tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post4724590707425772725..comments2023-11-19T19:19:12.773-05:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe: Lunar electric fieldsW.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-18756963018998531452013-04-02T21:48:06.831-04:002013-04-02T21:48:06.831-04:00to Anonymous
By that argument, orbital mechanics ...to Anonymous<br /><br />By that argument, orbital mechanics is astrology (Kepler). Congratulations! You've proved space flight is a hoax! <br /><br />More at<br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-big-bang-cosmology-creationist-model.html" rel="nofollow">Is Big Bang Cosmology a 'Creationist' Model?</a>W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-79985250810304522182013-04-02T19:11:17.525-04:002013-04-02T19:11:17.525-04:00The big bang is creationism, and coincidentally pr...The big bang is creationism, and coincidentally proposed by a Belgian priest in 1927.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-74251131862414843802010-05-06T23:21:36.992-04:002010-05-06T23:21:36.992-04:00To Anonymous,
Your links are to popularizations o...To Anonymous,<br /><br />Your links are to popularizations or to papers where the systems are in an equilibrium where treating it as a gas (based on the total number of electrons and ions) is equivalent.<br /><br />You exhibit an almost 'legalistic' obsession with terminology, but only when it doesn't please you. The 'currentists' and the 'magnetic reconnectionists' who have no working models spend their time arguing over terminology. <br /><br />If I'm interested in the bulk behavior of the Sun with local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) throughout, 'gas' is a suitable description and nothing is lost by its use. Neither would anything be gained by using the term 'plasma' though it would be acceptable. Near the surface of the Sun, where LTE breaks down, it becomes more problematic but that would depend on the audience and the goal.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-90507778189401796042010-05-06T12:24:35.302-04:002010-05-06T12:24:35.302-04:00But often, "gas" or "hot gas" ...But often, "gas" or "hot gas" is used instead of even "ionized gas" (meaning plasma). eg.<br /><br />*"<a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W_M8i2fo21IC&lpg=PT9&dq=%22ball%20of%20gas%22&as_brr=3&pg=PT9#v=onepage&q=%22ball%20of%20gas%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">The sun is made of gases</a>"<br />*"<a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GVlpKZ67DscC&lpg=PA315&dq=%22ball%20of%20gas%22&as_brr=3&pg=PA315#v=onepage&q=%22ball%20of%20gas%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">The sun is merely a big ball of gas</a>"<br />*"<a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oyQaUwPvP0IC&lpg=PT13&dq=%22ball%20of%20hot%20gas%22&as_brr=3&pg=PT13#v=onepage&q=%22ball%20of%20hot%20gas%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">A star is a huge, spinning ball of hot gas</a>"<br />*"<a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.0185v1.pdf" rel="nofollow">The star is modelled as a self-gravitating ball of gas</a>"<br />*"<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1993A%26A...280L..11V&db_key=AST&link_type=ABSTRACT&high=4ba0f5cac225190" rel="nofollow">Interstellar and intergalactic gas in the direction of SN 1993J in M81</a>"<br /><br /><br />I acknowledge that the Sun and stars can be <i>modelled</i> as gases, and that plasmas may behave like gases. But anyone familiar with plasmas will know that compared to gases, plasmas can do so much more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-16764511172372121272010-05-05T21:59:06.989-04:002010-05-05T21:59:06.989-04:00Anonymous,
I don't see an equivalence between...Anonymous,<br /><br />I don't see an equivalence between generalization of Astronomers and usage of 'gas' and 'plasma' by Astronomers. In the latter there is an understood scientific context. In the first, EUers are often times demeaning and insulting a group of people stemming from their ignorance of the science and how those scientists do their work.<br /><br />The EU point of view has been appreciated in the multitude of online debates started by EU proponents. Often times, these debates involve professional scientists pointing out the flaws in EU. The only way to debate in depth is by appreciating the other view.NDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-30824995673904627432010-05-05T18:22:13.466-04:002010-05-05T18:22:13.466-04:00At lot of the terminology in question is from pres...At lot of the terminology in question is from press releases for the general public rather than actual scientific papers. I work with a number of science writers and have asked about this. Some say they prefer to use 'ionized gas' as 'plasma' implies a more medical interpretation to the general public.<br /><br />As for the interest in astronomy, I suspect there are far more <i>professional</i> astronomers on forums such as JREF or UniverseToday than there are on Thunderbolts.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-25649956561703117372010-05-03T06:18:50.155-04:002010-05-03T06:18:50.155-04:00I agree with you, that it does not help when EU pr...I agree with you, that it does not help when EU proponents claim that all astronomers/astrophysicists deny plasma/electricity in space. To me, it's a poor over-generalization.<br /><br />But conversely, when astronomers tend to use the word "gas" when they mean plasma, and tend to mention the more easily detectable magnetic fields, but not electric fields, again, I think is a poor over-generalization.<br /><br />Of course astronomers all know what they all mean. But in a subject where accuracy is all important, gases and plasmas are wholly different beasts.<br /><br />I think that most EU proponents have done little science, but likewise, the same with many people interested in astronomy.<br /><br />In my opinion, most of the differences boil down to a different use of vocabulary, or an under-appreciation of the opposing view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-9209336127618276322010-05-02T13:05:53.387-04:002010-05-02T13:05:53.387-04:00Which again emphasizes my point. I have a long li...Which again emphasizes my point. I have a long list of references going back to the 1920s by astronomers/astrophysicists on electric fields in space. I summarize many of these mechanisms in <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/08/real-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">The REAL Electric Universe</a>, covering mechanisms for producing electric fields that might drive cosmic rays to cosmologies with net charge. Astronomers are well-versed on the importance of plasmas in space. It is part of our training.