Electric Universes review of Deep Impact

bonzelite · Jan 31, 2006

caveat to the other viewers is many believe something sinister is going on with respect to some theories, and I'm pointing out why it may seem that way. But it's not some evil cabal trying to choke infant sciences in their cradles; it's competition (sometime vicious), egos, and so on that make it so - those who have their own die-hard agendas, and science is their vehicle. that is true.

yevaud · Jan 31, 2006

Mind you, Bonzelite, what I'm stating is a tiny, tiny percentage of the total number of scientists in any given field. But just as 10 bad cops can give a very wrong impression of a force of 10,000, so it is in scientific fields. Right about now, every last person in the field of Biology, BioChemistry and Genetics is walking very softly - all due to one malign Korean scientist. THAT's the point I am making. Don't believe for an instant that because there are some few scientists who believe in everything from Electric Universe to EPH through Cydonia means they're credible, or that because they sign off on it that the subject is now legitimate. It isn't so. They're our "Bad Cops." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Jan 31, 2006

But religous dogmatism....nope. Don't see it. i'm not really implying dogmatism, per se. religion is not always presented in a dogmatic way. moreover, it seeks to ground an individual in personal meaning and purpose, and to explain the unexplainable, as it frames the whole thing in spirituality as religion. this is not much different from science as religion --as both spirituality and science are based in faith. you cannot prove or disprove the BB anymore than you can prove or disprove God. and both premises have evidence. and both premises are theoretical. stephen hawking wears the papal hat today in his religion of science. and his disciples bid him homage, and live and die by his every utterance. yet he has no better idea for the origins of the cosmos than you or i, despite his genius and his priesthood. finding him credible or not is a matter of personal belief and choice.

jatslo · Jan 31, 2006

Science = Religious Science Fiction

Saiph · Feb 1, 2006

ugh, whenever people want to say science is all faith, they throw out BB can't be proven or disproven (which i disagree with...it's just passed all the tests so far). Lets take a look at the rest of science shall we? Maxwells equations, Thermo-dynamics, Nuclear Physics, Quantum Mechanics, and more. Those can all be disproven...but haven't been. Nobody has managed to do it. They all have extremely strong predictive powers. These are the foundations of science. Relativity and BB may be under fire, primarily, I believe, because they're such odd concepts and counter-intuitive. And I'll agree that BB doesn't seem as firm as everybody says it is (I'm taking some time now and again to really dig into it, so I can properly explain it here, but it will be a while). but when one looks at the entirety of science, the idea that science hinges on faith, cause it's precepts cannot be proven or disproven is...well, patently ridiculous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Feb 1, 2006

science differs somewhat from pure faith in that much of science can be tested and proven. faith can be tested, too, but not in the same manner as physical science. you can say "what's the matter? you losing your faith?" and the answer can be "well, my faith is being tested." and this is not the same as conducting an experiement in a lab environment. yet most of the big ticket items for cosmology, passing as factual in science, are untestable and theoretical. and will remain this way forever. BB, to me, has not passed all the tests because it's premise is oxymoronic. and it cannot ever be tested to be true or untrue. it is a faith-based model based upon observational data that may or may not be evidence of it's existence. BB currently works well within the cosmological community overall, so there is no reason to replace it. the community believes in and supports all buttressing theories, and the BB supports them back. so it fits nicely enough to be used as the basis of all thinking forward despite it's contradictory premise. as in movie-going, there is a willful suspension of disbelief and a head nodding of approval sufficient to keep it alive. and this is a technique employed in fantasy storytelling.

Saiph · Feb 1, 2006

the problem is: BB theory is "new", and still in flux, with data comming in all the time. As such, it really should be considered a model for now. Now, the other problem: We can't test it as directly as we can other theories. However, lots of indirect evidence can also suffice to "prove" or disprove a theory. Some points in BB: It's initial conditions require a "hot" creation. Things work out that the bb produces initial conditions adequate to create the right amount of light elements we see. Is this direct? no, but it was a prediction. The scientists looked at the conditions and calibrated it to fit the Hydrogen and Helium ratios. out of those conditions, the correct amount of several other elements (like lithium) were predicted (and these were not specifically set into the system!), some of these element ratios were unknown at the time of the prediction IIRC (or not very accurate). It predicted the CMBR...and was very accurate in the prediction shape and magnitude of the resulting black body curve. Now, had nuclear physics been unable to produce the observed lithium and light element ratios from the conditions required to create the hydrogen/helium ratios....i.e. we could match one, but not the other...BB would be DEAD. Had the CMBR not existed...BB would be DEAD. but...back to the EU. if you wish to discuss BB, i'll see if I can't dredge time up to do so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siriusmre · Feb 1, 2006

