tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post7539426772448328461..comments2023-11-19T19:19:12.773-05:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe: Plasma Modeling vs. 'Mystic Plasma'W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-63253188512752653952012-03-05T18:15:20.820-05:002012-03-05T18:15:20.820-05:00To Anonymous,
EU is indistinguishable from a '...To Anonymous,<br /><br />EU is indistinguishable from a 'faith system' as it generates no testable predictions.<br />(see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'</a>)<br /><br />Actually, a growing fraction of EU supporters I've interacted with are from a Young-Earth creationism perspective. Note that YEC Barry Setterfield was a <a href="http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/events-5/eu2012-encore/" rel="nofollow">speaker at their recent club meeting</a>.<br /><br />EU is not an 'equivalent system of knowing' or some other post-modern nonsense (non-science). A competent high-school physics student can demonstrate that Electric Sun models require fields and particle fluxes that would do anything from rip away the Earth's magnetosphere to bathe satellites and astronauts with hard radiation that makes a CME look tame. As a satellite engineer who read "The Electric Sky" told me, if Electric Sun currents actually existed, we'd have a lot of dead satellites and dead astronauts.<br /><br />Even EU bizarre excuses such as undetectable 'drift electrons' poses a threat to multi-million dollar space assets since satellite engineers know that space plasmas are *very* detectable since no satellite is a perfect conductor.<br /><br />For you to describe this as a 'turf war' suggests you should become more familiar with the real physics (that has been tested in the laboratory and space)<br />(see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/physics-astronomy-other-reading.html" rel="nofollow">Physics, Astronomy & Other Reading Resources</a>)<br />and how astronomy sometimes guides laboratory physics (<a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/08/cosmos-in-your-pocket-expanded-revised.html" rel="nofollow">"Cosmos in Your Pocket"</a>)W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-45136890097105123692012-03-04T02:26:13.079-05:002012-03-04T02:26:13.079-05:00Forgive me in advance for what will surely be reje...Forgive me in advance for what will surely be rejected by one or the other side - or both- amidst this jovial little scientific slug fest - but really - creationism? What does that have to do with this? As an individual curious about the world, I read the electric universe proposals, and really that is all they are so far, with interest. Instead of claiming victory, perhaps both sides should seek the truth and keep an open mind; perhaps even collaborate for a higher goal than 'turf'. Too much to ask? Suggestion: Nail down each disputed point and pursue it until you are talking apples and apples, then together look at the facts. I just don't see/ feel the angst in something that should be intellectual, objective, engaging and -dare I say - fun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-13405610179871353772010-10-17T21:43:24.442-04:002010-10-17T21:43:24.442-04:00Note for active comment threads. Priorities of th...Note for active comment threads. Priorities of the next few weeks will limit my time on dealing with comments. If there is any comment where I want to respond, it may be significantly delayed. I do have some regular posts queued up to release through the auto-poster.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-62100123554685349922010-10-17T21:43:07.682-04:002010-10-17T21:43:07.682-04:00To Siggy_G:
I am constantly amazed how many peopl...To Siggy_G:<br /><br />I am constantly amazed how many people who work with technology know so little about the science behind it.<br /><br />The Ulysses data? Ah, the answer is hiding in some small gap in the data, EU's version of the Creationist 'God of the Gaps'. Ever actually taken even a BASIC course in electromagnetism? If there were a significant current through that gap in the polar coverage, the field produced would significantly alter the solar wind measurements from around that region, for the same reason as the Solar Resistor model fails. <br /><br />The constraints of the existing body of data kills an Electric Sun model. If you can't get around the issues I've already outlined in the Solar Capacitor & Solar Resistor model, you're out of luck. Scaling laws can't save you from the constraints of the conservation laws.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-41527827502789629362010-10-15T19:50:04.765-04:002010-10-15T19:50:04.765-04:00Tom & Anonymous:
