Distant black hole wave twists like giant whip

July 10, 2015 by Whitney Clavin
Image shows how magnetic waves, called Alfvén S-waves, propagate outward from the base of black hole jets. The jet is a flow of charged particles, called a plasma, which is launched by a black hole. The jet has a helical magnetic field (yellow coil) permeating the plasma. The waves then travel along the jet, in the direction of the plasma flow, but at a velocity determined by both the jet's magnetic properties and the plasma flow speed. The BL Lac jet examined in a new study is several light-years long, and the wave speed is about 98 percent the speed of light. Fast-moving magnetic waves emanating from a distant supermassive black hole undulate like a whip whose handle is being shaken by a giant hand, according to a study using data from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Very Long Baseline Array. Scientists used this instrument to explore the galaxy/black hole system known as BL Lacertae (BL Lac) in high resolution. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Fast-moving magnetic waves emanating from a distant supermassive black hole undulate like a whip whose handle is being shaken by a giant hand, according to a new study using data from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Very Long Baseline Array. Scientists used this instrument to explore the galaxy/black hole system known as BL Lacertae (BL Lac) in high resolution.

"The are excited by a shaking motion of the jet at its base," said David Meier, a now-retired astrophysicist from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology, both in Pasadena.

The team's findings, detailed in the April 10 issue of The Astrophysical Journal, mark the first time so-called Alfven (pronounced Alf-vain) waves have been identified in a black hole system.

Alfven waves are generated when magnetic field lines, such as those coming from the sun or a disk around a black hole, interact with charged particles, or ions, and become twisted or coiled into a helical shape. In the case of BL Lac, the ions are in the form of that are flung from opposite sides of the black hole at near light speed.

"Imagine running a water hose through a slinky that has been stretched taut," said first author Marshall Cohen, an astronomer at Caltech. "A sideways disturbance at one end of the slinky will create a wave that travels to the other end, and if the slinky sways to and fro, the hose running through its center has no choice but to move with it."

A similar thing is happening in BL Lac, Cohen said. The Alfven waves are analogous to the propagating sideways motions of the slinky, and as the waves propagate along the , they can cause the field lines—and the particle jets encompassed by the field lines—to move as well.

This artist's concept illustrates a supermassive black hole with millions to billions times the mass of our sun. Supermassive black holes are enormously dense objects buried at the hearts of galaxies. (Smaller black holes also exist throughout galaxies.) In this illustration, the supermassive black hole at the center is surrounded by matter flowing onto the black hole in what is termed an accretion disk. This disk forms as the dust and gas in the galaxy falls onto the hole, attracted by its gravity. Also shown is an outflowing jet of energetic particles, believed to be powered by the black hole's spin. The regions near black holes contain compact sources of high energy X-ray radiation thought, in some scenarios, to originate from the base of these jets. This high energy X-radiation lights up the disk, which reflects it, making the disk a source of X-rays. The reflected light enables astronomers to see how fast matter is swirling in the inner region of the disk, and ultimately to measure the black hole's spin rate. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

It's common for black hole particle jets to bend—and some even swing back and forth. But those movements typically take place on timescales of thousands or millions of years. "What we see is happening on a timescale of weeks," Cohen said. "We're taking pictures once a month, and the position of the waves is different each month."

"By analyzing these waves, we are able to determine the internal properties of the jet, and this will help us ultimately understand how jets are produced by ," said Meier.

Interestingly, from the vantage of astronomers on Earth, the Alfven waves emanating from BL Lac appear to be traveling about five times faster than the speed of light, but it's only an optical illusion. The illusion is difficult to visualize but has to do with the fact that the waves are traveling slightly off our line of sight at nearly the speed of light. At these high speeds, time slows down, which can throw off the perception of how fast the waves are actually moving.

Explore further: VLA reveals 'bashful' black hole in neighboring galaxy

Related Stories

VLA reveals 'bashful' black hole in neighboring galaxy

June 17, 2015

Thanks to the extraordinary sensitivity of the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA), astronomers have detected what they believe is the long-sought radio emission coming from a supermassive black hole at the center of one ...

Hubble video shows shock collision inside black hole jet

May 27, 2015

When you're blasting though space at more than 98 percent of the speed of light, you may need driver's insurance. Astronomers have discovered for the first time a rear-end collision between two high-speed knots of ejected ...

4C+29.30: Black hole powered jets plow into galaxy

May 15, 2013

(Phys.org) —This composite image of a galaxy illustrates how the intense gravity of a supermassive black hole can be tapped to generate immense power. The image contains X-ray data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory ...

Recommended for you

Eclipse 2017: Science from the moon's shadow

December 11, 2017

On Dec. 11, 2017, six researchers discussed initial findings based on observations of the Sun and on Earth gathered during the solar eclipse that stretched across North America on Aug. 21, 2017. Ranging from new information ...

Unravelling the mysteries of extragalactic jets

December 11, 2017

University of Leeds researchers have mathematically examined plasma jets from supermassive black holes to determine why certain types of jets disintegrate into huge plumes.

The initial mass function

December 11, 2017

The gas and dust in giant molecular clouds gradually come together under the influence of gravity to form stars. Precisely how this occurs, however, is incompletely understood. The mass of a star, for example, is by far the ...

110 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
4.6 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2015
Today, on physorg, astronomers continue to do plasma physics and electromagnetic physics. A system named for Alfven even is credited. And due, any moment now, are people who don't understand a lick of physics telling us about some electric plasma magical unicorn universe.
xstos
2 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2015
That universe bleeds into ours via prophets.

https://s-media-c...7ad5.jpg
carlo_piantini
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2015
Today, on physorg, astronomers continue to do plasma physics and electromagnetic physics. A system named for Alfven even is credited. And due, any moment now, are people who don't understand a lick of physics telling us about some electric plasma magical unicorn universe.


You realize the extraordinary irony of suggesting that plasma cosmology is a "magical unicorn universe" when this article is basically outlining the process of galactic jets being structured through Birkeland currents, generated through these Alfven waves right?

Likewise, you may find that you can engage in healthier, friendlier scientific debate if you tone down your condescension and disrespect for an alternative theory that has earned itself a great degree of plausibility in the last few months alone, based off of articles published right here on this site. If you still maintain that the LCDM model is superior, fine. But last time I checked, no experiment has shown us dark matter particles yet...
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2015
I suppose the newly discovered filamentation of the hour-glass shaped plasma in NGC 2346, which has been suggested to be an electrical plasma discharge by the PC model for years, also shouldn't be considered evidence to support the model either?
http://phys.org/n...ula.html
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2015
Or the fact that we've also discovered concentric, cylindrically shaped rings of x-ray signals emanating from a currently-active black hole? Which we now know also propagates Alfven waves, that "magically" generate helically shaped magnetic fields? Am I seriously supposed to believe that black holes aren't generating galactic scale Birkeland currents?
http://phys.org/n...ole.html
carlo_piantini
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2015
Just another side note: these galactic jets have a measurable electric current propagating through them with over 10^18 amps: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1397
NIPSZX
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2015
I cannot believe the New Horizon ship is almost to Pluto in 9 years. That is extraordinary and very fast!! How long would it take for a ship similar to the New Horizon to get up close to the nearest black hole?
shavera
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2015
How long would it take for a ship similar to the New Horizon to get up close to the nearest black hole?


hundreds of thousands of years. Just to get to the nearest star, it would take 70000 years. Space is freaking huge, and we move nowhere near fast enough to try to get interstellar travel. We're better off waiting 1000 years for technology to improve to the point that we can make the trip faster than waiting for more advances in technology to come along.
Physphan
4 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2015
I made popcorn for the comments on this one...please don't hold back. You know who you are. ;)
EnsignFlandry
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015


You realize the extraordinary irony of suggesting that plasma cosmology is a "magical unicorn universe" when this article is basically outlining the process of galactic jets being structured through Birkeland currents, generated through these Alfven waves right?

Likewise, you may find that you can engage in healthier, friendlier scientific debate if you tone down your condescension and disrespect for an alternative theory that has earned itself a great degree of plausibility in the last few months alone, based off of articles published right here on this site. If you still maintain that the LCDM model is superior, fine. But last time I checked, no experiment has shown us dark matter particles yet...


Good, someone said it too. It gets tiring to read the condescending, cynical, or sarcastic comments by people who often know little about science.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2015
Shavera's comment is as usual an asinine claim, the usual pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo is being employed above. Shown as follows;
"Alfven waves are generated when magnetic field lines, such as those coming from the sun or a disk around a black hole, interact with charged particles, or ions, and become twisted or coiled into a helical shape."

"Magnetic field lines" are merely visualization tool, they cannot "interact" with anything!

