, you have refuted nothing much at all!

Following on, still within the same theory (ie electric universe hypothesis?)

Can you really believe that the many rilles and circular craters on the moon (and other bodies, including the Earth) were actually caused by nothing other than "impacts"?

Can you explain this "impact theme"?

John

John T
2003-Sep-15, 10:35 PM
Caravelier,

No disrespect, but have you actually studied the electric universe concept?

You call it "crap".

Based on what?

John

wedgebert
2003-Sep-15, 11:39 PM
Caravelier,

No disrespect, but have you actually studied the electric universe concept?

You call it "crap".

Based on what?

John

Based on common sense and a knowledge of physics most likely. For example, take the section on "Why doesn't the sun collapse of its own weight?"

The author says that the electrical repulsion of the atoms is 35 orders of magnitude higher than the force of gravity. Not only is this going to keep the sun from collapsing, it's going to keep the sun from forming in the first place.

Unlike what the author claims, (Today's orthodox thermonuclear models fail to explain many observed solar phenomena) the orthodox model has met every single test thrown at it.

The BA posted a response about the electric star model in a different thread, unfortunately I can't remember what the thread was about and don't have time to search though all the search engine hits to find it :(

D J
2003-Sep-16, 03:23 AM
For good info about plasma cosmology i suggest Anthony Perrat site.
No electric star model there.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

Tim Thompson
2003-Sep-18, 01:05 AM
Can you really believe that the many rilles and circular craters on the moon (and other bodies, including the Earth) were actually caused by nothing other than "impacts"? ... Can you explain this "impact theme"?

Of course I can believe it. Why not? The explanation is easy. Big rock flies through space. Planet gets in way of big rock. Splat (or maybe boom). Crater. We know there are big rocks out there, we watch them flying around. That they might eventually hit something is hardly a miracle.

dgruss23
2003-Sep-18, 02:31 AM
Tim - your page is a complete and well referenced exposition on the electric sun concept. I fail to understand how someone could say that it is inadequate. I objectively looked at the plasma models a while back and came to the conclusion that their claims that mainstream astronomers lack an understanding of plasma physics is absolute nonsense.

John T
2003-Sep-18, 10:30 AM
Thankyou Tim Thompson for your informed reply.

There was I thinking that most of the craters and rilles had an electrical origin.
Now I shall have to re-examine in more detail your refutation of the electric sun hypothesis.


Thankyou also Orion38 for your post.
Actually I have visited Anthony Peratt's website several times.

Further, I am currently studying Anthony's book 'Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology' and Lyman Spitzer's book 'Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters'.
I am merely searching for real answers.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Sep-18, 03:37 PM
I'll add that crater formation has been experimentally shown to happen. Scientists (like my friend Dan Durda) take a rock, load it into a big gun, and fire it at a platform built like the Moon's surface. They fire at different angles, using different rocks with different compositions, and make the surface have different properties as well. They have found that the craters formed are indeed like those on the Moon. It's pretty conclusive.

parejkoj
2003-Sep-18, 03:45 PM
... take a rock, load it into a big gun, and fire it at a platform built like the Moon's surface...

I want that job! I don't get to shoot enough rocks into things in my job.... :)

Comixx
2003-Sep-18, 08:19 PM
Heck, you can even test it yourself with any rock you find in your back yard and a bowl of fine powder (like flour).

Step 1: Fill bowl with flour.
Step 2: Drop rock from any distance that allows it to gather some velocity into the bowl.
Step 3: Observe the interesting crater and ejecta pattern.

We did this stuff in 5th grade science class...

John T
2003-Sep-23, 04:37 PM
With respect to crater and rille formation, I accept that firing rocks at a composite lunar surface can and will produce craters of varying shapes and sizes, revealing no doubt many similar features to those craters found on the Moon and other cratered bodies (I too performed this experiment years ago).

B.A. - I do not wish to task you, but I have checked out Dan Durna's website and could not find a direct reference as to the results of the experiments you mentioned.

Do these experiments performed by Dan Durna also reveal various aspects of typical crater morphology such as circularity, central peaks, terraced walls, flat floors and other complex features?

Tim Thompson
2003-Sep-23, 09:35 PM
Do these experiments performed by Dan Durna also reveal various aspects of typical crater morphology such as circularity, central peaks, terraced walls, flat floors and other complex features?

I don't know about Durna, but the features you asked about were all recreated in Laboratory cratering experiments about 40 years ago. See Some Results Deduced from Simulation of Lunar Craters (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1962IAUS...14..419S&db_key=AST&h igh=3e6fbfd69f01910), P.F. Sabaneyev, IAU Symposium 14, The Moon, pp. 419-432, 1962. You can download the paper as a PDF file, or look at the scanned page images. Central peak, terraced slopes, rays, all there. Figure 1, which strikingly resembles the lunar crater Copernicus, is actually a picture of a simulated crater.

There are still journal papers on crater simulation, but very little that discusses these features, since they are "old news". There are some text books I have seen that cover this stuff, but I can't remember specifics at the moment.

John T
2003-Sep-24, 06:31 PM
Tim Thompson

Many thanks indeed for posting that excellent website (NASA Astrophysics Data System - ADS), revealing experimental data on crater morphology.
No problems with download.

Well, I hardly know what to say, except that much of the information contained within the paper has virtually "blown the wind out of my sails".
I say "virtually", because I need to study the material in much more detail, prior to asserting my final conclusions.

To all.
I can say that during my search for answers on the subject of crater formation, nowhere (other than the ADS site) have I found such comprehensive data explaining most of the features as a proven result of precise and careful experiment.

Previously, I had been mostly guided by the following text (which no doubt many of you may be aware of):-

From: "Inversion of crater morphometric data to gain insight on
the cratering process", Robert R. Herrick and Suzanne N. Lyons,
Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33, 131-143 (1998)

"Crater morphometry, the quantitative description of the shape of impact craters, has always played a key role in understanding the cratering process. One of the key arguments used to support the impact origin of lunar craters was that they were morphometrically similar to terrestrial explosion craters (Baldwin, 1949). Complex impact craters, craters with such features as a flat floor, a central peak, and wall terraces, have never been created in common geologic materials in the lab or with large explosions. At present, only the morphometry of impact craters on the solid bodies of the solar system can provide data on how various target and impactor properties affect complex crater formation."

I do not possess the entire paper, so I cannot comment on the context in which the paper or the above statement was presented, but it sounded pretty conclusive to me.

Now (if you will bear with me), just a few points from what I have gleaned, concerning the ADS paper and the electrical cratering concept.

One of the major claims of the electric cratering model is the apparent uniqueness of crater circularity (other than of course several ellipsoidal craters such as Messier and Messier A etc)

On page 423, the ADS paper says (assuming it is permissible to quote the odd passage here and there);

"Only an absolutely perpendicular drop yealds a completely symmetric structure of the cross-section profile of the crater and a uniform orientation of ejections in all directions."
That statement fits with the electrical explanation, whereby huge lightning-bolts that purportedly gouged out the craters, always strike the lunar surface vertically (as in terrestrial lightning).

Further, on page 430 of the ADS paper a similar claim is made:

"The circular form of the craters indicates that the fall of the matter was essentially vertical."

Now, in line with this "verticality", I am thinking "electrically" here, but on the same page a quite reasonable assumption is made in respect of impacts as follows:-

Near the Earth, in the remote past, there existed a large number of small-mass satellites, besides the Moon..."The orbits of these satellites were close to the Moon's orbit, which brought about their infall on the Moon's surface and which caused the formation of craters. The cohesion of these satellites was insignificant. They constituted the planetary embryo."

Now, I can actually buy that assumption, because with a little thought, it makes sense in favour of "impacts" and "circularity".

The formation of central peaks is another issue of the processes of supposed electrical cratering.
In the electrical explanation, central peaks are areas in the centers of craters that are "missed" or avoided by the characteristic of a circular rotating arc (Birkelian), preferentially rotating about the undisturbed central mass and which also in the same process, forms terraced rims, flat floors etc.

With regard to central peaks, on page 425 of the ADS:

"When all experimental conditions remain unchanged, the diameter of the models increases with the decrease in the depth of the ground layer, and their depth decreases. The central peak is formed in all cases; however, with increasing depths of the ground, this peak is insignificant and hardly distinguishable. The dimensions of the peak increase with decreasing depth of the ground and the peak acquires the character of a major structural element of the model."

Now to me, born out of pure experiment, the above statement is really interesting and does offer an explanation of central peaks other than those being caused by rotating electric arcs or indeed "rebound" theories (which is another issue).

Further, a brief explanation is also given for the formation of Rilles (though possibly not intended as rilles, but described as "cracks" within the paper).
It seems to me that whether these rilles or "cracks" are sinuous, arcuate, straight or otherwise, they are shown in the experiment to be also accompanied by small craterlets, possibly levees too and no doubt are capable of following torturous terrain.
This sounds a lot more reasonable than rilles being described as "collapsed lava tubes" or even exploded electrons.

Formation of "rays" are also adequately explained in the paper by impactors, both close-in to the crater and those carried to more remote locations (particularly Maria), way over the horizon.

Alternatively to this theory and very briefly FYI, the electrical explanation are that these rays were formed (in cunning ways) by emerging electrons being energetically ejected from just beneath the surface of the remote lowland areas and then following a steady upward inclination toward highly elevated lunar terrain (for reasons I will not go into here), from all directions, eventually arriving at a "high point" or even a mountainous peak.
These electrons from out-lying lowland areas exploded to the surface enroute, forming numerous small craterlets on the way, until finally arriving at the high-point and focus of maximum electrical intensity, caused by the effect and electrical influence of the presumed close-by body (the electrons themselves forming a leader-stroke toward the external body, say Mars).
As in terrestrial lightning, a "connection" is made between the positive ground and negative leader stroke (but on a much larger scale), causing a huge electrical discharge to occur (ultra mega-lightning bolt) and in the same process forming the crater with its associated morphology, as per a rotating arc.
The discharge event may last from a matter of seconds to several minutes, depending on the intensity of charge.
Interestingly, rayed craters are mostly found in highland areas.
Craters with attendant rilles, are mostly found in lowland areas.

Anyway, courtesy of the ADS paper and following this new-found knowledge, I now have to explain how the huge craters on comparatively small bodies such as Saturn's Mimas and Mars' Phobos etc occurred without causing complete annihilation of those bodies.

Also in particular, the cratered grooves on Phobos, which appear to lead towards the huge crater, also require an explanation within impact theory...or, could they indeed be the result of streaming electrical discharges from below the surface as hypothesized in electrical rille and ray formation.
I am not sure at the moment.

Of course, the overall big assumption with all these electrical explanations is whether all planetary bodies, including moons, asteroids, even comets etc actually carry a net negative electrical charge, the intensity of which is presumably dependent on their location within the solar system.

In my view, following the electrical concept, if the planets are electrically charged in this way ie negatively, then the electrical explanation for the current spacing of planetary bodies within the solar system (being dependent perhaps on the electrical force of repulsion), could be a factor that may offer some validity to Bodes law (but disregarding Uranus and Pluto).
Perhaps the "Law" itself is a function of electrostatics (but not so much gravity), existing between the planets.
However, that is another subject.

The ADS paper also offers an explanation for the origin of chondrite-type meteorites, which is very interesting too in the context of once being semi-melted ejecta thrown into space during the formation of craters, depending of course on the state of tectonic conditions in their locality.

I should emphasize here that I am not an official "expert" on the electric universe hypothesis, nor representative of it, but I have read quite extensively on the subject, attended lectures etc., purely out of self-interest.

As suggested by 'caravaliar' on this thread, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a section on this board relating directly to the electric universe concept, now that the "Planet X" saga has diminished to apparent nothingness.

Of course, the suggestion is entirely up to the BA.

John T

John T
2003-Sep-26, 04:29 PM
wedgebert and all,

You wrote:
"The author says that the electrical repulsion of the atoms is 35 orders of magnitude higher than the force of gravity. Not only is this going to keep the sun from collapsing, it's going to keep the sun from forming in the first place."

You raise a very good point here, because to my mind Prof. Scott on his website does not actually explain in any great detail, conceptually or otherwise, as to how stars actually formed in the first place, other than mentioning the z-pinch effect.

I too have often wondered about this concept and in reply to your post I shall endeavour to explain why stars can form in the electric universe model, bearing in mind the overwhelming force of electrical repulsion (upwards of 10 to the thirty-fifth power of magnitude) at the atomic level.

What Don Scott does write is the following:-

"The Sun is powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. In the Plasma Universe model, these currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to propose that these currents also power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the size of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by a combination of incoming cosmic electrons and outgoing +ions. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower total current and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly."

My understanding, within the electric universe model, is that the entire universe, itself being comprised mostly of plasma, is also able to carry a net electrical charge (negative) due to the ionised properties of plasma and that the plasma is not in itself completely neutral.
Therefore, it is claimed that electric currents can and do flow within plasma.

Also, in this context, "space" has been described as being an infinite electrical medium.
It is electrical in that it is everywhere occupied by a charge, which, when it moves, assumes the character of electrons, that is, “negative” charge.
This movement energizes and carries material into "cavities" (see below) which become and are the stars.

Within this apparently disorganised plasma there are certain areas that are more electron deficient (containing far fewer electrons) and it is into these areas of "electron deficiency" (cavities) where the Birkeland currents tend to flow.
I say "disorganised plasma" because there are billions of stars in our galaxy, therefore billions of electron deficient areas or cavities.

Formations of galaxies seem to occur by the action of huge galactic Birkeland currents that "twist", as computer simulations have demonstrated (by Anthony Peratt).

It was the late Professor of Physics, Earl Milton, who called these areas of electron deficiency, albeit within galaxies, by the name "cavities", or areas of space plasma that contain a much lower negative electrical potential than the surrounding space.

However, I think the above statement by Don Scott essentially refers to an already formed galaxy (which being thus formed, behaves like something akin to the principal of a homopolar engine) and that the spiral arms of the galaxy are essentially huge Birkelian currents with their associated magnetic fields.

So taking this idea one step further, as Don Scott implies, the space within and around these giant Birkeland currents that pervade the spiral arms, also contain areas of "electron deficiences" (or cavities - Earl Milton), which are then subsequently "filled" by the z-pinch effect, thereby forming stars.

In other words, once a cavity is "detected", electrons, cosmic rays and other material rush in from all directions to electrically neutralize that area of electron deficient space.
Once in the cavity, the charge and density of the material increases, due to electrical accumulation and chemical binding etc.

As mentioned before, within the galaxy, there have been and no doubt still are, billions of cavities, thus billions of stars.

In respect of positive or negative "signs" Earl Milton et al concluded:

"For a time we, like others before us, considered the solar charge to be of positive sign, because of the gradual acceleration of the proton wind as it moves away from the Sun. However, this same phenomenon can be viewed as a flow of ions towards a surrounding region of negative electrical charge."

and further, Earl Milton wrote:

"Insofar as solar wind electrons have, if any, only trivial aniso-tropy in their motion and since detected cosmic-ray ions - which Juergens (1972) has described as the spent wind from the most luminous stars - outnumber cosmic-ray electrons by at least two orders of magnitude, it is logical to conclude that within the region of the Sun most electrons are occupied with sustaining the transaction tending to eliminate the solar cavity. These electrons are not free: they form a "transactive matrix" enveloping the Solar System."

This "transactive matrix" in my understanding, is the as yet undetected inward "flow" of cosmic electrons that are purported to actually power the sun.

The volume of the heliosphere is also described as being a virtual cathode, or the space in which a "cathodeless discharge" occurs within the "positive column".
The heliopause itself is the periphery of the "cavity".

Thus the sun takes on the role of being the anode (being much less negatively charged than its surrounding environment) and therefore continually attracts and absorbs electrons from space.

Positively charged protons (and accompanying electrons) leave the sun to complete the environmental "circuit" (so to speak) at the highly negatively-charged heliopause.

So the Sun, once formed in this manner, is constantly in the process of achieving an electrical equilibrium within its entire environment, which essentially extends right out to the limits of the heliosphere.
In a sense, space plasma contains "degrees of negativity" that allow Birkeland currents to flow.

Following formation of the Sun, Don Scott writes:

"Positive ions leave the Sun and cosmic electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical laboratories for decades."