Proper in situ measurements: ...Tom & Anonymous:<br />Proper in situ measurements: I was referring to various needed measurements of EM data around the Sun (including the missing 20 degree cone of Ulysseus data above/below the poles), EM data at various points within the solar system and at the heliosphere boundaries. These may all be mapped out in high detail one day and will give usefull data to any solar model. Probes are obviously sent out with specific measurement agendas and a following technical set up. What would be interesting for the ES theory is of course any indications of large scale sunward electron drifts, any measurements of large scale electric fields, the ratio between protons/electrons at various outflow/inflow areas, other electric interaction between the Sun and surrounding/approaching bodies etc.<br /><br />EU proponents' take on the point you're getting at is that current knowledge of astrophysics aren't all facts and confirmed. Most humble scientists would agree of such a continous state, also based on history. Alternative models shouldn't be dismissed, if they even partially can explain several of the odd observations; such of that of the Sun, where a thermonuclear model have short-comings.<br /><br />Making a simulation of something is never the same as <b>confirming</b> the true nature behind it – it may only make assumptions plausible. And: laborathory studies of plasmoids, z-pinches, jets, focus fusion etc. are surely welcomed and not ignored by EU.Siggy_Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-10065319984277431052010-10-14T17:57:03.978-04:002010-10-14T17:57:03.978-04:00To Anonymous & Siggy_G:
This is another EU ta...To Anonymous & Siggy_G:<br /><br />This is another EU tactic - since we can't 'know' what's going on 'out there', their claims should be admitted. Creationists use this exact same argument.<br /><br />Of course, EU likes to ignore that there is the study of <b>Laboratory Astrophysics</b> such as<br /><br /><a href="https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/science_at_the_extremes/laboratory_astrophysics/" rel="nofollow">National Ignition Facility</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~afrank/labastro/intro.html" rel="nofollow">HIGH ENEGY DENSITY<br />LABORATORY ASTROPHYSICS</a><br /><br />and others that study plasmas under astrophysical conditions as best as can be currently produced in a laboratoryW.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-87709583047045503042010-10-14T04:21:01.108-04:002010-10-14T04:21:01.108-04:00Re Siggy_G's comment: "whilst any confirm...Re Siggy_G's comment: "<i>whilst any confirmation isn't done before the <b>proper</b> future in situ measurements are collected and further large scale lab experiments are done.</i>"<br /><br />If I'm studying the shock fronts that develop when two rich clusters of galaxies collide, or the equilibrium properties of the intra-cluster medium, when do you expect that <i>in situ</i> measurements relevant to my research might become available? When do you expect large scale lab experiments relevant to my research might become available?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-45255371581807365112010-10-13T20:32:43.070-04:002010-10-13T20:32:43.070-04:00To Siggy_G,
In addition to the fact that you comp...To Siggy_G,<br /><br />In addition to the fact that you completely ignore the aspects of the Peratt model which FAIL, your interpretation of Alfven just provides EU supporters with the excuse they trot out whenever any model (including my electric solar analyses) generates a result unfavorable to their claims.<br /><br />Scaling laws can provide a guide, but they are far from complete but most have other assumptions attached. Constraints from energy conservation, particle conservation, etc. provide even more firm constraints due to their simplicity. Anything that fails these constraints is basically dead.<br /><br />Why don't you take some time off to work on that effort. I will be happy to post info on any progress if you wish. Currently, I want to focus on some redshift quantization claims and would like to free up some time to work on that *long overdue* project.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-21046791042850262042010-10-13T06:23:43.950-04:002010-10-13T06:23:43.950-04:00Late response here as I've been really busy th...Late response here as I've been really busy the last weeks, but I'd like to correct your (Tom's) statements in the last section of your post.<br /><br />Alfven: All mathematical models of plasmas or discharges are unreliable. Experimental verification and in situ measurements are vital in order to quantify certain astrophysical processes. Double layer objects and Birkeland currents are examples of that.<br /><br />Peratt: Claims a successful model of galaxy formation from mathematical plasma model and cross references to similarities from lab experiments. He thus shows how star forming dusty plasma can be initially distributed in accordance with Birkeland currents, before gravity takes over in the condenced areas (i.e. after Markund convection has occured). It illustrates why stars and galaxies seem to form along like drops on a spiderweb string.<br /><br />Thus, the descriptions are not in contradiction.<br /><br />Also, are you saying that Alfven's statement about the scalability of the EM force/effects is wrong? You can have tiny spark, a CTG lightning bolt or a red sprite in the ionosphere... the discharges are of similar nature and the voltage/distance is proportionally larger in each scenario. Same goes for a plasma light ball of small or larger scale. Adding the effect of gravity of the medium particles will affect the processes especially over long time scales, but there aren't any errors in the initial scalability of the EM force/effects as proposed by Alfvèn, as far as I know.