If these pseudoscientists want to refer to Alfven waves, they should understand how Alfven explicitly described them;
"Hannes Alfvén realized that the magnetic fields observed in sunspots must derive from electric currents in the solar plasma, and that the currents and the magnetic fields together generate forces that affect the motion of this plasma, which in turn can induce electric fields. He formulated this mutual interaction and the resulting waves in mathematical form by 1942."

And that helical shape is caused by a Birkeland current.
Ndaren
3 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2015
A physics error in the article: "Interestingly, from the vantage of astronomers on Earth, the Alfven waves emanating from BL Lac appear to be traveling about five times faster than the speed of light, but it's only an optical illusion. The illusion is difficult to visualize but has to do with the fact that the waves are traveling slightly off our line of sight at nearly the speed of light. At these high speeds, time slows down, which can throw off the perception of how fast the waves are actually moving."

Apparent superluminal motion has nothing to do with time slowing down! It's simply due to the light travel time from the object to the observer decreasing/increasing as the object moves towards/away from the observer.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
If one should consider this a fractalic Universe, on a widely different scale as us looking a sample using a scanning tunneling electromicrographic microscope and the other, more fun ways of imaging matter on the extremely small scale, ends up looking one HECK of a lot like what we do in ultra-deep cosmographic surveys!

I have long thought that these massive jets are essentially pumping out the fractal equivalent of a pair of photons or high-energy gamma rays leaving an atom, We see galactic groupings that look much like other atoms or molecules, made of galaxies, smaller galaxies may be either electrons or quarks, We may actually be seeing, in our night sky, the first few seconds, minutes or hours away from our "Big Bang" on THAT scale, size and time going together.

However, this may also give us a real view of what a photon is and looks like,(If only we could we scale down that for the picture) right there in the night sky, there may be evidence of Ionization scalewise!
JeanTate
4.1 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2015
@carlo_piantini:
You realize the extraordinary irony of suggesting that plasma cosmology is a "magical unicorn universe" when this article is basically outlining the process of galactic jets being structured through Birkeland currents, generated through these Alfven waves right?
Actually, it's anything but ironic.

"Plasma cosmology" refers to Alfven's cosmological ideas ('models' is perhaps a bit too strong), and those of Peratt, Lerner, etc. These are quite distinct, and different from, the use of plasma physics in astrophysics.

As in most (all?) cosmological models, "plasma cosmology" seeks to explain the CMB, the primordial abundance of light nuclides, the Hubble relationship, time dilation in SNe light curves, etc, etc, etc. As such it is monumental failure
condescension and disrespect for an alternative theory that has earned itself a great degree of plausibility in the last few months alone
Really? News to me; references please!
JeanTate
5 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
@cp:
I suppose the newly discovered filamentation of the hour-glass shaped plasma in NGC 2346, which has been suggested to be an electrical plasma discharge by the PC model for years, also shouldn't be considered evidence to support the model either?
Not without a reference!

As in, something objective (i.e. quantitative, in this case) and independently verifiable, such as a paper in which "the hour-glass shaped plasma in NGC 2346" is shown to be consistent - quantitatively! - with "an electrical plasma discharge", derived from a (previously published) "PC model".

Otherwise, how does it differ from "looks like a duck" science?
JeanTate
5 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
@cd:
And that helical shape is caused by a Birkeland current
Yep, it sure looks like a duck, doesn't it?

Remind me again, please, how is "Birkeland current" defined? And how is the term used in astrophysics papers (not ones about the Earth, its magnetosphere, and interactions with the solar wind)
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2015
please, how is "Birkeland current" defined?


http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF

And how is the term used in astrophysics papers


It's not, but they're still relying on pseudoscience to explain cosmic magnetic fields and such, aren't they. You know, frozen-in fields, open field lines, and reconnecting field lines and other such pseudo clap trap.

Not without a reference!


Remember, nothing really exists until an astrophysicist "approves" of it quantitatively via a paper.

Really? News to me; references please!


Well, being dusty plasma is news to you and has been studied for decades, why should what has occurred recently that supports alternative theories of which you are unaware be surprising?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
It should also be pointed out, this application by the pseudos seems to support the incredible scalability of plasma processes. Alfven waves have been observed in the lab, Earth's environment, the sun, and now in the jets of this galaxy. But guess this scalability cannot exist until the astrophysicists first approve and quantify it. The use of first principles is only acceptable to your own pet theories...
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cd:Thanks!

So, you are using a non-standard definition, applying a 'looks like a duck' approach, have not actually read any astrophysics papers (containing plasma physics), do not understand the mathematics that goes into plasma physics models, etc, etc, etc ... and yet you write:
but they're still relying on pseudoscience to explain cosmic magnetic fields and such [...] and other such pseudo clap trap
Then there's this gem:
Well, being dusty plasma is news to you and has been studied for decades, why should what has occurred recently that supports alternative theories of which you are unaware be surprising?
Because no one has published anything?
The use of first principles is only acceptable to your own pet theories...
Pot, meet kettle ...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
So, you are using a non-standard definition


Oh, you mean like calling everything "gas" or "ionized gas" when it is in fact plasma? Alfven pointed out almost 30 years ago;

"Dessler called them "Birkeland currents", a term which is now generally accepted and sometimes generalized to mean all currents parallel to the magnetic fields."

It's only "non-standard" to gas light era scientists such as yourself...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
The use of first principles is only acceptable to your own pet theories...

Pot, meet kettle ...


The difference being my "pet theories" are based upon real lab experiment and the related maths, whereas your pet theories are based upon "thought experiment" and GIGO maths alone.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
Actually, it's anything but ironic.

"Plasma cosmology" refers to Alfven's cosmological ideas ('models' is perhaps a bit too strong), and those of Peratt, Lerner, etc. These are quite distinct, and different from, the use of plasma physics in astrophysics.


Right, the entire point is that keeping their ideas and research out of astrophysics is completely ridiculous because their research, which is related to their experiments in laboratory plasmas, describes exactly what these astronomers are seeing. Their work should be included in astrophysics. Your model can't make accurate predictions without it.
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
Not without a reference!

As in, something objective (i.e. quantitative, in this case) and independently verifiable, such as a paper in which "the hour-glass shaped plasma in NGC 2346" is shown to be consistent - quantitatively! - with "an electrical plasma discharge", derived from a (previously published) "PC model".

Otherwise, how does it differ from "looks like a duck" science?


You're more than welcome to pick up a copy of "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven, take a read, and see for yourself what you think. You're trying to suggest that I'm approaching science with a method that is not empirical. Make observations of structures in space, recognizing the similarity between experiments conducted in the lab, and comparing the two, is the definition of the scientific method. Alfven, Bostick, and Peratt all were able to produce spirally-structured plasmoids in the lab, and applied that research to astrophysics. That's a brilliant idea, and what they've described what we see.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
From my notes on "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner: for Alfven, his demonstrably-correct model of plasma interaction in the solar system could be extrapolated to explain the structures formed throughout the universe. He began with galaxies: in his theory, a galaxy, acting as a conductor, spinning in the magnetic fields of intergalactic space generates electricity. The huge current produced by the galaxy flows in great filamentary spirals towards the center of the galaxy, where it turns and flows out along the spin axis. This galactic current then short-circuits, driving a vast amount of energy into the galactic core. The galaxy "blows a fuse" and powerful electrical fields are created in the nucleus, which accelerate intense jets of electrons and ions out along the axis.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
05.28.2015 - Observations with the ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale. I'd further posit that this structure is fractal in geometry, which is a direct violation of General Relativity, which says that matter distribution should be homogenous at large enough scales. These filaments are truly ubiquitous throughout the entire galaxy. These structures have also been revealed to be crucial in the process of star formation. Stars are born in the densest pockets of the ISM, a diffuse plasma that pervades galaxies like our Milky Way. Astrophysicists claim that it is a mystery how this low density material can come together, creating denser concentrations. This is not a mystery; it has been predicted for decades and is easily explained via Birkeland currents moving through the plasma.

CONT.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
Likewise, this article makes absolutely no mention of plasma, but constantly refers to "gas and dust." No, this is a plasma environment. Herschel has gathered unprecedented data in the last three and a half years, and all of it has been vindication for the EU model. "The greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds and their intimate connection with star formation." This is was not a surprise for everyone…The filaments also happen to have a universal width of about one third of a light year; to scale, this is likely the same width formed by electrical currents in lab plasmas and this can be tested. The filamentation must precede the onset of star formation. The material along the filaments is not at all static, there are accretion flows, with the most prominent filaments drawing matter form their surroundings through a network of smaller filaments.

CONT.
EWH
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2015
Yes plasma physics is needed to describe just about everything observed in the large-scale universe, particularly what is often wrongly called "gas" in articles. Yes magnetic fields are always and only due to electric currents (though those currents may be far from the magnetic field), there is no such thing as a magnetic field line any more than a line of longitude, and "magnetic reconnection" is a solecism on the order of "sunrise", yet at the same time neither term usually means that the speaker is an ignoramus.

