Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Magnetic Monsters



Stephen Smith: Magnetic Monsters.

Extreme magnetic fields in space are said to be caused by the high-speed rotation of neutron stars. One of many cases where a theory is built on the incorrect assumptions of another theory.

Several Picture of the Day articles have addressed the problem of neutron stars and how they affect the progress of astronomical investigation. According to electric star theory, neutron stars belong in the same category with invisible pink unicorns. Deficits in gravity-only cosmology made the neutron star hypothesis necessary in order to defend gravity's ostensibly endless powers.

Neutron stars were proposed as the answer to pulsar behavior. Pulsars are stars whose brightness fluctuates over a short period of time. Pulsars are important to astrophysical models because they are used as measuring tools. Those with "known" distance, coupled with variations in their luminosity, are thought to be road markers in space, so that the distances of other stars with similar characteristics can be determined.

Pulsars are described as "light houses" with beams of energy concentrated at specific points. Consensus gravitational theory demands that any new information conform to the tenets of the theory rather than the other way around, so a rotational mechanism was proposed for the pulsations. When the spin of a pulsar brings its beam inline with telescopes on Earth, a flash of light is visible.

However, when the rotation rates of some pulsars were measured at once per second or less (even with many times the mass of our Sun), "neutron stars" were fabricated. Only a super dense material like neutronium was thought able to withstand those rotational speeds. Neutronium is a hypothetical material that has had all of its electrons smashed down into the nuclei, where the protons and electrons combine into neutrons.

"Magnetars" are anomalous stars identified as x-ray pulsars (AXP) or soft gamma repeaters (SGR). They are said to be created by neutron stars with magnetic fields measuring over 10^15 Gauss. For comparison, the Earth's magnetic field is about one-half Gauss, so these "magnetic pulsars" are surprisingly powerful sources. It must be stressed, though, that the evidence is indirect and no neutron star has ever been observed.

What is observed are intense magnetic fields sometimes pulsing in a fraction of a second. Some magnetars have also been detected emitting gamma ray bursts ascribed to “star quakes” in the ultra-hard surface of the neutron star. Because the mass per unit volume is so great, any rapid movement in the crust generates intense "magnetic reconnection," thereby producing gamma rays. It is not necessary to reiterate the problems with magnetic reconnection except to say that it is also one of the class of imaginary constructs created by astrophysicists in an attempt to explain energetic events without sufficient gravity

It is a well-established fact that magnetic fields are induced by electric currents. Therefore, there must be an electric current generating the intense fields in the magnetar. It is also indisputable that the feeder current must be part of a circuit, since persistent electric current must flow in a completed circuit.

The Electric Universe hypothesis requires no collapsed stars or rotational speeds so great that ordinary matter could never take the strain. The oscillations in magnetars (or pulsars, in general) are caused by resonant effects in electric circuits. The sudden release of stored electrical energy in a “double layer” is responsible for the occasional outburst of gamma rays. The outburst begins with a sudden peak of energy, and then declines gradually, like a stroke of lightning.

Don Scott, author of The Electric Sky, recently wrote: "The 'neutron star' is simply yet another fantasy conjured up, this time, in order to avoid confronting the idea that pulsar discharges are electrical phenomena. A nucleus or charge free atom made up of only neutrons has never been synthesized in any laboratory nor can it ever be. In fact, a web search on the word 'neutronium' will produce only references to a computer game—not to any real, scientific discussion or description. Lone neutrons decay into proton/electron pairs in less than 14 minutes; atom-like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously."

It seems more likely that we are witnessing in magnetars an immense concentration of electricity being focused by some kind of "plasma gun." As the current flows through clouds of dusty plasma it concentrates forces because of the Biot-Savart effect, drawing itself together and forming helical zones of immense compression known as "z-pinches" or "Bennett pinches." Stars form in the compression zones, and depending on how much current is flowing through the circuit the star's magnetic field will be greater where there is more current.

24 comments:

diatreme said...

"One of many cases where a theory is built on the incorrect assumptions of another theory."

Oh really? And what assumptions would those be?

"The 'neutron star' is simply yet another fantasy conjured up, this time, in order to avoid confronting the idea that pulsar discharges are electrical phenomena."

WRONG! Neutron stars were predicted LONG BEFORE the first pulsar was observed.

excerpt from:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577179/neutron_star.html

PREDICTION OF NEUTRON STARS
Neutron stars were first predicted by Indian physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and others in the 1930s. These theorists predicted that when a massive supergiant star exhausts the nuclear fuel in its core, the core will collapse and condense under gravitational forces. If the mass of the core exceeds about 1.4 times the full mass of the Sun—a value known as the Chandrasekhar limit—the core will collapse with such force that the positively-charged protons and negatively-charged electrons of the core will be crushed together to form electrically neutral neutrons. The resulting theoretical body was called a neutron star.

The rotational speed of a collapsing supergiant core increases for the same reason that the rotational speeds of spinning ice skaters increase when they pull in their arms—the conservation of angular momentum. As material that was more distant from the center of the star moves in closer, its rotational speed must increase to compensate and conserve angular momentum. A star that originally required days or months to revolve once on its axis would suddenly accelerate to spin several hundred revolutions per second. Only the tremendous forces generated by gravitation and nuclear interactions keep it from flying apart.

end quotation

If you really want to advocate a new truth, you might do better by avoiding attacks on theories and subjects that you don't know anything about. Unfortunately, you devote more effort to attacking solid, mature science than you do explaining your theory.

As it is, if I really wanted to suppress some particular, important truth, I would hire you guys to advocate it.

OilIsMastery said...

Diatreme,

In response to "Oh really? And what assumptions would those be?"

If you had quoted the first sentence instead of deliberately ignoring it, you would know the answer to that question.

Here it is again for you since you deliberately ignored it once already: "Extreme magnetic fields in space are said to be caused by the high-speed rotation of neutron stars."

What about extreme magnetic fields where there is no neutron star? Could those be caused by electricity/plasma perhaps?

diatreme said...

"Extreme magnetic fields in space are said to be caused by the high-speed rotation of neutron stars."

D'oh! So the whole scientific community is guilty of the same ignorance as the doofus who wrote that???

Here is a quote for you: "

Doofi (plural of doofus) who advocate plasma theories believe that pulsars as made of pan-fried livers and that the rings of Saturn are lost-airline-baggage."

Does this quotation make it true?

OilIsMastery said...

"I am inclined to think that physicists will not be satisfied in the long run with this kind of indirect description of reality, even if an adaptation of the theory to the demand of general relativity can be achieved in a satisfactory way. Then they must surely be brought back to the attempt to realise the programme which may suitably be designated as Maxwellian: a description of physical reality in terms of fields which satisfy partial differential equations in a way that is free from singularities." -- Albert Einstein, physicst, 1931

"Before Maxwell people thought of physical reality - in so far as it represented events in nature-as material points, whose changes consist only in motions which are subject to total differential equations. After Maxwell they thought of physical reality as represented by continuous fields, not mechanically explicable, which are subject to partial differential equations. This change in the conception of reality is the most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since Newton; but it must also be granted that the complete realisation of the programme implied in this idea has not by any means been carried out yet." -- Albert Einstein, physicst, 1931

"The greatest change in the axiomatic basis of physics, and correspondingly in our conception of the structure of reality, since the foundation of theoretical physics through Newton, came about through the researches of Faraday and Maxwell on electromagnetic phenomena." -- Albert Einstein, physicist, 1931

"The belief in an external world independent of the observing subject lies at the foundation of all natural science. However, since sense-perceptions only inform us about this external world, or physical reality, indirectly, it is only in a speculative way that it can be grasped by us. Consequently our conceptions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these conceptions, i.e. the axiomatic basis of physics, in order to do justice to the facts of observation in the most complete way that is logically possible. In actual fact, a glance at the development of physics shows that this axiomatic basis has met with radical changes from time to time." -- Albert Einstein, physicist, 1931

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

Let's work backwards: You're knowledgable about "big bang, black hole" theory.

Good.

diatreme states: "Doofi (plural of doofus) who advocate plasma theories believe that pulsars as made of pan-fried livers and that the rings of Saturn are lost-airline-baggage."