<br /><br />Regarding my simulation and visualization work, I am quite busy these days, but determined to get something up and running during the coming year. I can give updates as soon as I have an early set up running. I do of course agree that such work is first and foremost to visualize and show the possible machnisms at play, whilst any confirmation isn't done before the <b>proper</b> future in situ measurements are collected and further large scale lab experiments are done.<br /><br />Siggy_G (himself)Siggy_Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-34711934291199201102010-10-11T17:47:09.136-04:002010-10-11T17:47:09.136-04:00Anonymous wrote: "Sorry, you do not appear to...Anonymous wrote: "<i>Sorry, you do not appear to be qualified to call the kettle black.</i>"<br /><br />Huh? I asked a simple, straight-forward question!<br /><br />I did *not* make any claims.<br /><br />Are you saying that it is illegitimate for someone - anyone - to ask you questions about what you have written? If so, that seems totally antithetical to the PRINCIPAL OBJECT of the SIS, as well as the stated rules and guidelines of the TB forum (as written by Dave Smith).<br /><br />APODNereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-24824655587075289922010-10-11T08:46:10.572-04:002010-10-11T08:46:10.572-04:00APODNereid wrote: "May I ask how you arrived ...APODNereid wrote: "May I ask how you arrived at the conclusion that he is "a qualified university astrophysicist"?"<br /><br /><br />Sorry, you do not appear to be qualified to call the kettle black.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-82681904649217514402010-10-10T18:39:31.037-04:002010-10-10T18:39:31.037-04:00Thanks to APODNereid for doing a little more resea...Thanks to APODNereid for doing a little more research on Dunning-Davies. I finally found my notes I had accumulated on him from months ago but you took it a little further in terms of checking his claimed affiliation.<br /><br />To Annoymous:<br />IF EU supporters don't know data exists, it is because they have been spending more time accusing the scientific community of fraud than doing actual research. I have been making this challenge to them for over two years now and they have yet to do any actual science.<br /><br />(a) & (d): Since EU supporters have no science to base their claims, they focus on these topics or similar such as 'fairness', the professional scientists 'bullying' the (incompetent) amateurs, etc., as you have. It boils down to if you lack the competence to argue the science, then all you have left are the philosophical/political rhetorical games which the creationists have already mapped out pretty completely. Combined with the fact that I can use many of the same scientific tools to demonstrate EU & creationism are bad science, there is no reason to operationally distinguish them.<br /><br />(c) displays your ignorance of science since *leading edge* science is *always* about challenging the status quo. However, the 'status quo' EU seeks to challenge is *well established* science. Most of their 'theories' violate that. The stuff I've done so far just begins to plumb their ignorance of E&M (<a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/10/scott-rebuttal-iv-open-magnetic-field.html" rel="nofollow">Scott Rebuttal. IV. 'Open' magnetic field lines</a>) to atomic & nuclear physics (<a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/09/scott-rebuttal-iii-importance-of.html" rel="nofollow">Scott Rebuttal. III. The Importance of Quantum Mechanics</a>) to GPS (see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/04/scott-rebuttal-i-gps-relativity.html" rel="nofollow">Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity</a>). These sciences have implications for technologies (commercial & military) so severe that EU supporters in some technology areas could be regarded as a threat since some of their claims might direct them to violate the technical specifications of the technology. <br /><br />(b) is scientifically relevant to the validity of EU claims<br /><br />There are many plasma physicists doing astrophysics, testing things in the laboratory that are incorporated into the mathematical models which are tested against observations. Much of it documented in this blog.<br /><br />If you are incapable of coming up with something NEW, that shows some indication of THINKING beyond rhetorical games, then you are a bore, repeating the same old garbage, like axismundi.<br /><br />Have you NO imagination?W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-22663290577920066682010-10-09T04:58:33.527-04:002010-10-09T04:58:33.527-04:00I wrote: "Many EU proponents don't do qua...I wrote: "Many EU proponents don't do quantitative analysis because (a) they are not scientists (b) they do no have access to, or are unable to acquire the necessary data."<br /><br />You asked: "If you knew that data was available, why did you make such a claim?"<br /><br />Just because I know there is data available, does not mean that many EU supporters know that data is available, or how to get, or how to process it.