The problem I have with the "electric universe" cult is the refusal to acknowledge that many of their assertions are BS -
* no, the stars are not powered by external currents but rather are the power source for those currents (new stars may be jump-started through z-pinch, though)
* no, geographic features are not formed by electric discharges
* no, astronomical bodies do not usually have high charges
OTOH, astrophysics : real physics :: phys.org : ArXiv
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
This material is flowing parallel to the direction of the local magnetic field, again indicative of electric currents and indicating the "importance of interstellar magnetic fields in shaping these structures." Fields which, as can been seen previously in these notes, are almost entirely ignored and unexplained by the astrophysical community.
http://sci.esa.in...42-hersc ... milky-way/

06.18.2015 - Astronomers making a detailed, multi-telescope study of a nearby galaxy have discovered a magnetic field "coiled" around the galaxy's main spiral arm, showing how gas [plasma] can be funneled inward toward the galaxy's center. "This study helps resolve some major questions about how galaxies form and evolve." They studied Galaxy IC 342 using the VLA and Effelsberg Radio Telescope. The "surprising result" [no, it's not] showed a huge, helically-twisted loop coiled around the galaxy's main spiral arm.

CONT.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
Likewise, this article makes absolutely no mention of plasma, but constantly refers to "gas and dust." No, this is a plasma environment. Herschel has gathered unprecedented data in the last three and a half years, and all of it has been vindication for the EU model. "The greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds and their intimate connection with star formation." This is was not a surprise for everyone…The filaments also happen to have a universal width of about one third of a light year; to scale, this is likely the same width formed by electrical currents in lab plasmas and this can be tested. The filamentation must precede the onset of star formation. The material along the filaments is not at all static, there are accretion flows, with the most prominent filaments drawing matter form their surroundings through a network of smaller filaments.

CONT.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
"This study helps resolve some major questions about how galaxies form and evolve." They studied Galaxy IC 342 using the VLA and Effelsberg Radio Telescope. The "surprising result" [no, it's not] showed a huge, helically-twisted loop coiled around the galaxy's main spiral arm. This is a dead give-away sign of Birkeland currents, right along with the complete filamentation of galaxy's like the Milky Way. "Spiral arms can hardly be formed by gravitational forces alone. This new IC 342 image indicates that magnetic fields also play an important role in forming spiral arms." Just like Peratt and Bostick demonstrated in their labs. "The scientists mapped the galaxy's magnetic-field structures by measuring the orientation, or polarization, of the radio waves emitted by the galaxy. The orientation of the radio waves is perpendicular to that of the magnetic field."
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

CONT.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
07.10.2015 - Fast-moving magnetic waves emanating from a black hole undulate like a whip being shaken by the handle, according to a new study using data from the VLB Array. "The waves are excited by a shaking motion of the jet at its base." It's becoming increasingly more ridiculous to suggest that "black holes" are gravitational objects when they continue to exhibit extreme electromagnetic plasma phenomena like galactic jets, massively intense magnetic fields, and these new magnetic waves. At least the article mentions Alfven, saying correctly that these are Alfven waves being generated by the black hole. "Alfven waves are generated when magnetic field lines interact with charged particles, or ions, and become twisted or coiled into a helical shape. As the waves propagate along the magnetic field lines, they cause the field lines and the particles of the jets to move as well."

CONT.
carlo_piantini
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
07.10.2015 - Astronomers have discovered "nested rings of x-ray light" centered on an erupting black hole. This is unbelievable - concentric, cylindrically shaped rings of current are 100% indicative of Birkeland currents. The findings were delivered by a team led by Andrew Beardmore at the U. of Leicester, UK, using the X-Ray Telescope aboard SWIFT. The rings extended to about 1/3 the size of a full moon. A movie made of the signals demonstrates the expansion and gradual fading of the rings. Detailed analysis shows that the rings originate from a "large flare" - a discharge event - that occurred on June 26th.
http://phys.org/n...ole.html

Have I driven the point home? I don't care about your mathematics. You can't deduce the nature of reality by pure reason and abstract mathematics - you need to do it through lab experiments and direct observation. Their model, or fundamental ideas, work better than yours.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
The problem I have with the "electric universe" cult is the refusal to acknowledge that many of their assertions are BS -
* no, the stars are not powered by external currents but rather are the power source for those currents (new stars may be jump-started through z-pinch, though)
* no, geographic features are not formed by electric discharges
* no, astronomical bodies do not usually have high charges
OTOH, astrophysics : real physics :: phys.org : ArXiv


- There is no laboratory demonstration of nuclear fusion that proves the LCDM star model. When that happens, I'll take my dose of humility and admit I'm wrong. But the SAFIRE team had some very successful initial testing with their anode model, based of Birkeland's work - although he advocated generally a negative star model.
- Laboratory tests have demonstrated otherwise - the model is at the very least plausible as a hypothesis.
- References as proof?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
Have I driven the point home?
@cp
no, you've flooded PO with pseudoscience
I don't care about...mathematics
nor about science, it appears-
You can't deduce the nature of reality by pure reason and abstract mathematics
so... the preference you are supporting is conjecture and gut instinct? (hyperbole and satire heavy with sarcasm)
you need to do it through lab experiments and direct observation
quick question: what do you compare it to? but i digress...
IF you can figure out (using that pesky reason & math) that high velocity blood splatter makes a different shape than low velocity splatter, then test it (using the scientific method) then you can generate equations/evidence that define things which can't be seen.
this allows for predictions based upon observations and math/logic about things that *CANNOT* be observed directly (as in, the actual crime) as well as the tool used (broomsticks splatter differently than bats, etc)

get it now?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
- Laboratory tests have demonstrated otherwise - the model is at the very least plausible as a hypothesis.
- References as proof?
@cp
then by all means, please link the papers which demonstrate (per your claims above) that birkeland currents, or whatever reason for stars this week in eu, have shown and registered the exact same pattern, distribution and evidence of everything from neutrino's to radiation, and don't forget to include the modelling of the spectrum, as we can determine the actual contents of the sun/stars by spectral analysis, which is the basis for forensic testing (Mass Spec)

https://briankobe...niverse/

https://en.wikipe...trometry

https://en.wikipe...trometry

thanks!
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
Explain, in any way you'd like, how any of what I said classifies as pseudo-science. Have you ever cracked open "Experimental Researches in Electricity and Magnetism"? No, I'm not suggesting conjecture and gut instinct? I'm advocating for rigorous experimentation, direct observation, and building models exclusively off of what you've already proven in the lab.

IF you can figure out (using that pesky reason & math) that high velocity blood splatter makes a different shape than low velocity splatter, then test it (using the scientific method) then you can generate equations/evidence that define things which can't be seen.


No, you can't. You don't get to apply mathematics to unseen phenomena and then call it fact, or even theory. If you can't directly test your model in the label, then it's not a model. It's mathematic conjecture. You might conduct science that way, but it's why it can't make accurate predictions about anything.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
It's a really simple, straight-forward question that I have for Captain Stumpy or JeanTate (who at least, in the past, has seemed just a bit less condescending): Alfven, Peratt and Bostick have been able to directly produce spiral-structured plasmoids in laboratory plasmas.

Can you offer me any other laboratory research or demonstrations of these structures in plasmas, and describe the necessary experimental conditions that produced them? Perhaps the research your model relies on for galactic development?
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
"Today, we understand better that what counts are the equations themselves and not the model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false." - Richard Feynman, on discussing Maxwell's equations.

I disagree with this approach to the scientific method. As Lerner puts it, it's Platonic, not Ionian - it assumes that the mathematics are the genuine phenomena of Nature that need to be deduced, and then we can "derive" the rest of the Universe. I adamantly disagree with this approach, and I personal have adopted Faraday's method - you have to demonstrate it in a lab, and only then, you can apply it to your model. Without doing that, you wind up with the epicycles. To me, it's that easy, and no one here has offered up a reason why I should trust their authority above someone like Faraday's, or Lerner's, or Alfven - if this is even a matter of authority, which it's not.
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cd:
Oh, you mean like calling everything "gas" or "ionized gas" when it is in fact plasma? Alfven pointed out almost 30 years ago
Now you've become just plain ridiculous.

Dude, astronomers call every element other than H and He, a 'metal'. Does that mean they don't know what a metal is? Of course not. Similarly, if you pick up any standard astrophysics textbook, and actually READ it, it will become obvious, very quickly, that 'gas' is a convenient shorthand (astronomers and astrophysicists know perfectly well what the difference is ...)