That's the second time you've rolled out that kind of quote. But "big bang, black hole" theory relies on "dark matter", "dark energy", and "strange matter".

How are the above listed "unknowns" any different than "pan-fried livers" and "lost-airline-baggage"?

But to cut through the snide remarks, let me state that each theory has "unknowns".

Can we agree on that?

Also, it seems that each theory recognizes the existence of the other theory's prime driving force; "big bang, black hole" theory recognizes there are electromagnetic forces; and, Electric Universe theory recognizes there are gravitational forces.

Can we agree on that?

The issue seems to be a varient on the chicken and the egg question: Does the gravitational force 'cause' the electromagnetic forces; or, does the electromagnetic force 'cause' the phenomenon attributed to the force of gravity?

diatreme, do you agree with my formulation of the issue?

diatreme presents the following quote: "Extreme magnetic fields in space are said to be caused by the high-speed rotation of neutron stars."

Apparently, you disagree with that statement.

How so? Since it's my understanding that "big bang, black hole" theory does ascribe electromagnetic phenomenon to the force of gravity.

(As a logical construct, if electromagnetism is a stronger force in relation to gravity, how is it that gravity creates electromagnetic force? And wouldn't gravity creating electromagnetism be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Weaker energy can't create stronger energy, only stronger energy can create weaker energy; energy runs in a one way direction from a high energy state to a low energy state.)

OilIsMastery states: "What about extreme magnetic fields where there is no neutron star? Could those be caused by electricity/plasma perhaps?"

Another way to state OilIsMastery's question: How does "big bang, black hole" theory explain the observation of electromagnetic phenomenon where there is no observed physical body that could exert its gravitational force?

Do you deny electromagnetic phenomenon exist in space?

diatreme, I can't speak for the author of the quote, "The 'neutron star' is simply yet another fantasy conjured up, this time, in order to avoid confronting the idea that pulsar discharges are electrical phenomena."

But, for me, your offer of proof at this time, allows me to agree with your assertion that 'neutron stars' aren't a reaction, but a forward attempt to explain an observed phenomenon.

But do you agree that the conclusion Pulsars are 'neutron stars' is based on 'indirect' observations, and that no one has directly observed a 'neutron star'?

diatreme states: "Oh really? And what assumptions would those be?"

It is known in nuclear physics that neutrons can't exist "packed" together". There is 'neutron repulsion' which would prevent such a physical possibilty.

Your assumption is that 'gravity' somehow overcomes this 'neutron repulsion'.

There has never been a laboratory experiment that validates your assumption.

Even the final sentence in the quote you present: "The resulting theoretical body was called a neutron star," acknowledges a 'neutron star' is a "theoretical" assumption.

What do we actually know?

A Pulsar is an oscillating light source.

Does science know by direct observational evidence that a Pulsar spins?

No. That's another assumption.

All science knows is that a Pulsar oscillates or fluctuates light.

Does science know that a Pulsar is made of neutrons?

No, that is a conclusion based on theoretical assumptions.

Assumptions that go against a known physical law developed in nuclear physics, known as the 'island of stability'.

As part of the quote presented by diatreme it is stated: "Only the tremendous forces generated by gravitation and nuclear interactions keep it from flying apart."

Not only is it an assumption that it would come together, but the above quote is also a theoretical assumption.

Science doesn't know if gravity and nuclear forces would, "keep it from flying apart."

diatreme, the theories you present and evidently ascribe to have never been experimentally demonstrated in the laboratory.

You assume even that neutrons can form as described in the provided quote. Again, neutrons have never been created in the laboratory as described in the quote.

So can we now dispense with the idea that 'neutron stars' are facts?

Rather, 'neutron stars' are a theoretical construction based on the assumptions of "big bang, black hole" theory.

diatreme states:

"If you really want to advocate a new truth, you might do better by avoiding attacks on theories and subjects that you don't know anything about. Unfortunately, you devote more effort to attacking solid, mature science than you do explaining your theory."

diatreme, in science there are no "truths" only theories.

diatreme, how is "big bang, black hole" theory, a "solid, mature science" when none of its theories have been verified?

After all, neither you or me, nor science has been into space to verify either theory.

Telescopes are not a substitute for taking physical samples, telescopes are detectional instruments from afar, very far away -- light years way.

You are presumptuous in your comments.

Maybe, diatreme, you could focus on the questions at the beginning of my comment to see how far apart the two theories are.

Since, as I already acknowledged, you are informed on "big bang, black hole" theory.

diatreme said...

That's the second time you've rolled out that kind of quote. But "big bang, black hole" theory relies on "dark matter", "dark energy", and "strange matter".

No. This is utterly false. The body of theory that is labeled "Big Bang" predates dark matter, dark energy and strange matter. The Big Bang is based upon two basic observations: The general expansion of the Universe, and the facts of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation having the characteristic spectral qualities of blackbody radiation. Ergo, the Universe began in an extremely hot, dense state and has expanded and cooled since then. I think this general picture is correct even if many of the fine details remain poorly understood, and even if some details are totally misunderstood.

"How are the above listed "unknowns" any different than "pan-fried livers" and "lost-airline-baggage"?

The propositions concerning dark matter and dark energy hypothesize only a type of matter or energy sufficient to explain specific, anomalous observations. Thus, the speculation is restricted to the simplest entities or processes that can explain the observations.

"Does the gravitational force 'cause' the electromagnetic forces; or, does the electromagnetic force 'cause' the phenomenon attributed to the force of gravity?"

It is probable that neither of these is true. I do not need to be your daddy, and you do not need to be my daddy. We can be distant relatives though, and that may be the case for EM and Gravitation.

"...it's my understanding that "big bang, black hole" theory does ascribe electromagnetic phenomenon to the force of gravity."

No. It is the goal of so-called Grand Unification Theories to link Gravity to the other basic forces, but to my (20-year-old) knowledge, only Electromagnetism and the Weak Nuclear force are presently known to be manifestations of the same "electroweak" force. It is possible that some theory like SU5 also links the Strong Nuclear force to the Electroweak force, but I do not know if this is proven. What I do recall confidently was that Gravity was regarded as the force which will be the last one to be unified with the others.

"But do you agree that the conclusion Pulsars are 'neutron stars' is based on 'indirect' observations, and that no one has directly observed a 'neutron star'?"

No. The matrix of theory and observation is broad and deep enough that I see ZERO reason for doubting that pulsars are neutron stars. If you have a single, robust observation that sheds doubt, almost any astronomer would entertain consideration of that observation. But nothing that I have seen casts any doubt whatsoever on either pulsars or black holes.

By the way, no one has ever seen an electron and no one will ever see one. Amongst other reasons, your eye does not detect electrons: it detects photons. If you spend enough time in the stratosphere, a relativistic electron might strike your optic nerve and produce something like a flash in the corner of your field of vision... but even in this case, you will not know it was an electron. Lots of mundane things ascribed to electrons can not be directly observed: lightning for instance. You are not seeing electrons. You are seeing light emitted by electrons ... but not the electrons themselves.

"how is "big bang, black hole" theory, a "solid, mature science" when none of its theories have been verified?"

Speaking of the two like they are one is the first mistake. You have utterly no idea how much solid science exists on these subjects. NONE. And please do not read into this statement any arrogance. If you subscribe to and read Nature for one year - you would get some idea of what I mean. When I was in high school I took some extracurricular classes at Chicago's Adler Planetarium. Besides planetarium staff astronomers, some of the classes were taught by the late Dr. David N. Schramm. (Aka Schrambo...) It is hard to summarize what I am about to write, but even if some areas of science are impeded by and wallowing in dogmas, others are not. There are hard sciences where the participants play by respectable rules, and where nothing delights them better than truly anomalous observations, and there are soft sciences where tenure is obtained by appeasing the consensus through the defense and propagation of dogma.
In my opinion, Astrophysics is a hard science, and Geophysics is a soft one.

"Telescopes are not a substitute for taking physical samples, telescopes are detectional instruments from afar, very far away -- light years way."

Have you ever watched a football game on TV? Do you need samples to know who was playing or who won?

Louis Hissink said...

The scientific method is about explaining novel phenomenon in terms of what is known.

