Oh, That Crazy Solar System!

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />I have come to the disappointing conclusion that most "SdCers" are actually not at all interested in discussing anything that does not fit within the narrow scope of "conventional wisdom," especially the Electric Universe--even in the Phenomena forum! </font><br /><br />right. <br /><br />the overruling principle about any of cosmology is that science itself has no conclusive idea of the things it claims to incontrovertibly know. in my assessment, it holds very little definitive answers about anything. this oversteps any and all divisiveness between theories. stephen hawking is NOT going to figure out the origins of the universe anymore than i will. <br /><br />if some other theory is "really" describing the cosmos, then that is really not for me to boldly determine. but i can offer compelling argument to mainstream ideas that have all the weight of proof and approval from the greater science community. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

I suppose, Bonzelite, the issue comes down to the following:<br /><br />Many scientists have ideas, and many of them pursue them. However, when major (or even minor) issues arise with their ideas, they can do one of several things:<br /><br />1. Redact, and refine their theory to take into account the problems.<br />2. Argue bitterly about it, assuming that all objections are frivolous.<br />3. Give up.<br /><br />Most of the people considered "fringe" talent are those who continually follow option number 2. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

not all fringe talent follows option number 2. and not all talent questioning established models is fringe. <br /><br />certainly a good share will argue bitterly and cry and get defensive and just reject anything "just because." and those people should be overlooked as they pose no threat to legitimate science. <br /><br />there is as well a fine line between redacting and ad hoccing.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>ot all fringe talent follows option number 2. and not all talent questioning established models is fringe. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That is <i>why</i> they are not usually considered fringe.<br /><br />There are many misconceptions about science:<br /><br />1) Mainstream scientists are arrogant enough to think they know everything, or at least all the important things.<br /><br />This is not true, but the fringe often accuses them of it. On the contrary, not only are they aware that there is much they do not know, but it is the very thing that drives them into science.<br /><br />2) Scientists rarely question anything other than the fringe.<br /><br />On the contrary, they question practically everything. Again, it's their raison d'etre. I was watching the Dr Who story "City of Death" last night, and it had a great line that sums this up: "A scientist's job is to ask questions." Scientists are generally people who don't like to take anything for granted. For instance, most people are content to know that if they drop a book, it will hit the floor. Scientists want to know why. If you tell them "because of gravity", they'll want to know why that makes the book fall. And so on. You cannot get to the last "why?" with scientists; it seems to be an infinite progression.<br /><br />3) Science is intolerant of new ideas.<br /><br />Science loves new ideas. Scientists are always wanting to know more, so they're eager for the next insight. However, science is about rigor. They seldom change their minds on a whim, or because something sounds cool. They need a reason, and they'll ask an awful lot of "why?" and "how?" questions. That same burning curiosity driving them to explore will drive them to explore a proposed idea. This can seem very intimidating, but it's the way science works. It's not a bias against folks who are out of the mainstream. It's a desire to really and fully understand. Some do misinterpret <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>They seldom change their minds on a whim, or because something sounds cool.</i><br /><br />That is so exactly it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[fingle]

Nobel Laureate Halton Arp?<br /><br />NobelPrize.org List of All Laureates<br /><br />Halton Christian Arp<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

they conveniently ignore that one. it upsets their standard playground. <br />they ignore Alfven, too.

 

[telfrow]

SiriusMrE:<font color="yellow"> Do you mean "charlatans" like Nobel Laureate Halton Arp? </font><br /><br />Check here. (The Nobel Site). Do a search. No hits. Or search here.<br /><br />And there's no mention of it at Arp's website . (You'd think he might like to add it to his resume.)<br /><br />If you trace it to its origin - TVF's Book Review of <i>Seeing Red.</i> - you find the following quote: <i><b>A Nobel laureate and former teacher</b> is quoted as saying "Arp did not get anything right in my course. I should have flunked him but I could not bear to have him repeat the course with me." </i> [Emphasis added]<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

Hans Alfven<br />http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

 

[telfrow]

Didn't comment about Alfven, bonzelite. Just correcting an error concerning Arp. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

no worries <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />

 

[siriusmre]