Why do you continue to waste time with wilfully ignorant rants like this? Why not spend the time doing some real scientific research?
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cd:
The use of first principles is only acceptable to your own pet theories...
Pot, meet kettle ...

The difference being my "pet theories" are based upon real lab experiment and the related maths
Actually, what you think of as 'theories' are nothing of the sort (except, perhaps, in the everyday meaning of 'guesses'). Like, for example, that the Earth was, quite recently, a satellite of Saturn
whereas your pet theories are based upon "thought experiment" and GIGO maths alone
Sorry, I don't have 'pet theories'. And GR - to take just one example - is consistent with an amazingly wide range of experimental (and observational) results. Which is rather more than can be said for the 'theory' that the Earth was, within a few k years, a satellite of Saturn!
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cp:
Actually, it's anything but ironic. "Plasma cosmology" refers to Alfven's cosmological ideas ('models' is perhaps a bit too strong), and those of Peratt, Lerner, etc. These are quite distinct, and different from, the use of plasma physics in astrophysics.
Right, the entire point is that keeping their ideas and research out of astrophysics is completely ridiculous because their research, which is related to their experiments in laboratory plasmas, describes exactly what these astronomers are seeing. Their work should be included in astrophysics. Your model can't make accurate predictions without it.
So, you are big proponent of the 'conspiracy theory' of astrophysics?

Tell me, cp, have you ever opened a standard, grad-level, textbook on astrophysics?

Can you, in all honesty, say that there's nothing on plasma physics in it?

What do you think they research, at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory? http://www.pppl.g...ophysics
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
Not without a reference! As in, something objective (i.e. quantitative, in this case) and independently verifiable, such as a paper in which "the hour-glass shaped plasma in NGC 2346" is shown to be consistent - quantitatively! - with "an electrical plasma discharge", derived from a (previously published) "PC model". Otherwise, how does it differ from "looks like a duck" science?
You're more than welcome to pick up a copy of "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven, take a read, and see for yourself what you think
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Way to miss my point: that book by Alfven does not contain anything on NGC 2346.

(cont)
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
(continued)
Make observations of structures in space, recognizing the similarity between experiments conducted in the lab, and comparing the two, is the definition of the scientific method
Sorta. You missed out the "objective" part; in this case, "quantitative" (also the 'independently verifiable' part)
Alfven, Bostick, and Peratt all were able to produce spirally-structured plasmoids in the lab, and applied that research to astrophysics
If you say so
That's a brilliant idea, and what they've described what we see
So you ARE using the 'looks like a duck' approach!

In their own papers, it's clear that "what they've described" is NOT "what we see", when you run the numbers ...

But hey, why don't you take up where they left off? Why not develop their models, download the astronomical data, crunch, write up the results, and publish? What better way to honor their work than successfully apply it, eh?
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cp:
From my notes on "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner: for Alfven, his demonstrably-correct model of plasma interaction in the solar system could be extrapolated to explain the structures formed throughout the universe. He began with galaxies: [...]
Pity that none of these ideas is consistent with the CMB (blackbody profile, dipole, angular power spectrum, polarization, ...), the observed abundances of elements, the Hubble redshift relationship, etc, etc, etc ...

But even though Lerner has given up on developing a PC-based cosmological model, no reason why you can't keep the flame alight, is there?

Start with his published models, develop them, download the relevant astronomical data (for free!), crunch the numbers, write up your results, and get them published!

Shouldn't be too hard for you, right? I mean, you fully understand the plasma physics in the various papers by your heros, right?
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cp:
Herschel has gathered unprecedented data in the last three and a half years, and all of it has been vindication for the EU model
What "model" is this, cp?

The one that says the Sun is powered by a giant, galaxy-wide current? That the Grand Canyon is the result of a giant lightning strike? That 67P is solid rock?

It's only a "vindication" if a) there's an objective, independently verifiable model (i.e. a quantitative one, that's actually published), and b) if the Herschel results have been shown - in an objective, independently verifiably way - to be consistent with that model.

Neither a) nor b) is true.

Epic fail for PC/"the EU" ...
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cp:
Likewise, this article makes absolutely no mention of plasma, but constantly refers to "gas and dust."
Did you read the paper? arXiv:1409.3599

I suspect that you didn't, or if you did, you didn't understand it ...
No, this is a plasma environment. Herschel has gathered unprecedented data in the last three and a half years[...]
Perhaps Herschel did ... but did it observe the jet of BL Lac? Does the Cohen+ (2055) paper refer to/rely upon Herschel data?

If not, how is what you have written different from spam?
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cp (Michael?):
Have I driven the point home?
Yep. That you have spammed the comments for this PO. That you have written nothing that is objective and independently verifiable (re you pet 'models', 'theory', etc)
I don't care about your mathematics
Well, that's a slap in Alfven's, Peratt's, Lerner's (etc) face! Dude, have you never read any of their papers? They are chock-a-block full of mathematics (and a complete contrast to "the EU" nonsense)
You can't deduce the nature of reality by pure reason and abstract mathematics - you need to do it through lab experiments and direct observation
Just like astronomers and astrophysicists - such as Cohen et al - do, right?
Their model, or fundamental ideas, work better than yours.
Who is "they"? Talbott? Thornhill? They have no "models", and their 'fundamental ideas' resemble fever dreams ...
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cp:
There is no laboratory demonstration of nuclear fusion that proves the LCDM star model
What mythical creature is that, may I ask?
When that happens, I'll take my dose of humility and admit I'm wrong
Can't happen, since "the LCDM star model" does not exist!
But the SAFIRE team had some very successful initial testing with their anode model, based of Birkeland's work - although he advocated generally a negative star model
I'm sure it did ... but it has nothing to do with the Sun, right?
Laboratory tests have demonstrated otherwise - the model is at the very least plausible as a hypothesis
What "model"? Something that's never been published, let alone is objective, or independently verifiable?
References as proof?
References are "proof" of the existence of something that is objective, and independently verifiable (or at least they can be). The sort of thing you have - conspicuously - failed to provide.
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cp:
Explain, in any way you'd like, how any of what I said classifies as pseudo-science
For starters, none of your "EU" ideas have been published, in an objective, independently verifiable way.
I'm not suggesting conjecture and gut instinct?
Yep, that's EXACTLY what you are suggesting! Almost everything you wrote, in your comments in the last few hours, is devoid of precisely the very thing you claim to advocate!
I'm advocating for rigorous experimentation, direct observation, and building models exclusively off of what you've already proven in the lab
Right. Like the Sun being powered by a giant, galaxy-wide current. Like 67P being solid rock. Like stars being so charged that ~nT magnetic fields can control/dominate their motions. Like the CMB being a 'fog' of synchrotron emission from giant, galaxy-spanning currents. Like ...

(cont)
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
(continued)

@cp:
You don't get to apply mathematics to unseen phenomena and then call it fact, or even theory
Of course you do, it happens all the time in science. Even in plasma physics.
If you can't directly test your model in the label, then it's not a model
Then astronomy - and much of geology, etc - cannot possibly deal with models ... after all, you cannot create the Sun in your label (or lab)!
It's mathematic conjecture. You might conduct science that way, but it's why it can't make accurate predictions about anything
Hmm ... strange, then, that New Horizons seems to be about to arrive exactly where it was intended to go ...
JeanTate
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cp:
I adamantly disagree with this approach, and I personal have adopted Faraday's method - you have to demonstrate it in a lab, and only then, you can apply it to your model
OK ... so in which lab - yours, perhaps? - contains the Earth? the Sun? the Milky Way galaxy?

If what's in one's lab cannot produce a local gravitational acceleration of, say, 27g (per your approach), one cannot develop any models which include/reference such an acceleration (and so field), right?

Concretely, you would utterly have rejected Newton's universal law of gravitation, for several centuries (!), because its inverse square relationship was not - and could not - be demonstrated in any lab (of the time)?

In short, you are advocating an anti-science approach, right?
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
@cp:
you have to demonstrate it in a lab, and only then, you can apply it to your model
The intellectual bankrupcy of your stance is well-illustrated by your beloved Alfven, Peratt, ...:
Alfven, Peratt and Bostick have been able to directly produce spiral-structured plasmoids in laboratory plasmas
The huge current produced by the galaxy flows in great filamentary spirals towards the center of the galaxy, where it turns and flows out along the spin axis ...
Galaxies most certainly have NOT been created in any lab here on Earth!

So perhaps you are - implicitly - relying upon "scalability" in plasmas?

AFAIK, such "scalability" has been demonstrated, in labs, over scales from ~mm (and smaller?) to ~km (sorta). To be consistent, per your clearly stated approach, this scalability would need to be demonstrated - in the lab - over scales ~20 orders of magnitude greater (to ~10+ Mpc).