Pseudoscience invokes things never observed as an explanation.

No one has produced neutronium and the latest 1/2 life for a free neutron is 10 minutes.

You cannot invoke a thing which has not been observed to exist to explain something you don't understand.

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

You are invested in the "big bang" theory as evinced by your comments.

diatreme states: "That's the second time you've rolled out that kind of quote. But "big bang, black hole" theory relies on "dark matter", "dark energy", and "strange matter"."

diatreme goes on to state: "No. This is utterly false. The body of theory that is labeled "Big Bang" predates dark matter, dark energy and strange matter."

Yes, the "big bang" hypothesis does predate "dark matter", "dark energy", and "strange matter".

But after the "big bang" was postulated, subsequent scientific observations were made that falsified the "big bang" hypothesis(supposedly the Universe was expanding too fast for the amount of observed matter) necessitating that the equations be balanced out (the Universe was not behaving as "big bang" predicted). The only way to do that was to infer the existence of "dark matter", "dark energy", and "strange matter". Otherwise, if the Universe wasn't behaving as predicted then the theory was falsified.

So, these three "unknown" quantities were a necessity to maintain the validity of the equations supporting the "big bang" hypothesis.

So, in effect these three "unknowns" are intrinsically connected to the "big bang" hypothesis.

Your statement doesn't hold up to reasonable scrutiny.

diatreme states: "The Big Bang is based upon two basic observations: The general expansion of the Universe, and the facts of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation having the characteristic spectral qualities of blackbody radiation."

There is scientific evidence that calls into question expansion of the Universe along the lines predicted and required by the "big bang" hypothesis. But for the sake of argument let's accept that the Universe is expanding as predicted by the "big bang" hypothesis (even though we know that in fact it was not expanding as originally predicted by the "big bang" hypothesis, necessitaing the inference of the three "unknowns" as previously discussed) and that there is Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. These two factors don't add up to the level of a theory demonstrating a "big bang" ever happened.

Throw in the idea of "something out of nothing" where the physical laws of the Universe were "established" at the moment the "big bang" started (so to get around the falsification that results from violating the conservation of matter) and "big bang" goes down hill.

diatreme, you believe in the "big bang" hypothesis, that's okay, but you believe in it on the basis of faith, not on the basis of science.

You and others have convinced themselves of this supposed reality.

But the hypothesis you rely on for your faith doesn't compel other men to believe it based on accepted standards of science.

diatreme states: "I think this general picture is correct even if many of the fine details remain poorly understood, and even if some details are totally misunderstood."

diatreme, you call "unknowns", "fine details", in an attempt to dismiss these "unknowns" as falsifications of the "big bang" hypothesis.

(And if not outright falsifications then at least "gaps" too far to bridge.)

Reasonable men of science in good faith can disagree with your willingness to dismiss these "unknowns".

"Big bang" theory can never be proven with certainty; it will always remain at best a hypothesis.

diatreme admits there are "anomalous observations."

Other scientists call these "anomalous observations" falsifications.

diatreme states: "It is probable that neither of these is true. I do not need to be your daddy, and you do not need to be my daddy. We can be distant relatives though, and that may be the case for EM and Gravitation."

Not likely because both EM and gravity operate on the same bodies.

"[D]istant relatives" is so vague as to be entirely meaningless.

But your statement makes my point:

No one disputes that electromagnetism is the 'strong' force and gravity is the 'weak' force between the two forces. Therefore, electromagnetism can't derive from gravity.

(Or the Universe would quickly wind down.)

That is why the actual observations now possible because of various telescopes and radio receivers both on the ground and in space are piling up scientific evidence that electromagnetism is common in space.

Electromagnetism is too commonly observed to be an anomalous phenomenon, it's likely to have a central role in the Universe, and not as some vague "cousin" of gravity.

diatreme states:

"No. The matrix of theory and observation is broad and deep enough that I see ZERO reason for doubting that pulsars are neutron stars."

diatreme, you are stating your faith, not science: to say there is "ZERO reason for doubting that pulsars are neutron stars," is simply not defensible nor are you being intellectually honest with yourself if you really believe that, for the reasons I stated in my previous comment.

There are too many assumptions.

It would be possible to reasonably say there is "a high degree of scientific reason to believe 'neutron stars' exist."

But "ZERO" reason to doubt goes beyond scientific certainty into the realm of religious certainty.

diatreme states: "But nothing that I have seen casts any doubt whatsoever on either pulsars or black holes."

Again, the above statement goes beyond scientific certainty to the level of faith in the face of the limited amount of scientific evidence that is available.

diatreme states: "Speaking of the two ["big bang" and "black hole"]like they are one is the first mistake."

I agree it's possible to seperate the two postulates, that is why I limited the above discussion to the "big bang" hypothesis. But almost every "big banger" is also a "black holer", and as your above quoted comments make clear you are just as much a believer in a "black holes" as you are a believer in the "big bang" hypothesis.

So, the co-joining of the two terms in quotation marks is entirely appropriate in my view.

diatreme states: "You have utterly no idea how much solid science exists on these subjects. NONE."

Yes, I do.

But I don't have faith in the theories as evidently you do.

diatreme states: "And please do not read into this statement any arrogance."

At this point, I don't think you are motivated by arrogance.

You are motivated by faith.

But faith is not a scientific standard. It can neither be proved or disproved.

And that is where you stand.

diatreme said...

diatreme states: "You have utterly no idea how much solid science exists on these subjects. NONE."

"Yes, I do. But I don't have faith in the theories as evidently you do."

No, inspite of your claim, you obviously don't. Here is an example:

"gain, (speaking of black holes) the statement goes beyond scientific certainty to the level of faith in the face of the limited amount of scientific evidence that is available."

I'll say this again: Large telescopes have observed giant stars whipping around a mass concentration at the core of our galaxy with such speed that NOTHING BUT A MILLION SOLAR MASS BLACK HOLE CAN SUFFICE AS AN EXPLANATION. This mass is so small, that again, nothing but a million solar mass black hole can be dense enough and dark enough to satisfy the observation. And it does not take faith to reach those conclusions. It take Newtonian Gravity to derive the required mass, and it requires knowledge of the finite strengths of electromagnetic forces to prove that they cannot support atomic or nuclear structures above certain density limits. This is what Chandrasekhar did in 1930. Think about that: 1930. That is 37 years before the first observation of a pulsar. And speaking of confirmations of theory by observations, consider this confirmation of GR by means of the discovery of a binary pulsar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
"In 1974, Joseph Hooton Taylor, Jr. and Russell Hulse discovered, for the first time, a pulsar in a binary system, PSR B1913+16. This pulsar orbits another neutron star with an orbital period of just eight hours. Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that this system should emit strong gravitational radiation, causing the orbit to continually contract as it loses orbital energy. Observations of the pulsar soon confirmed this prediction, providing the first ever evidence of the existence of gravitational waves. As of 2004, observations of this pulsar continue to agree with general relativity. In 1993, the Nobel prize in physics was awarded to Taylor and Hulse for the discovery of this pulsar."

You clearly have no idea how much evidence there is supporting the models/theories of stars, the way they produce energy and the degenerate states that results when they run out of fuel and die. You have no idea how many varieties of observation there are, how well our physics has succeeded in understanding the observed phenomena, and how energetically the astrophysics community devises new observations to explicitly test any anomalous observation. The above link to wiki on Pulsars is just the smallest tip of an iceberg.

You seem to think that a single observation that surprises a theorist means that his theory has been invalidated. This is akin to throwing away your car when something on it breaks. (Or that it is not perfectly useful as a car unless you understand every bit of technology used to manufacture it.)
You may be rich enough to do that, but it makes much more sense to fix that which is broken until too many repairs are necessary and the wholesale abandonment of the car or theory proves necessary and wise. (Plate tectonics is at that point, IMHO, but astrophysics is not.)