To round off, Earl Milton wrote:
"The atom is modeled here as a plenum of charge enveloping a nucleus, which we regard as a massive, dense, compact electrical cavity. Like the cell, the atom exposes to the world a negatively charged perimeter. We therefore chose in this work to avoid speaking of negative and positive ions (say, for example, electrons and protons) being produced when an electron is removed from an atom. Rather we speak of electrons and electron-deficient atoms."

So a "cavity" within the plasma, or the focal point for the initial formation of a star, is described as being primarily "electron deficient".

This electron deficiency therefore takes on a positive role, as within an electrical circuit, thereby attracting incoming cosmic electrons and allowing the star to form.

However, conversely, in the book 'Just Six Numbers', by Martin Rees, he writes (pp 29):

"Gravity starts off on the atomic scale, with a handycap of thirty-six powers of ten; but it gains two powers of ten (in other words 100) for every three powers (factors of 1,000) on mass. So gravity will have caught up for the fifty-fourth object (54 = 36 x 3/2), which has about Jupiter's mass. In any still heavier lump more massive than Jupiter, gravity is so strong that it overwhelms the forces that hold solids together."

So it appears that the electrical force and the gravitational force equalize out at about the mass of Jupiter, afterwhich gravity takes over.

Any comments on this statement?

John T

Tim Thompson
2003-Sep-26, 09:57 PM
Any comments on this statement?

Quite a few comments, actually, but not much time to make them. Now it's time to go back to the webpage I referenced earlier: On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis (http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html). It does not deal much with the cosmological issues, but examines the idea of an "electric star' in much detail. Many of the notions you put forth here are dealt with.

For instance ...


Positively charged protons (and accompanying electrons) leave the sun to complete the environmental "circuit" (so to speak) at the highly negatively-charged heliopause. .......... "Positive ions leave the Sun and cosmic electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical laboratories for decades."

There is a really big problem here: There are no cosmic electrons entering the sun! This is not a guess, it's a cold, hard fact, supported by several decades of in-situ observations of charged particles (electrons, protons, ions, and charged dust) in the heliosphere. Granted, most of those observations have been restricted to the plane of the planets. but Ulysses has travelled the polar regions of the heliosphere more than once now. Those incoming electrons should be just as detctable as the outgoing electrons, but none have been seen. If they were there, they would have been detected by now. The entire hypothesis is emphatically falsified by this fact alone.

Most of the rest of the stuff, like galaxies and Birkeland currents is just a lot of hocus-pocus, words strung together that make no physical sense. Just because one can describe something in words, this does not mandate that it be physically reasonable or even physically possible. Like the proposed solar system currents, there are huge stability issues that Scott, et al., simply ignore. Besides, galaxy formation is pretty well understood at the basic level (but not at the detail level), and there is no real problem that screams out for an "alternative" solution anyway. Certainly not one that weird.

d 2022
2003-Sep-27, 04:33 AM
Besides, galaxy formation is pretty well understood at the basic level (but not at the detail level), and there is no real problem that screams out for an "alternative" solution anyway. Certainly not one that weird.
Can you gives us a summary or a link about the standard model of galaxy
formation.Does the model imply dark matter?Which flavor ie hot or cold dark matter?

John T
2003-Sep-27, 05:18 PM
Tim Thompson

Sure, I understand exactly your point when you say "There are no cosmic electrons entering the sun!"

In my view, this is the nub of the entire issue.
No electrons entering the sun (to power the sun), then no electric stars and no electric universe...period!

So where are these mysterious electrons?

(I know you will disagree with what I am about to say, no matter, but I will post this reply anyway)

It appears that the slowing down of the Pioneer spacecraft may offer a measure of explanation as evidence for these mysterious electrons.
When these spacecraft eventually encounter the limit of the sun's influence, the heliopause (which is regarded as the "cathodic drop" region between the sun and interstellar space), further slowing down may occur and may perhaps include other anomalistic behaviour of these spacecraft, as has been predicted by the hypothesis.

To my mind, disregarding all other matters on the subject, the entire concept of the electric star hypothesis is essentially based on the "glow discharge" theory.
The electric star hypothesis claims that the sun is the anode located at the center of a cathodeless discharge, which as I mentioned in a previous post, is also called the "positive column".
Though the glow discharge theory is somewhat complex, in a glow discharge the current is carried through most of the volume, known as the positive column region, by a slow "drift" of electrons superimposed on their higher thermal velocity.
It takes place in a quasi-neutral plasma with a low density of ionization.
So it is only very close to the sun where these electrons are accelerated to relativistic speeds and where arc discharges occur.

Why have these electrons not been detected?

The explanation appears to be that spacecraft such as Soho, Ulysses etc soon become very highly negatively charged with respect to the surrounding space plasma and in addition to being embedded within the "solar wind", the combined effect causes these slow-drifting electrons to remain virtually undetectable.
Charged in this way, the velocity of these spacecraft through the plasma/solar wind would also have little effect in the detection of any accumulated electrons, as the spacecraft are also highly charged.
If it were possible, it seems that only a specially designed spacecraft sent sufficiently close to the sun (perhaps near the corona), could actually detect these incoming electrons.

Alternatively, maybe the Pioneer probes will reveal some unusual anomalies (as predicted) at the other end of the positive column, the cathodic end, where apparently there is a strong radial electric field.
At least if the Pioneer's do further decelerate near the heliopause, or even slowdown quite abruptly (assuming we can still receive data from these spacecraft), then this anomaly will require an explanation.

The "any comments" I was asking about, was concerning the statement made by Martin Rees, where it appears that the electrical force and the gravitational force equalize out at about the mass of Jupiter, afterwhich gravity takes over.

John T

parejkoj
2003-Sep-27, 06:05 PM
The explanation appears to be that spacecraft such as Soho, Ulysses etc soon become very highly negatively charged with respect to the surrounding space plasma and in addition to being embedded within the "solar wind", the combined effect causes these slow-drifting electrons to remain virtually undetectable.
Charged in this way, the velocity of these spacecraft through the plasma/solar wind would also have little effect in the detection of any accumulated electrons, as the spacecraft are also highly charged.
If it were possible, it seems that only a specially designed spacecraft sent sufficiently close to the sun (perhaps near the corona), could actually detect these incoming electrons.


I don't buy it. If Cassini were highly negatively charged, our instrument (INMS - Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer) wouldn't work properly, nor would most of the other plasma and fields instruments. We'd all notice when the voltages on our electronics went out of spec. There is some negative charging due to the solar plasma, but (from what I understand) it is on the order of a few volts. Not enough to push electrons away if they are approaching the sun with any appreciable velocity, which they would have to be (see below).

Also, we are heading straight into this supposed electron flow, but CAPS's ELS (ELectron Spectrometer) doesn't see them. When it looks away from the sun, there is essentially nothing to see. The low energy "glow" is that slight negative charging that the spacecraft has and can be seen no matter where CAPS is looking.
http://nis-www.lanl.gov/nis-projects/caps/sur_anl_tool.html

And don't expect anything else back from Pioneer: the last signals from 10 and 11 were recieved one and 7 years ago respectively.
http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNStat.html

And anyway, how would you explain the massive number of electrons leaving the sun? How do these slow moving inbound electrons (to complete the "circuit") get past that, if they can't get past the few volts on a spacecraft? They'd have to be moving quickly, but we don't see them, so that explanation doesn't work.

John T
2003-Sep-28, 12:07 PM
parejkoj

Thanks for your input, particularly as you appear to occupy the driving seat concerning spacecraft etc.

As I have mentioned above, Tim Thompson's input on crater morphology (ADS) has given me much food for thought on the question of electrical cratering verses impact.

Perhaps with regard to "electrons entering the sun", you might do the same, because I stand by what I previously said ie:

"No electrons entering the sun (to power the sun), then no electric stars and no electric universe...period!"

In this respect and to answer the questions and the points raised in your post, perhaps it may be better instead to give you a few links (which are freely available on the www), that deal with the subject in a little more detail.

The first link 'A Mystery Solved' deals with the slowing down of the Pioneer spacecraft.
(I was not aware that signals from Pioneer10 had completely ceased).

http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html

The second link contains an article on the 'Summary of Ralph Juergen's Electric Sun Model' which deals with the question;

"Why don't we see a stream of energetic charged particles heading toward the Sun if it is truly electrically powered?

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt

I welcome your comments.

John T

Tim Thompson
2003-Sep-29, 07:32 PM
Can you gives us a summary or a link about the standard model of galaxy formation. Does the model imply dark matter? Which flavor ie hot or cold dark matter?

The majority opinion favors cold dark matter, but there are a few who suggest warm dark matter as a solution for some problems, iincluding galacttic angular momentum. But hot dark matter is out, I think, because it's too hard to form structure as soon as we know it formed.


Galaxy Formation and the Intergalactic Medium Research Group (http://galileo.as.utexas.edu/research.html), University of Texas at Austin.
Galaxy Formation (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/cosmos/Public/galaxy.html), public pages from the Coamology Group at Cambridge University.
Galaxy Formation and the Development of Large-Scale Structure: Caption (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/TheWorks1.html), leads to super-computer developed movies of galaxy formation, and cosmic large scale structure formation. The simulation match observed structure characteristics fairly well, so it's hard to see such a radical solution as the electric cosmos is needed to handle any problems that do exist.


Of course, when I say "galaxy formation is pretty well understood at the basic level", I don't mean that we now know all there is to know, but rather that we understand the basic input from standard physics, and how it will lead to galaxy formation. But this is still an area of active research. Here are a few more or less randomly selected papers of interest.

Hierarchical galaxy formation (http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0007281)
S. Cole, et al.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 319(1): 168-204, November 21, 2000.
Abstract: We describe the GALFORM semi-analytic model for calculating the formation and evolution of galaxies in hierarchical clustering cosmologies. It improves upon, and extends, the earlier scheme developed by Cole et al. The model employs a new Monte Carlo algorithm to follow the merging evolution of dark matter haloes with arbitrary mass resolution. It incorporates realistic descriptions of the density profiles of dark matter haloes and the gas they contain; it follows the chemical evolution of gas and stars, and the associated production of dust; and it includes a detailed calculation of the sizes of discs and spheroids. Wherever possible, our prescriptions for modelling individual physical processes are based on results of numerical simulations. They require a number of adjustable parameters, which we fix by reference to a small subset of local galaxy data. This results in a fully specified model of galaxy formation which can be tested against other data. We apply our methods to the Lambda CDM cosmology (Omega (0) = 0.3, Lambda (0) = 0.7), and find good agreement with a wide range of properties of the local galaxy population: the B- and K-band luminosity functions, the distribution of colours for the population as a whole, the ratio of ellipticals to spirals, the distribution of disc sizes, and the current cold gas content of discs. Inspire of the overall success of the model, some interesting discrepancies remain: the colour-magnitude relation for ellipticals in clusters is significantly flatter than observed at bright magnitudes (although the scatter is about right), and the model predicts galaxy circular velocities, at a given luminosity, that are about 30 per cent larger than is observed. It is unclear whether these discrepancies represent fundamental shortcomings of the model, or whether they result from the various approximations and uncertainties inherent in the technique. Our more detailed methods do not change our earlier conclusion that just over half the stars in the Universe are expected to have formed since z less than or similar to 1.5.


The hierarchical origin of galaxy morphologies (http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0202466)
M. Steinmetz & J.F. Navarro
New Astronomy 7(4): 155-160, June 2002
Abstract: We report first results from a series of N-body/gasdynamical simulations designed to study the origin of galaxy morphologies in a cold dark matter-dominated universe. The simulations include star formation and feedback and have numerical resolution sufficiently high to allow for a direct investigation of the morphology of simulated galaxies. We find, in agreement with previous theoretical work, that the presence of the main morphological components of galaxies-disks, spheroids, bars-is regulated by the mode of gas accretion and intimately linked to discrete accretion events. In the case we present, disks arise from the smooth deposition of cooled gas at the center of dark halos, spheroids result from the stirring of preexisting disks during mergers, and bars are triggered by tides generated by satellites. This demonstrates that morphology is a transient phenomenon within the lifetime of a galaxy and that the Hubble sequence reflects the varied accretion histories of galaxies in hierarchical formation scenarios. In particular, we demonstrate directly that disk/bulge systems can be built and rebuilt by the smooth accretion of gas onto the remnant of a major merger and that the present-day remnants of late dissipative mergers between disks are spheroidal stellar systems with structure resembling that of field ellipticals. The perplexing variety of galaxy morphologies is thus highly suggestive of-and may actually even demand-a universe where structures have evolved hierarchically.

The halo occupation distribution and the physics of galaxy formation (http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0212357)
A.A. Berlind AA, et al.
Astrophysical journal 593(1): 1-25, Part 1, August 10 2003.
Abstract: The halo occupation distribution ( HOD) describes the bias between galaxies and dark matter by specifying (1) the probability P(dN/M) that a halo of virial mass M contains N galaxies of a particular class and (2) the relative spatial and velocity distributions of galaxies and dark matter within halos. We calculate and compare the HODs predicted by a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulation of a LambdaCDM cosmological model (cold dark matter with a cosmological constant) and by a semianalytic galaxy formation model applied to the same cosmology. Although the two methods predict different galaxy mass functions, their HOD predictions for samples of the same space density agree remarkably well. In a sample defined by a baryonic mass threshold, the mean occupation function [N](M) exhibits a sharp cutoff at low halo masses, a slowly rising plateau in which [N] climbs from 1 to 2 over nearly a decade in halo mass, and a more steeply rising high-occupancy regime at high halo mass. In the low-occupancy regime, the factorial moments [N(N - 1)] and [N(N-1)(N - 2)] are well below the values of [N](2) and [N](3) expected for Poisson statistics, with important consequences for the small-scale behavior of the two- and three-point correlation functions. The HOD depends strongly on galaxy age, with high-mass halos populated mainly by old galaxies and low-mass halos by young galaxies. The distribution of galaxies within SPH halos supports the assumptions usually made in semianalytic calculations: the most massive galaxy lies close to the halo center and moves near the halo's mean velocity, while the remaining, satellite galaxies have the same radial profile and velocity dispersion as the dark matter. The mean occupation at fixed halo mass in the SPH simulation is independent of the halo's larger scale environment, supporting both the merger tree approach of the semianalytic method and the claim that the HOD provides a complete statistical characterization of galaxy bias. We discuss the connections between the predicted HODs and the galaxy formation physics incorporated in the SPH and semianalytic approaches. These predictions offer useful guidance to theoretical models of galaxy clustering, and they will be tested empirically by ongoing analyses of galaxy redshift surveys. By applying the HODs to a large-volume N-body simulation, we show that both methods predict slight departures from a power-law galaxy correlation function, similar to features detected in recent observational analyses.

And a few other noteworthy efforts:


Simulations of Galaxy Formation in a Lambda CDM Universe III: The Dissipative Formation of an Elliptical Galaxy (http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301224)
Simulations of Galaxy Formation in a Lambda CDM Universe II: The Fine Structure of Simulated Galactic Disks (http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0212282)
Simulations of Galaxy Formation in a Lambda CDM Universe I: Dynamical and Photometric Properties of a Simulated Disk Galaxy (http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211331)
The Properties of Spiral Galaxies: Confronting Hierarchical Galaxy Formation Models with Observations (http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303531)

Tim Thompson
2003-Sep-29, 09:02 PM
On the matter of the electrons allegedly powering the sun, I would like to add the comment that it is the velocity of the electrons with respect to the spacecraft, and not to the sun, which affects the detection or detectability of said electrons. With that in mind, aside from the fact that we know already that spacecraft do not carry a net charge sufficient to drive off even wimpy electrons, add in the fact that all of these spacecraft are traveling at fairly high velocities relative to the sun, and therefore also at high velocities relative to the "drift" electrons. But such electrons would be faster & more energetic than solar wind electrons, and be that much easier to detect. We don't detect them at all, and that is a significant indication that they are not there.

Also note that there is a large, but ignored physical problem, also brought up by parejkoj. If you try to run two currents through each other, they will not do so smoothly, and may not do so at all. An incoming stream of slow electrons will never reach the sun, and could not possibly ever reach the sun, because it would be stopped cold by the far more numerous electrons streaming out from the sun, or defelected by the protons (which might even capture slow electrons to form neutral hydrogen atoms). This basic fact of electromagnetism creates an intolerable conflict with the notion that the incoming electrons are "slow"; either there are no such electrons, or the physics of electromagnetism is entirely wrong. Since the latter shows no sign of being true, it seems the former is more likely to be true, and that there are no such electrons. And do keep in mind that we do see interstellar neutrals moving through the solar system, from the right direction. So we know where & how to look for such electrons.