Thank you, Calli and h'man, for responding to my question. Of course, your answers have only spawned more questions in my mind.<br /><br />Calli:<br />You say that you find the EUT "cumbersome and unlikely." Of course, you concede that you have read mostly about Velikovsky's notion of the EU, which is unfortunate. Most modern Plasma Cosmologists will admit that while Velikovsky may have had a kernel of a good idea, his specific explication of it was flawed. Since Velikovsky, there have been many serious scientists who have picked up on that kernel of a good idea and expanded it based on real laboratory results.<br /><br />You contend that there is so much in space that we should be seeing if the EUT were true that we are not. Like what? I would counter that the Deep Impact event provided good evidence of electricity in space. The breakup of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 as it approached Jupiter is more evidence. What were the "bright spots" that Stardust photographed on the surface of Comet Wild 2 as it flew by? Because those "bright spots" appeared exclusively on some of the highest points on the comet surface, an EU theorist would make the assertion that that is precisely where one would expect to find electrical discharges on a comet surface. Come to think of it, the Deep Impact impactor also photographed "bright spots" on the surface of Tempel 1 as well--right before it was zapped by a discharge from the comet. Check out the pics.<br /><br />You also indicate that basing a picture of the solar system of several thousand years ago on the reports that appear in myths throughout the world is a "stumbling block" for your acceptance of the EUT. I would point out that some rather compelling studies have been done of ancient rock art. Researchers Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott are perhaps the best known to have done these types of studies. What they found is that there is a STRONG correspondence of ancient rock art forms with the various forms taken by plasma instabilities; Ant <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>The breakup of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 as it approached Jupiter is more evidence.</i><br /><br />I actually watched one of the impacts (well, more correctly, the impact dome/glow as it came around the limb of the planet). Nothing in those observations suggested the EUT.<br /><br />Next - without tainting your hypothesis - many of *have* read the EUt until blue in the face. It lacks merit for a number of reasons (which have likely already been raised in this thread, so I won't repeat them).<br /><br />I really must, though, raise a serious bone of contention with one point: the EUT does indeed attempt to cancel all space science up to this point. Electromagnetism is not comparable to gravity, and so a huge swath of current thought would have to be thrown out. That means going all the way back to Newton, btw. I believe that was what Calli was alluding to.<br /><br /><i>Well, because a select group of beknighted scientists have told us what is and is not possible, how the universe started, how stars are born, and how our planet formed.</i><br /><br />Recollect that those "beknighted scientists" (and most are actually quite ordinary people, btw) performed millions of man-hours of painstaking work, observation, and theorizing, to get us to where we are now.<br /><br />Pray continue with the debate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[neptune501]

Can you help me use my telescope?

 

[siriusmre]