Furthermore, if you apply this expensive and unworkable rule (one-surprise-observation-crashes-the-whole-theory) then you should ante up with a COMPLETE theory of the entire Universe under the assumption that it is NOT permissible for that theory to omit a single fact, or to ever be adjusted, expanded or corrected in any way - forever - and then be prepared to admit complete and total defeat 12 days later when I start listing the observations that contradict, or lie outside of, your theory. The idea that all theories must be perfect and complete to be useful from the very moment of their birth is completely bogus. And even though science never claims such a standard, some theories like General Relativity meet that criteria - as GR stands today without a single anomalous observation questioning it's validity. Quantum Electrodynamics may be another example, (but unlike General Relativity, QED was not born in one moment but was assembled over years.)

You keep making arguments about Gravity being weaker that EM. And I keep trying to remind you that that is ONLY true over atomic distance scales. It is wholly untrue at interplanetary and larger distance scales. (Why does the moon orbit the earth, and why does the earth orbit the sun? I can assure you that it is not a voltage differential! )

You also try to apply logic to the issue of the relative strengths of forces in order to ascertain whether gravity causes EM or EM causes gravity and this highlights your total unfamiliarity with particle physics and the symmetry theories which have succeeded in unifying two and possibly three of the fundamental forces. Logic of the sort you apply is useless. You might as well say that George Dyson could not be the son of Freemen because he has not published as much physics, and because Freeman has never built a canoe. Or, you might as well argue that salt cannot be made of Sodium and Chlorine because neither of those materials is anything like salt.

"Electromagnetism is too commonly observed to be an anomalous phenomenom"

No one ever said that is anomalous.

"...it's likely to have a central role in the Universe, and not as some vague "cousin" of gravity."

It has A role. But if you mean by central that it can explain everything, or that all other forces originate from EM effects... then you are attempting something that is unlikely to succeed and for which there is no need. It would be like waking up one morning after having an excellent meal at a Buffet in Bloomington Indiana and deciding that Indiana should rule the world, and that all of civilization must have derived from the Hoosiers. Fat chance.

Louis Hissink said...

Diatreme:
"I'll say this again: Large telescopes have observed giant stars whipping around a mass concentration at the core of our galaxy with such speed that NOTHING BUT A MILLION SOLAR MASS BLACK HOLE CAN SUFFICE AS AN EXPLANATION."

Anthony Peratt has modelled these spiral galaxies using only the equations of Maxwell and Lorentz - with no need for a BLACK HOLE.

He has extensive scientific, peer reviewed, papers on this.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

OilIsMastery said...

Louis,

Thanks for the link to Peratt's work. Don Scott had mentioned Peratt as having been a student of Alfven. Links to be added to sidebar shortly.

Anaconda said...

POSTSCRIPT: "neutron star"

Diatreme stated in a previous comment on this post that the "neutron star" star hypothesis was not a reaction to save "big bang, black hole" theory, but was a forward hypothesis and he presented documentation that showed when (1930's) and what was postulated.

I accepted this offer of proof.

However, here is an update on that issue: "The "Iron Sun" Debate (2) The Myth of the Neutron Star, January 23, 2006 (thunderbolts.info)

"In his argument for the “Iron Sun”, Oliver Manuel relies on a popular theoretical concept—the “neutron star”. Electrical theorists, on the other hand, say there is no reason to believe that such exotic stars exist."

The pertinent quote from the article:

"Neutron stars were predicted theoretically in the 1930's to be the end result of a supernova explosion. For many years astronomers doubted their existence. But then, with the discovery of the first pulsar in 1967, astronomers imagined that the pulses were due to a rapidly rotating beam of radiation sweeping past the Earth. Having ignored all of the things that electricity can do quite routinely, the theorists were required to conceive a star so dense that it could rotate at the rate of a dentists drill without flying apart. So the neutron star received a second life. The energy of the star’s radiation, it was supposed, came from in-falling matter from a companion star."

So, while diatreme is technically correct, one can easily conclude that the "neutron star" hypothesis was resurrected to save "big bang, black hole" theory from being invalidated.

I strongly suggest readers review the above linked article and also the other three parts to the series, as it provides a good discussion concerning how a failed hypothesis can lead astray further developments in a field of scientific inquiry.

(The series also provides an overview of Sun mechanics according to the Electric Universe theory.)

"Big bang, black hole" theory is not only wrong, but retards Man's further understanding of the Cosmos.

Anaconda said...

Diatreme:

I appreciate the documentation you provided.

One sign that a theory is breaking down under the weight of observed scientific evidence, which falsifies the theory or supports an alternative theory is when advocates' arguments increasingly become incoherent when addressing the alternative theory, whether appearing in the form of inconsistencies, misstatements, or misquoting the proponents of the alternative theory.

diatreme provides my quote: "[A]gain, [speaking of black holes] the above statement goes beyond scientific certainty to the level of faith in the face of the limited amount of scientific evidence that is available."

But leaves out the "statement" I was critiquing: diatreme states: "But nothing that I have seen casts any doubt whatsoever on either pulsars or black holes."

Context, diatreme, is critical. Taking a quote out of context is poor form. By providing the context, it's clear what I was commenting on wasn't the evidence per se, but YOUR appraisal of the evidence.

As evinced by one of my previous sentences: "It would be possible to reasonably say there is "a high degree of scientific reason to believe 'neutron stars' exist."

So, diatreme, if you're going to quote, don't take it out of context to distort the meaning.

Moving on, diatreme states: "I'll say this again: Large telescopes have observed giant stars whipping around a mass concentration at the core of our galaxy with such speed that NOTHING BUT A MILLION SOLAR MASS BLACK HOLE CAN SUFFICE AS AN EXPLANATION."

You never said that before on this website. A small thing yes, but a misleading artifice, never the less.

As Louis Hissink points out, your statement is false to boot.

I don't claim to know "big bang, black hole" theory as well as you do, but I'm aware of the paradoxes, to put it politely, while you contradict yourself, time, after time.

diatreme states: "[A]s GR stands today without a single anomalous observation questioning it's validity."

diatreme, you've already admittted there are "anomalies".

diatreme states: "The propositions concerning dark matter and dark energy hypothesize only a type of matter or energy sufficient to explain specific, anomalous observations."

Please, don't make it so easy to discredit you personally, I'd rahter stick to the science or lack of it.

But you provide examples of how a proponent's argument breaks down into an incoherence of inconsistency, and condradictory statements.

diatreme states: "And it does not take faith to reach those conclusions. It take Newtonian Gravity to derive the required mass, and it requires knowledge of the finite strengths of electromagnetic forces to prove that they cannot support atomic or nuclear structures above certain density limits."

No.

That's the whole problem with "big bang, black hole" theory: Newtonian Gravity DOES NOT explain the workings of the Universe, unless all sorts of unseen, unverified, and undemonstrated in the laboratory assumptions are made about the nature, quality, and quantity of physical phenomenon in the Universe.

Apparently, you can't see or understand because of your faith in the theory, but ALL KINDS of assumptions have to be made to "carry" the theory.

Do I have to run through the "dark matter", "dark energy", and "strange matter" routine one more time?

You may want to "put it down the memory hole", but honest science won't let you.

diatreme states: "You clearly have no idea how much evidence there is supporting the models/theories of stars, the way they produce energy and the degenerate states that results when they run out of fuel and die."

The above statement is chalk-full of assumptions, but you "live your faith", so, you aren't even conscious of your assumptions -- to you they aren't assumptions, they are articles of faith that are unquestioned "truth".

Science doesn't and can't operate this way if it wants to advance.

So, lets's go through it:

"[T]he way they produce energy..."

There is much scientifc evidence that contradicts the "big bang, black hole" model of how the Sun and the other stars produce energy.

But apparently, you can't bear to entertain the evidence as it goes against your faith.

"[T]he degenerate states that results when they run out of fuel and die."

"Big bang, black hole" theory makes all kinds of hypothesis about stars running out of fuel and dying, but real scietific evidence is lacking.

diatreme states: "You seem to think that a single observation that surprises a theorist means that his theory has been invalidated."

Another artifice, diatreme (your credibility is dropping).

I never said a single observation invalidates a theory -- you're making a straw man argument, which you continue for two paragraphs.

It is the TOTALITY of anomalies, paradoxes, falsifying observations, AND just as important, the TOTALITY of scientific evidence supporting an alternative interpretation.