Which lab here on Earth contains a Mpc-sized test bed, cp?
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
So, you are big proponent of the 'conspiracy theory' of astrophysics?


My friend, the idea that subterranean lizard people are secretly in control of the world's government is a conspiracy theory. The recognition of internal and external politics having an influence within an industry, is not. The story of Sydney Chapman's debasement of Birkeland, his work, and his theoretical model of the aurora being driven by electric currents is literally just one in a very long list within the history of your field, where consensus science, group think, and loyalty to field leaders has led to the retardation of accurate theory.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
I literally just finished wrapping up a biography of Faraday's life, and with every new experimental observation that led to a radical new idea, Faraday - one of if not the greatest experimentalist in your field's history - had to be extremely careful how he worded it, other he'd be deemed, as the novel and his own notes labeled it, a "heretic." The book is "The Electric Life of Michael Faraday," for anyone interested.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
Tell me, cp, have you ever opened a standard, grad-level, textbook on astrophysics?


No, currently I'm still working through undergraduate material while independently studying everything I can, as I complete my studying of calculus, geometry, trigonometry and statistics. Likewise, I'm interested in strictly analyzing, revisiting, and scrutinizing the entire history of the currently accepted model, while in tandem researching and contrasting it to alternative models. I plan to start at with the works of Francis Bacon, as well as the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Institute, The Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineering, and The Plasma Physics Journal of IEEE.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
I think it's the responsibility of everyone who conducts scientific research to strictly study the history of science, attempt the experiments themselves, and make their own determination about Nature.

Can you, in all honesty, say that there's nothing on plasma physics in it?


Not at all, but according to your own admission they do not discuss the research of the physicists I've mentioned thus far, and I think that's a mistake. It's a very simple point. If they are the only people to generate anything resembling what we see in space - i.e. spirally structured plasmoids that are filamentary in nature and have helically structured magnetic fields - then I think their research, inductively, provides the best jumping off point for continued research to better understand what is happening in space. If you genuinely think that is a bad approach to conducting science, then I disagree completely.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
Now, as I've already explicitly asked you, if anyone else's research - literally anyone - in the lab has also reproduced anything that resembles this, show it to me. I would also think that their research is extremely important to know about.

Sorta. You missed out the "objective" part; in this case, "quantitative" (also the 'independently verifiable' part)


I'm sorry, in what way have I said that this is not necessary? You again have missed the entire point - I want lab research. That's it. That's all that I'm demanding, because that's the only thing that has any value. You're suggesting that I'm somehow demanding something that is unrealistic or, even worse, irrational as a scientist.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
My bar for making models is flat out, very simple - prove it in a lab, or not. I have no idea what a "looks like a duck" approach is, but if you're trying to suggest that using researcher-driven observations as a guide to constructing models, then I have no idea what you're doing as an experimentalist. My respect for Alfven, Bostick, Birkeland, Peratt, etc. lies exclusively in the fact that their research led to lab results that are the best viable jumping off point to building accurate models, or at the very least, to continue in theoretical and experimental research. In what way can you possibly argue that, unless someone has done better in a lab than they have. If you know of someone who has, then show them to me.

But hey, why don't you take up where they left off? Why not develop their models, download the astronomical data, crunch, write up the results, and publish? What better way to honor their work than successfully apply it, eh?
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
I'm interested in applying their researcher, and anyone else's, to the goal of creating a spiral galaxy that perfectly demonstrates what we see, in a lab. I'd like to do the same thing with a model of our solar system. Are you suggesting that somehow, these things would be inhibitive to the construction of a model to the universe?

Yep. That you have spammed the comments for this PO. That you have written nothing that is objective and independently verifiable (re you pet 'models', 'theory', etc)


I've spammed the comments? I've posted notes, which are largely summaries, about articles published on the same website where I'm making the comments. In what possible way can that be considered spam?
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
In short, you are advocating an anti-science approach, right?


Anti-science? My entire point is that I demand more from scientific models to consider them valid: 1) that the phenomena they rely can be demonstrated in a lab, and 2) that at the very least, they can make consistent, accurate predictions about future observations. The vast majority of the LCDM model cannot meet those requirements to my satisfaction, and if you'd like, I have forty pages of notes taken on astronomical observations over the last ~10 years of surprises, inexplicable phenomena, and failed predictions. And all of it, quoted, from the mouths of PhD astronomers and astrophysicists. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's published academic news. I just don't think your model is good, that's it. I can respect how mathematically elegant and consistent it is - it also just sucks at predicting things.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
You keep asking me for references - I'm a novice. I can't give you to them. My reading lists for studying include the entire bibliographies of all the engineers and physicists I've already mentioned, including reproducing their work experimentally. I've already given you criteria for anyone else you'd like to included. All of those scientists said that their work was either misapplied, undervalue, or not included in scientific discussion. I am giving them a fair listen by reproducing their work, and then moving on to the next experiment that helps me produce a better understanding of space.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
currently I'm still working through undergraduate material
@cp
but considering your arguments, you seem to be majoring in English, Philosophy or law... not actual science or physics. case in point: your perspectives on math and physics (and your ignorance on forensics, which is stunning as it is so widely spread around in modern media, from TV to books!)
strictly study the history of science
history is "interpretation" of past events, not always accurate... how does that jibe with "attempt the experiments themselves", because the education system does exactly that: teaches what worked THEN, so you can build upon it
more importantly, your promotion of eu demonstrates your deficiency in basic physics, so how can eu " provide the best jumping off point" for any research?

by your own evidenciary requirements, because you can't personally run a mile in space, then it is impossible for "anyone" to do it, regardless of occupation or location.

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
cont'd@cp
My bar for making models is flat out, very simple - prove it in a lab, or not
and again, this means that even the eu FAILS at proving anything, per your "description". also note, the eu has also NOT found evidence of large currents circulating in the galaxy and solar system which are capable of carrying the necessary power for sol, let alone all the other stars... and yet, we DO have a magnetic picture of the galaxy from modern astrophysicists to view (see Planck)
I have no idea what a "looks like a duck" approach is
let me explain: the eu says the sun "looks like a [insert claim]" based upon lab plasma observations!
the eu cannot account for neutrino's, radiation or anything else which was absent in the lab experiments, yet we measure them. if the eu failed there, why accept it's continued proclamations without evidence on stars?

https://briankobe...niverse/

2Bcont'd

JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
@cp: Nice lot of words, mostly about history; too bad the scientific content is ~zero
My bar for making models is flat out, very simple - prove it in a lab, or not
Yet, by this very standard, Alfven fails! And the bankrupcy of your 'bar' is obvious ... produce a gravitation acceleration in your (or anyone else's) lab of ~27g, for example, and your failure to show plasma phenomena are scalable over more than ~6 orders of magnitude (in the lab) ... (it's a very long list)
I have no idea what a "looks like a duck" approach is
Yes you do; you provided a very good example:
Alfven, Peratt and Bostick have been able to directly produce spiral-structured plasmoids in laboratory plasmas
Zero attempt to show that these "plasmoids" would have FIR luminosities consistent with what Herschel observed (and upper limits on optical luminosity, etc); zero attempt to derive the expected magnetic fields and currents, ... all you've got is 'looks like a duck' ...
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
Cont'd@cp
In what possible way can that be considered spam?
the eu is considered pseudoscience for a reason. the main one being the lack of evidence, or the blatant ignoring of evidence (or the lack thereof) while making unfounded claims
My entire point is that I demand more...
and yet you are falling into the same lack of evidence reserved for pseudoscience
the LCDM model
as JeatT noted above: [paraphrased] WTF is this?
You keep asking me for references - I'm a novice. I can't give you to them
then what you have is called unsubstantiated conjecture, not verifiable, validated evidence, right?
that is a good lesson for science right there: why should we take your word over someone elses when you cannot substantiate your claims? you've not even studied astrophysics/physics enough to comprehend certain shortcomings of the eu model (see link above re: the sun) yet you accept their model WHY????

see also: last post of JeanTate
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
@cp:
I've spammed the comments?
Yep. This particular PO is about BL Lac, and a paper by Cohen et al. What you wrote has (almost) nothing to do with that
I'm interested in applying their researcher, and anyone else's, to the goal of creating a spiral galaxy that perfectly demonstrates what we see, in a lab
Sorry, I don't believe you.

You know perfectly well that a spiral galaxy cannot be created in any Earthly lab.

Yet you insist on "proving" models "in a lab"!

Also, so far, you seem interested only in morphology ("spiral-shaped plasmoids") not what is actually observed (e.g. the entire electromagnetic spectrum SED).

Actually you yourself summed it up rather well:
You're suggesting that I'm somehow demanding something that is unrealistic or, even worse, irrational as a scientist
Yep ... what you demand is (obviously) unrealistic, and likely irrational to boot ...
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
but considering your arguments, you seem to be majoring in English, Philosophy or law... not actual science or physics. case in point: your perspectives on math and physics (and your ignorance on forensics, which is stunning as it is so widely spread around in modern media, from TV to books!)