<font color="yellow">"I actually watched one of the impacts (well, more correctly, the impact dome/glow as it came around the limb of the planet). Nothing in those observations suggested the EUT."</font><br /><br />I think you're wrong there, Yevaud. IIRC, there was quite a bit of surprise that the comet pieces made such great impacts that their glows were visible around the limb of the planet at all! Many astronomers, when it became clear that many of the pieces of the comet would strike the planet on the other side (as it were), held out little hope of seeing anything remarkable. They were surprised. In fact, I recall folks being impressed with the energy of all of the impacts. This failure to predict this behavior is a real knock on the standard theories.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"many of [us?] *have* read the EUt until blue in the face. It lacks merit for a number of reasons"</font><br /><br />"Blue in the face," you say? Really? Where does it fall down for you? Does it "lack merit" because it is "cumbersome and unlikely," as Calli characterizes it; or, do you have "philisophical" difficulty with it like h'man does?<br /><br />It's certainly not the observations. They're all the same; EU theorists just interpret them differently. It can't be the math either because, while EU uses a different "sect" of mathematics, it is no less "real" than the kind of math used by standard theorists. And it absolutely cannot be the lab results. If anything, that's the big advantage that plasma cosmologists have over gravity cosmologists; they can test their claims in a rigorous and reproducible way.<br /><br />Besides, we have hints all around us if we would only see them. What about Deep Impact?<br /><br />What about the global dust storms on Mars? How does an atmosphere that is 1% as dense as Earth's work up enough umph to suspend such a huge quantity of dust in the Martian atmosphere? For several days?<br /><br />What about the giant crater on the face of Mimas <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I saw the impacts too, or rather, the smudges afterwards. I don't recall scientists being surprised, per se. They didn't know how big the fireballs would be, but this is not because they predicted wrongly. Rather, they knew the limitations of the data. They did not know how big the SL-9 fragments were, what their specific composition was (sure, there are rough guesses, but not enough to calculate how they'll behave on atmosphere interface), or even enough about the upper atmosphere of Jupiter to make any kind of really accurate prediction. They did accurately predict the timing, though; the orbital mechanics was just about the only thing they did now with sufficient accuracy.<br /><br />I don't think that says anything one way or the other about the electric universe or any "standard" model. Certainly invalidating one model wouldn't really validate another anyway -- that's a logical absurdity.<br /><br /><b>It can't be the math either because, while EU uses a different "sect" of mathematics, it is no less "real" than the kind of math used by standard theorists. And it absolutely cannot be the lab results. If anything, that's the big advantage that plasma cosmologists have over gravity cosmologists; they can test their claims in a rigorous and reproducible way. </b><br /><br />A different "sect" of mathematics? That doesn't make sense to me at all. Math is the only absolute study there is; it's either math or it's not. And I don't think it's really correct to say that "plasma cosmologists" can test their claims rigorously and reproducibly whereas "gravity cosmologists" cannot. Both can test their claims rigorously and reproducibly. To say otherwise suggests an ignorance of one side or the other.<br /><br /><b>Besides, we have hints all around us if we would only see them. What about Deep Impact? </b><br /><br />Yes? What about it? What about all the things you've listed? I fail to see how they either invalidate "standard" models, or support the electric universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i will offer a correction of semantics for MrSirius and provide "mathematical cosmologists" in lieu of "gravitational cosmologists." gravity is very key in celestial mechanics and is largely unknown as to what it really is. to maintain credibility in debate with standard theorists, it is important to offer plausible rebuttal to standard models without necessarily espousing other models that are nearly equally as presently untestable. otherwise, they will use every measure of mathematically/gravitationally skewed "observation" from real data, and you will be hung out to dry <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />it is better, in my opinion, to simply declare that you don't know. and neither do they. it is far more an affront to them to simply point out that their models are unbelievable by getting to know their models by then exploiting the gaping holes in them. learn all about standard theories and learn the art of debunking them without losing credibility. <b>a one-way ticket to losing credibility is to debunk a popular idea to only then replace it with a very unaccepted and harder-to-support fringe idea. and EU theory is exactly that, at least for the present.</b> <br /><br />unfortunately, many of these accepted ideas are un-falsifiable simply because they are untestable to be false or true. for example, you cannot falsify the big bang because it is not able to be tested, as it is a mathematical abstraction. and even though such an event is highly unlikely and virtually impossible as it violates it's own rules, it is accepted as truth because it is widely applauded by the most prominent mathematical cosmologists <b>even though it is entirely untestable.</b> therefore, learn to extract and shine a bright light on the ridiculous claims it makes. that alone will reveal the folly in the theory without having to outright say it. self-evident truths are often the strongest.<br /><br />moreover, it is the often untestable and purely fabricated mathematical models that

 

[bonzelite]

i will offer to Calli that math is not an absolute study. in context of cosmology, mathematics is a highly model-based, theoretically untestable pyramid system of unverifiable theories.

 

[siriusmre]

<font color="yellow">"They did accurately predict the timing, though; the orbital mechanics was just about the only thing they did [know] with sufficient accuracy."</font><br /><br />Agreed. I have no argument with the models of current orbital mechanics or how the theories thereof are applied to achieve obviously spectacular results like Deep Impact. Those engineers do amazing work. No, my issue is with the theoretical mathematicians to whom it is left to coherently describe "reality." And that's just it; I don't believe that the mathematics that is currently used actually does describe our reality. I mean, anytime you have to put an infinity in your equation to make it work out, pretty much means that your equation does not describe anything "real."<br /><br />Standard theorists still have problems with comets like S-L9. For starters, why do some break up so far away from the sun while others do not? Is it that some are just made up of such loosely conglomerated material that they are prone to dissolution? They just do not know.<br /><br />Maybe if they looked at it in a different way...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Certainly invalidating one model wouldn't really validate another anyway -- that's a logical absurdity."</font><br /><br />I know this. I never claimed that invalidating one model validates the other. What I have tried to do is to show that there is another way to look at the things that puzzle standard theorists--and we all know that there is no shortage of them. It is absurd that there is really only one path being followed to try to understand the cosmos; there needs to be at least one competing theory, if not an entirely different paradigm. Since there are so many holes and blind spots in so many standard theories, doesn't it make sense to at least seriously look at alternative expalanations? Maybe what we think is going on out there really isn't. Or vice-versa.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"A different 'sect' of mathematics? That do</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