Please, GOD, no more BB! There are PLENTY of opportunities to discuss the bit of science fiction in other threads. This thread is about EU, let's talk about that. EU hypotheses are supported by more than 100 years of study of and laboratory experimentation with electrified plasma. To suggest that it is not based on "real" science is just wrong. As for the electric sun model being wrong, I ask the question about how the standard models explain, for example, the temperature gradient between the surface of the sun (as measured during sunspots at around 6000 K) and its atmosphere (millions of degrees K). If the sun is truly a "nuclear furnace," then why is the surface of the sun cooler than the atmosphere? How exactly does that work? As one author put it: "The Electric Universe theory interprets the Sun as an electrode in a plasma discharge... As early as the 1960's, Charles Bruce demonstrated how electric discharge phenomena explains five major and thirteen minor anomalies of solar surface behavior. Imagine the Sun not as a nuclear bomb in the sky but as an electric arc-lamp plugged into a galactic power grid." This type of behavior has been studied and modeled extensively by both laboratory as well as theoretical scientists. The mathematical, theoretical, and physical underpinnings of the EU paradigm are just as solid as ANY standard hypothesis. Perhaps the question may be argued that those concepts do not apply to our universe, but to say that it is "pseudo-science" is not justified. Is it not important to have more than one working paradigm within which to analyze observational data? Is it not important to have competing points of view? Even if they seem to be mutually exclusive? Perhaps especially so. As for the relationship of math to science, http://www.p</safety_wrapper <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Feb 1, 2006

BB can be discussed elsewhere, as I said. Now, as for the standard model and the explaination of the "unusually" hot corona. The standard model says the suns primary source of energy is nuclear fusion. The sun is a plasma due to the high temperatures there (these high temps can be sustained by fusion for the requisite time period). Because the sun is a plasma, and because of the convection, and differential rotation, there is a lot of electrical and magnetic phenomena on the sun. I agree with that general aspect of the electric sun model. However, the phenomena and mechanisms invoked by EU inadequate. The hot corona (and solar wind) are not powered by mere thermal and photon energy exchange. The standard model doesn't even assert that it is! The corona and solar winds are largley powered by the various loops of magnetic fields on the sun (which are observed via filaments, prominence loops, and the zeeman effect) whipping through the area. EU says it's powered by a net charge sepeartion (positive core, negative atmosphere), and various infalling materials from the outside. Problem: there is no energy source/mechanism to seperate that much charge, there is no observational evidence for such a large charge seperation. And as for infalling materials...we don't see it! Also, both protons and electrons leave the sun and don't try the semi-conductor moving hole = charge arguement...we're seeing the actual particles in the detectors! So...where do you get the idea that the standard description of the sun doesn't use electrical and magnetic forces to explain things? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Feb 1, 2006

I would like to see you explore electricity in the universe; clearly, what we observe, as gaseous clouds in space, or stellar nurseries involves the ionization of particles, otherwise we would not see them, correct? I suspect that those very large blue stars that are short lived are, in fact, plasma balls, or ball lightning. I might be able to drum up some evidence on the subject, if this is an appropriate subject for this thread. I changed the subject for that matter. So let us forget "Theories" for the moment, and do some exploring of our own. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I have a university library at my disposal, as do you, and I see nothing wrong with discussing, deliberating, and debating the evidence, so long as we properly cite the individual(s).

yevaud · Feb 1, 2006

Another way that it's known that there isn't some electrical current fueling solar activity is a very simple fact: the incoming electrons would meet the outgoing solar wind. One would tear the other to shreds. That's quite basic. And the solar wind appears to be operating just fine, thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Saiph · Feb 1, 2006

I suspect that those very large blue stars that are short lived are, in fact, plasma balls, or ball lightning. Well...you'll need to find evidence of vast electric fields able to cause an electrical breakdown in hydrogen and helium. To start with. Good luck. Otherwise, it's just a giant ball of ionized gas (yes, that's a plasma!) like every other star. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Feb 1, 2006

Clouds from the Sun compress the Earth's magnetosphere, resulting is a stirring up of energetic particles within the radiation belts, and ionosphere that cause major magnetic storms on Earth: Lightning from your finger tips as they strike the keying mechanism. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />

Saiph · Feb 1, 2006

...well, you're sorta right. The solar wind does shift the magnetosphere, the particles do create aurora... but I wouldn't say major magnetic storms. Coronal mass ejections can cause enough disruption to fry electrical grids though. As for the lightning hitting the keying mechanism...huh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Feb 1, 2006

[1] Where does the energy released during supernova go, and why would it not ball up? [2] Clearly there is evidence for ball lightning on a micro-mass scale, so why would there not be evidence of ball lightning at the macro-mass scale? [3] What is ball lightning, or lightning for that matter; ionized gas?

jatslo · Feb 1, 2006

Electrical activity has been observed on Earth; telemetry, e.g., (Telegraph, etc.).