Again, I genuinely have to marvel at the irony. First, because I am not "majoring" in anything - I'm a 23yr old working in web-development as a programmer. I'm independently studying physics by reading the direct published works of Descartes, Newton, Huygens, Leibniz, Franklin, Boscovich, Priestley, Goethe, Faraday, Young, Helmholtz, Hertz, Tesla, Maxwell, Heaviside, Steinmetz, Lodge, Langmuir, Alfven, Bostick, Peratt, Birkeland, JJ Thompson, and William Thomson, to name of a few. If you're suggesting that by reading their work, and conducting their experiments, that I'm somehow "doing science wrong," by all means let them know that.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Second, my stance on mathematics and it's relationship to science as a tool for discovery is aligned with those mentioned above. It's very simple - you have to get into a lab, run your experiments, and then based on the relationships you've discovered experimentally, you get to describe the phenomena mathematically. You cannot take those equations, and then attempt to derive an entire model based off of them without demonstrating their validity either through new experiments, or a consistent history of successful predictions
carlo_piantini
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2015
To quote Leonidas le Cenci Hamilton, from his treatise "All Matter Tends to Rotation" - which, correct me if I'm wrong, is a physics textbook: "It does not follow however, that because a theory may be mathematical, it must therefore be mechanical; because mathematics is the one science which may be applied not only to mechanical conceptions, but...to metaphysical abstractions. Armed with our formulae alone, we must not imagine that we may penetrate the secrets of Nature. Mathematical formulae alone therefore, a valueless in establishing the truth of physical theory."
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
@cp
when you say
currently I'm still working through undergraduate material
most educated people assume this means: i am in college. sorry that i misunderstood due to your lack of clarity or precision in your discussion (something which Jean has mentioned)
I'm a 23yr old working in web-development as a programmer
IOW - you know nothing about the scientific method
I'm independently studying physics...
i suggest also working thru a course which will teach you things left out of the books. you can go here: http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics
the courses are free and you will learn far more than by reading the books as there are actual examples and course material, including tests and checks to insure you are learning

i applaud your initiative, but you can't learn neurology by book. it takes hands on experience and knowledge in a LOT of areas until you can even get to the cutting part... physics is similar in many ways
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
If you want to argue with me, then feel free to argue with him as well. Take his quote, and now contrast that with the above quotation from Feynman. The distinction could not possibly be more obvious that science operates in two distinct methods: the one of Hamilton and Faraday, where mathematics has to be limited explicitly to describing phenomena that we can replicate in a lab, and Feynmans, where mathematics are the foundational goal and they can be trusted to derive the foundational elements of any model - for him, it was QM. That fact that you only consider one method "scientific" is your choice and preference, but it betrays the entire history of the scientific method from ~1700-1900. However, you and Jean apparently place no value on actually studying the history of science while you simultaneously conduct scientific inquiry, so I guess the point is moot.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
by your own evidenciary requirements, because you can't personally run a mile in space, then it is impossible for "anyone" to do it, regardless of occupation or location.


I have, literally, no idea what you were trying to say. I'm not suggesting anything like this, particularly because it makes no sense. I'm not limiting the scope of my understand to what I have done exclusively - I've asked you and Jean to provide me with laboratory research in plasma physics. You're welcome to do it if you can. If there is someone who "can run a mile in space," then they've demonstrated the phenomena, and have the right to now sit down and describe it mathematically. What I am saying, is that you can't run a mile down here on Earth, derive the equation that describes that phenomena, and then use that equation to describe how you should be able to run in space without then going into space, and testing it.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
The entire point of my argument is not that mathematics can't help lead to correct predictions. My point is that this doesn't happen in your model - it doesn't make accurate predictions, it constantly runs into new observations it can't explain, and so the math is uses isn't linked to anything genuinely happening in space. The exact same issue can be applied to your forensic analogy. Go watch an episode of "Dexter" since you take your cues from television, apparently. Blood-splatter analysts take a look at a crime scene, and use their experience in the lab to make an initial deduction about how the murder was orchestrated. They then go back into the lab, conduct a rigorous number of experiments to reach as accurate a reproduction of the scene as possible, and then let that induction drive their final analysis of the crime. They don't conduct one blood splatter test, find a math equation, and then derive what happened through pure logic alone.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
and again, this means that even the eu FAILS at proving anything, per your "description". also note, the eu has also NOT found evidence of large currents circulating in the galaxy and solar system which are capable of carrying the necessary power for sol, let alone all the other stars


Then show me lab research that does a better job of replicating what we see in space. It's that simple. Either present the lab work, or keep doing science however it is you choice. I've asked you and Jean for this twice, this is now the third time. I'm not interested in agreeing point blank with 100% of EU/PC theory, they're literally just the group, that I know of, which has done the best job so far. If either of you know something better than just link it here! You're entire argument seems to rest on the idea that I should just been fine with a model derived out of mathematics.
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Zero attempt to show that these "plasmoids" would have FIR luminosities consistent with what Herschel observed (and upper limits on optical luminosity, etc); zero attempt to derive the expected magnetic fields and currents, ... all you've got is 'looks like a duck' …


Okay, so then I'll ask you for a third time - who has done better than they have? Just link me to their research, that's all I'm interested in here. I'm not arguing the lack of work that still needs to be done, and I'm not arguing that Alfven/Peratt/Bostick are the high priests of astrophysics. Once again, they are, to the best of my knowledge, the only people who have worked in this area of research, so they are my starting point. Show me someone who has done more, and I'll read it.

as JeatT noted above: [paraphrased] WTF is this?


I'm a seriously talking to people who don't know the acronym for the Lamda Cold Dark Matter model?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
That fact that you only consider one method "scientific" is your choice and preference
@cp
WTF are you talking about?
you and Jean apparently place no value on actually studying the history of science
and how, pray tell, does the bistorical fact of burning at athe state as a heretic apply to the modern experimental evidence? the point is that you do NOT understand the scientific method, and until you do, you will continue to misconstrue what is being taught to you by Jean... your "assumptions" without quantifiable evidence are simply conjecture without evidence: and until you can qualify your opinion with validated data, it has the same veracity as ANY other opinion, even one like "unicorn turds cause cyclones, but it takes a faerie sneeze to reduce the intensity"
I'm not suggesting anything like this
not verbally... you are claiming that if it can't be replicated in a lab, it isn't real (see JeanTate's posts above)

2Bcont'd
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
why should we take your word over someone elses when you cannot substantiate your claims? you've not even studied astrophysics/physics enough to comprehend certain shortcomings of the eu model (see link above re: the sun) yet you accept their model WHY????


You haven't given me anything better to work with when I get inside of a lab? I don't accept their models, neither outright nor in its entirety. I think they have extremely good ideas, they place an emphasis on lab research, and they've done a great job - to my knowledge - of replicating the morphology of what we see in space.
JeanTate
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
@cp:
Again, I genuinely have to marvel at the irony. First, because I am not "majoring" in anything - I'm a 23yr old working in web-development as a programmer. I'm independently studying physics by reading the direct published works of Descartes, Newton, Huygens, Leibniz, Franklin, Boscovich, Priestley, Goethe, Faraday, Young, Helmholtz, Hertz, Tesla, Maxwell, Heaviside, Steinmetz, Lodge, Langmuir, Alfven, Bostick, Peratt, Birkeland, JJ Thompson, and William Thomson, to name of a few
Interesting list. May I ask, are Planck, Poincare, Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Dirac, Pauli, Zwicky, Feymann, ... Higgs (to name but a few) also on your list?
If you're suggesting that by [...] conducting their experiments, that I'm somehow "doing science wrong," ...
Interesting ... what experiments done by Descartes and Goethe are you conducting, may I ask?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
I've asked you and Jean to provide me with laboratory research in plasma physics
PPPL.gov
it's also been ANSWERED above by JeanTate
what you don't understand (or are ignoring) is that ALL ASTROPHYSICISTS take plasma physics courses and also utilize plasma physics...
the eu, and thus most of your "claims" above re: formation, sun, etc (all derived from eu claims and their personal lack of knowledge) are simply the manifestations of electrical engineers misinterpreting astrophysics by applying engineering where it can't be extrapolated, while leaving out a GREAT deal of knowledge out of ignorance (or in some, stupidity)

see also the MIT link i left you: it will teach you ASTROPHYSICS- you will also learn plasma physics in that course
If you want to argue with me,
how can there be an "argument" when you don't comprehend the evidence?
that is not argument, nor is it with you at all...

2Bcont'd
carlo_piantini
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Sorry, I don't believe you.