If you are a scientist, diatreme, you really need to take the time and familarize yourself with the scientific evidence supporting Electric Universe.

diatreme states: "And I keep trying to remind you that that is ONLY true over atomic distance scales. It is wholly untrue at interplanetary and larger distance scales."

No.

diatreme you've only mentioned that once or twice in passing, another artifice.

And more important, your statement is false -- Birkeland currents demonstrate electrical forces work over great distances.

diatreme, do you even know what a Birkeland current is?

NASA has recently announced confirmation that electrical currents flow between the Sun and Earth just as Kristian Birkeland stated a century ago.

ScienceNASA, October 30, 2008, Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth -- "During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.

"It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,'" says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."

Now, NASA engaged in an ethical lapse in not crediting "flux transfor events" with its proper name, "Birkeland currents", but what NASA announced are Birkeland currents just the same, exactly as stated by Birkeland a century ago.

There are many other instances that show electromagnetic currents operate over long distances.

That fact that you don't know about these instances and observations suggests less than full awareness of the science that is currently be developed by observations.

diatreme, I'm dissapointed in you. Another artifice, another straw man argument. diatreme states: "Why does the moon orbit the earth, and why does the earth orbit the sun? I can assure you that it is not a voltage differential! )

I've always maintained gravity is important, in fact, it is encumbent on Plasma Cosmology to spell-out exactly where gravity fits into its theory of the Universe.

Your above quote is nothing but a distraction from the real issue: The abundance of scientific evidence supporting the theory that elctromagnetic forces work at long range and plasma and accompanying electromagnetic forces are the dominate force in the Universe, but not the only force.

diatreme states: "Logic of the sort you apply is useless."

Hardly, unless you have figured how to suspend the second law of thermodynamics...oh, I forgot you, "big bangers" already did suspend the laws of Nautre at the start of the big bang so your theory would work.

That's a "head banger" on the talble, there.

diatreme, you can't repeal the laws of Nature for "your special little theory" and expect ANYBODY to take you seriously!

diatreme states: "[Electromagnetism] It has A role. But if you mean by central that it can explain everything, or that all other forces originate from EM effects..."

Yes, diatreme, I mean a central role, like the leading actor in a movie, gravity is a supporting actor in the drama of the Universe.

Look all around you and the evidence for Electric Universe is plain to see. Only those that refuse to look fail to see.

Sadly, diatreme, you fall into that latter camp.

diatreme said...

"I've always maintained gravity is important, in fact, it is encumbent on Plasma Cosmology to spell-out exactly where gravity fits into its theory of the Universe."

It was incumbent on ME to point out that gravity is stronger than electromagnetism on the scales of planets and stars....

*************************************************

"oh, I forgot you, "big bangers" already did suspend the laws of Nautre at the start of the big bang so your theory would work. That's a "head banger" on the talble, there."

No. T=zero is NOT a part of the theory. Cosmologists like Dave Schramm recognized that the beginning itself is metaphysics. Theories like "Inflation" reach back to events at 10**-27th power seconds or even earlier. But time zero is pretty-much off-limits.

Nevertheless, the Universe began. It began in a hot dense condition. The microwave background radiation tells us about a brief period of thermal and radiative equilibrium, and the present temperature of that radiation testifies to the amount of expansion that has taken place since then.

You might not like the idea of there having been a beginning. You might prefer a Universe that can retain stability and constancy forever, where stars and galaxies never change, are not born and do not die. But this IS, APPARENTLY... the Universe we were given. You are welcome to wish for a different one, or you are welcome to interpret all the data cosmologists depend on to reach such conclusions, in a different way. But if you try to make the Universe, and the stars within it eternal, you will have to evade/repeal that 2nd law of thermodynamics you mentioned.

So just to clarify the situation: it is not the Big Bang theorists who are violating the 2nd law, it is the Universe itself or it's maker. Cosmologists are just calling a spade-a-spade.

**************************************************

diatreme states: "[Electromagnetism] It has A role. But if you mean by central that it can explain everything, or that all other forces originate from EM effects..."

"Yes, diatreme, I mean a central role, like the leading actor in a movie, gravity is a supporting actor in the drama of the Universe."

Well, the great missionary Don Richardson once taught the New Testament to a particularly savage tribe in Borneo or vicinity, and reported shock when those savages came away with the idea that Judas was the hero of the story. So beauty, force, morality... are in the eye of the beholder.

**************************************************
"Look all around you and the evidence for Electric Universe is plain to see. Only those that refuse to look fail to see. Sadly, diatreme, you fall into that latter camp."

Not so fast! I am sitting under a fluorescent lamp right now!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp

I have seen the light! But it is still gravity that holds me in my chair, the Earth in orbit about the Sun, the Sun's gasses around the fusion reactions within, and the Sun in orbit around the core of our galaxy.

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

Sorry, you can't get off the hook that easily.

diatreme states: " And I keep trying to remind you that that is ONLY true over atomic distance scales. It is wholly untrue at interplanetary and larger distance scales."

I responded:

diatreme, do you even know what a Birkeland current is?

NASA has recently announced confirmation that electrical currents flow between the Sun and Earth just as Kristian Birkeland stated a century ago.

ScienceNASA, October 30, 2008, Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth -- "During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.

"It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE' [Birkeland current]," says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."

diatreme, NASA says, "[N]ow the evidence is incontrovertible."

Between the Sun and the Earth is "interplanetary".

Care to comment on that, or are you going to duck and hide, again (which is called ignoring the evidence)?

This is a good summary of why electromagnetism has the leading role:

Electromagnetic force is exceedingly strong: Electromagnetism is 10^39 more powerful than gravity. That is:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
000,000,000,000,000 stronger.

The raw numbers above spell out the difference.

But there is another meaningful distinction that also provides insight:

Electromagnetism is inherently dynamic, while gravity is static. (Sure, gravity is dynamic if you're falling out of a plane at 10,000 feet, or a tall highrise comes crashing down, as we all know.)

But by and large, gravity is a constant force, static, isometric if you will (a supporting role).

Electromagnetism, in a loose sense, vibrates and fluxuates by it's very nature. It's a self-reinforcing phenomenon.

Electromagnetism builds up and discharges releasing vast amounts of energy (think lightning bolts).

Electric current encourages more electric current.

Gravity?

No, gravity doesn't encourage more gravity. Gravity is so constant it's almost passive by nature.

Constant (gravity), versus dynamic (electromagnetism).

diatreme, we don't know how or if the Universe began and we don't know how or if it ends.

And based on scientific observations, now, at Man's disposal, it's simply hubris to think we do.

diatreme states: "[I]t is not the Big Bang theorists who are violating the 2nd law, it is the Universe itself or it's maker. Cosmologists are just calling a spade-a-spade."

You don't have a clue, and to think the Universe changes its laws just to accomodate your puny theory is the height of folly.

As Louis Hissink said: It's pseudo-science.

And to prove it, all I have to do is remind the readers how diatreme refused to address NASA's announcement of Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth: Interplanetary electromagnetism.

It's intellectual cowardice.

Think about that.

Louis Hissink said...

There is a common mistake made by assuming that electric universe theory rejects gravity - WRONG.

Gravity dominates when the electrical forces become stable, as they do at the present moment.

Diatreme is correct when he states that gravity holds him on his chair - this has never been denied.

But when electrical forces suddenly change from unforeseen causations, then gravity becomes more or less redundant as the difference in actual force between electricity and gravity is a little more than an order of magnitude.

So gravity dominates in an electrically stable system, but takes second place in an electrically unstable one.

Electric universe theorists have not consigned gravity to the dustbin as many seem to think.

What have thrown out is purely mathematical science with no connection to physical reality, and why we throw out Einstein's relativity theory - his initial error was to make time a physical entity - it isn't. Knock that assumption of its perch and the rest falls down.

Anaconda said...

Louis:

Thanks for the clarification on gravity.

On a slightly different note, electromagnetism is a scale independent phenomenon.

Science knows that electromagnetism is scale independent up to the 18th order of magnitude, and likely higher than that.

What does it mean?

Well, many electromagnetic structures have been experimentally produced in the laboratory which mirror phenomenon observed in the reaches of the Cosmos.