It is interesting that the conversation moves always towards slow, drift electrons. If we follow the link suggested by John T (THOTH, vol III, no. 6, March 31, 1999 (http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt)), and go most of the way to the bottom, and follow the question Why don't we see a stream of energetic charged particles heading toward the Sun if it is truly electrically powered?, we make an interesting find. The elctrons are not at all slow, but are rather proposed to be highly relativistic, with energies up to 10 Gev (10 billion electron volts). An electron at that energy will be travellingat a large fraction of the speed of light, far faster than the few hundred km/sec speeds of the solar wind electrons. Electrons at that energy should smash hard into spacecraft, making themselves very obvious. They should also emit X-ray continuum radiation as they move through the solar wind, but we don't see that either. The absence of X-rays, and the absence of highly energetic electron collisions is a significant indication that the proposed current is not there.

And if you look about halfway on that webpage, to the start of the section on Juergen's model, you will see, in the 1st paragraph, a reference to Eddington's The Internal Constitution of the Stars. It is important to know that when Eddington wrote, it was not known that nuclear fusion was even possible at all. It was a mere speculation in the 1920's, and if you look at Eddington's book, you will see that it is in fact much more qualitative than quantitative.

A better choice for the starting point for the modern theory of steller interiors is Chandrasekhar's An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure (University of Chicago Press, 1939). Chandrasekhar worked out all of the physics that Eddington could not work out, especially the hydrodynamics and radiative transfer. While Chandrasekhar did not know for sure that fusion could happen, the 13 year interval since Eddington's 1926 book saw an enormous increase in the knowledge of nuclear physics (a discipline which did not really exist at all in 1926). But, like Eddington, Chandrasekhar could only propose nuclear fusion as the likely source, with little quantitative support, save the difference in nuclear masses.

The big step of introducing nuclear fusion in quantitative detail was taken by Martin Schwarzschild, in his book Structure and Evolution of the Stars (Princeton University Press, 1958). This was the first book to take advantage of the WWII "boom" in nuclear physics research, including the practical application of nuclear fusion in the post WWII era. By using the known fusion rates, Schwarzschild was able to show that nuclear fusion does work quite well as the internal energy source.

But all the electric cosmos folks can come up with is a lame excuse: "Almost all of the efforts by theorists since then has been to gloss over the 'fatal' objections (note that the use of quotes in the original seems to imply that the objections are not fatal)" And note once again that the "original" here is Eddington, who was the one in the worst position to understand fusion as a stellar energy source. In fact, a study of Chandrasekhar, Schwarzschild, and those who came after, shows that there was no "glossing over", as the Thothites would say, but exactly the opposite. The construction of a cohesive theory of stellar internal structure.

And right after that we find: "The worst fatality is that the neutrinos that we should expect, if the sun's engine is ticking over as advertised, do not exist in anywhere near the numbers required." This appears in the March 1999 newsletter, even though neutrino oscillations had already been studied since 1979, and it had already been shown by the early 90's that quantum mechanically allowed oscillations would in all liklihood solve the solar neutrino problem. Since then, the newer results have strikingly confirmed the oscillation model, which does away with the neutrino problem as voiced in Thoth. So their favorite "fatal" flaw is not only not fatal, it's not a "flaw" at all.

The other big physics problem is that stars have to have a large internal energy source to exist, and the "electric star" explanation, of internal electrostatic repulsion is a sham argument that strongly violates the fundamentals of physics. Like charges repel, unlike charges attract. If you mix them together, without heat, the unlike charges glom onto each other, the gas neutralizes and collapses (fast). If you mix them together with heat, the heat convects & radiates away, the gas becomes cold, the like charges glom onto each other, the gas neutralizes and collpases (fast). For a mass the size & temperature of the sun, this will happen in 500,000 to 1,000,000 years, but the sun will shrink systematically as it cools. We should be able to measure the shrinking & cooling, but see neither, which implies that it is not happening. Only a continuous energy source will keep the sun the way it is, electric or not. So the internal energy source problem does not go away, even with an "electric" star.

The truth is that the electric universe & electric star hypotheses violate so many simple & fundamental considerations of physics that it's hard to count them all, so it's hard to understand why anyone whould choose to take it seriously.

I conclude with a shameless list of my own webpages, all written with the intention of being relevant to the electric universe hypothesis.


On the Matter of the Electric Star Hypothesis (http://www.tim-thompson.com/grey-areas.html), Thompson responds to Thornhill, May, 1998.
On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis (http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html), a detailed analysis of the propsed "electric" nature of the sun & stars, arguing strongly against the "electric sun" hypothesis.
Geodynamo Theory, and the matter of the Electric Universe Hypothesis (http://www.tim-thompson.com/geodynamo.html), May, 1998, a response to the claim of the electric universe hypothesis that the Earth's magnetic field cannot be dynamo generated.
Hertzsprung Russell Diagram And Stellar Evolution (http://www.tim-thompson.com/hr.html), originally a response to the electric universe, I have now removed references to that hypothesis and simply present that standard theory of stellar evolution, and show how it is compatible with even small details in the color-magnitude diagram. This is a strength of standard theory, and a weakness of the eletric universe hypothesis.
Solar Fusion & Neutrinos (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html), an introduction to the fusion processes inside the sun, and to the solar neutrino problem.

rastro
2003-Oct-06, 10:44 PM
There is a simple way to show that the electric sun model is false. Consider the quote Tim provided from Thoth:

"The electrons are not at all slow, but are rather proposed to be highly relativistic, with energies up to 10 Gev (10 billion electron volts)."

If such electrons existed, then the energy imparted to a target body would depend on the surface area of the body. Since the volume of a body increases as a cube and surface area as a square then the surface area to volume ratio is greater for smaller bodies. That means the energy imparted to a smaller body, like the Earth, would be greater - per unit volume - than the energy imparted to the Sun.

Consequently, the Earth should be at least as hot as the Sun.

It is a simple matter to show that it is not.

John T
2003-Oct-10, 11:19 PM
Hello "rastro", Tim Thompson and all,

I have been away of recent times, however to answer "rastro" (and all):

I take what you say by your recent post, but I just cannot understand your mathematical assumptions and reasoning, with regard to "unit volume and surface area" within the context of which we are discussing.

With regard to simplicity itself, as if using this idea as a sort of construct, no problem at all, but we have now developed this discussion from the prospect of electrical cratering to electrical stars (courtesy - Tim Thompson).

Your explanation is very interesting for sure, but in relation to incoming electrons (to power the sun), which is what this discussion has now developed towards, the purported electrons are indeed undetectable within the current instrumentation and technology aboard the various spacecraft.

With this fact I agree, the spacecraft were not designed for that purpose.

Such conventional spacecraft are designed to measure, amongst many other factors (in my understanding), the physical "output" of the sun, not any purported "input", which at the distance of the the Earth, according to the hypothesis, is grossly inadequate for detection anyway (which is why the Earth does not glow as the sun).

In like manner and in "conventional" terms, so are the detection of the
apparently "flavoured" neutrinos that purportedly emanate from the sun, also seriously in question.

These "missing" neutrinos, perhaps to save a theory, surely must be proven to exist...and please, not on paper, or any wonderful theoretical constructs.

So, how can we measure these neutrinos, to prove or at least substantiate the "theory"?

Yet more theories and speculation?

Maybe we should place a few ultra well-designed spacecraft between the sun and the Earth (of which such spacecraft are also technically outside of today's current technology), in order to measure the change in neutrino flux from the sun.

In this way, perhaps these mysterious changing neutrinos can actually be observed to change their form enroute from one flavour to another, as theorized, so that these mass or mass-less particles, or perhaps no real particles at all, can actually be measured on their approach to the Earth.

Surely, therein may lie the desired "proof" of these mysterious neutrino "flavours".

Similarly, maybe we should place a few equally and specially designed spacecraft to measure the possibility of "incoming" electrons (that purportedly power the sun), at the distances of our Earth, Saturn, Neptune and much further beyond.
Indeed right out to the limits of the sun's heliosphere (Pioneer 10 is actually slowing down, but nobody knows why).

This, in my understanding, is just one aspect that the electrical universe theory demands as a measure of proof.

Only in this way can the theory (hypothesis?) or indeed any "theory" be substantially verified (but there are other ways, which are outside the scope for this discussion).

More to all this, is the understanding of "glow discharge theory", which is one of the governing properties and reasons for an electric sun, as opposed to a "gravitational" sun.

Further, I just cannot believe and nor do I accept, that 'Birkeland Currents' existing in space is "hocus pocus" (to quote Tim Thompson on a recent post during this thread).

Nor do I accept that even despite the wonderful experiments carried out, re - the ADS cratering experiments of forty-odd years ago, are absolutely representative and conclusive by impact theory alone.

I have studied these experimental crater forms etc and to me, there are too many anomalies that just cannot be explained by impact theory, despite "experimental proof".

In my understanding, what we see over the entire surface of the Moon does not equate with "impacts" at all (other than perhaps the odd ellipsoidal craters such as Messier and Messier A and a few others).

In short, if there are actually neutrinos that somehow change their "flavours" on the way from the sun to the earth, indeed proven beyond doubt (physically, not mathematically), then the electric universe concept must be wrong.

Then there is other evidence which needs (and indeed requires) explanation, but that is another story, which in my experience, mostly depends on a matter of opinion and the generalised adoption of common sense.

Regards

John T

Tim Thompson
2003-Oct-11, 01:07 AM
I will make such reply now, as limited time permits.

On the matter of the volume & surface area of Earth, for simplicity sake, just consider the areas. the surface area of Earth is 8.375x10^-5 of the surface area of the sun. So one might reasonably guess that Earth should be receiving that same fraction of the incoming energy as the sun. And since Earth is in thermal equilibrium with its surrounding, it should shine with that same fraction of the sun's energy. That translates into an expected radiation temperature of 552.7 Kelvins, as compared with it's known radiation temperature of 254.3 Kelvins. So this does leave open the obvious question: Why does Earth not receive energy from the same electrons as does the sun?


... the purported electrons are indeed undetectable within the current instrumentation and technology aboard the various spacecraft.

Incorrect. The purported electrons are extremely detectable, and have been since the very first spacecraft went out to study the interplanetary environment, in the early 60's I guess. All of the electron detectors are omnidirectional, and always have been. They detect both the energy & direction of the electrons, protons & ions. The purported electrons should have been detected long ago, and it is hard to explain why they have not been.


These "missing" neutrinos, perhaps to save a theory, surely must be proven to exist...and please, not on paper, or any wonderful theoretical constructs. ... So, how can we measure these neutrinos, to prove or at least substantiate the "theory"?

Already done, as described on my webpage: Solar Fusion & Neutrinos (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html) (see the Note added July 2002 (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html#note)). The earlier neutrino experiments, the one's that saw a "deficit" were sensitive only to electron neutrinos, since the sun only produces electron neutrinos. Newer experiments, which measure all three neutrino flavors (electron, muon & tau), detect the same total number of neutrinos as theory predicts the sun to emit, and consistent with "flavor" oscillation from electron to muon or tau. In short, the neutrinos you ask about detecting, have been detected, and in the number anticipated by standard theory.


Further, I just cannot believe and nor do I accept, that 'Birkeland Currents' existing in space is "hocus pocus" (to quote Tim Thompson on a recent post during this thread).

There are Birkeland Currents all over the place. What's "hocus pocus" about it (and I will stand by those words) is the way they are described and applied by the electric cosmos proponents. They invent currents where there are none, and ignore the currents that are really there. And that's about as hocus as pocus gets.

Later.

rastro
2003-Oct-11, 01:44 PM
From John T:
"Maybe we should place a few ultra well-designed spacecraft between the sun and the Earth (of which such spacecraft are also technically outside of today's current technology), in order to measure the change in neutrino flux from the sun. "

I think we will need a few more design iterations before that becomes possible. The neutrino detectors in use at Fermilab (for example) weigh in at 5,400 metric tons....

As to experiments to detect the flavor oscillations, check out these web pages from Fermilab.

http://www-numi.fnal.gov/public/minosexperiment.html
http://www-numi.fnal.gov/public/oscillations.html
http://www-numi.fnal.gov/forscientists.html

John T
2003-Oct-18, 10:55 PM
I must say, thankyou indeed for your good postings of recent, ie Tim Thompson and "rastro" etc.

Whereas I am studying your responses, I am still not fully convinced by what you have to say.

I have previously spoken about the electrical formation of craters (on the moon), including sinuous rilles etc and I am studying the extremely good laboratory descriptions and interpretations of these craters, kindly posted by Tim Thompson with regard to the ADS archives.

In my tentative conclusions thus far, I am not fully convinced by the impact theory of crater formation.

In my examination of the photos, there is too much "missing" from the resultant aggregates and various accumulations of the dispersed material, that apparently result from these impacts.

Never mind stones or other objects thrown into specially prepared and assumed lunar landscapes etc., (using flour etc) in the laboratory, this is easily done, but there is something in the topography and geological make-up of lunar craters, that for me does not speak of an "impact"

Also, the formation of "rilles" are not fully explained at all on the ADS experiments.
(The currently accepted theory of "collapsed lava tubes etc" is a rather tenuous and very weak explanation, in my opinion)

Regarding these apparent impacts, even on our humble Earth, the Tunguska incident was apparently not an impact at all.

In fact it is currently accepted, even within astronomical circles, that the "object", whatever it was, exploded around eight miles above ground level.
Was this "explosion" due to speed, chemical composition of the object and resultant friction within the upper atmosphere etc that caused this atmospheric explosion, or perhaps some other means?

Also, the formation of rayed craters (Copernicus, Tycho etc) where the rays disappear way over the horizon, are also not fully explained.

Indeed, why are the "rayed" craters predominently located in the "highland" areas on the moon and not the "lowland" Maria areas.

Why do some of these "rays" end abruptly at the transition between these two levels?

Impacts?

Then, during the discussion, the topic entered another aspect.

"Electrons entering the sun"

Sure, electrons entering the sun (to power the sun) have not been detected, nor is the equipment on the various satellites designed to detect these most elusive electrons (if indeed they are there).

Maybe there might be a need for a more definitive understanding of "glow discharge theory" that might explain their existence, within the confines of an electrically dominated universe.

There are also many other factors to consider, which for this brief post, are too numerous to mention.

Regards

John T
2003-Oct-25, 11:21 PM
I wonder, could anyone post more information on this subject.

I wrote:

However, conversely, in the book 'Just Six Numbers', by Martin Rees, he writes (pp 29):

"Gravity starts off on the atomic scale, with a handycap of thirty-six powers of ten; but it gains two powers of ten (in other words 100) for every three powers (factors of 1,000) on mass. So gravity will have caught up for the fifty-fourth object (54 = 36 x 3/2), which has about Jupiter's mass. In any still heavier lump more massive than Jupiter, gravity is so strong that it overwhelms the forces that hold solids together."

So it appears that the electrical force and the gravitational force equalize out at about the mass of Jupiter, afterwhich gravity takes over.

Surely, would not this statement disprove the electric universe question once and for all?

Anything beyond the size of Jupiter, at least mass-wise, would be seriously disproven.

Comments!


[/quote]

John T
2003-Nov-10, 12:50 AM
Dear posters,

To my mind, the "electric-cosmos" concept has not been refuted at all.

John T

Zero Signal
2003-Nov-26, 10:43 PM
I know a bit about this issue. I used to be a follower of the neo-Velikovskian catastrophists until an extensive email conversation with Leroy Ellenberger, another former Velikovskian, who finally finished my "deconversion" away from V's supporters.

The "Electric Cosmos" theory is bupkis. It is simply a neo-catastrophist corruption of Hannes Alfven's plasma cosmology theory and Halton Arp's "non-expanding" universe models--ideas that, while suspect, are not necessarily "crank" theories (they do end up in legit peer-reviewed journals, after all)--mixed in with Velikovskian catastrophism.