You know perfectly well that a spiral galaxy cannot be created in any Earthly lab.


Um, congratulations? So you're refusing to present me with something better because you don't believe me? Thanks, that's extremely helpful. As a matter of fact, I don't believe that. I believe, to scale, that the reproduction of a perfect spiral galaxy in a lab on Earth is possible, and it absolutely should be the goal of any astrophysicist who works in laboratory plasmas. You think it's impossible? Fantastic - you're another mathematician telling an engineer that something is "impossible." If you consider that unrealistic, then you're simply not up for the task. I understand your limitations now.

For anyone reading my comments, feel free to take absolutely nothing at my word for it. That very long list of history's best scientists that I posted? Go read their work for yourself, then get in a lab, and make up your own determination on things.
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
@cp:
Second, my stance on mathematics and it's relationship to science as a tool for discovery is aligned with those mentioned above. It's very simple - you have to get into a lab, run your experiments, and then based on the relationships you've discovered experimentally, you get to describe the phenomena mathematically. You cannot take those equations, and then attempt to derive an entire model based off of them without demonstrating their validity either through new experiments, or a consistent history of successful predictions
You mean like how General Relativity has been tested sixty ways to Sunday, in the lab? And all those experimental results are consistent with it (including a huge range of successful predictions)?

In your reading, have you come across the 'Pound-Rebka experiment' (see Pound&Rebka, 1959, PhysRevLett, v3, p439-441)? Does this experiment meet your 'demands'? If not, why not? Are you going to do it too?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2015
@cp cont'd
They don't conduct one blood splatter test, find a math equation, and then derive what happened through pure logic alone
nor did i make that claim. i did, however, say that the mathematical models used in the experiment can be utilised by the investigator for the immediate introduction of evidence that is not readily apparent, such as a tool used as well as the velocity/intensity of the impact, as well as repeat blows. this is part of the investigation (investigator, NOT crime lab) which is used to define the initial means of direction for investigation
show me lab research that does a better job of replicating what we see in space
the models used by most astrophysicists are far more accurate than the eu claims or "models" (if they even have a model)
I've asked you and Jean for this twice
been answered too... but apparently there is a literacy problem here
are you dyslexic?
SEE JEANTATE posts

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2015
@cp cont'd
For anyone reading my comments, feel free to take absolutely nothing at my word for it. That very long list of history's best scientists that I posted? Go read their work for yourself, then get in a lab, and make up your own determination on things
while we are on this subject... when are YOU going to present, in YOUR papers, lab etc, or even from the eu papers you are falling for... an answer for the lack of evidence found in eu claims about the sun?

i DID link that to you, and it is being ignored... you wanted evidence and lab experiments, and they are in the links i gave you, with plenty of references to undermine the eu claims... but you are ignoring this....
WHY?

you asked... i answered... JEANTATE answered... why are you spinning in circles again/still?

JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
@cp:
Then show me lab research that does a better job of replicating what we see in space
Already did that ... did you miss the link I gave to PPPL's (lab) research into plasma astrophysics? How about KTH's Alfvén Laboratory (http://www.alfvenlab.kth.se/ )?
It's that simple
I agree that it's simple ... but not in the way you pose it
I'm not interested in agreeing point blank with 100% of EU/PC theory
Of course. No one can. There is no such thing as "EU/PC theory" (in any scientific sense)
they're literally just the group, that I know of, which has done the best job so far
That kinda speaks volumes about your standards, doesn't it?
If either of you know something better than just link it here!
Done that; you ignored it
You're entire argument seems to rest on the idea that I should just been fine with a model derived out of mathematics
You might want to invest in some new glasses; you clearly have understood little of what's been written ...
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
@cp:
Okay, so then I'll ask you for a third time - who has done better than they have?
"They" being Alfven, Peratt, and Bostick? On the topic of 'spiral-shaped plasmoids'? Well, why don't you start, by citing some primary sources (i.e. published papers by these three)? You assert - without evidence - that they have done 'well', in some vague, hand-waving sense; why should anyone accept your word?
Just link me to their research, that's all I'm interested in here
Based on your extensive spamming so far, here, I tend to doubt that. Nonetheless, how about Bruce Draine's work, and that which his many papers cites? See, for example, Draine, B.T. 2003, "Interstellar Dust Grains", in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 41, 241
I'm a seriously talking to people who don't know the acronym for the Lamda Cold Dark Matter model?
You're talking to people who have no clue what you mean by "the LCDM star model" ... an invention of your fervid imagination?
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
@cp:
Sorry, I don't believe you. You know perfectly well that a spiral galaxy cannot be created in any Earthly lab
Um, congratulations? So you're refusing to present me with something better because you don't believe me?
Invest in a basic course of English comprehension; I challenged you on your own definitions/standards. Can't handle that?
As a matter of fact, I don't believe that. I believe, to scale, that the reproduction of a perfect spiral galaxy in a lab on Earth is possible
Nice to hear. So now you've introduced a technique that is not testable in any lab ("to scale"), one that relies fundamentally on mathematics ... Cool!

May I ask, how do you intend "to scale"? Please be as detailed and specific as you can
and it absolutely should be the goal of any astrophysicist who works in laboratory plasmas
Like those who work at PPPL, or the Alfvén Laboratory? News flash: they (and thousands of others) already do ...

But why must it be only "plasmas"?
yep
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
http://adsabs.har...30.1090B

On several occasions I have recommended an amazing book, Soul of Amber as a historical reference to give the Capitain and several others some perspective, but they prefer their dark fantasy reality based in a false priori. It's like telling a Christian their religion is based on the anthropomorfication of celestial events. Their faith is to strong to waiver from the belief regardless of the data.
Jean you and the Capitain are two peas in a pod blinded by rightious faith and stuck in last centuries folly.
There were quite a few focused plasma expirements done showing barred and spiral galaxy formations, this at a time when the main stream science community did not believe the aurora was tied to the sun.
My faith in your science is lacking, maybe if you can show me what direction time goes when you bend it then I could be a believer. Does time change its flavor when that happens? Gee that would be just swell.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
@yep
Your link to Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenoena in the Laboratory is flawed, it doesn't include comments from the reviewer, E.N. Parker. Use the link I found and scroll down to the Discussion and you'll see why Bostick's lab experiment falls into "it looks like a duck" trap.

Bostick was no crank, he did important science, was known for his sense of humor and something that will fry cantdrive's ass, ran in the Democratic primary for Congress in 1966 and was a delegate for Eugene McCarthy. But he ran into a dead end. See more: http://www.larouc...at_p.pdf

The reviewer, Eugene Parker is no slouch either.
https://en.wikipe...e_Parker

Your other remarks are transference, you EU devotees are the ones that blindly follow your cult.
JeanTate
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
@yep:
There were quite a few focused plasma expirements done showing barred and spiral galaxy formations
Indeed.

AFAIK, they are all use the "looks like a duck" approach. For example, Peratt's experiments and simulations do not consider how well the 'scaled up' electromagnetic radiation - the spectral energy density/distribution (SED) - matches that which is observed (it likely does not; in the sims/experiments, the radiation likely has a very strong synchrotron component, which is not observed in actual galaxies)
My faith in your science is lacking, maybe if you can show me what direction time goes when you bend it then I could be a believer
Maybe you could consider changing your approach? Science does not require 'faith' or 'belief' (though I appreciate that "the EU" is, likely, faith-based)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
Hi JeanTate (and yep). :)
@yep:
There were quite a few focused plasma expirements done showing barred and spiral galaxy formations
...Peratt's experiments and simulations do not consider how well the 'scaled up' electromagnetic radiation - the spectral energy density/distribution (SED) - matches that which is observed (...in the sims/experiments, the radiation likely has a very strong synchrotron component, which is not observed in actual galaxies)
I make no comment on what those simulations should or shouldn't have shown as to radiation type/energy etc, but I would remind you, JeanTate, what the Planck-Bicep and other recent observations have found; ie: deep space in/around galaxies is replete with much gas, dust, plasma (and combinations/fluxes of all three) which was previously unsuspected as to extent/effects on any light/EM radiation 'signals/signatures' previously depended upon for expectations/interpretations. Be more cautious using previous assumptions. :)
yep
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2015
Modern science is belief based an assumption, and as history has shown not all scientific belief stands the test of time. These ideas that you cling to as absolute truth from authority were based in a time when the visible spectrum was about all we had. Its a new century we have so much more data available it's time to let some of these unfalsifiable ideas die so we can get on with what is really going on as measured in every spectrum we have instead of spinning our wheels for another century looking for magic that does not exist. The Emporer has no clothes.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
Modern science is belief based an assumption,

And this (wrong) assumption is based on your belief, right?