Let's try this on for size: Electromagnetism is "pure nature". Many natural processes have been shown to have scale independent properties, but electromagnetism, so far, of all the natural processes, has been shown to have the largest magnitude scale independent properties, meaning the properties demonstrated in the laboratory hold true in the natural environment. Weather phenomena is a good example.

And:

Galactic structures which are similar to electromagnetic structures produced and observed in the laboratory is another.

And, as Birkeland currents have demonstrated between the Sun and the Earth, electromagnetism does act on an interplanetary scale.

And judging by the electrical plasma structures produced in the laboratory and the observation of "mirror" phenomenon in space beyond our solar system, electromagnetism acts on an interstellar scale, too.

diatreme said...

Last night I spent a long time responding to this message. Somewhere along the way, I highlighted a section of text thinking I had only selected the lines visible, but I had actually highlighted everything above the top of the text window. So i accidentally deleted 4/5ths of my response. I hate to have to do this but here goes my 2nd try. (I do not know why these discussion board scripts provide a teeny little 1.5" x 3" text window when 1/2 of the computer screen is blank.... Why don't they provide a larger text window?

**************************************************

"One sign that a theory is breaking down under the weight of observed scientific evidence, which falsifies the theory or supports an alternative theory is when advocates' arguments increasingly become incoherent..."

We'll see how well you do by this standard below.

**************************************************

As evinced by one of my previous sentences: "It would be possible to reasonably say there is "a high degree of scientific reason to believe 'neutron stars' exist."

When you walk into work in the morning and see your co-workers, do you go on as if there is a high degree of probability that these are the same person you worked with last week? Or do you maintain part of your attention probing for signs they may be imposters? I do not pretend to hold out any doubt that blackholes or neutron stars exist. There are lots of other things that I doubt, but they are not among them.

*************************************************

Moving on, diatreme states: "I'll say this again: Large telescopes have observed giant stars whipping around a mass concentration at the core of our galaxy with such speed that NOTHING BUT A MILLION SOLAR MASS BLACK HOLE CAN SUFFICE AS AN EXPLANATION."

"You never said that before on this website. A small thing yes, but a misleading artifice, never the less."

Yes, I probably did write that before and deleted it accidentally.

**************************************************

"As Louis Hissink points out, your statement is false to boot."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/934033.stm

Quote from link:
"Astronomers point out that the three stars seen orbiting Sgr A* were accelerating so quickly that their complete orbit of the black hole may be as short as a few decades and in one case as little as 15 years."

Nothing else can explain this motion.

But talk about dependency on assumptions! Hissink says that Perrat modeled galaxies and suddenly that means to you that his modeling encompasses these observations of giant stars being accelerated around a dark, multi-million solar mass object in the core? No. Send some email to Dr. Perrat and ask him these things:

1.) Did he attempt to model the mass at the core?

2.) Did he attempt to reconcile the observations of these stars?

3.) Does he or any of his colleagues at Los Alamos seriously doubt any of the standard views of black holes or neutron stars?

4.) Does he or any of his colleagues seriously think that so much of present science is wrong that his Plasma theories will revolutionize and replace everything that astronomers think they know today about the births, lives and deaths of stars and galaxies of all masses? I rather suspect that Dr. Perratt would be a little more humble about how much of science his theories shall replace.

Here is another good article on this subject:

http://ulysses.uchicago.edu/milkey.html

****************************************************

"I don't claim to know "big bang, black hole" theory as well as you do, but I'm aware of the paradoxes, to put it politely, while you contradict yourself, time, after time."

Please don't pretend politeness. Point out the paradoxes and my contradictions. Do that in your next post.

**************************************************

diatreme states: "[A]s GR stands today without a single anomalous observation questioning it's validity."

"diatreme, you've already admittted there are "anomalies"."

Yes, there are anomalies in the big picture(s). No sane scientist suggests that we now have a perfect understanding of everything. Far from it. (Good) scientists seek out the lapses and anomalies and devise observations to probe them. This is a sign of a healthy science.

But to your point, General Relativity stands today without a single discrepant observation questioning it's validity. This bears repeating: General Relativity stands today without a single discrepant observation questioning it's validity.

Meanwhile, observational confirmations of different type continue to be published:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33818

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm

http://universe.nasa.gov/program/pulsars.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3346179/General-relativity-passes-the-test.html

Types of experiments used to test SR and GR:

http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/ResearchInst/FundPhys.html

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

***************************************************

diatreme states: "The propositions concerning dark matter and dark energy hypothesize only a type of matter or energy sufficient to explain specific, anomalous observations."

"Please, don't make it so easy to discredit you personally, I'd rahter stick to the science or lack of it."

Talk about "artifice." You are trying to claim success in "discrediting" without doing any "discrediting."

*************************************************
"But you provide examples of how a proponent's argument breaks down into an incoherence of inconsistency, and condradictory statements."

You provide a pretty good example of this below:

**************************************************

diatreme states: "And it does not take faith to reach those conclusions. It take Newtonian Gravity to derive the required mass, and it requires knowledge of the finite strengths of electromagnetic forces to prove that they cannot support atomic or nuclear structures above certain density limits."

Yes, I used Newtonian gravity above to make a point that the determination of the vast mass of the black hole at the core of the Milky Way is simple enough that it can be done with Newtonian means. And it could have been done by Newton if he had the same telescopes and equipment we have.

It is also pretty simple to get to the necessity of neutron stars and black holes. You simply have to determine how much pressure can be resisted by the electrostatic repulsion of electrons. This is the so-called electron degeneracy pressure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure

Then, having calculated that, you ask yourself if a star can arrive at a condition in which it exerts more pressure on it's core than that threshold. If so, you collapse through that level of structure and the next stop before a singularity is a neutron core:

Neutron degeneracy pressure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter
See paragraph 2/3rds of the way down.

Again, we have painstakingly acquired knowledge of the forces acting on electrons and nuclear particles. These forces are finite. They can be overcome. Once they are overcome, there are no known levels of structure that remain to resist the collapse of the bodies. Can there be unknown levels of structure? Perhaps, but they cannot invalidate the theory of blackholes if their density allows the escape velocity of the degenerate body to exceed the speed of light. As long as the escape velocity is that high, you have a black hole whether there is an actual singularity there or not.


*************************************************

"That's the whole problem with "big bang, black hole" theory: Newtonian Gravity DOES NOT explain the workings of the Universe, unless all sorts of unseen, unverified, and undemonstrated in the laboratory assumptions are made about the nature, quality, and quantity of physical phenomenon in the Universe."

Here is the best part:

"unless all sorts of unseen, unverified, and undemonstrated in the laboratory assumptions are made"

"Apparently, you can't see or understand because of your faith in the theory, but ALL KINDS of assumptions have to be made to "carry" the theory."

Life and science are full of assumptions. By definition, assumptions are things you choose to accept without proof. Once a certain principle is established by proof, it ceases to be an assumption.

So, to prove that you are not confused, list the assumptions that I am making that are false, and then list the assumptions that underlie your Plasma Universe theory. Assumptions are inescapable in all logical systems. I think Kurt Godel proved that. Second, I doubt you know the theory you advocate well enough to list the assumptions that it accepts.
Third, if you asked Dr. Perratt, I suspect that his assumptions will look exactly like the ones that the rest of the astrophysics community accepts.

***************************************************

"Do I have to run through the "dark matter", "dark energy", and "strange matter" routine one more time?"

What would be your point in doing so? Do you consider it a fatal flaw in the methods of science that they discovered phenomena that cannot be explained by yesterday's models? If that is your point, then, your logic must demand of any alternative theory utter completeness and perfection from day one. You must think that Dr. Perratt's theory is so perfect that it will never, ever require modification in order to encompass any new observations.

But perhaps you had something else in mind by threatening to "run through the "dark matter", "dark energy", and "strange matter" routine one more time?"

**************************************************

"You may want to "put it down the memory hole", but honest science won't let you."

Lay it on me brother.

**************************************************


diatreme states: "You clearly have no idea how much evidence there is supporting the models/theories of stars, the way they produce energy and the degenerate states that results when they run out of fuel and die."


Yes. I think this is true. You have a computer. Use Google. Learn about Nucleosynthesis. Degenerate matter. Pulsars. Tests of General Relativity. Then come and sing to me "Plasma Uber Alles."