Saiph · Feb 1, 2006

1) It gets shifted into 4 things: a) Thermal energy of the remaining core, and the expelled material. b) light c) actually expelling the envelope of the star d) eliminating the "degeneracy" of the core. Why wouldn't it ball up? cause...energy doesn't do that. 2) there may be evidence for very large scale ball lightning...I just haven't seen it. 3) Odd that you say blue giant stars are ball lightning...then admit you don't know what ball lightning is. Ball lightning is generally believed to be a self-containing plasma. Highly ionized gases that move around and create a magnetic field. When moving in such a way, the magnetic field can act as a "cage" and keep the plasma from dispersing (as it normally would due to the particle having a high kinetic energy). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Feb 1, 2006

I did not admit anything; I asked questions. If there is small scale ball lightning, then there is large scale ball lightning, and these big ball lightning stars have gravity just like everything else, why is that?

Saiph · Feb 1, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If there is small scale ball lightning, then there is large scale ball lightning,<hr /></blockquote> Sorry, not neccessarily true. Example: There are small animals with exoskeletons, then there are large animals with exoskeletons. problem; there aren't. Just cause there are small ones, doesn't mean there are large ones. now, while I guess you didn't actually "admit" to not knowing what ball lightning is...the phrasing sure implies it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Feb 1, 2006

"... exoskeletons ..." are not applicable to this discussion... The Earth's Sun compresses the magnetic field, so what affect does this phenomena FACT have on the Earth's core with respect to spin, and what does spin have to do with the Magnetic Field? For example, if, for whatever reason, the Sun sent a macro-massive signal, or cloud, then the Earth could generate a magnetic field that would essentially expel matter into space, whereas the negative and positive forces will shred matter as the planet struggles to reach equilibrium in space-time. You know that this hypothesis is testable within a lab too; however, you might try messing with something big, as opposed to small. Why? ... because you might miss a very important FACT on the smaller scale ...

bonzelite · Feb 1, 2006

plasma events are scalable. that is, the structure of differing modes of plasma discharge will enlarge or shrink according to current density --whilst retaining the same structure. a corkscrew shape of a birkeland current will remain in the same basic shape of construction whether it is very small or gigantic, as seen on the sun. ball lightning is currently (pun!) unknown as to it's exact nature of behavior and formation. a conundrum with ball lighting is that in myriad observations, it is not prone to electrically arc or discharge when near a conductor. why this is so is entirely unknown.

jatslo · Feb 1, 2006

I know something about that little unknown you are referring too. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Saiph gave the answer, but he didn't detail the why. Dissipation is fascinating, when matter converts to energy through fission. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

bonzelite · Feb 1, 2006

ok. i went up the posts and read that. about the "caging" of the mag field. very interesting. as well, it is also unknown as to why that occurs. bascially, very little is known at all about ball lightning. that phenomena has managed to evade any attempt at sound theory. very odd.

jatslo · Feb 1, 2006

Oh, sure... Lots of opportunity in the field. I think it will arc, if you compress the field with an outside force, as in the Earth's Sun, because, if your package is too small to act as containment, then it has to arc. All of which is testable within a lab. Your vortex is interesting, because of the mitosis like potential of reciprocity.

bonzelite · Feb 2, 2006

are you referring to gravity as this outside force, as in the sun's own gravitational attraction? i don't quite follow the package too small part. but i think you are talking about electrical potential (?) for example, when enough potential builds up in a cloud, as it has been charged with (-) ions collecting at the bottom of the cloud, it will seek ground on (+) charged particles on literally the ground, provided there is enough potential. and provided the air is sufficiently conductive. ball lightning, as of any known observations, defies this premise entirely. it may have something to do with the fact that it is often seen as a spherical object and charge may be distributed equally throughout the surface and there is no directional ground, as the ionized particles may be omni-directionally attracted to opposite charges, yet not attracted enough to any one of them to create discharge. or, conversely, it may arc out in any direction but is held in charge balance by it's own mag field. both situations will garner no arcing. i am only guessing on that one and may be off-base. but it's a guess.

Electric Universes review of Deep Impact

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page