You see, neo-catastrophists need the Electric Star theory in order to justify their off-the-wall "theories" of solar system dynamics, which involve classic Velikovsky gags like gigantic lightning bolts jumping between planets, carving out craters and canyons in the process, and planets being ejected violently from their orbits. The ES theory involves in large part a hijacking Alfven's plasma cosmology and warping it past breaking point to fit their ideas. However, this is similar, if not identical, to certain tactics employed by creationists (some neo-Velikovskians do appear to be creationists as well, BTW), who will hijack anything in the scientific literature--mainstream or not--and distort it beyond recognition in order to justify a 6000 year old universe. As another example, Arp's theories, while not at all necessary for catastrophism to "work," is hijacked by Velikovskians simply because it suits their agenda.

However, the claims of catastrophists have been debunked in numerous writings, including the TalkOrigins archive (see http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-catastrophism.html). Tim has argued against the Electric Star theory, and I have also added my own arguements into the debunking of this so-called "theory of stellar physics" in this thread: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6401&highlight=


However, conversely, in the book 'Just Six Numbers', by Martin Rees, he writes (pp 29):

"Gravity starts off on the atomic scale, with a handycap of thirty-six powers of ten; but it gains two powers of ten (in other words 100) for every three powers (factors of 1,000) on mass. So gravity will have caught up for the fifty-fourth object (54 = 36 x 3/2), which has about Jupiter's mass. In any still heavier lump more massive than Jupiter, gravity is so strong that it overwhelms the forces that hold solids together."

So it appears that the electrical force and the gravitational force equalize out at about the mass of Jupiter, afterwhich gravity takes over.

Any comments on this statement?

John T

Yes, Rees is right. While electromagnetic forces are responsible for the everday behavior of solids, liquids, gases, chemical reactions, etc., they lose their influence under extreme gravitational conditions. Perhaps the most notable example of this is "degenerate matter" which exists primarily in dense stars, including white dwarfs, neutron stars, and also in the interiors of red and brown dwarfs--all objects of considerable densities far exceeding densities encountered on Earth (osmium is the densest non-degenerate solid-state substance, with a specific gravity of about 22.6), or even in the center of the Sun (specific gravity of about 150).

ToSeek
2003-Nov-27, 02:20 AM
Rees's explanation seems to be misleading, or else I'm missing something. I don't think Jupiter's magnetic field has roughly equal strength with its gravitational field, as he implies. But I could be wrong.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 04:26 AM
Do these experiments performed by Dan Durna also reveal various aspects of typical crater morphology such as circularity, central peaks, terraced walls, flat floors and other complex features?

I don't know about Durna, but the features you asked about were all recreated in Laboratory cratering experiments about 40 years ago. See Some Results Deduced from Simulation of Lunar Craters (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1962IAUS...14..419S&db_key=AST&h igh=3e6fbfd69f01910), P.F. Sabaneyev, IAU Symposium 14, The Moon, pp. 419-432, 1962. You can download the paper as a PDF file, or look at the scanned page images. Central peak, terraced slopes, rays, all there. Figure 1, which strikingly resembles the lunar crater Copernicus, is actually a picture of

Did you read this document or just look at the pictures? The document states, and I quote:


"...formations possessing all the attributes of lunar craters are produced in a layer of some loose materials, placed on a level and firm base, on dropping of a lump--made likewise of a loose substance--into such materials..."

Further it states:


";the model was obtained in a layer of cement, 1mm thick, placed on a spherical base..."

The document continues:


"1. The greatest similarity between models and lunar objects is attained by dropping matter with a negligible cohesion of its consituent particles."

The document continues further:


"Even an insignificant hardening of the impinging matter is sufficient to increase the acuity of the central mound and decrease the diameters of ring-shaped walls. A further hardening causes disturbances in the structure to such an extent that they lose their similarity with lunar objects. If, under experimental conditions, the impinging matter is absolutely rigid (steel ball), we note the emergence of formations which are comparable only with the small craters on the Moon, terrestrial meteoric craters and explosion craters."

The document also states that the impinging matter MUST have a circular projection in the direction of incidence. The document does stipulate, however, that these impacts could have been cones, hemispheres or spheres, and I would assume cylinders since they also have a circular cross section.

Now, aside from the fact that there have never been observed spherical, hemispherical or conic or cylindric meteorites, this ad hoc condition is unlikely to be satisfied. Further, given that these "models" only work in wet cement, it is unlikely they replicated the processes that were at work on the moon, unless you think perhaps the moon was made of wet cement that got hit by balls (or half-balls, cones, cylinders) of similarly unset cement. Is that the point, here? That the moon and its "impactors" were all made of wet cement at one time? Did teamsters make the moon?

It should be obvious at this point that physical impact models fail, where the electric erosion model still rings true. Maybe if people did a bit more research than uncovering a forty-year-old demonstration using wet cement they might realize they are making fools of themselves.

TravisM
2005-Feb-11, 04:28 AM
How many sock-puppets does this guy have?

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 04:39 AM
How many sock-puppets does this guy have?

You seem like an ideal candidate to discuss this issue. After all, you responded in two minutes when I posted to a thread that's been inactive for a year and three months. Would you care to discuss the subject of lunar craters and how they got there? Take plenty of time to read my post if you haven't already, four minutes should be enough.

P.S.: It's a good idea to include a subject for your posts in the future, so we get some idea at a glance what your post is about and we can follow threads. Just a suggestion, cheers!

TravisM
2005-Feb-11, 04:47 AM
I post to the subject of the thread. There's a lunar portion of this board, go there for lunatiks :wink:.

Impacts by massive objects. Done.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 05:05 AM
I post to the subject of the thread. There's a lunar portion of this board, go there for lunatiks :wink:.

Impacts by massive objects. Done.

I find your tone insulting and I'll ask you nicely to stop insinuating that I am irrational.

If you wish to continue this discussion I'd like you to explain why you think all lunar craters were created by impacts? The wet cement experiments performed forty years ago prove beyond doubt, if the moon had been made of wet cement, and had been impacted by blobs of wet cement with circular projections in the direction of incidence, this mystery would be solved.

That stated, until we get some evidence that the moon was made of wet cement, this particular data set is not entirely useful for verifying the impact hypothesis. In fact it tends to falsify the hypothesis in the stark absence of other evidence suggesting impacts. However, there is the possibility that you know of some other evidence, perhaps some impacts that have been observed and are known to have made the kinds of craters that exist in very large numbers on the moon?

Of course we can't observe everything that has occurred or will occur, but surely there must be some avenues we can pursue to collect evidence to either verify this impact hypothesis or falsify it. In my view, it has already been falsified by observations, and since we have the very reasonable electric force to draw upon, which can create precisely these shapes in ANY material, the mystery is solved. The vast majority of the craters on the moon were created by electrical erosion.

Metricyard
2005-Feb-11, 05:12 AM
I post to the subject of the thread. There's a lunar portion of this board, go there for lunatiks :wink:.

Impacts by massive objects. Done.

Yep, I'll go for massive, large, and small objects.

If electrical charges cause craters, why doesn't lightning make craters?

Why don't we see craters being created now by electrical charges?

If this phenomenon were real, wouldn't we see craters being built on just about any planet, even our own?

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 05:25 AM
I will make such reply now, as limited time permits.

On the matter of the volume & surface area of Earth, for simplicity sake, just consider the areas. the surface area of Earth is 8.375x10^-5 of the surface area of the sun. So one might reasonably guess that Earth should be receiving that same fraction of the incoming energy as the sun. And since Earth is in thermal equilibrium with its surrounding, it should shine with that same fraction of the sun's energy. That translates into an expected radiation temperature of 552.7 Kelvins, as compared with it's known radiation temperature of 254.3 Kelvins. So this does leave open the obvious question: Why does Earth not receive energy from the same electrons as does the sun?

This is such an obvious blunder, but it doesn't seem to have been corrected yet, so here goes. What we have here is a case of oversimplification. Obviously the amount of current a body will draw is based on its electrical properties and the available source of electrons. The last time I checked, surface area was not an inherently electrical property of matter. While surface area will indeed figure into the overall problem, it is not of chief concern when deducing or predicting electrical effects. What is much more important is the body's capacity to draw current. As I'm sure you well know by now, Birkeland currents are filaments that are capable of carrying tremendous electrical currents, and they are proven experimentally to exist. I can't say I understand this fanatical devotion to the stellar fusion model, a model that has been falsified by observations (sunspot observations being just one type).

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 05:42 AM
I post to the subject of the thread. There's a lunar portion of this board, go there for lunatiks :wink:.

Impacts by massive objects. Done.

Please do not repost insinuations that I am irrational, as I find it very insulting.


Yep, I'll go for massive, large, and small objects.

Wonderful! Now cite some evidence supporting the impact hypothesis, please.


If electrical charges cause craters, why doesn't lightning make craters?

They do. Not only do they cause pitting they also can blast trenches with a morphology very similar to the Grand Canyon and the also very similar canyon on Mars.


Why don't we see craters being created now by electrical charges?

We see them every day. Have you heard of arc welders? Take a look at some electron micrographs of cathode erosion, you'll see "terrain" that looks like it could be on the moon.


If this phenomenon were real, wouldn't we see craters being built on just about any planet, even our own?

Amazingly enough, we do see craters on about every rock in the solar system. We see impossibly large craters on rocks that certainly would have been pulverized if they had been created by impacts (barring wet cement hypotheses). We also see channels and gorges on many planets without a large amount of cratering, a finding consistent with the electrical model. And as is typical, astronogers come up with a different ad hoc explanation for each body, including ad hoc conditions like "recent resurfacing" to wedge into the nebular hypothesis of planet formation and "periodic geological activity" and even "periodic precipitation" to account respectively for lack of expected evidence and similarity of electrically-carved shapes to fluid erosion (but in the absence of other evidence of such).

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 07:06 AM
For anyone interested in learning a bit more about the "electric universe" ideas, there is a large archive of brief articles and accompanying photographs (over 150, arhived five days a week) at the Thunderbolts home page (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00archive.htm), produced by David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill, Amy Acheson, Mel Acheson, Michael Armstrong, Dwardu Cardona, Ev Cochrane, Walter Radtke, C.J. Ransom, Don Scott, Rens van der Sluijs and Ian Tresman, and maintained by webmaster Michael Armstrong.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 10:45 AM
If electrical charges cause craters, why doesn't lightning make craters?


Why don't we see craters being created now by electrical charges?

Here (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040702craters.htm) is a brief description of an experiment involving electrical arc cratering, with an accompanying photograph (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/images/040702craters.jpg). The article and accompanying photograph appeared in the Thunderbolts (http://www.thunderbolts.info/)' web page "picture of the day" section, July 02, 2004. I think anyone would find this to be a very eye-opening demonstration of the capability of electrical arcing to create craters. In the absence of any evidence verifying impact models, and in the presence of evidence that falsifies them, we must ask if these effects are scaleable. Could the forces at work act on a planetary scale, to gouge enormous craters out of, for example, the moon?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/images/040702craters.jpg

Plasma physicists have revealed that plasma effects are scaleable. They act similarly on every known scale. In a sense they are fractal in nature. And at every scale they obey the same simple rules. Like the simple rules of a fractal, these "laws of physics", as they are known, create incredibly complexity, also on every scale.

All that remains is to verify that the electrical environment around the sun is not perfectly stable. Astronogers keep asking for proof of electric current streaming into the sun. These same people will explain all about the "solar wind", not realizing that this "radiation" they think they understand is a direct consequence of the "missing electrons" they never looked for. It is very difficult to measure negative charge in space, apparently. We can, however, measure positive charge with some success.

We know there has to be an equality of force or the protons would not be accelerating away from the sun. If they were shot like cannonballs out of a "nuclear furnace", they would decelerate as they moved away from the sun. How do you accelerate positively charged particles? By applying an ELECTRIC FIELD. From observations of these accelerating particles we know that the sun's electrical environment is not completely stable. We also know that these positively-charged particles must be part of what is known as a "circuit". Those of you familiar with electronics might know what a circuit is.

We know the Earth constitutes part of a circuit. That circuit is fed by the sun. A few folks in this thread have mentioned equilibrium. It's exactly on topic. The Earth's circuit leaks a lot, so it's being fed. The obvious culprit is the sun. People don't like this idea, that the Earth is being blasted by massive electrical discharges. It's unsettling to realize that's exactly where all this light is coming from in the daytime. Is there anyone here who can deny they get a "charge" from sunshine?

We know the sun routinely burps massive arcs of electricity. We see coronal mass ejections (coronal electron impinging) frequently on the surface of the sun. If the Earth were lying in the face of some of these arcs it would likely be incinerated. Is it such a stretch to imagine one of these bolts streaking out to strike a planet? Look at some images of comets passing close to the sun, the coronal mass ejections nearly grab some of them.

Are these "thunderbolts" a thing of the past? Maybe they are, I don't know. Most agree the birth of the solar system (or growth or whatever) was accompanied by a lot of debris. With a bunch of debris whizzing around shorting the sun's circuits like mosquitos in a bug zapper, it's easy to envision these thunderbolts from the sun tearing up all the planets.

Take a look at some of the high-speed photography of Sandia's "z machine" (http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2003/nuclear-power/Zneutrons.html) to get some idea of how just one of these bolts could strike many if not all of the planets, and all of their satellites, nearly simultaneously. How many light minutes is it to Mars? And to our moon? To the sun? It could strike and vanish in hours, leaving only the scars as evidence of its passing. We should learn all we can about these scars, it might save our lives some day.

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2003/images/zmachine.gif

It's really perplexing. All the data from the "space age" is screaming ELECTRIC at us, but so many are addicted to metaphysical gravity models and "solar wind" gasbags.

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 11:43 AM
I think anyone would find this to be a very eye-opening demonstration of the capability of electrical arcing to create craters. In the absence of any evidence verifying impact models, and in the presence of evidence that falsifies them, we must ask if these effects are scaleable. Could the forces at work act on a planetary scale, to gouge enormous craters out of, for example, the moon?
Absence of any evidence?
What would you accept as evidence?
I found this: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 104301 (2003)


Morphology and Scaling of Impact Craters in Granular Media
We present the results of experiments on impact craters formed by dropping a steel ball vertically into a container of small glass beads. As the energy of impact increases, we observe a progression of crater morphologies analogous to that seen in craters on the moon. We find that both the diameter and the depth of the craters are proportional to the 1/4 power of the energy. The ratio of crater diameter to rim-to-floor depth is constant for low-energy impacts, but increases at higher energy, similar to what is observed for lunar craters.
Where is the evidence that falsifies impact cratering models?



[Snip]

All that remains is to verify that the electrical environment around the sun is not perfectly stable. Astronogers keep asking for proof of electric current streaming into the sun. These same people will explain all about the "solar wind", not realizing that this "radiation" they think they understand is a direct consequence of the "missing electrons" they never looked for. It is very difficult to measure negative charge in space, apparently. We can, however, measure positive charge with some success.
Why the difference?
Electrons and protons have the same charge (except for the sign): if we can measure the current due to the protons, how can we miss the electron current if we do not "look for" it?




We know there has to be an equality of force or the protons would not be accelerating away from the sun. If they were shot like cannonballs out of a "nuclear furnace", they would decelerate as they moved away from the sun.
Interplanetary space is a good vacuum.
Why would protons decelerate?




How do you accelerate positively charged particles? By applying an ELECTRIC FIELD. From observations of these accelerating particles we know that the sun's electrical environment is not completely stable. We also know that these positively-charged particles must be part of what is known as a "circuit". Those of you familiar with electronics might know what a circuit is.
What makes you think that the Solar System is like a circuit?




We know the Earth constitutes part of a circuit. That circuit is fed by the sun. A few folks in this thread have mentioned equilibrium. It's exactly on topic. The Earth's circuit leaks a lot, so it's being fed. The obvious culprit is the sun. People don't like this idea, that the Earth is being blasted by massive electrical discharges. It's unsettling to realize that's exactly where all this light is coming from in the daytime. Is there anyone here who can deny they get a "charge" from sunshine?
As far as I know, the sunlight is not the solar wind.
What makes you think that they are related (on Earth)?

By the way, light does not carry charge.




We know the sun routinely burps massive arcs of electricity. We see coronal mass ejections (coronal electron impinging) frequently on the surface of the sun. If the Earth were lying in the face of some of these arcs it would likely be incinerated. Is it such a stretch to imagine one of these bolts streaking out to strike a planet? Look at some images of comets passing close to the sun, the coronal mass ejections nearly grab some of them.
So, the comets have to get close to the Sun.
What makes you think that these ejections can reach a planet?