**************************************************

So, lets's go through it:

"[T]he way they produce energy..."

"There is much scientifc evidence that contradicts the "big bang, black hole" model of how the Sun and the other stars produce energy."

Lay it on me.

************************************************
"[T]he degenerate states that results when they run out of fuel and die."

"Big bang, black hole" theory makes all kinds of hypothesis about stars running out of fuel and dying, but real scientific evidence is lacking.

Nothing proves my point more than this. You have no idea what telescopes have been doing for the past hundred years. None. Zippo.

*************************************************

"It is the TOTALITY of anomalies, paradoxes, falsifying observations, AND just as important, the TOTALITY of scientific evidence supporting an alternative interpretation."

Present the "falsifying observations". And then tell me that you think there is an alternative theory that is immune from ever running into any "falsifying observations".

***************************************************
If you are a scientist, diatreme, you really need to take the time and familarize yourself with the scientific evidence supporting Electric Universe.

I have read one of the books on the subject. There is some good new science there. But I think you exaggerate the amount of science that the new stuff displaces.

************************************************

"diatreme states: "And I keep trying to remind you that that is ONLY true over atomic distance scales. It is wholly untrue at interplanetary and larger distance scales."

"diatreme you've only mentioned that once or twice in passing, another artifice."

No artifice. Just accidental deletions of this text highlighting mechanism.


***************************************************

"And more important, your statement is false -- Birkeland currents demonstrate electrical forces work over great distances. "

My statements are true. Electromagnetism is ONLY 10 to the 39th times more powerful than gravity over atomic distance scales. Period.

Just because these currents operate over large distances does not mean that the science describing them is going to somehow revise all of science.

*************************************************

diatreme, do you even know what a Birkeland current is?

Yes, I own and have read one of the books you have been reading.


The rest of my responses survived my accidental deletion and are to be found in my previous post.

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

You proved my point, mightily!

You make a long comment (which I will respond to), but refuse to address the question I directly challenged you on:

Birkeland currents and NASA's announcement of interplanetary electric currents from the Sun to the Earth.

diatreme, your statement, "I keep trying to remind you that that is ONLY true over atomic distance scales. It is wholly untrue at interplanetary and larger distance scales," lies in ashes.

OilIsMastery said...

Louis,

In response to, "What have thrown out is purely mathematical science with no connection to physical reality, and why we throw out Einstein's relativity theory - his initial error was to make time a physical entity - it isn't. Knock that assumption of its perch and the rest falls down."

People should have known this since at least 1754 with Kant's prize winning essay on the rotation of the earth followed by the Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. Time and space are the a priori forms of our intuition.

diatreme said...

I repeat: Electromagnetism is ONLY 10 to the 39th times more powerful than gravity over atomic distance scales.

And what are tons of particles hitting the earth compared to the mass and inertia of the earth? Or compared to the size of tidal forces between Earth and the Moon?

6 x 10**24th kilograms compared to a few tons of particles.

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

You have intellectually discredited yourself by failing to comes to grips with the scientific evidence reported by NASA.

diatreme, you repeat an assertion in your previous comment for which I have already responded (several times) with scientific evidence reported by NASA of Birkeland currents stretching from the Sun to the Earth, electromagnetic currents stretched over 93 million miles.

How do you, diatreme, distinguish this report as not a confirmation that electromagnetism's power reaches beyond "atomic distance scales?"

diatreme, I know this is a rude shock to have your "faith" questioned.

But if you are going to engage in an intelleigent discussion of scientific issues, you need to present some authority or evidence to support your position: "Electromagnetism is ONLY 10 to the 39th times more powerful than gravity over atomic distance scales."

So far, your statement is nothing but empty
rhetoric without any backup; nothing but wishful thinking on your part to protect your "faith" in a theory.

Sorry, the amounts of energy and particles flowing from the Sun to the Earth are more significant than a "few tones."

Misstating or mischaracterizing the scientific evidence is a sign that you have no intention of engaging in reasoned debate or discussion.

No doubt, that is because you've had little experience with hard-edged confrontation that doesn't accept the assumptions you carry in your head as "truths".

So far, you haven't demonstrated the capacity to engage in scientific debate with the intellecual integrity necessary to produce fruitful dialogue according to the Scientific Method, which requires being responsive to reasonable objections based on scientific measurements and observation.

I suppose this deficit of yours results from believing and advocating a theory based on mathematics, rather than observation and measurement.

You will need to come to grips with the requirements of the Scientific Method for your comments to be taken seriously in the future.

I hope you do that, but I'm not holding my breadth.

Anaconda said...

diatreme:

At this point, I'm responding because I had previously indicated I would.

diatreme, you present my statement: "As evinced by one of my previous sentences: 'It would be possible to reasonably say there is "a high degree of scientific reason to believe 'neutron stars' exist.'"

And then make an analogy to rebut my statement that is nonsensical: Office co-workers aren't equivalent or comparable to "black holes" or "neutron stars".

(Your suggestion that they are equivalent or comparable, says more about your emotional attachment to you theories than being any meaningful rebuttal to my statement.)

Your comparison of office co-workers and "black holes" and "neutron stars" is stupid and demonstrates you don't have a strong grasp of what an effective or meaningful analogy requires.

Science hasn't observed "black holes" or "neutron stars", they are constructs or "believed" phenomenon based on theories reliant on mathematical equations, not actual observations.

The observations that Man HAS MADE, as wonderous as the observations are on a technical level don't provide scientific evidence to support your theories.

diatreme states: "Yes, I probably did write that before and deleted it accidentally."

That's comparable to saying, the dog ate my homework.

diatreme provides a quote from a poplular media outlet, the BBC: ""Astronomers point out that the three stars seen orbiting Sgr A* were accelerating so quickly that their complete orbit of the black hole may be as short as a few decades and in one case as little as 15 years."

Based on this quote, diatreme states: "Nothing else can explain this motion."

diatreme, you are so wedded to your faith in the "black hole" hypothesis, you don't even realize that what the BBC has done is present assumptions as if they were "truths".

The quote assumes a "black hole", but it doesn't present any scientific observations to support its assumed "black hole" conclusion. There could be other reasons why the obits APPEAR to be acting as such, or there could be other reasons for why they are orbiting in such a fashion. Scientfically, it's unwarranted to conclude a "black hole" is responsible for the observation.

diatreme, you, now, repeat: "[O]bservations of giant stars being accelerated around a dark, multi-million solar mass object in the core?" or words to that effect.

Repetition doesn't add to or make it so.

"...dark, multi-million solar mass object in the core?" is another assumption on your part.

The center of the galaxy is bright not dark. And there is no evidence to assume a multi-million solar mass object at the core.

Rather, that is the assumption based on gravity ONLY mathematical equations.

An electrical explanation of the phenomenon doesn't require a multi-million mass object.

See, that's were you and your theory are wrong because it EXCLUDES electromagnetic forces and plasma physics from consideration.

The scientific observations and evidence suggest it is wrong to exclude electromagnetic forces and plasma physics.

The exclusion of electromagnetic energy and forces leads to an erroneous conclusion of what the physical and mechanical processes are at the center of the galaxy.

diatreme states: "I rather suspect that Dr. Perratt would be a little more humble about how much of science his theories shall replace."

Well, since Dr. Perratt IS a scientist, I suspect he is more humble about his theories, than you are about "big bang, black hole" theory (and, yes, it's appropriate to co-join both in a single set of quotations).

I've pointed out numerous paradoxes and contradictions.

But really they add up to falsifications of your theory.

diatreme presents his prior statement for reconsideration: ""[A]s GR stands today without a single anomalous observation questioning it's validity."

"...[WITHOUT A SINGLE] anomalous observation..."

diatreme, then you go on to explain why, "without a single anomalous observation" doesn't really mean without ANY anomalous observations.

Are you so stupid that you can't see how contraditory and nonsensical your statements are?

Well, since you made the statements, I guess you are that stupid.

diatreme states: "General Relativity stands today without a single discrepant observation questioning it's validity."

That's a flat-out lie. If you had scientific integrity, you'd be ashamed of yourself.