Thank you, bonzelite. I agree totally with your assessment of the state of mathematics in science now--especially physics. I appreciate your feedback.<br /><br />I will fully agree that the whole EU thing might also be incomplete or wrong. But we're never going to find out unless we start to put some serious research dollars behind the effoerts to fully test it--at least to the extent that "standard" hypotheses are tested.<br /><br />Who was it that decided that even though there's electricity in space, it doesn't do anything? How do we KNOW that? I am trying to find out from folks what, specifically, they object to in an electrical universe paradigm, aside from the aesthetic or philosophical unease some may have with it simply because it posits a new paradigm that might be hard for them to accept--even for the purpose of performing some thought experiments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

<font color="yellow">"Sirius is one of those who must denigrate the fields of the sciences, esp. astronomy because they so pointedly show how ridiculous RCH's beliefs are."</font><br /><br />I love astronomy, steve. That's why I say what I say. And...uh...have I ever once mentioned "RCH"--until just now? I don't think so. Besides, I wouldn't exactly call him a big EU proponent, <i>per se</i>. Some of his ideas are compatible with an EU perspective, but he is not on the front line by, any means. And I am certainly not one of his "apologists."<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Ver few with any kind of solid scientific education and experience take his posts with any but a huge chunk of halite."</font><br /><br />I certainly do respect those who have dedicated so many years of their lives to anything, including those who have invested considerable man-hours, not to mention big bucks, to become steeped in a particular way of seeing and solving cosmological questions. Just because I and others do not subscribe to that particular dogma does not make us any less intellectually curious. Nor, does it mean that those "big brains" have a monopoly on the truth.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Most of us simply point out the totally unrealistic and unscientific, often pseudo scientific nature of such posts and then move on."</font><br /><br />"Unrealistic" only within a very particular context, which may itself not be accurately representative of reality. "Unscientific" and "pseudo scientific" only to those, again, who have been trained--literally--to think in a particular way that ignores a whole swath of possibility.<br /><br />So, for you, science is everyone dancing the same dance to the same tune, not the free exchange of competing ideas? If anyone has anything to say that might challenge the <i>status quo</i>, then clearly his ideas are pseudo-scientific at best. Never mind that they might be based on as solid science as any standard theory. "It's not <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

Sirius, your welcome. <br /><br />i am giving you a vantage point to stage debate from. in my opinion, science is more about politics than it is actual science. this is very clear. at least from where we are, assuming you are a layman as i am, we can become educated as to the general lay of the land, if you will. and then point out blaring contradictions in the accepted and "sophisticated" models that name-brand mathematicians espouse. and i'm telling you, as well, that these people do not know any more than you or i how the cosmos formed and under what conditions. but there is an atmosphere of political intolerance for anything that remotely reveals that the geniuses in the field are <b>far afield</b> from really answering anything. <br /><br />if there is any fact about cosmology it is what i just said. and the subsequent facts that are accepted as truth by mathematical cosmologists are not factual, as they are often self-contradictory and untestable. it matters little if they can construct elaborate mathematical models that make sense. most of it bears no relevance to actual reality.<br /><br />and you must do your homework, as much as you can, to find these inconsistencies in theory. once you do, you will begin to see gigantic problems, along with the nearly wholesale denial in them by the genius expert crowd. consider it a territorial war for intellectual dominance and ego fulfillment. this is really what it is. so do not give the establishment the satisfaction of tearing you apart on the fringes. tear them apart in their own house. <br /><br />pretty soon, you will find it un-necessary to even talk about EU theory because you will be learning more and more about the basics of science, and finding out on your own individual terms the huge gaps in the overall picture. remember that you are never going to change their minds anyway by giving them the EU good news. they hate it fully. and will never believe in it. so debate on their turf, on their terms, and reveal how stu

 

[yevaud]