Are these "thunderbolts" a thing of the past? Maybe they are, I don't know. Most agree the birth of the solar system (or growth or whatever) was accompanied by a lot of debris. With a bunch of debris whizzing around shorting the sun's circuits like mosquitos in a bug zapper, it's easy to envision these thunderbolts from the sun tearing up all the planets.

Take a look at some of the high-speed photography of Sandia's "z machine" (http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2003/nuclear-power/Zneutrons.html) to get some idea of how just one of these bolts could strike many if not all of the planets, and all of their satellites, nearly simultaneously. How many light minutes is it to Mars? And to our moon? To the sun? It could strike and vanish in hours, leaving only the scars as evidence of its passing. We should learn all we can about these scars, it might save our lives some day.
Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD) tactic?
What has this "Z machine" to do with the Solar System?




It's really perplexing. All the data from the "space age" is screaming ELECTRIC at us, but so many are addicted to metaphysical gravity models and "solar wind" gasbags.
Yet we cannot measure this electric effects, even if our technology is based on the use of electromagnetic effects.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 11:55 AM
I know a bit about this issue. I used to be a follower of the neo-Velikovskian catastrophists until an extensive email conversation with Leroy Ellenberger, another former Velikovskian, who finally finished my "deconversion" away from V's supporters.

And now you're a follower of Leroy Ellenberger? Who will you follow tomorrow?


The "Electric Cosmos" theory is bupkis. It is simply a neo-catastrophist corruption of Hannes Alfven's plasma cosmology theory and Halton Arp's "non-expanding" universe models--ideas that, while suspect, are not necessarily "crank" theories (they do end up in legit peer-reviewed journals, after all)--mixed in with Velikovskian catastrophism.

And postulating massive rocks that blast gigantohuge craters in the Earth and killed the dinosaurs isn't "catastrophism"? I find this urge to link proponents of various models of electrical activity with "catastrophists" is akin to just calling them nazis or nihilists or trolls. It's a weak tactic, considering the alternative hypotheses generally suggest similar catastrophies, but with more preposterous suggestions as to the cause.


You see, neo-catastrophists need the Electric Star theory in order to justify their off-the-wall "theories" of solar system dynamics, which involve classic Velikovsky gags like gigantic lightning bolts jumping between planets, carving out craters and canyons in the process, and planets being ejected violently from their orbits.

You seem to be well versed in what neo-catastrophists need. It's fortunate that you aren't one any more, and that you now no longer believe in or trust these ideas. I do wonder, though, why you find the idea of gigantic lightning bolts to be so improbable, and why you seem to be ignoring abundant evidence that electrical arcing can do damage.


The ES theory involves in large part a hijacking Alfven's plasma cosmology and warping it past breaking point to fit their ideas.

How does one hijack a cosmology? Further, how does one warp or break or in any physical way manipulate a cosmology? This is really unclear and frankly it reeks of hyperbole.


However, this is similar, if not identical, to certain tactics employed by creationists (some neo-Velikovskians do appear to be creationists as well, BTW), who will hijack anything in the scientific literature--mainstream or not--and distort it beyond recognition in order to justify a 6000 year old universe.

One key difference between various proponents of electrical effect modeling and creationists is that electrical effects are verifiable and we can experiment with them. Big bang believers are much more like creationists, in fact they are creationists, prefering "big bang" to "let there be light".


As another example, Arp's theories, while not at all necessary for catastrophism to "work," is hijacked by Velikovskians simply because it suits their agenda.

I'm starting to wonder how you do your research. This is some amazing sociological complexity you're expounding on, replete with hijackings and machiavellian machinations.


However, the claims of catastrophists have been debunked in numerous writings, including the TalkOrigins archive (see http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-catastrophism.html). Tim has argued against the Electric Star theory, and I have also added my own arguements into the debunking of this so-called "theory of stellar physics" in this thread: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6401&highlight=

Once again I'm at a loss for why you find it so improbable that the sun is powered electrically.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 12:10 PM
I think anyone would find this to be a very eye-opening demonstration of the capability of electrical arcing to create craters. In the absence of any evidence verifying impact models, and in the presence of evidence that falsifies them, we must ask if these effects are scaleable. Could the forces at work act on a planetary scale, to gouge enormous craters out of, for example, the moon?

Absence of any evidence? What would you accept as evidence? I found this: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 104301 (2003)


Morphology and Scaling of Impact Craters in Granular Media
We present the results of experiments on impact craters formed by dropping a steel ball vertically into a container of small glass beads. As the energy of impact increases, we observe a progression of crater morphologies analogous to that seen in craters on the moon. We find that both the diameter and the depth of the craters are proportional to the 1/4 power of the energy. The ratio of crater diameter to rim-to-floor depth is constant for low-energy impacts, but increases at higher energy, similar to what is observed for lunar craters.

Steel balls dropped into glass beads. And you think this accurately reflects an enormous rock bigger than your house smashing into the moon? Perhaps you should think about this some more. This model suffers the same failing as the forty-year-old wet cement experiments. It in no way approximates what would happen if a rock smashed into the moon or any other humongous round rock. How you can not see this is beyond me. See my post about the other model: Faulty Wet Cement Model Doesn't Hold Water (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414362&highlight=#414362)

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 12:20 PM
I think anyone would find this to be a very eye-opening demonstration of the capability of electrical arcing to create craters. In the absence of any evidence verifying impact models, and in the presence of evidence that falsifies them, we must ask if these effects are scaleable. Could the forces at work act on a planetary scale, to gouge enormous craters out of, for example, the moon?

Absence of any evidence? What would you accept as evidence? I found this: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 104301 (2003)


Morphology and Scaling of Impact Craters in Granular Media
We present the results of experiments on impact craters formed by dropping a steel ball vertically into a container of small glass beads. As the energy of impact increases, we observe a progression of crater morphologies analogous to that seen in craters on the moon. We find that both the diameter and the depth of the craters are proportional to the 1/4 power of the energy. The ratio of crater diameter to rim-to-floor depth is constant for low-energy impacts, but increases at higher energy, similar to what is observed for lunar craters.
Steel balls dropped into glass beads. And you think this accurately reflects an enormous rock bigger than your house smashing into the moon?
Have you read the paper?
What exactly is wrong with these experiements?

By the way, you mentioned evidence that disproves the impact cratering models: where is it?



Perhaps you should think about this some more. This model suffers the same failing as the forty-year-old wet cement experiments. It in no way approximates what would happen if a rock smashed into the moon or any other humongous round rock.
Can you explain in detail why it is not a good approximation?



How you can not see this is beyond me. See my post about the other model: Faulty Wet Cement Model Doesn't Hold Water (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414362&highlight=#414362)
Can you explain exactly what is wrong with this model?
Can you show us that the electric model can do better?

By the way, it would be helpful if you addressed the other points in my post.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 12:32 PM
I will make such reply now, as limited time [and knowlege - ed] permits.


Incorrect. The purported electrons are extremely detectable, and have been since the very first spacecraft went out to study the interplanetary environment, in the early 60's I guess. All of the electron detectors are omnidirectional, and always have been. They detect both the energy & direction of the electrons, protons & ions. The purported electrons should have been detected long ago, and it is hard to explain why they have not been.

Which is it? Are they detectable or not detectable? It's unclear which you mean.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 12:42 PM
Already done, as described on my webpage: Solar Fusion & Neutrinos (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html) (see the Note added July 2002 (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html#note)). The earlier neutrino experiments, the one's that saw a "deficit" were sensitive only to electron neutrinos, since the sun only produces electron neutrinos. Newer experiments, which measure all three neutrino flavors (electron, muon & tau), detect the same total number of neutrinos as theory predicts the sun to emit, and consistent with "flavor" oscillation from electron to muon or tau. In short, the neutrinos you ask about detecting, have been detected, and in the number anticipated by standard theory.

This is a really convenient machination. Professional astronogers claim they detect neutrinos, but only a third as many as they expect. How to resolve the dilema? Invent two more "flavors" of neutrino and build two more detectors that will give you the same number as the first detector, then conclude that neutrinos are changing their "flavor" without in situ measurements of these neutrinos at their supposed origin.

This is like watching a train of boxcars and flatcars coming into your town, and without prior knowlege of the train, concluding that all the cars had been switched around en route and changed from flatcars to boxcars and vice versa, but no cars added or removed. It's beyond absurd.

soupdragon2
2005-Feb-11, 12:47 PM
For anyone interested in learning a bit more about the "electric universe" ideas, there is a large archive of brief articles and accompanying photographs (over 150, arhived five days a week) at the Thunderbolts home page (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00archive.htm), produced by David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill, Amy Acheson, Mel Acheson, Michael Armstrong, Dwardu Cardona, Ev Cochrane, Walter Radtke, C.J. Ransom, Don Scott, Rens van der Sluijs and Ian Tresman, and maintained by webmaster Michael Armstrong.
Welcome to the board.

Yes, the emerging Plasma Universe paradigm is the way ahead.

In previous discussions I have had on this board, however, there are many who even refuse to acknowledge that electromagnetic phenomena exist on vast cosmic scales. Go figure.

Conventional cosmology, of course, relies on gravity with a little magnetism stirred into the equations now and again. Electric currents, aka Birkeland currents, are overlooked. Again, go figure.

There is a plethora of information available on Plasma Cosmology. Just Google A. Perratt for starters.

It should be noted, however, that Plasma Cosmology is a big and growing subject that acknoweldges the possibilty of Velikovskian style catastrophism, and the ongoing development of these ideas, without resting on them. It simply incorporates their possibility.

The paradigm is shifting, slowly but surely, but the implications of the work of geniuses like Birkeland and Alfven, and one or two others -- in laying the foundations of the new cosmology -- are yet to be fully understood and recognised by the mainstream. In many ways their ideas seem too simple to be true, especially as they do not rely on nonsense like Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

"In the beginning was The Plasma." Hannes Alfven

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 12:54 PM
Already done, as described on my webpage: Solar Fusion & Neutrinos (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html) (see the Note added July 2002 (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html#note)). The earlier neutrino experiments, the one's that saw a "deficit" were sensitive only to electron neutrinos, since the sun only produces electron neutrinos. Newer experiments, which measure all three neutrino flavors (electron, muon & tau), detect the same total number of neutrinos as theory predicts the sun to emit, and consistent with "flavor" oscillation from electron to muon or tau. In short, the neutrinos you ask about detecting, have been detected, and in the number anticipated by standard theory.

This is a really convenient machination. Professional astronogers claim they detect neutrinos, but only a third as many as they expect. How to resolve the dilema? Invent two more "flavors" of neutrino and build two more detectors that will give you the same number as the first detector, then conclude that neutrinos are changing their "flavor" without in situ measurements of these neutrinos at their supposed origin.

This is like watching a train of boxcars and flatcars coming into your town, and without prior knowlege of the train, concluding that all the cars had been switched around en route and changed from flatcars to boxcars and vice versa, but no cars added or removed. It's beyond absurd.

Have a look at this: Phys. Rev. D 70, 073014 (2004), "Prospects of accelerator and reactor neutrino oscillation experiments for the coming ten years".

(By the way, it is spelled astronomers, not "astronogers".)

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 01:36 PM
There is a really big problem here: There are no cosmic electrons entering the sun! This is not a guess, it's a cold, hard fact, supported by several decades of in-situ observations of charged particles (electrons, protons, ions, and charged dust) in the heliosphere. Granted, most of those observations have been restricted to the plane of the planets. but Ulysses has travelled the polar regions of the heliosphere more than once now. Those incoming electrons should be just as detctable as the outgoing electrons, but none have been seen. If they were there, they would have been detected by now. The entire hypothesis is emphatically falsified by this fact alone.

I just got through perusing the mission results of the Ulysses probe (http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/science/mission_primary.html), which hasn't been updated in over two years, since January, 2003. This document makes no mention of attempted direct detection of electron flux, either into or out of the sun, so I don't know where you got the idea that Ulysses was looking for this kind of data. It does, however, make numerous mentions of charged particles accelerating away from the sun, which is of course clear indirect evidence of electric fields. Positively-charged particles don't accelerate themselves.

And we see once again, astronogers were baffled by observations from Ulysses, until they invented some new forces.


A significant qualitative feature at high latitude is the steady solar wind speed (approximately 750 km/sec). Prior to these observations, a continuous increase of velocity toward the pole had been expected.

Observations don't fit expectations. This is all too common among professional astronogers. They expect the wrong things because their models aren't useful or predictive.


Many models of the solar magnetic field used prior to Ulysses assumed that the solar magnetic field was similar to that of a dipole; field lines near the solar equator were thought to form closed loops whereas field lines from the poles were dragged far into interplanetary space by the solar wind. For a dipole, the field strength over the poles is twice that at the equator. Ulysses found that the amount of outward magnetic flux in the solar wind did not vary greatly with latitude, indicating the importance of pressure forces near the sun for evenly distributing magnetic flux.

Magnetic fields of the sun don't agree with predicted condition, ergo there are "pressure forces near the sun" that are making the data contradict their models. Ultimate hubris and stubborn willful ignorance. Pressure forces pushing magnetic field lines around! Laughable.


In the low speed solar wind, this temperature is high, over 1.6 million degrees, indicative of a hot coronal source. The compositional and temperature boundaries between the two types of plasma are very sharp, much better defined than by speed.

Temperature boundaries are sharper than velocity boundaries. This is unexpected in the context of gravity-fusion stellar models, and in fact serves to help falsify such notions. Plasma cosmologists quickly recognize this as a cellular double layer. Clearly electromanetic forces are dominating the sun.


Since the solar rotation velocity is lower at high latitudes, the azimuthal magnetic fields at high latitudes are weaker, and the length along the magnetic field to the boundary of the heliosphere where cosmic rays enter the solar system is less. Since cosmic rays tend to follow magnetic field lines, many thought that cosmic rays would have easier access at high latitudes and that cosmic ray fluxes would be higher in this region. Ulysses established that cosmic ray fluxes are not greatly enhanced in the polar regions because the cosmic rays traveling through the polar regions are scattered by large-amplitude magnetic waves (not shown in the figure) that Ulysses discovered in this region.

Again observations contradict beliefs. We are told in these passages that the magnetic field lines spew out of the sun like water from a lawn sprinkler. Astronogers were essentially in agreement that "spewing magnetic field lines" would obey Newtons laws of motion and therefore at the poles they should be weaker, thinner, however you want to word it, and thus the "cosmic ray" flux should be much higher at the poles. Ulysses discovered unexpected "large-amplitude magnetic waves" that were so shocking to their belief system they didn't even have time to draw pictures of before press time.

Magnetic fields can only be created by electric current in motion. Ergo, "spewing" magnetic field lines imply "spewing" electric current. Remember your "right hand rule"? If the magnetic field lines are circling the sun clockwise, which direction is the current moving? What other electromagnetic effects will this current have on the plasma environment of the surrounding space as it passes through it?

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 01:41 PM
Have a look at this: Phys. Rev. D 70, 073014 (2004), "Prospects of accelerator and reactor neutrino oscillation experiments for the coming ten years".

Yes, I'm sure there will be no end of philosophical, meandering waffle around this "neutrino problem". The fact is it's a mystery that doesn't exist. It's been summoned up by astronogers who place their faith in erroneous models and ignore evidence that falsifies their fanatical belief system.

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-11, 01:46 PM
And we see once again, astronogers were baffled by observations from Ulysses...


This is all too common among professional astronogers.


Astronogers were essentially in agreement...

Astronogers???

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 01:47 PM
Have a look at this: Phys. Rev. D 70, 073014 (2004), "Prospects of accelerator and reactor neutrino oscillation experiments for the coming ten years".
Yes, I'm sure there will be no end of philosophical, meandering waffle around this "neutrino problem". The fact is it's a mystery that doesn't exist. It's been summoned up by astronogers who place their faith in erroneous models and ignore evidence that falsifies their fanatical belief system.
Did you miss the word "experiments" in the title?
By the way, is "astronogers" a deliberate mis-spelling?
If that is the case, why would you mispell it?