<br /><br />I think you are also pre-suposing that I am an EU supporter. I support things being shown to be right or wrong for the right reasons.<br /><br />EU is not wrong because (a) you can find links to Velikovsky or Creationism, even though none may existing, (b) there is insufficient quantitative analysis and scientific papers, (c) EU people dare to criticize the status quo, (d) they mix science with mythology.<br /><br />Conversely, with regard to the Electric Sun, I would be the first to note that EU supporters have not made their case, ie, they are not right (not the same as being wrong!).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-35916935432374082312010-10-09T03:13:26.907-04:002010-10-09T03:13:26.907-04:00Anonymous said: "If the visible universe is 9...Anonymous said: "<i>If the visible universe is 99.999% plasma, then I'd want a plasma physicists to take a look.</i>"<br /><br />Tom hasn't yet picked up on this, but <br />it seems to me to be just as much a statement from ignorance as your earlier "<i>they </i>[EU proponents] <i>do no have access to, or are unable to acquire the necessary data</i>" one.<br /><br />Have you done no investigation? Have you read any of the thousands of papers - published in relevant peer-reviewed journals - containing the application of plasma physics to astronomical phenomena? Did you check to see whether any of the authors of those papers got their PhD's in plasma physics? Tom has several blog entries addressing exactly this point; did you read any of them?<br /><br />APODNereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-27547697394499307372010-10-08T20:56:54.351-04:002010-10-08T20:56:54.351-04:00Anonymous said: "Incidentally it seems that t...Anonymous said: "<i>Incidentally it seems that the person who wrote the article on fraud, is not an electrical engineer, but a qualified university astrophysicist.</i>"<br /><br />ADS lists 42 document with "Dunning-Davies, J." as author. Of those, none seem to have been published in peer-reviewed journals, at least since 1999. Of the ones which ADS cites as published in such journals, the journals are: The Observatory (2, with the same title), "Hadronic J" (also 2), European Journal of Physics (1: "Undergraduate thermodynamics and black holes"), Nuovo Cimento B (also 1), Foundations of Physics Letters (1, joint paper with B.H. Lavenda), Classical and Quantum Gravity (also 1, also with Lavenda), and Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids (1, in 1988).<br /><br />He gives his affiliation as University of Hull, Department of Physics; curiously the university website does not list astrophysics as an area of research. Further, his name does not appear on the staff list (his most recent arXiv document is dated November 2009, and gives a Hull University email address).<br /><br />May I ask how you arrived at the conclusion that he is "a qualified university astrophysicist"?<br /><br />APODNereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-64564256034862072762010-10-08T19:41:09.098-04:002010-10-08T19:41:09.098-04:00To Anonymous:
People do that, not subjects. I coul...To Anonymous:<br /><i>People do that, not subjects. I could just as easily say that astronomy has a track record of claiming things about the universe on which it knows nothing.</i><br /><br />You claim it is people and then make the accusation against 'astronomy'??? Astronomers know more about the universe than EU supporters and they are ideas that are TESTABLE. Astronomy has even made numerous predictions about physics from cosmic observations that were later verified at laboratory scales (see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/08/cosmos-in-your-pocket-expanded-revised.html" rel="nofollow">The Cosmos In Your Pocket: Expanded & Revised</a>. EU has no such accomplishments.<br /><br />If you look at Alfven's publication history on ADS, you will see he had a significant track record in physics and had appropriate background for it, unlike many of the other 'EU theorists' such as Don Scott & Wal Thornhill. Alfven was NOT a supporter of the Electric Sun. Not all of Alfven's ideas were found to be valid, and that is something every professional scientist must deal with. It is the nature of science.<br /><br />The Dunning-Davies article was probably not the best choice, but I wasn't going to itemize all the accusations I've found on the Thunderbolts Forum or in <i>The Electric Sky</i>. That is actually in <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/electriccosmos.html" rel="nofollow">The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited</a>. <br /><br />If you knew that data was available, why did you make such a claim?<br /><br />You make a claim, I document how you are wrong, and then you claim you knew this all along? You've done that a lot. You are playing more rhetorical games, not discussing science. The issues you raise have been raised before, many of which I deal with in other articles in this blog, such as the laundry list I gave to axismundi under <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/09/electric-universe-plasma-physics-for.html" rel="nofollow">this topic</a>.