Here is a list of discrepant observations:

General Relativity conflicts with the laws of quantum physics.

There is scientific evidence Redshift does not accurately predict all observed celestial "relative" motion.

Astrophysical observations at the galactic center appear to counter General Relativity

"Intense astrophysical observations at the galactic center of the Milky Way appear to counter General Relativity, suggesting that the conventional understanding of gravitational lensing is seriously flawed. The lack of evidence for any gravitational light bending effects on the emissions from the orbiting stellar objects about the galactic core clearly shows that fundamental principles of Mathematical Physics may have been seriously misapplied to the problem at the galactic core. This has apparently resulted in flawed concepts on the interaction of gravity and light, also resulting in the conventional understanding of gravitational lensing."

Albert Einstein was a brilliant man, but brilliant men make mistakes.

Aristotle was a brillant man, but we, now, know he was wrong in many of his scientific views.

Brilliant men make great contributions to scientific understanding, but they are limited by the scientific observations possible in their lifetimes.

Brilliant men, ironically, can lead to scientific stagnation in later times.

Aristotle was so revered that scientific advancement was later retarded by undue deference to his ideas and theories.

The same holds true for Albert Einstein.

The major flaw in General Relativity theory is the idea that time is a "force". Time does not act as a force on matter. Forces act OVER TIME, but time is not an active force.

Space is not curved in a space-time continuum.

diatreme, you are an example of an acolyte that reveres Einstein's memory to the point of retarding scientific understanding. Einstein would be appalled at you and your fellow acolytes.

Diatreme, I already did discredit you, but you're too stupid to realize it.

diatreme states: "Yes, I used Newtonian gravity above to make a point that the determination of the vast mass of the black hole at the core of the Milky Way is simple enough that it can be done with Newtonian means."

That's the problem, Newtonian gravity doesn't explain the Milky Way galaxy, unless you bring into the equations a whole subset of assumptions. "Black holes" and "neutron stars" are two major assumptions.

diatreme, you give up the ball game with this phrase: "...necessity of neutron stars and black holes..."

In order for General Relativity theory to work, "inventing" black holes and neutron stars are a "necessity"

diatreme, don't you see (no, you're too blinded to see), "black holes" and "neutron stars" are "necessary" constructs to prevent General Relativity form being FALSIFIED.

Both were NOT observed AND THEN explained (which is the standard procedure in the Scientific Method), but rather, both were imagined to support the theory and then imagined to be observed.

diatreme states, "...next stop before a singularity..."??

Yes, I know a "singularity" is another name for a "black hole".

But do you see how nonsensical that is? It's pure assumption based on mathemetical equations representing the force of gravity, which has never been verified.

"Neutron degeneracy pressure"?

Complete fantasy, it's all theoretical construct, not based on observation and measurement.

But, of course, you're too wrapped up in it to understand that.

diatreme, you're like the men in Plato's cave thinking you're seeing reality when your're really only seeing the shadows projected on the walls from the fire of your own imagination.

diatreme states:

"Life and science are full of assumptions. By definition, assumptions are things you choose to accept without proof. Once a certain principle is established by proof, it ceases to be an assumption."

I've already listed your assumptions, but you chose to ignore them, at this point, it's not worth repeating.

diatreme states: "Do you consider it a fatal flaw in the methods of science that they discovered phenomena that cannot be explained by yesterday's models?"

diatreme, you are a dumb monkey. The method of science is to observe a phenomenon and try to explain it by what is already known.

diatreme, you and the other acolytes in your camp create mathemetical equations and then imagine physical enities in order to justify your mathematical equations.

That's NOT science, or the Scientific Method, but you've got your head, so far up the General Relativity "ass", you can't understand the basic requirements of the Scientific Method, which bears repeating:

An unknown or unexplained object is OBSERVED and THEN you try to explain in terms of what is already known.

You don't make mathematical equations and then try and justify the equations by inventing objects and "go out" and "discover" these theoretical constructs by using "other" imaginary constructs like "dark matter", "dark energy", or "strange matter".

I hope you can pull your head out long enough to understand the basic scientific process.

diatreme states: "Yes. I think this is true. You have a computer. Use Google. Learn about Nucleosynthesis. Degenerate matter. Pulsars. Tests of General Relativity. Then come and sing to me "Plasma Uber Alles."

Diatreme, you are one dumb monkey.

You're too stupid to know those are ALL assumptions -- shadows on the wall of your general relativity cave.

diatreme said...

Anaconda,

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

At the top of this web-page is a diagram that shows the orbits of stars as they have actually been observed since 1992. Do you accept that there is a hidden mass influencing those stars? Do you accept that the mass of that hidden body can be calculated? Please answer that question. If you agree that the mass of that hidden body can be estimated by humans, please state by which gravitational theory that calculation can be safely and confidently performed. I have to find out which century you are stuck in before I can try to talk to you.

Comments about the cited web-page:

1.) The author of this web-page has a book for sale. Among the claims made for the book are:
No time dilation
No length contraction
No velocity dependent mass

These are all claims of Special Relativity and they are all proven. Read this carefully:

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

But let's go back to the author's main point: that no gravitational lensing effects are seen. There are several reasons for this.

1.) Such lensing has been observed when the background objects are extremely far beyond the lensing body. In this case, the stars are at almost the exact same distance as the lensing mass.

2.) The stars that are being observed orbiting SGR A, are resolved only to the seeing limits of the telescopes used for the observations. It is probable that there are relativistic distortions present but that they are small compared to the seeing effects, and small compared to the actual, observed motions of the stars.

3.) The animations show a simplified Keplerian orbit but the observations used to draw those lines are discrete positions observed for those stars at roughly annual intervals.

4.) The motions of the stars are not consistent with any other proposed class of material body at the core of the galaxy besides a black hole.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6908/full/nature01121.html

You are welcome to propose an alternative theory.

"I hope you can pull your head out long enough to understand the basic scientific process."

You should pull YOUR head out long enough to know that that nature paper above IS exactly what scientific progress looks like.

Let's break down your problem.

1.) We have to establish whether you accept that we can determine just how great that hidden mass is from the motions of the orbiting objects. Do you accept that it is around 3.7 million solar masses? If you do not, then you need to go ask some plasma theorist (who presumably graduated from college) if HE can attest to anyone on Earth, like JPL for instance, knowing enough about gravity to navigate spacecraft around the solar system. If he can help you that far, there is hope because one of those guys can probably tell you how to use basic algebra to calculate that central mass.

2.) We need to determine whether you think we know the distance to the core of our galaxy to a precision of about 10%. It should take you know more than about one year of study to get that far. If we know the distance, then we can deduce the maximum size of the object by noting that it can be no larger than the minimum radius of the closest orbiting star.

3.) Finally, you simply need to hypothesize a form or state of matter that can concentrate the determined amount of mass into the determined maximum volume of space without producing visible light.

4.) I'll give you hint. Lots of experience with nuclear reactions (Or, nucular if you prefer) and lots of experience with particle accelerators have established the natures and strengths of the forces that atomic and nuclear structures can support or resist. If the weight of the 3.7 million solar masses produces a force greater than the limits of electrostatic repulsion, the body must collapse into a still denser state.

5.) Another hint: Particle colliders have rammed protons into each other at velocities great enough to overcome their electric and nuclear repulsions. They have probed structures at levels interior to the diameters of protons and neutrons. Their abilities to resist crushing forces are therefore finite and the thresholds are known. If you believe otherwise, you can probably earn yourself at least one Nobel prize by pointing out the errors being made by physicists.

6.) Whatever hypotheitcal body you come up with, explain how it can be dark. Keep in mind that every massive body in the Universe with masses and densities equal to or greater than stars, is forced to produce energy in their cores to support the inward pressures of gravity. When massive stars can no longer generate enough energy to counteract the forces of gravitational collapse, those stars die in fantastic explosions, and though we have only been looking at the sky for a few millenia, we know that at least one of these observed explosions created a nearby pulsar. All this merely to point out that in order to avoid the necessity of the existence of black holes, you have to propose another way for a body to be as dense and as dark as the one observed in the core of our galaxy.

"You're too stupid to know those are ALL assumptions."

Sorry, but you have been too distracted by other things to realize that they are not.