Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists Use Mathematical Models!
I've also posted a similar, shorter response to the article at dad2059.
Mathematics aside, most relevant scientific discoveries are initially serendipitous and/or conceptual postulates. This appeal to show current (PC/EU) research which corroborates studies and articles over 20 years old is fallacious.Fallacious? Not at all. Real science is subjected to constant revisions and updates as new data become available. It is rare enough for a scientific reference to be iconic and ACTIVE references after 20 years, but with NO newer work? If you are using material this old as your PRIMARY references, it limits EU to:
1) It is a historical or religious reference, perhaps where the 'original intent' of the author is under examination. This option supports my view the EU is more of an ideological or religious movement (see The Electric Universe & Creationism);
2) It is a DEAD science. The commenter is basically saying there has been no new discoveries in plasma physics since the work of Alfven or Peratt and that plasma physics has been a stagnant science.
Loads of new missions and data impact PC/EU models, yet all the verbal claims of EU proponents have yet to generate one viable computation model where the theoretical model gives numbers even close to the new data. The Peratt galaxy model has yet to be shown consistent with modern cosmological microwave background measurements (see Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background, Still no electric currents powering the galaxies...) Has anyone in PC/EU even mapped locations of current streams across the sky they need to power stars and galaxies in their model? Not that I've been able to find!
Meanwhile, REAL plasma physicists have been revising and improving their mathematical models, to the point of commercial viability. The commenter conveniently evaded the other posts in this topic.
• Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists BUILD Mathematical Models
• Electric Universe: Plasma Physics for Fun AND Profit!
• Electric Universe: Plasma Modeling vs. 'Mystic Plasma'
REAL plasma physicists have had significant success with numerical plasma models, in spite of EU's (theological?) position that it can't be done.
The Steady State Theory (sic) and Relativistic Physics have been accepted models for over two decades themselves. Most of the salient data was collected many years ago. Just because you can quantitatively show relevance on paper or electronically, without any way to reproduce those findings in the lab, does not make the ideas of the Standard Model or “Einsteinian Mechanics“ more concrete.The commenter obviously does not know how quickly science can be integrated into technology. This is possible because we can define how many physical processes operate through mathematical means.
In addition, processes important in astrophysics get testing all the time, and not just in laboratories. I've documented a number of examples in these articles:
• Astronomy as an 'Unprovable' Science
• The Cosmos In Your Pocket - Updated
• Testing Science at the Leading Edge
• 'Out There' Astrophysics Impacts Technology (again)
• Testing Science at the Leading Edge... II
• “Real” Science vs. “Cosmological” and “Origins” Science
In the 1930s, Hans Bethe (wikipedia) and Edward Teller (wikipedia) developed the physical and mathematical techniques for understanding the energy generation in stars by nuclear processes. They subsequently used these same techniques to develop the atomic & hydrogen bombs in the 1940s & 50s. How did they do this? They used the microphysics, the same reaction rate and energy generation equations from small-scale laboratory experiments and computed them for the different environments of energy release in the center of a star (under very high pressure) and in a lower pressure environment (the Earth's atmosphere). Even today, there is much data and theory exchanged between nuclear astrophysicists and nuclear weapon designers.
We have yet to see such a demonstration from those who claim the Sun and stars are powered by external electric currents.
Many of the unusual instruments that were used to collect leading edge data decades ago are part of standard instrumentation today - atomic clocks, Michelson interferometers, lasers, etc. so these theories are subjected to continual testing everywhere the technology is used. Principles such as relativity are tested every time someone uses a GPS receiver, regardless of EU & creationist denials. Relativity becomes even more important when we use GPS to do high-precision positions of other satellites. We are already in the planning stages of a GPS system that could operate throughout the Solar System. Thanks to relativity, we knew what relativistic correction was needed for the GPS clocks before they were launched!
There is a lot of merit to Alfven's Plasma Cosmology as well as some EU ideas which make more intuitive sense than any ideas of “Dark This/That.“'Intuitive' does not make the science correct. Quantum mechanics is incredibly un-intuitive, yet those aspects of it, which could be readily predicted through mathematics, enabled us to replace large vacuum tubes with microscopic transistors which make modern electronics possible. What matters in science is that one can make numerical predictions that can be compared to data and observations.
The physics community is one big circle jerk for the most part. The same can be said for biology and chemistry too. Unless someone is willing to stray from the status quo, a profession will become prone to self aggrandizing and auto-kudos.'Circle jerk'? This sounds more like a description of EU 'theorists'. They build cosmic-scale circuits with no EMF to drive them - the electrical equivalent of perpetual motion machines, yet conveniently ignore where the energy comes from that drives that EMF. They invoke electrons which can't emit synchrotron radiation in a magnetic field for some mysterious reason, a process well-established experimentally. EU 'theorists' hide behind the archaic term “Dark Current” which is no longer used in modern plasma studies since it is now well understood (Dark current has a radically different interpretation in modern physics - wikipedia).
The neutrino took 25 years from postulate to direct detection, but in between that time there were numerous experiments which were consistent with the neutrino's existence. For 'Dark Matter', a subatomic particle, below the detection threshold of our current technology, is the simplest solution.
• On Dark Matter. I: What & Why?
• On Dark Matter. II: An Exotic Hack?
If M-Theory is all that modern theoretical physics has to offer, and it in itself is built upon the accepted physics modalities, then don't expect that mankind will be able to jump to that epic next step which will allow us to truly understand the intricacies of It All, and allow us to be successful universal wayfarers.M-theory, whether valid or not, has nothing to do with why PC/EU is a failure. PC/EU fails from very basic considerations from electromagnetism and mechanics.
As for the 'universal wayfarers', considering the EU/PC has yet to produce a usable, reproducible model of the heliospheric and interstellar environment, those 'universal wayfarers' will have some serious problems dealing with the field and radiation environment. I have repeatedly made light of these problems and received nothing but excuses from the EU 'theorists' instead of actual, testable models.
- Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model
- Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I.
- Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. II.
- Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III
You never stifle a brainstorming session with negativity or filtering. If you folks had an IQ above 125 you'd know this, but sadly even the so-called intellectually adept are just barely above average. Your numbers mean jack if they propose abstract absurdities.Einstein felt quantum mechanics made absurd predictions, yet QM and its absurd predictions made possible the computer on which you are reading this. Nature is under no obligation to adhere to what anyone believes is 'not absurd'. What matters is what we can test with experiments and observations.
If you were an astronaut traveling to Mars, would you accept a QUALITATIVE value for the level of radiation your ship can take from a CME before the astronaut's health is seriously impacted? The CCMC does that today using the standard solar model.
If you operated the northern electrical grid, would you accept a QUALITATIVE value for the level of voltage induced in your long distance power lines by a CME striking the Earth's magnetic field? The CCMC does that TODAY, using the standard solar model.
After the STEREO spacecraft can no longer view the far side of the Sun, as an astronaut, would you accept a QUALITATIVE value for whether an active region has formed out of view and is about come around the limb, with the potential of blasting you with radiation from a solar flare? Helioseismology gives us this capability, but it works using a very different solar structure than ES supporters claim.
Current standard models for the solar environment (very different from the ES model) can generate QUANTITATIVE values for these parameters!
The people you want to call 'sub-125 IQ circle jerks' have real accomplishments. What can EU demonstrate?
Update 6/22: Fixed some grammatical errors.