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-82115270539446879912010-10-08T07:19:23.363-04:002010-10-08T07:19:23.363-04:00The odd thing, Anonymous, is not that EU proponent...The odd thing, Anonymous, is not that EU proponents, in general, have no track record of quantitative analysis; rather, it's that not a single one has done any such analyses, for several decades!<br /><br />Now there's nothing wrong with studying myths etc; however, when such study leads to claims about astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, space science, planetary science (etc), then such studies can be evaluated using scientific methods. And it's here that EU proponents have such a dismal record ... not only do few even suggest that scientific methods be used to test such claims, but, much worse, many attack those (such as Tom Bridgman, Tim Thompson, and myself) who do try to subject those claims to such tests, often (it seems) for nothing more than simply asking questions.<br /><br />It is this sort of response that makes EU look like creationism, or religious dogma (of course, there are many other similarities too).<br /><br />Your mention of interdisciplinary interests reminded me that there is website - indeed, a 'registered educational charity' - which makes the connection between catastrophism and EU; namely, the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (google it). That it has spectacularly failed its "PRINCIPAL OBJECT" ("<i>to advance the education of the public and, through the combined use of historical and <b>contemporary evidence</b> of all kinds, to promote a multidisciplinary approach to, and specialised research into, <b>scientific</b> and scholarly problems inherent in the uniformitarian <b>theories in astronomy</b> and history, and thus to <b>promote active consideration by scientists</b>, scholars and students of <b>alternatives to those theories</b>.</i>", I added some bold) should have provoked an outcry from its members - there's essential no physical science in any of their material!<br /><br />APODNereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-52408789648270654222010-10-08T04:53:15.300-04:002010-10-08T04:53:15.300-04:00>>"EU has quite a track-record of claim...>>"EU has quite a track-record of claiming knowledge on things they know nothing about."<br /><br />People do that, not subjects. I could just as easily say that astronomy has a track record of claiming things about the universe on which it knows nothing. If the visible universe is 99.999% plasma, then I'd want a plasma physicists to take a look.<br /><br />We both know that is an unwarranted overgeneralization. Hannes Alfvén was an electrical engineer, and he made some very successful insights into the universe that earned him the Nobel Prize in physics.<br /><br />People's background do no automatically make them right or wrong. Incidentally it seems that the person who wrote the article on fraud, is not an electrical engineer, but a qualified university astrophysicist.<br /><br />>>"As for the data being unavailable, such a claim exhibits either ignorance or laziness."<br /><br />Of course, no argument there. I would expect non-scientists to be ignorant of many aspects of science. My statement still stands, so it does not make me ill-informed. We both know that there is data available.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-61912419496922578802010-10-07T21:08:21.109-04:002010-10-07T21:08:21.109-04:00EU has quite a track-record of claiming knowledge ...EU has quite a track-record of claiming knowledge on things they know nothing about. Then they exhibit the gall of accusing others of fraud who DO know about the topic (see <a href="http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest_jdd.htm" rel="nofollow">thunderblogs: Science in Turmoil - Are we Funding Fraud?</a>) . It doesn't take much thought to realize that an electrical engineer might not be the best source for info about nuclear physics - yet that is the simple thing no one in EU seems capable of understanding.<br /><br />As for the data being unavailable, such a claim exhibits either ignorance or laziness.<br /><a href="http://sdac.virtualsolar.org/cgi/search" rel="nofollow">Virtual Solar Observatory</a><br /><a href="http://vspo.gsfc.nasa.gov/websearch/dispatcher" rel="nofollow">Virtual Space Physics Observatory</a><br />These are just the recent fancy interfaces for data that has been available for a decade or more.<br /><br />Maybe you should actually do some research before you make such ill-informed statements. You don't really think you're helping your position, do you?W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-29968555378449986522010-10-07T18:09:43.939-04:002010-10-07T18:09:43.939-04:00I believe that Ralph Juergens produced some quanti...I believe that Ralph Juergens produced some quantitative estimates in his papers on the <a href="http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/index.htm" rel="nofollow">Electric Sun in Kronos journal</a>, although they are 30 years old, and probably out of date.