This document makes no mention of attempted direct detection of electron flux, either into or out of the sun, so I don't know where you got the idea that Ulysses was looking for this kind of data. It does, however, make numerous mentions of charged particles accelerating away from the sun, which is of course clear indirect evidence of electric fields. Positively-charged particles don't accelerate themselves.
If there was an unaccounted flow of charge, the probe would charge up.
You do not need to look intentionally for it, in order to notice an unexpected charging of your eletcronic equipment.

By the way, it would be helpful if you addressed the other points I made in my posts.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-11, 01:48 PM
And we see once again, astronogers were baffled by observations from Ulysses...


This is all too common among professional astronogers.


Astronogers were essentially in agreement...

Astronogers???

Sounds like a play on "Astrologers" --> Astronomers + Astrologers --> Astronogers.

russ_watters
2005-Feb-11, 01:48 PM
tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.... [-X

N C More
2005-Feb-11, 01:50 PM
Sounds like a play on "Astrologers" --> Astronomers + Astrologers --> Astronogers.

A hybridization perhaps? :D

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Feb-11, 01:53 PM
[Snip!]By the way, is "astronogers" a deliberate mis-spelling?
I believe that it is a contraction of the word astronomer with astrologer, intended as a term of disparagement, similar to lyndonashmore's "codsmology", derived from codswollop and cosmology. Obviously similar intent.

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Feb-11, 01:54 PM
[Snip!]The paradigm is shifting, slowly but surely, ... [Snip!]
That's another 10 points off. [-X

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 01:57 PM
[Snip!]By the way, is "astronogers" a deliberate mis-spelling?
I believe that it is a contraction of the word astronomer with astrologer, intended as a term of disparagement, similar to lyndonashmore's "codsmology", derived from codswollop and cosmology. Obviously similar intent.
As I suspected.



I find your tone insulting and I'll ask you nicely to stop insinuating that I am irrational.



It's been summoned up by astronogers who place their faith in erroneous models and ignore evidence that falsifies their fanatical belief system.
It is time to present the evidence that supports the electric model and disproves the "mainstream" theory.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-11, 02:00 PM
Sounds like a play on "Astrologers" --> Astronomers + Astrologers --> Astronogers.

A hybridization perhaps? :D

I'm not sure if that hybridization works as well as Ligers (http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers.html).

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-11, 02:01 PM
By the way, is "astronogers" a deliberate mis-spelling?

Well, he spells it that "way" every time.


Sounds like a play on "Astrologers" --> Astronomers + Astrologers --> Astronogers.

That was my 1st thought also...though it doesn't make a "lick" of sense.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 02:02 PM
Have you read the paper? What exactly is wrong with these experiements?

I did read the bits you quoted, and I have to say they don't support the impact hypothesis of crater formation on any known planetary body. Neither does dropping wet blobs of cement onto more wet cement, and neither does dropping rocks into flour.


By the way, you mentioned evidence that disproves the impact cratering models: where is it?

See my post: Faulty Wet Cement Model Doesn't Hold Water (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414362&highlight=#414362)

The study cited in this post concludes that hard impactors create craters consistent only with some craters. Unless somebody wants to hypothesize a Sacrete cloud somewhere pummeling the planetoids with wet cement, we need a better model, and we have one.


Can you explain exactly what is wrong with this model?

Are you serious? An iron ball dropped into a bucket of tiny glass beads does not approximate the impact of an arbitrary meteorite on the moon. While it may mimic a tiny fraction of events that have scarred the surface of the moon (or any other body), impacts clearly can not explain most of the features we see on all planetoids. Electrical erosion, however, can explain nearly every gross terrain feature we see.


Can you show us that the electric model can do better?

Feel free to again read my post, Electrical Cratering in the Lab (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414456&highlight=#414456), for a summary answer to that question. After you do that, you might want to browse through the archives (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00archive.htm) at the Thunderbolts (http://www.thunderbolts.info/) web site for an extensive list of easily-digested, illustrated articles dealing with subjects like this. If you are still having issues with this material I can try to break it down for you more simply.

soupdragon2
2005-Feb-11, 02:03 PM
Astronogers???
Looks like a typo to me.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-11, 02:04 PM
[Snip!]By the way, is "astronogers" a deliberate mis-spelling?
I believe that it is a contraction of the word astronomer with astrologer, intended as a term of disparagement, similar to lyndonashmore's "codsmology", derived from codswollop and cosmology. Obviously similar intent.

Ok, well now I've learned some British slang (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=codswallop). I wondered where he was getting codsmology from.

You know, if you don't take the intended insult too seriously, that's actually pretty funny.

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 02:05 PM
Astronogers???
Looks like a typo to me.
He used it repeatedly and consistently throughout his posts.
It is not a typo, so either he is doing it on purpose, or he does not know how to spell it (or maybe some kind of dyslexia?).

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-11, 02:07 PM
It is time to present the evidence that supports the electric model and disproves the "mainstream" theory.

Well, I'm going to forgo the usual "electric banter", unless/until Landedeagle can answer papageno's question.

So go ahead, Landedeagle...present your evidence...

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 02:07 PM
Holy hell, look at all the traffic about that single word. Has anyone ever heard of picking their battles? Why waste time on and spam the board with this nonsense?

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-11, 02:10 PM
Why waste time on and spam the board with this nonsense?

I agree...present your evidence...

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 02:14 PM
Did you miss the word "experiments" in the title?

I did not. Did you miss the words "prospects" and "for the coming ten years"?

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 02:16 PM
Why waste time on and spam the board with this nonsense?

I agree...present your evidence...

Here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/search.php?search_author=landedeagle)'s an exhaustive list of all the evidence I've presented so far. Go read up and get back to me when you're finished and have some specific criticisms other than "I don't believe you!" and nitpicking over my choice of a single word over another when they have identical meanings.

soupdragon2
2005-Feb-11, 02:18 PM
[Snip!]The paradigm is shifting, slowly but surely, ... [Snip!]
That's another 10 points off. [-X
There is a points system in operation?

A perspective shift is required before the paradigm can shift.

Plasma, the fourth state of matter, rarely gets a mention in standard scientific texts, let alone in conventional cosmology. And when it does, little importance is assigned.

This is no small irony given that 99% of the universe is matter in its Plasma state. Who needs Dark Matter, except failing theorists? Not only should Plasma be added to the list of solids, liquids, and gases, but it should be put in first place!

Because Plasma reacts more strongly with EM than gravity, it has a tendency to form into more complex cellular and filamentary structures. Plasma in space consists entirely of ions and electrons, and is thus very energetic or 'hot'. Only when cooled does it form the matter to which we are familiar here on Earth: solids, liquids, and gases.

Space is not empty. In reality it is a vast sea of Plasma reacting with EM forces which are 10^36 stronger than g.

Plasma cosmology has gone beyond hypothesis and analysis. Plasma behaviours can be modelled on galactic scales ... utilising only a few simple formulae.

These models are consistent with reality. Big Bang cosmology, by contrast, fails to adequately account for the 'clumpiness' and the filamentary structures that we see.

Plasma cosmology does NOT rely on an increasing array of exotic hypotheticals like Dark Matter and Dark Energy!

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 02:23 PM
Astronogers???
Looks like a typo to me.
He used it repeatedly and consistently throughout his posts.
It is not a typo, so either he is doing it on purpose, or he does not know how to spell it (or maybe some kind of dyslexia?).

Is this some novel language theory that goes against mainstream ideas concerning the psychology of linguistics? I applaud your skepticism of the status quo! Let's have a look at some of your other (almost 1000!) contributions to the sum of human knowlege (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/search.php?search_author=papageno)! All gems, I have no doubt, just like this pearl here. Pearls are made of grit and oyster secretions. Or are they! What do you think about that?

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-11, 02:25 PM
...nitpicking over my choice of a single word over another when they have identical meanings.

Just so I make sure that I understand you correctly, which 2 words have identical meanings??

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 02:27 PM
Have you read the paper? What exactly is wrong with these experiements?
I did read the bits you quoted,..
So, you have not actually read the paper, before dismissing its results.



... and I have to say they don't support the impact hypothesis of crater formation on any known planetary body. Neither does dropping wet blobs of cement onto more wet cement, and neither does dropping rocks into flour.
Why aren't cement or flour a good approximation for lunar regolith (http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/lunar/letss/Regolith.pdf)?




By the way, you mentioned evidence that disproves the impact cratering models: where is it?
See my post: Faulty Wet Cement Model Doesn't Hold Water (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414362&highlight=#414362)
The study cited in this post concludes that hard impactors create craters consistent only with some craters. Unless somebody wants to hypothesize a Sacrete cloud somewhere pummeling the planetoids with wet cement, we need a better model, and we have one.
So, you are ignoring the other paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 104301 (2003)), which shows that impact experiments can produce craters like the ones on the Moon.

Again, you said that there is evidence that disproves impact cratering models.
So, where is this evidence?




Can you explain exactly what is wrong with this model?
Are you serious? An iron ball dropped into a bucket of tiny glass beads does not approximate the impact of an arbitrary meteorite on the moon.
I am serious: iron-nickel meteorites impacting on regolith approximated by a steel ball (1 inch diameter) impacting on glass beads (diameter 50-500 micron).
Please provide some proper explanation of why it should not be a good approximation.




While it may mimic a tiny fraction of events that have scarred the surface of the moon (or any other body), impacts clearly can not explain most of the features we see on all planetoids. Electrical erosion, however, can explain nearly every gross terrain feature we see.
Except that meteors have been observed, but interplanetary electric arcs have not.

By the way, "While it may mimic a tiny fraction of events that have scarred the surface of the moon..." seems to contradict your claim that the evidence has disproven impact cratering models.





Can you show us that the electric model can do better?
Feel free to again read my post, Electrical Cratering in the Lab (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414456&highlight=#414456), for a summary answer to that question.
Where are the interplanetray electric arcs?




After you do that, you might want to browse through the archives (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00archive.htm) at the Thunderbolts (http://www.thunderbolts.info/) web site for an extensive list of easily-digested, illustrated articles dealing with subjects like this. If you are still having issues with this material I can try to break it down for you more simply.
Why don't you read this, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 104301 (2003), first?

cyrek1
2005-Feb-11, 02:32 PM
cyrek comment

There is some important credibility to electric enhancement of the gravitational effects.

Dark Matter is the major enhancement of gravity.
Star eruptions caused by impacting bodies reach very high temperatures to strip atoms of their electrons. Electrons and some positive ions are blasted out of the galaxy inti space or surroundind the galaxies. The slow moving ions are more easily trapped within the galaxy. This seperated matter (electrons and positive ions) is positioned in such a way as to greatly enforce the gravity like the outer gas perimeter and inner positive matter enhancement to do this. This is true of our galaxy.

In the clusters, the central regions are supplied electrons to create a cloud that is electron plasme and detected by xrays. This central electron cloud acts as a powerful attractor to enhance the cluster gravity. The galaxies are all positive in relation to this cloud because they are continuously blasting electrons in all directions. The central regions with its negative charge just traps more of these electrons while, of course, it is also kosing some.

The solar neutrino problem can be resolved by gravitational enhancement of the Suns mass. Consider the central region of matter that is electron defficient to its outer layer composition. This electric attraction would than enhance the Suns calculated gravity to create more gravitational heat and this would reduce the neutrino count.

careval
Arp's redshift anamoly is real. There are two excellent examples of this.
They are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210. These two examples cannot be brushed aside as chance alignments.
This evidence gives support to the 'expansion of the light waves' as the cause of the cosmological redshift.

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 02:34 PM
Is this some novel language theory that goes against mainstream ideas concerning the psychology of linguistics? I applaud your skepticism of the status quo! Let's have a look at some of your other (almost 1000!) contributions to the sum of human knowlege (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/search.php?search_author=papageno)! All gems, I have no doubt, just like this pearl here. Pearls are made of grit and oyster secretions. Or are they! What do you think about that?

Do you have a good reason for not addressing my points?

EDIT to fix typo.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-11, 02:35 PM
Holy hell, look at all the traffic about that single word. Has anyone ever heard of picking their battles? Why waste time on and spam the board with this nonsense?

:lol: Sorry landedeagle, but this made me burst out laughing with the bounty of wise guy answers that could be provided such as:

"Oh, sorry we thought the EU theory was the spam."

(Just in one of those moods today - sorry!)

Seriously though, I've got a few questions because I haven't read that much about EU. I have no predisposition in favor of or against the theory. So here goes for starters:

1. On what time scale (how frequently) should the electric discharges that EU theorizes forms craters be observed?

2. Earlier you said this:


We know the Earth constitutes part of a circuit. That circuit is fed by the sun. A few folks in this thread have mentioned equilibrium. It's exactly on topic. The Earth's circuit leaks a lot, so it's being fed. The obvious culprit is the sun. People don't like this idea, that the Earth is being blasted by massive electrical discharges. It's unsettling to realize that's exactly where all this light is coming from in the daytime. Is there anyone here who can deny they get a "charge" from sunshine?

Is the Moon part of the same circuit in the EU model or does each solar system object have its own circuit?

3. Would there be specific mineralogical differences in rocks effected by EU crater formation vs. impact crater formation? For example, my understanding is that the tektites have a simple impact explanation. Could samples from the moon be utilized to clearly differentiate the two hypotheses?

I guess I'll stop there for now.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-11, 02:38 PM
careval
Arp's redshift anamoly is real. There are two excellent examples of this.
They are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210. These two examples cannot be brushed aside as chance alignments.
This evidence gives support to the 'expansion of the light waves' as the cause of the cosmological redshift.

Really IMO that topic is best saved for another thread.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 02:45 PM
...nitpicking over my choice of a single word over another when they have identical meanings.

Just so I make sure that I understand you correctly, which 2 words have identical meanings??

Pick your battles, dude. Are you really this confused or are you trying to score some kind of point? If you're trying to make a point (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414499&highlight=#414499) instead of scoring points, be careful somebody (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=634) doesn't deduct ten points (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414549&highlight=#414549) from you for your trouble.

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-11, 02:51 PM
...nitpicking over my choice of a single word over another when they have identical meanings.

Just so I make sure that I understand you correctly, which 2 words have identical meanings??

Pick your battles, dude. Are you really this confused or are you trying to score some kind of point? If you're trying to make a point (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414499&highlight=#414499) instead of scoring points, be careful somebody (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=634) doesn't deduct ten points (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414549&highlight=#414549) from you for your trouble.

Answer the question, please.

russ_watters
2005-Feb-11, 03:12 PM
[Snip!]The paradigm is shifting, slowly but surely, ... [Snip!]
That's another 10 points off. [-X
There is a points system in operation?

A perspective shift is required before the paradigm can shift. So much wrong, tough to know where to begin...
Plasma, the fourth state of matter, rarely gets a mention in standard scientific texts, let alone in conventional cosmology. And when it does, little importance is assigned.
Really? How can you even mention the word "star" without plasma being relevant? No, soup, plasma is thoroughly discussed in scientific texts and conventional cosmology. Now, you probably won't ever hear a geologist discuss plasma, but then, you won't have a tour guide in Philly tell you about the Arc de Triumph, either. :roll:
This is no small irony given that 99% of the universe is matter in its Plasma state.
Most of the normal matter in the universe is plasma, of course - its in stars. So what?
Who needs Dark Matter, except failing theorists? Not only should Plasma be added to the list of solids, liquids, and gases, but it should be put in first place!
Nonsensical babbling.
Because Plasma reacts more strongly with EM than gravity...
One word, soup: distance. Figure out why that word is relevant and you'll realize the basic flaw in EC theory.
...it has a tendency to form into more complex cellular and filamentary structures. Plasma in space consists entirely of ions and electrons, and is thus very energetic or 'hot'. Only when cooled does it form the matter to which we are familiar here on Earth: solids, liquids, and gases.
More nonsensical babbling.
Space is not empty. In reality it is a vast sea of Plasma reacting with EM forces which are 10^36 stronger than g.
Again: distance, but another word for you: density.
Plasma cosmology has gone beyond hypothesis and analysis. Plasma behaviours can be modelled on galactic scales ... utilising only a few simple formulae.
EC has not yet even reached the point of hypothesis: its still just nonsensical babbling, idle speculation, and knee-jerk anti-mainstream ranting.
These models are consistent with reality.
Models? what models? Show me the EC calculations for earth's orbit (hint: they don't exist. There are no models).
Big Bang cosmology, by contrast, fails to adequately account for the 'clumpiness' and the filamentary structures that we see.
Utterly false.
Plasma cosmology does NOT rely on an increasing array of exotic hypotheticals like Dark Matter and Dark Energy!
Quite right - it doesn't rely on anything, data, observation, reality, etc. Its all just an idle daydream.