I’d thought for a good long while before responding to this.<br /><br />I was going to respond to the entire post. But why? It all boils down to the last line:<br /><br /><i>just get to know all of their tricks. and exploit these weaknessness.</i><br /><br />Is this what you think science and the knowledge thereof is all about? Then you’re not engaging in science, it’s merely a form of entertainment for you, and nothing more.<br /><br />You stated that you feel a superficial amount of understanding picked up over the internet will make you the equal of a Degreed Astrophysicist specializing in Cosmology. Even if that were so (and it isn’t), you then state that your entire intent is to merely “pick apart” anything that comes along. Not for the purposes of peer-review, but merely because you think you can.<br /><br />This is, I think, a result of the limitations of the message board forum. If people such as, for example, Jon and Saiph began to continually post all of the mathematical proofs and physical realities we know, there would be 4 people left here. It would be excruciating dull and abstract for the rest of you, and you’d bail.<br /><br />So we’re left using language and language alone to try to describe, discuss, or correct the perceptions on, hard science. And that leaves inadvertent slop-room for people trying to do this. The little, “Ah hah! I’ve got you now!” act.<br /><br />Take for example the “Electric Universe” idea. The question was asked as to why scientists think that even though there’s electricity present in space, it has little to do with most processes of star formation, planetary accretion, and other solar and galactic processes. Well, the answer is simple: it does not have the physical properties with which to be able to do so. It propagates differently than gravity; it fails to remotely approach required energy-levels for countless aspects of the Cosmos; it is not present “everywhere” in space the way people seem to think.<br /><br />Yet, those i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yeah, but the equations that an architect uses are quite different from those that an electrical engineer uses, no? Yes, it's all math, but there are differences in the KIND of math, the equations, that they use.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's the exact same kind of math. Yes, they use different equations, but they are not incompatible; they are merely describing different things. The equations function in exactly the same way, according to exactly the same rules: the rules of mathematics. They both use algebra and calculus, for instance.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also, plasma cosmologists have hypothesized about a mechanism that would account for the formation of the planet-sized scar that is the giant canyon Valles Marineris, also on Mars. Standard theory says that that massive canyon was carved by some as yet unknown geological process that they think involved liquid water and maybe some surface cracking. If that's the case, then where did all the eroded material go? There does not appear to be sufficient debris on the planet to support this notion. Plasma cosmologists, on the other hand, suggest that a process similar to electrical discharge machining, the common industrilal process for etching metals, was responsible for the scar.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If you object to there being no big mounds of silt downstream from Valles Marineris, you must also explain why there is no debris from this machining process. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Okay, I'm being cheeky. But I don't think the eroded material in unaccounted for -- assuming it was carved by riverine processes. The material would likely be spread out all over Mars by now, given the rate of dust storms there. Personally, I favor the theory that it is almost entirely a crack, not the product of erosion, although there is clear evidence of erosive processes going on all around it, particula <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">you then state that your entire intent is to merely “pick apart” anything that comes along. Not for the purposes of peer-review, but merely because you think you can. </font><br /><br />Yevaud, nothing has changed, my man. it's business as usual <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />i don't venture into waters that i have completely no idea about. it takes some amount of knowledge, even if it is cursory, about anything to refute an idea about it. if the popular idea has obvious flaws that can be refuted with support, then it will be refuted. this is the nature of debate that may lead to revision of theory, even if it is never revised. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> It would be excruciating dull and abstract for the rest of you, and you’d bail. </font><br /><br />it may actually be a good thing for the entire community. it would raise the bar, perhaps, and create even more debate. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />So we’re left using language and language alone to try to describe, discuss, or correct the perceptions on, hard science. And that leaves inadvertent slop-room for people trying to do this. The little, “Ah hah! I’ve got you now!” act</font><br /><br />and that is exactly what it comes down to on either side: it is intellectual warfare about things that <b>are</b> scientific, and some things <b>not</b> hard science <i>whatsoever</i>, and some things simply in need of other views. things that are totally fabricated and passed off as true are open season for duck hunting. some of the theories that are passed off as truth are entirely refutable and should be refuted. including EU theory. <br /><br />for example: black holes ---- /> are not hard science. they're hardcore mathematical gymnastics, certainly --but you'd swear they were true by the way they are elevated to celebrity status in popular science tabloids and in the corridors of political influence. if you'd like to debate them, bring it on. i have