<br /><br />Many EU proponents don't do quantitative analysis because (a) they are not scientists (b) they do no have access to, or are unable to acquire the necessary data. They are often interested in mythology because they have interdisciplinary interests. Although you can not do science with folklore, it does not mean there is nothing to learn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-32021436115979194712010-10-07T08:06:09.517-04:002010-10-07T08:06:09.517-04:00Anonymous: no one has ever said Peratt is, or was,...Anonymous: no one has ever said Peratt is, or was, unaware of gravity! What has been under discussion is whether he included gravity in any of his astrophysical simulations. The second reference you cite is, at best, ambiguous about whether he himself has actually done any such simulations.<br /><br />What seems to be true is that none of Peratt's published papers report the results of astrophysically relevant simulations he ran which included gravity.<br /><br />Tom: the fact that no EU proponent has, publicly, produced any quantitative results based on their efforts to simulate ideas published by Scott, Thornhill, etc does not mean they haven't said they're interested in doing some such! By the way, there is one possible exception: one proponent has published (in JREF) the outline of some chemical (etc) reactions that might produce the species observed in comets (molecules, ions, etc), based on some version of 'the electric comet' EU idea (based itself on Thornhill's intellectually fraudulent PDF).<br /><br />Some EU proponents are, explicitly, catastrophists, who explicitly cite Velikovsky; these folk seem to have had some connection with the (now defunct?) Kronia Group and Talbott. As far as I can tell, most such proponents regard quantitative analysis of any kind borderline illegitimate as a path to knowledge and understanding; instead they focus of folklore, legend, mythology, etc. The connection to EU ideas comes, in part, from Peratt's paper (if one can call it that) on atmospheric/space (high current, high field, etc) plasma phenomena recorded as rock art (I don't have the reference to hand, but I'll dig it up if anyone's interested). Indirectly this also ties in with the tone of the Alfvén quote, which Tom (correctly) said 'gives plasmas an almost mystic character'.<br /><br />APODNereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-54406976386492887452010-10-05T21:15:10.122-04:002010-10-05T21:15:10.122-04:00Oh, and one more thing. In practice, EU's cla...Oh, and one more thing. In practice, EU's claims that plasma modeling is unreliable just allows them to deny any result of a plasma model that they don't like.<br /><br />The solar resistor model basically uses Ampere's Circuital Law (part of Maxwell's equations) and I've yet to hear how a plasma z-pinch powering the Sun can violate that!W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-79017521024813268162010-10-05T19:33:01.331-04:002010-10-05T19:33:01.331-04:00APODNereid: So, my comment was about the EU propon...APODNereid: <i>So, my comment was about the EU proponents who have expressed an interest in, or desire to, develop(ing) models based on Scott's (or Thornhill's, or Peratt's, or ...) published work, and not about Scott's work itself.</i><br /><br />That's exactly what I've done with the solar resistor and solar capacitor models. See how well that worked out. ;^)W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-70126359897995038842010-10-05T19:28:37.247-04:002010-10-05T19:28:37.247-04:00Beyond one reference, you basically repeated what ...Beyond one reference, you basically repeated what I documented in the main post.<br /><br />EU's claims that plasma models are 'unreliable' is basically saying EU is not doing science and there is no point in doing science on plasmas. How is this excuse different from the creationist excuse 'God Did It' to stop further inquiry on scientific problems lest the result be uncomfortable for them?<br /><br />As I have documented in this series of posts, many plasma scientists have demonstrated the reliability of plasma models in a range of commercial products to space flight.<br /><br />EU clearly has made ZERO contribution to plasma physics.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-70834349442811011662010-10-05T13:09:53.289-04:002010-10-05T13:09:53.289-04:00I don't think that EU supporters say that plas...I don't think that EU supporters say that plasma models are useless, only that they <i>may</i> be unreliable.<br /><br />So, there is not necessarily an incompatibility between Alfvén's and Peratt's statements, it all depends on the regimes they are referring to.<br /><br />Peratt is well aware of gravity, even though he does not include them in his early simulations. See for example:<br /><br />* Section 8.7 Gravitation, on page 299 of his book, <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/1992ppu..book.....P" rel="nofollow">The Plasma Universe</a><br /><br />* "<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/1997Ap%26SS.256...51P" rel="nofollow">Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas</a>" (PART II) (1998) <a href="http://plasmauniverse.info/papers.html" rel="nofollow">Full text</a> (PDF)<br /><br />The latter paper covers this quite extensively.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com