Has anyone ever heard of picking their battles?
Couldn't agree more: Soup, you really need to learn to pick your battles. You consistently knee-jerk, bandwagon-jump on anything posted here that's ATM. I sometimes wonder if you even bother to read the posts before agreeing with them! #-o

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 03:12 PM
So, you have not actually read the paper, before dismissing its results.

I did no such thing, and this attitude you are copping is starting to offend me. What I told you, and what I repeat here, is that I read the bits you quoted, and concluded rightly that they do not support your claims. I can not stop you from flying off on a tangent.


Why aren't cement or flour a good approximation for lunar regolith (http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/lunar/letss/Regolith.pdf)?

Is this a joke? Are you forgetting about the flags "on the moon"? As I recall they had to pound pretty hard to get those poles in, right? Do you think you'd have a hard time pushing a flagpole into a pile of flour? Of course not. And as for wet cement, do you recall any evidence of wet cement or anything remotely like it being on the moon? This is getting quite ridiculous, the lengths to which you are willing to defend your fanatical devotion to this idea that most craters are caused by impacts.


Again, you said that there is evidence that disproves impact cratering models.
So, where is this evidence?

How many times do I have to cite it for you? Are you being deliberately obstinant or are you really unable to find the sources I cited and the evidence they present?


Please provide some proper explanation of why it should not be a good approximation.

Glass beads in a bucket do not approximate conditions of lunar regolith. You can stretch this as far as you like, but what we have here is another case of trying to prop up impact models. This was not an attempt to simulate conditions of lunar impacts, it was an attempt to recreate crater morphologies by impacts through whatever means necessary, just like the wet cement models forty years ago. Please do go over my posts and examine the evidence I've presented before you continue with these emotionall-motivated attacks on me.


Except that meteors have been observed, but interplanetary electric arcs have not.

I don't understand this insistence that Birkeland currents connecting planetoids with each other and with the sun don't exist. We can observe these currents impinging on the Earth, the moon, the sun, Jupiter, its moons, Saturn and its moons, comets, everywhere in the solar system we see evidence that these currents do exist, and in the lab we can recreate them without ad hoc jiggering of the model to produce purely cosmetic "results".


By the way, "While it may mimic a tiny fraction of events that have scarred the surface of the moon..." seems to contradict your claim that the evidence has disproven impact cratering models.

Please do go back and re-read my posts, or if you missed some, read them for the first time. You are trying to pick nits here that don't exist. Note my use of the phrase "may mimic". Get a dictionary, look up the word "mimic", then look up "may". And don't forget, probes smashed into the moon's polar regions failed to produce a single noticable speck of ejecta, though it was predicted it would throw up a cloud of vaporized heavy water or some other such nonsense. Incidentally, the craters that do "mimic" the clearly specious "wet cement" models are commonly referred to as "explosion" craters. Explosions are also possible from electrical discharge events, so we're back to vanilla (without stringent ad hoc conditions unlikely to be met) electrical erosion.


Where are the interplanetray electric arcs?

The term "interplanetary" suggests they lie between planets, or perhaps planetoids, which is, not coincidentally I think, where we observe them.


Why don't you read this, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 104301 (2003), first?

Why don't you summarize the key points for us, instead, you've read it and understand it fully, right? Please share.

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-11, 03:15 PM
Once again...and I'm asking nicely...answer the question, please.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 03:19 PM
Answer the question, please.

There is merit in independently researching instead of asking the same question ad nauseum. Perhaps you should re-read the posts that are causing you so much trouble. I'm quite sure I kept it fairly free of ambiguity. Can you answer my question? What is the point of nitpicking over the choice of one out of two words with identical meanings? Is there a point to that kind of petty bickering? Honestly, do you really think this is a fruitful pursuit, bickering over a choice between two words with identical meanings? I don't think it is. I've said all I have to say about this, if you are still confused, try not to let your confusion turn to spam in this thread.

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-11, 03:23 PM
Honestly, do you really think this is a fruitful pursuit, bickering over a choice between two words with identical meanings?

Who's bickering...I'm asking politely...and I'll ask until you answer...What are the 2 words with identical meanings?

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 03:26 PM
Is this some novel language theory that goes against mainstream ideas concerning the psychology of linguistics? I applaud your skepticism of the status quo! Let's have a look at some of your other (almost 1000!) contributions to the sum of human knowlege (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/search.php?search_author=papageno)! All gems, I have no doubt, just like this pearl here. Pearls are made of grit and oyster secretions. Or are they! What do you think about that?

Do you have a good reason for not addressing my points?

EDIT to fix typo.

Your points about the word "astronoger"? I really don't think you made anything remotely resembling a point, but you did engage in a lot of bombastic backhanded insults directed at me. But I let it slide, don't sweat it. Are you confused because I added that non sequitur at the end about oysters? Well now you know how I feel reading your posts!

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 03:29 PM
Honestly, do you really think this is a fruitful pursuit, bickering over a choice between two words with identical meanings?

Who's bickering...I'm asking politely...and I'll ask until you answer...What are the 2 words with identical meanings?

I don't think it's polite of you to spam this thread with essentially the same post again and again. I doubt many users of the thread find your posts constructive, and personally I find them combative and irritating. I wish there was an ignore button on here.

. o O ( Guess I'll have to use mental ignore on this one. )

Good luck in your studies.

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-11, 03:34 PM
Honestly, do you really think this is a fruitful pursuit, bickering over a choice between two words with identical meanings?

Who's bickering...I'm asking politely...and I'll ask until you answer...What are the 2 words with identical meanings?

I don't think it's polite of you to spam this thread with essentially the same post again and again. I doubt many users of the thread find your posts constructive, and personally I find them combative and irritating. I wish there was an ignore button on here.

No need for an ignore button...I promise to "go away" if you'll answer that one simple question...which 2 words have identical meanings?...it really shouldn't be that hard for you to answer, so why don't you?

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 03:35 PM
Has anyone ever heard of picking their battles?
Couldn't agree more: Soup, you really need to learn to pick your battles. You consistently knee-jerk, bandwagon-jump on anything posted here that's ATM. I sometimes wonder if you even bother to read the posts before agreeing with them! #-o

"russ_watters", I don't appreciate you conscripting my posts and inserting them into your sniping attacks on other users. It's not fair to me and it's not fair to the person you are launching this blundering attack against.

Doodler
2005-Feb-11, 03:37 PM
Why aren't cement or flour a good approximation for lunar regolith (http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/lunar/letss/Regolith.pdf)?

Is this a joke? Are you forgetting about the flags "on the moon"? As I recall they had to pound pretty hard to get those poles in, right? Do you think you'd have a hard time pushing a flagpole into a pile of flour? Of course not. And as for wet cement, do you recall any evidence of wet cement or anything remotely like it being on the moon? This is getting quite ridiculous, the lengths to which you are willing to defend your fanatical devotion to this idea that most craters are caused by impacts.

The first several inches of regolith is the loose powdery stuff which is kicked up by walking astronauts, but after that, the next few feet of it is densely compacted by eons of being covered over by new regolith. You can push in so far, but after a couple inches, its time to break out the mallets and assist matters.

You can see similar material properties on a beach. There's a surface layer of the light stuff that you sink into when you walk, but beyond that, the sand becomes very dense from compaction.

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 03:39 PM
So, you have not actually read the paper, before dismissing its results.
I did no such thing, and this attitude you are copping is starting to offend me. What I told you, and what I repeat here, is that I read the bits you quoted, and concluded rightly that they do not support your claims. I can not stop you from flying off on a tangent.
I quoted the abstract of the paper.
Statements like "we observe a progression of crater morphologies analogous to that seen in craters on the moon" and "... similar to what is observed for lunar craters" clearly show that your "I have to say they don't support the impact hypothesis of crater formation on any known planetary body" is wrong.
Unless you explain what is wrong with the experiments described in the paper.




Why aren't cement or flour a good approximation for lunar regolith (http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/lunar/letss/Regolith.pdf)?
Is this a joke? Are you forgetting about the flags "on the moon"? As I recall they had to pound pretty hard to get those poles in, right?
What is regolith?
From the link I gave: "unconsolidated debris".



Do you think you'd have a hard time pushing a flagpole into a pile of flour? Of course not. And as for wet cement, do you recall any evidence of wet cement or anything remotely like it being on the moon? This is getting quite ridiculous, the lengths to which you are willing to defend your fanatical devotion to this idea that most craters are caused by impacts.
Can you explain why wet cement or flour are not good approximations for regolith?

("Is this a joke?" is not an explanation.)




Again, you said that there is evidence that disproves impact cratering models.
So, where is this evidence?
How many times do I have to cite it for you? Are you being deliberately obstinant or are you really unable to find the sources I cited and the evidence they present?
I provided a paper which supports the impact cratering model.
Show me the evidence that disproves it.




Please provide some proper explanation of why it should not be a good approximation.
Glass beads in a bucket do not approximate conditions of lunar regolith. You can stretch this as far as you like, but what we have here is another case of trying to prop up impact models.
Glass beads with a diameter between 50 and 500 micron: is this a bad approximation of lunar regolith (only 10% has a grain size above 1 mm)?



This was not an attempt to simulate conditions of lunar impacts, it was an attempt to recreate crater morphologies by impacts through whatever means necessary, just like the wet cement models forty years ago. Please do go over my posts and examine the evidence I've presented before you continue with these emotionall-motivated attacks on me.
Impact cratering experiments have reproduced morphology and scaling of lunar craters.
From the paper: "[crater] morphology depends largely on impact energy".
You claim that the evidence disproves impact cratering models, yet you do not explain what is wrong with the experiments.




Except that meteors have been observed, but interplanetary electric arcs have not.
I don't understand this insistence that Birkeland currents connecting planetoids with each other and with the sun don't exist. We can observe these currents impinging on the Earth, the moon, the sun, Jupiter, its moons, Saturn and its moons, comets, everywhere in the solar system we see evidence that these currents do exist, and in the lab we can recreate them without ad hoc jiggering of the model to produce purely cosmetic "results".
Are you referring to the solar wind?
Have interplanetary electric arcs been observed producing craters?




By the way, "While it may mimic a tiny fraction of events that have scarred the surface of the moon..." seems to contradict your claim that the evidence has disproven impact cratering models.
Please do go back and re-read my posts, or if you missed some, read them for the first time. You are trying to pick nits here that don't exist. Note my use of the phrase "may mimic". Get a dictionary, look up the word "mimic", then look up "may". And don't forget, probes smashed into the moon's polar regions failed to produce a single noticable speck of ejecta, though it was predicted it would throw up a cloud of vaporized heavy water or some other such nonsense.
What was the size of the probes, and how did they try to observe the expected ejecta?



Incidentally, the craters that do "mimic" the clearly specious "wet cement" models are commonly referred to as "explosion" craters. Explosions are also possible from electrical discharge events, so we're back to vanilla (without stringent ad hoc conditions unlikely to be met) electrical erosion.
Except that meteors have been observed.




Where are the interplanetray electric arcs?
The term "interplanetary" suggests they lie between planets, or perhaps planetoids, which is, not coincidentally I think, where we observe them.
Where do you expect to observe the electric arcs making craters?




Why don't you read this, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 104301 (2003), first?
Why don't you summarize the key points for us, instead, you've read it and understand it fully, right? Please share.
The key points are summarized in the abstract, which I quoted.

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 03:43 PM
Your points about the word "astronoger"? I really don't think you made anything remotely resembling a point, but you did engage in a lot of bombastic backhanded insults directed at me.
Feel free to provide evidence for this accusation.



But I let it slide, don't sweat it. Are you confused because I added that non sequitur at the end about oysters? Well now you know how I feel reading your posts!
Are you saying that you are confused by my posts?

Metricyard
2005-Feb-11, 04:07 PM
If electrical charges cause craters, why doesn't lightning make craters?


Why don't we see craters being created now by electrical charges?

Here (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040702craters.htm) is a brief description of an experiment involving electrical arc cratering, with an accompanying photograph (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/images/040702craters.jpg). The article and accompanying photograph appeared in the Thunderbolts (http://www.thunderbolts.info/)' web page "picture of the day" section, July 02, 2004. I think anyone would find this to be a very eye-opening demonstration of the capability of electrical arcing to create craters. In the absence of any evidence verifying impact models, and in the presence of evidence that falsifies them, we must ask if these effects are scaleable. Could the forces at work act on a planetary scale, to gouge enormous craters out of, for example, the moon?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/images/040702craters.jpg

snip..

This experiment and picture is really lacking in information.

Is there anywhere on the web site mentioned that would have this info?

Some basic questions like:

What type of material are we looking at in the photograph?

What was used to create the arcs? Arc welder? Tesla coil? High energy laser?

What magnification was this photograph taken at?

How large are these craters in the picture? 1mm? .01mm? microscopic?

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 04:07 PM
So much wrong, tough to know where to begin...

You said a mouthful, there.


Really? How can you even mention the word "star" without plasma being relevant? No, soup, plasma is thoroughly discussed in scientific texts and conventional cosmology.

This may be true. If it is, there is a massive conspiracy to ignore the obvious implications of a plasma-filled universe.

For starters, electromagnetic forces affect plasmas about forty orders of magnitude more strongly than does gravity, and its influence falls off simply with distance, unlike gravity which falls off with square of distance, geometrically faster. Despite this, astronogers fail to identify what are clearly electromagnetic effects (light pumping in stars, heavy ion shedding by stars, bending and polarization of light), instead choosing to presume everything is at its heart a consequence of gravity, strong nuclear or weak nuclear forces, depending on how close they stand to it and how hard they squint.

And when even this already overly-large stable of forces couldn't cope with the radio age of astronomy, strange new forces like unobservable dark energy, black holes, wormholes, WIMPs, MACHOs and a veritable zoo of other fabled beasts to rescue the big bang creationist myth.


Now, you probably won't ever hear a geologist discuss plasma, but then, you won't have a tour guide in Philly tell you about the Arc de Triumph, either. :roll:

I fail to get the analogy here. Why wouldn't a geologist want to study one of the prime actors of terrestrial tectonic activity?


Most of the normal matter in the universe is plasma, of course - its in stars. So what?

That most of the universe is in a plasma state doesn't strike you as significant? Keep in mind your experience is limited by your lifelong habitation in the ostensibly "neutral" and very thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary of Earth.


Nonsensical babbling.

Ironically this is the most cogent and salient thing you've said really.


One word, soup: distance. Figure out why that word is relevant and you'll realize the basic flaw in EC theory.

Can you be more specific? How is it relevant? Birkeland currents can and do carry massive electrical discharges across incredibly vast distances. And when I say vast I mean distances that make gravitation negligible. Imagine our star is at a scale where it is the size of a grain of sand. You know how close the nearest other grain of sand is? Four miles away. How much gravitational influence can two grains of sand four miles apart have on each other? Now charge both grains and immerse them in a conductive medium and watch them go to town. Electromagnetic forces dominate the universe, on every scale.


More nonsensical babbling.

And we have a tie for most cogent postbit.


Again: distance, but another word for you: density.

I explained above how the powerhouse electromagnetic forces easily overwhelm any possible meddling by gravity on a cosmic (and even an interstellar) scale. As for density, if you're referring to the density of plasma in space, it's approximately as dense as an evacuated fluorescent light bulb. Even the weakly ionized gas in fluorescent tubes conduct so fiercely they need a resistor (ballast) to keep them from tripping circuit breakers or catching your house on fire.


Models? what models? Show me the EC calculations for earth's orbit (hint: they don't exist. There are no models).

It would be just as easy to plug in the observed orbit and derive the electromagnetic forces at work, the way attempts were made to derive gravitational influence, and it would be just as speculative. Gravity models were tested when the Ulysses orbited the sun's poles, and they failed. The gravity models predicted weak magnetic fields at the poles which would create a massive influx of "cosmic rays". This idea should have been falsified by the observations that no large influx of cosmic rays was present, and quite strong magnetic fields were found at the poles. Instead, astronogers immediately suggested some sort of "pressure force" was bending "magnetic waves". There's a litany of other failures in one of my previous posts, failures of models, revealed by the Ulysses probe.