<br /><br />Your response adds even more documentation to the fact that astronomers have known about space plasmas for years. Still the only difference I find between EU and mainstream astronomy are claims like electric stars and galaxies which flunk basic observational and <i>in situ</i> tests. So my first question is:<br /><br />1) What does EU actually contribute to astronomy? Just what is their point? Or is it all a ploy to sell books?<br /><br />My second question: What does it mean when an EU 'theorist' claims that astrophysicists deny electrical influences in space? Are they:<br /><br />2a) Knowingly making false statements?<br /><br />2b) Are totally clueless to the contradictions in their statements?<br /><br />2c) perhaps a third option not covered by a or b?<br /><br />To the wisecrackers whose comments I've been rejecting - I will continue to reject them in this thread unless they are particularly witty. I really want an answer from the EU supporters.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-32786721931110835272010-05-01T17:43:36.567-04:002010-05-01T17:43:36.567-04:00There are many many peer-reviewed papers which pro...There are many many peer-reviewed papers which provide the math supporting electric currents in space plasma.<br /><br />In addition to the link above, see also the citations in "<a href="http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_currents_in_space_plasmas" rel="nofollow">Electric currents in space plasmas</a>".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-52624446267621737302010-04-29T17:03:35.706-04:002010-04-29T17:03:35.706-04:00To Anonymous:
The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott...To Anonymous:<br /><br />The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott, pg 53, concerning astronomers and astronomy, Dr. Scott says: "All these shortcomings are shrouded in a fortress-like collective mentality that rejects anything electrical."<br />along with statements along similar lines throughout the book. So are you saying that EU supporters knew this statement to be false or that planetary scientists are not astronomers and therefore their work should not be included in the category?<br /><br />Planetary scientists are still considered astronomers, but combine the astronomy study with more geophysics and chemistry. Solar physicists are still considered astronomers even though they usually attend American Geophysical Union meetings.<br /><br />As for 'marginalizing' electric fields, according to Maxwell's equations, there are two ways to generate an electric field - non-uniform charge distribution or changing magnetic fields. <br /><br />Charge separation is difficult to maintain over large distances and/or times as the charge carriers are light and will move quickly in free space into a minimum energy configuration which will be largely electrically neutral. Dusty plasmas can generate larger fields in part because the greater mass of the dust particle slows the acceleration towards the opposite charge. <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24983/" rel="nofollow">How Sandstorms Generate Spectacular Lightning Displays</a><br /> <br />Changing magnetic fields, while they need a current of some form to get them started (antennas), once started, they can generate feedback systems with electric fields that can maintain them (electromagnetic waves, induction). Best of all, they can operate in a region with neutral and quasi-neutral plasmas and they are easy to detect.<br /><br />So if you detect a magnetic field in a region of plasma where the charge carriers can move freely, which would you bet on as the source, charge separation or induction? <br /><br />How many EU supporters have actually done the calculations that were done by these planetary scientists in the lunar fields article above? I have yet to find evidence that EU supporters have done ANY actual work, instead relying on others to do the work and then claim it is a success of THEIR theory. This is regarded as a most despicable behavior in science and it has ruined some careers.<br /><br />Where EU supporters talk about many of the electric fields known in the geophysical environments (see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/08/real-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">The REAL Electric Universe</a>), they are redundant. The planetary scientists are actually producing models with computable predictive capability whereas the EUers just give hand-waving excuses and say the computations of others support their theory. Again, real physicists, plasma physicists too, use computational models, much to the denial of EU supporters. In that case, EUers are the equivalent of Fanboys. <br /><br />Beyond these issues, the only things left which EU supporters have which distinguishes them are clinging onto some failed ideas of Alfven and others as well as the whole "Electric Sun" and related silliness.<br /><br />If a theory produces nothing more than statements like "it looks like a current, therefore it must be a current", then it is useless.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-81674749559250082812010-04-26T19:14:58.258-04:002010-04-26T19:14:58.258-04:00Q: How many "Electric Universe" proponen...Q: How many "Electric Universe" proponents does it take to change a light bulb?<br /><br />A: NONE -- they just sit around, twiddling their thumbs, while waiting for <b>somebody else to do the bloody work</b>, and then subsequently proclaim: "SEE THAT...?! BIRKELAND CURRENTS!!!11!1!"The_Self-preservation_Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07880280894831883225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-6012083116292301802010-04-26T18:54:11.906-04:002010-04-26T18:54:11.906-04:00I don't think that Electric Universe supporter...I don't think that Electric Universe supporters claim that "astronomers ignore [ALL] electrical effects in space", only that they are marginalized, or described in other terms (eg. changing magnetic fields). But this criticism is not unique to EU proponents. See for example: Alfvén, H., "<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1967SSRv....7..140A" rel="nofollow">On the Importance of Electric Fields in the Magnetosphere and Interplanetary Space</a>", <i>Space Science Reviews</i>, vol. 7, p.140, 1967.<br /><br />EU supporters have made mention of the work done by planetary scientists, see for example, the dozens of papers mentioned in "<br /><a href="http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electricity_throughout_the_Universe" rel="nofollow">Electricity throughout the Universe</a>".<br /><br />See also mention of various paper on lunar charging <a href="http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=18871" rel="nofollow">in this thread</a> (and there are others).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com