Quite right - it doesn't rely on anything, data, observation, reality, etc. Its all just an idle daydream.

Plasma is an idle daydream?

captain swoop
2005-Feb-11, 04:15 PM
So wheres your Plasma model?

JimTKirk
2005-Feb-11, 04:16 PM
Here (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040702craters.htm) is a brief description of an experiment involving electrical arc cratering, with an accompanying photograph (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/images/040702craters.jpg). The article and accompanying photograph appeared in the Thunderbolts (http://www.thunderbolts.info/)' web page "picture of the day" section, July 02, 2004. I think anyone would find this to be a very eye-opening demonstration of the capability of electrical arcing to create craters. In the absence of any evidence verifying impact models, and in the presence of evidence that falsifies them, we must ask if these effects are scaleable. Could the forces at work act on a planetary scale, to gouge enormous craters out of, for example, the moon?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/images/040702craters.jpg



Landedeagle,
I know this is from way back on page 2 of this thread, but I just had to ask some questions about this image.

1) What is the material that was used in the picture?
2) What is the magnification?
3) What was the voltage used to produce the "cratering"?
4) What was the amperage?
5) What was the distance between the target and the probe to produce the effect?

There is nothing on the website that gives any of these data. This would be absolutely necessary to understand the effect and compare it to what you insist is happening.

Thanks!

Metricyard
2005-Feb-11, 04:21 PM
JimTKirk, i beat you by 2 posts above ^^ =D>

Seems we're both after the same thing.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 04:21 PM
Statements like "we observe a progression of crater morphologies analogous to that seen in craters on the moon" and "... similar to what is observed for lunar craters" clearly show that your "I have to say they don't support the impact hypothesis of crater formation on any known planetary body" is wrong.

I've already told you why I dispute your conclusions. If you remain unconvinced, I can not force you to believe me.


Can you explain why wet cement or flour are not good approximations for regolith?

If you'll read my posts you'll see I did exactly that, in detail.


I provided a paper which supports the impact cratering model.

You are entitled to that opinion, I can't force you to accept evidence that contradicts it.


Show me the evidence that disproves it.

This is getting tedious and is wasting a lot of time and board space. Read my posts, I cited evidence again and again, but I can't make you believe it.


Impact cratering experiments have reproduced morphology and scaling of lunar craters.

Yes, with a variety of improbable ad hoc conditions unlikely to have been met on the moon (i.e. covered with flour, or wet cement, or buckets of glass beads).


You claim that the evidence disproves impact cratering models, yet you do not explain what is wrong with the experiments.

Sigh. Yes I have. Many times now. Please read my posts.



I don't understand this insistence that Birkeland currents connecting planetoids with each other and with the sun don't exist. We can observe these currents impinging on the Earth, the moon, the sun, Jupiter, its moons, Saturn and its moons, comets, everywhere in the solar system we see evidence that these currents do exist, and in the lab we can recreate them without ad hoc jiggering of the model to produce purely cosmetic "results".
Are you referring to the solar wind?

Please read carefully. I said Birkeland currents and I meant Birkeland currents. Do you doubt they exist as I've described them?


Have interplanetary electric arcs been observed producing craters?

Perhaps.

This is just getting nuts. Your posts are flying all over the place and you don't seem to be reading my posts very carefully. I don't feel I should be obliged to waste my time any more correcting your gibberish. I'm spending half my time here previewing my responses to you to make sure I've got the quoted quoted quotes formatted correctly, it's a waste of my time. I'm afraid I can't give you much attention until you start behaving more reasonably.

JimTKirk
2005-Feb-11, 04:23 PM
JimTKirk, i beat you by 2 posts above ^^ =D>

Seems we're both after the same thing.

So I see! Good on ya!

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 04:25 PM
Are you saying that you are confused by my posts?

Yes, your posts confuse me a great deal. You seem to be interested in debate, but only the arguing part of it, and never considering evidence presented. Your strategy seems to be to contradict in any way you can imagine posts by people you don't seem to like, and to reflexively characterize anything you didn't already know as rubbish or even lies.

R.A.F.
2005-Feb-11, 04:27 PM
So, Landedeagle...do you refuse to answer my question?...I really need to know before I proceed...

JimTKirk
2005-Feb-11, 04:29 PM
So, Landedeagle...do you refuse to answer my question?...I really need to know before I proceed...

Yes landedeagle, I'd like to know too!

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 04:32 PM
There is nothing on the website that gives any of these data.

I believe you are correct, we were not given a full data set for that image, so we have to treat it with caution. If you want to know the precise details of this specific experiment, perhaps you should inquire about buying their book. There are many things people can learn by reading books. If you are unable to get a copy of the book, perhaps you could try to contact the webmaster (mailto:michael@kronia.com?subject=Contact Michael Armstrong) of the site. I've personally corresponded with a member of the team and I'm confident they will be eager to provide this data to you. When you get this information I'd appreciate it if you'd post it for our benefit here.

captain swoop
2005-Feb-11, 04:32 PM
Why aren't flour or glass micro beads a good approximation of the Lunar Regolith?

russ_watters
2005-Feb-11, 04:33 PM
...there is a massive conspiracy... Uh huh... 8-[
...astronogers.... Exactly.
It would be just as easy to plug in the observed orbit and derive the electromagnetic forces at work, the way attempts were made to derive gravitational influence, and it would be just as speculative. So, not only does no EC model exist, none is necessary? Have you ever heard the term "hand waving" before?

Hey, I have a theory. It accurately describes how the universe really works, but it contains no mathematical models, makes no quantative predictions, and conflicts with existing data at face value. I promise, though, that it could explain how the universe works if I wanted it to. Wanna buy my book? :roll:

I say again: tick, tick, tick, tick, tick...

Metricyard
2005-Feb-11, 04:36 PM
There is nothing on the website that gives any of these data.

I believe you are correct, we were not given a full data set for that image, so we have to treat it with caution. If you want to know the precise details of this specific experiment, perhaps you should inquire about buying their book. There are many things people can learn by reading books. If you are unable to get a copy of the book, perhaps you could try to contact the webmaster (mailto:michael@kronia.com?subject=Contact Michael Armstrong) of the site. I've personally corresponded with a member of the team and I'm confident they will be eager to provide this data to you. When you get this information I'd appreciate it if you'd post it for our benefit here.

Well, your the one claiming the theory, and if you know a member of the team, you should ask him.

I'm sure not many people here are going to order a book based on a picture with no information other then speculation.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 04:42 PM
Why aren't flour or glass micro beads a good approximation of the Lunar Regolith?

Glass microbeads would in fact be a very good substitute for lunar regolith. The problem with the model is not that glass beads aren't like lunar regolith. The problem with the model stems from the fact that glass beads in a bucket do not accurately reflect conditions where massive craters exist on the moon. These craters on the moon are not simply regolith churned around by plopping rocks. The craters extend into the bedrock, and regolith only occurs as a thin skin over craters. Glass beads are not a good substitute for bedrock, unfortunately. The lunar regolith resembles nothing so much as welding slag. For those of you familiar with arc welding, you know what I'm talking about, those little spherules of metal that spew away from the impinging arc of electric current. Why does lunar regolith share morphology with welding slag? Because the regolith was created by electric arc machining.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 04:49 PM
Well, your the one claiming the theory, and if you know a member of the team, you should ask him.

So you're interested enough to pester me about it but you won't go to the source to find your answers?


I'm sure not many people here are going to order a book based on a picture with no information other then speculation.

I don't even know that the book is written, or available for purchase at this point. I do know the web site is to promote and explain the ideas expressed in a book, and they feature a few chapters online already. They may even feature it all online some day, I don't know. You can use email for free, though. If this information is as important to you as you claim, then you won't mind asking them for it. Also you surely must understand I can not simply order these people to turn over data, nor do I have any magical access that you do not. If I were to get the data it would take just as long and it would be the same data you could get for yourself.

Honestly, though, I don't know why you're questioning this. Electrical erosion can be used to deposit or erode virtually any material humans produce, and a lot that we can't produce yet. This is no great mystery, except to those who simply haven't heard about it. People can't be blamed for not knowing, there is a lot of information whizzing around these days, and most of it is dubious if not stubbornly dogmatic.

Metricyard
2005-Feb-11, 04:57 PM
Well, your the one claiming the theory, and if you know a member of the team, you should ask him.

So you're interested enough to pester me about it but you won't go to the source to find your answers?


I'm sure not many people here are going to order a book based on a picture with no information other then speculation.

I don't even know that the book is written, or available for purchase at this point. I do know the web site is to promote and explain the ideas expressed in a book, and they feature a few chapters online already. They may even feature it all online some day, I don't know. You can use email for free, though. If this information is as important to you as you claim, then you won't mind asking them for it. Also you surely must understand I can not simply order these people to turn over data, nor do I have any magical access that you do not. If I were to get the data it would take just as long and it would be the same data you could get for yourself.

Honestly, though, I don't know why you're questioning this. Electrical erosion can be used to deposit or erode virtually any material humans produce, and a lot that we can't produce yet. This is no great mystery, except to those who simply haven't heard about it. People can't be blamed for not knowing, there is a lot of information whizzing around these days, and most of it is dubious if not stubbornly dogmatic.

The point is, you are the one that presented the theory. Now the posters on this board have to do the research?

I looked over the web-site you mentioned. I even read how the space shuttle Columbia was really destroyed by lighting :roll: . But didn't find much evidence of lightning causing craters and the Grand Canyon.

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 04:57 PM
Statements like "we observe a progression of crater morphologies analogous to that seen in craters on the moon" and "... similar to what is observed for lunar craters" clearly show that your "I have to say they don't support the impact hypothesis of crater formation on any known planetary body" is wrong.
I've already told you why I dispute your conclusions. If you remain unconvinced, I can not force you to believe me.
You stated that the paper does not support impact cratering.
The authors of that paper do not think so.

And you claimed that the experiments are not a good appoximation, but you did not explain why.

You simply avoided the issue.




Can you explain why wet cement or flour are not good approximations for regolith?
If you'll read my posts you'll see I did exactly that, in detail.
Where exaclty do you explain (instead of just claiming) that flour or sub-millimeter glass beads are not a good approximation for regolith?




I provided a paper which supports the impact cratering model.
You are entitled to that opinion, I can't force you to accept evidence that contradicts it.
The paper shows experimental results, not opinion.
You have not been able to support your claim that the conditions of those experiments do not apply to the Moon.




Show me the evidence that disproves it.
This is getting tedious and is wasting a lot of time and board space. Read my posts, I cited evidence again and again, but I can't make you believe it.
It is not a matter of believing, but of evidence.




Impact cratering experiments have reproduced morphology and scaling of lunar craters.
Yes, with a variety of improbable ad hoc conditions unlikely to have been met on the moon (i.e. covered with flour, or wet cement, or buckets of glass beads).
Provide evidence that it does not apply.

In the part you snipped, I quoted a sentence from the paper: "[crater] morphology depends largely on impact energy".
In other parts you snipped, I pointed out the similarity between the glass beads and lunar regolith.





You claim that the evidence disproves impact cratering models, yet you do not explain what is wrong with the experiments.
Sigh. Yes I have. Many times now. Please read my posts.
No, you claimed without providing evidence (images without any additional information are not good evidence).





I don't understand this insistence that Birkeland currents connecting planetoids with each other and with the sun don't exist. We can observe these currents impinging on the Earth, the moon, the sun, Jupiter, its moons, Saturn and its moons, comets, everywhere in the solar system we see evidence that these currents do exist, and in the lab we can recreate them without ad hoc jiggering of the model to produce purely cosmetic "results".
Are you referring to the solar wind?
Please read carefully. I said Birkeland currents and I meant Birkeland currents. Do you doubt they exist as I've described them?
Birkeland currents are the result of the interaction of magnetosphere and solar wind (oh look, solar wind!).
How do they connect planetoids or planets to each other?
Are these currents responsible for interplanetary electric arcs that produce craters?




Have interplanetary electric arcs been observed producing craters?
Perhaps.
So, on one hand we have repeatable experiments which reproduce morphology and scaling of craters, on the other we have "perhaps" observed interplanetary electric arcs.
Where is the evidence?



This is just getting nuts. Your posts are flying all over the place and you don't seem to be reading my posts very carefully. I don't feel I should be obliged to waste my time any more correcting your gibberish. I'm spending half my time here previewing my responses to you to make sure I've got the quoted quoted quotes formatted correctly, it's a waste of my time. I'm afraid I can't give you much attention until you start behaving more reasonably.
Asking for evidence is not reasonable?

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 04:58 PM
So, not only does no EC model exist, none is necessary?

Huh? I'm guessing by "EC model" you mean "electric cosmos model". If it doesn't exist, what have we been discussing here?


Have you ever heard the term "hand waving" before?

Heard of it, and I think I just witnessed you doing it. How can you argue against a model you say doesn't exist? You aren't making much sense. And add to that "hand waving" some hyperbole which I also noticed coming from you.


Hey, I have a theory. It accurately describes how the universe really works, but it contains no mathematical models, makes no quantative predictions, and conflicts with existing data at face value.

Thank you for that admission, at least. What you have there is a hypothesis, not a theory. Theories are hypotheses that are supported by some evidence. If your hypothesis makes no predictions, and conflicts with existing data, perhaps you should abandon it. I think that's what I've been urging you to do, actually. Isn't quoting a valuable privelege that shouldn't be abused? I think so.

landedeagle
2005-Feb-11, 05:00 PM
Asking for evidence is not reasonable?

When you've been given the evidence multiple times, then pointed to that evidence many more times, yes, it is not reasonable to keep asking.

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 05:04 PM
Are you saying that you are confused by my posts?
Yes, your posts confuse me a great deal. You seem to be interested in debate, but only the arguing part of it, and never considering evidence presented. Your strategy seems to be to contradict in any way you can imagine posts by people you don't seem to like, and to reflexively characterize anything you didn't already know as rubbish or even lies.
Why don't you focus on the contents of my posts?

By the way, I am waiting for you to provide evidence for this claim of yours:

I really don't think you made anything remotely resembling a point, but you did engage in a lot of bombastic backhanded insults directed at me.

The BA sure does not like insults on his board.

Doodler
2005-Feb-11, 05:06 PM
Well, your the one claiming the theory, and if you know a member of the team, you should ask him.

So you're interested enough to pester me about it but you won't go to the source to find your answers?


I'm sure not many people here are going to order a book based on a picture with no information other then speculation.

I don't even know that the book is written, or available for purchase at this point. I do know the web site is to promote and explain the ideas expressed in a book, and they feature a few chapters online already. They may even feature it all online some day, I don't know. You can use email for free, though. If this information is as important to you as you claim, then you won't mind asking them for it. Also you surely must understand I can not simply order these people to turn over data, nor do I have any magical access that you do not. If I were to get the data it would take just as long and it would be the same data you could get for yourself.

Honestly, though, I don't know why you're questioning this. Electrical erosion can be used to deposit or erode virtually any material humans produce, and a lot that we can't produce yet. This is no great mystery, except to those who simply haven't heard about it. People can't be blamed for not knowing, there is a lot of information whizzing around these days, and most of it is dubious if not stubbornly dogmatic.

Having personally done welding of this type, I can tell you its not the only way to get that kind of fine particulate material.

Acetyline torching also causes a spray of superheated metal to form fine particulate accumulation. Abrasion grinding ALSO creates the same kind of superheated fine particulate accumulation.

What causes the fine particulate in metalwork is the result of heating the metal in use to the melting point in the presence of an accelerant force.

In arc welding, the accelerant is the magnesium coating of the rod itself responding to electricity and reacting with the air around the contact point.

In acetyline torching, the accelerant is the pressurized oxygen used to both energize the acetyline burning and propel away the melted metal to create the break.

In abrasion grinding, the accelerant is the physical action of the wheel upon the metal. This one is the closest to the physical reality of impacts on the moon.

papageno
2005-Feb-11, 05:09 PM
Asking for evidence is not reasonable?
When you've been given the evidence multiple times, then pointed to that evidence many more times, yes, it is not reasonable to keep asking.
Did you read the paper I cited?
If you do not have access to it, I can send you a copy.
Then you might explain why you do not accept the results of that paper (which contradicts your claim that impact cratering is disproven by evidence).

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Feb-11, 05:16 PM
We're done here. This thread has derailed itself well. In my opinion, landedeagle is a troll, and is now gone.