You have no clue what science is or what scientists do. Arguing from ignorance just makes you look ingnorant.
Go out. Get to know some scientists (it ain't hard). Then come back and present a case based on gathered *facts* rather than on wishful thinking.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
Their faith is to strong ... the belief regardless of the data... the Capitain are two peas in a pod blinded by rightious faith and stuck in last centuries folly
@yep
so... because we prefer facts over conjecture, and we require evidence, we have a "faith" in science? WTF? you provided NO data/evidence!

this is the most powerful validation of your religious like devotion to a cult, yep.
you are admonishing others for their request for sources, request for evidence and disbelief of subjective conjecture while using transference and claiming it is all "our" fault for pushing for the evidence and sources

WOW...

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://jspp.psych...443/html

http://web.missou...ange.pdf

https://www.psych...-sadists
OdinsAcolyte
not rated yet Jul 16, 2015
Time is relative....(and a perception that may be incorrect)
This is very cool stuff!
yep
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
You are as deluded as Sydney Chapman who preferred theoretical reality over the observational reality.
I am arguing from the perspective of history and the case against your physics defying Big Bang black hole, dark matter reality is blatant, the fact that "scientists" can believe this shite into multiverses is laughable to the point of ludicrous. But you keep the faith mkay and let me know when you figure out what direction time goes in your bendable space.

Capitain your using some awfully big words, try not to hurt yourself.
Chew on the concept of earth's vertical electric field for awhile maybe that will oil some of your cogs.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2015
@Captain: The last time we talked, shit got very hostile - on my end, and at least I inferred hostility from yours. I'm going to try to tone it down.

You are promoting the idea of conspiracy ideation, in this thread and in others. I've pointed about before, and I feel will do a better job this time, at demonstrating how this is not the case. What you view as conspiracy ideation, is simply the recognition of a historical pattern in the field of astrophysics, where objectively sound ideas are rejected, or empirically vindicated predictions are ignored, because they disagree with prevailing theory or mathematical models. This is particularly true if the hypotheses involve electromagnetism. I will provide primary sources in my next post, please be patient. Three-minute posting time limits are bullshit.

Cont.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2015
Take for example the case of Alfven. I have with me three primary sources that detail the *history* of Alfven's research, his constant battle with the astrophysical community to have them considered, their ultimate vindication - in part, if not in totality - and, in the case of source (1), the unwillingness to reconsidered the merit of Aflven's broader cosmological ideas in the face of accurate predictions.

(1) - Alfven's programme in solar system physics - S.G. Brush, 1992, IEEE Transactions of Plasma Science - http://ieeexplore...3D199495
(2) - Plasma physics from laboratory to cosmos-the life and achievements of Hannes Alfven, Carl-Gunne Falthammer, 1997 - IEEE Transactions of Plasma Science - http://ieeexplore...r=597253

CONT.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2015
(3) - Biography of Hannes Olof Gosta Alfven, JJ O'Connor and E.F. Robertson, 2008, MacTutor History of Mathematics, Univ. of St. Andrews, Scottland - http://www-histor...ven.html

The exact same thing is true for Birkeland, who, in the craziest irony possible, was *also* persecuted by Chapman, whom I considered one of the most detrimental influences in the history of astrophysics. Both you and JT have suggested many times that Alfven/Bostick/Peratt/Birkeland have research that stands on its own, has been taken into serious, objective consideration by the astrophysical community, and been rejected. The history of their research very clearly demonstrates otherwise, and so your suggestion otherwise *cannot* rationally be taken at face-value. It would ignore ~100 years of historical evidence, beginning with Birkeland, to the contrary.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2015
Likewise, while mathematical arguments can, and I'm sure have been, composed against the consideration of their research, that has *always* been the case. None of Alfven's work, or Birkeland's, has been disregarded simply because no one liked them - at least, I'd so. In the case of Birkeland, there was serious mathematical proof that his theory could not possibly work. I'd direct you here:

"The Origin of Magnetic Storms", Arthur Schuster, 1911, Proceedings of the Royal Society - http://rspa.royal...5/575/44

While I will fully admit that I cannot understand the mathematics described in the paper, ultimately, the point is irrelevant. I have to assume, given the publication of the paper itself, that the mathematical assumptions used to invalidate Birkeland's theory were sound. But ultimately, they were also *wrong* and Birkeland was correct.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2015
You and JT have both objected to "looks like a duck" science - although I'm still not certain what this is supposed to be. I have to assume it means not basing theory on the similarity of phenomena alone, and yet it was *exactly* for this reason that Birkeland was place on the right track in building his model of the aurora. What you and JT have, if I understand correctly, labeled as "looks like a duck," is in fact a simple appeal to preferring a dominantly inductive method to driving research as opposed to the deductive method. Which, as I quoted Einstein in the other thread, history saw a *decided* shift towards the latter post ~1915 and the acceptance of GR.

It's based off this history why a) I have a decided lack of faith in the AP community to conduct unbiased research and b) why I believe that the work of Alfven/Peratt/Bostick/Birkeland provides a more genuine insight into the nature of the cosmos.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2015
Do I believe that their work is the end-all be-all of plasma physics, astrophysics, or cosmology? No, I don't think so. But, I do think that a) it has not been giving its fair share of consideration, follow-up research, or due-credit and b) it provides the best initial route to studying the evolution of, say, galaxies through a decidedly inductive method of research. Attempting to replicate the morphology, magnetic field structure, spectral emissions, etc. in the lab, as Bostick began to attempt, is *the* best route to genuinely understanding the universe. If scalability is an issue, then as engineers, we need to find a way to resolve it.

But, the recent observations of ubiquitous filamentation, or helically structured magnetic field lines - which, simply indicate the flow of current, as I understand - are solid observations that support Alfven's general ideas on galaxy formation. I feel that any unbiased opinion would agree.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2015
shit got very hostile
@cp
only on your end
conspiracy ideation...this is not the case
I've read your posts and lets be realistic for a moment
you are saying that Astrophysicists (hereafter Astro's) ignore "objectively sound ideas" and "empirically vindicated predictions" but you are not providing evidence of this
1- you are providing a link to "brush" in the first cite- not alfven... this paper is also paywalled and not free, so it can say whatever it wants (it is also social science, not validated physics)
so this must be your argument that Alfven (alf was correct, is that true? in that case, you are using the argument from a sociologist major that the physics are correct... and that doesn't support your claims above re: the physics is good
it only supports your circular argument that there is a conspiracy against Alf and his work (there isn't because Alf's validated work is still used today)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2015
@cp cont'd
2- your second cite was another paywalled psych/historical conjecture in an engineering journal
3- your third cite was to a basic history page
what do all three of those links have in common? lets examine them:
they all have pro-alfven posters trying to vindicate their own personal OPINION through argument
they also do not allow free access to show methodology or criteria for selection of data, so there is no means for me to validate their claims or check the data
they are also not validated by empirical evidence
They're shared by eu clan cult members who worship alfven et al for whatever reason

these points are enough to establish that you are not using quantifiable data and empirical evidence in a viable argument so much as a circular reasoning to support your own belief- this type behavior is typical of conspiracy theorists/religion (see the ARTICLE http://phys.org/n...ies.html )
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2015
@cp cont'd
They is also published in an engineering journal... one that frequently publishes eu work even though it has no peer's for astro's review
are there psych's and sociologists there too? i question that as a viable source for astrophysics or sociology/psychology
Both you and JT have suggested many times that Alfven/Bostick/Peratt/Birkeland have research that stands on its own... and been rejected
Actually, i said Alf et al have works that have been accepted...
some have been rejected, true... perhaps you need to actually link those papers that have been rejected and then link the reasons or other papers which refute said works. this would be more clear should you continue with your education in the link I gave to you above, re: MIT and physics, which included Astrophysics and plasma physics (undergraduate and graduate level courses)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2015
@cp Cont'd
until you can comprehend the physics, you are not likely to comprehend the arguments from JT above, especially if your argument stands upon speculations of historical work or even sociological assumptions in engineering journals... i know you don't comprehend the problem here as you think it is a published paper, but one way to sneak around the peer review is to publish in a low impact journal which cannot provide the peer review for the data (as in the astrophysics review for speculations about plasma physics- an engineer does NOT learn about astrophysical important influences, like gravity etc so will not consider them in a paper)
also, sociology/history in an engineering journal? really? soft science in a hard science journal?

you do the math there...

one problem the scientifically illiterate have is their inability to discriminate between pseudoscience and science: this article may help you
http://phys.org/n...nce.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2015
@cp cont'd- also see: http://phys.org/n...nce.html

while mathematical arguments can...against the consideration of their research, that has *always* been the case
we're not talking just mathematical arguments, but also visible evidence. JT made a very good point that you don't understand because you are not reading up on the physics, but the history etc...
I will fully admit that I cannot understand the mathematics...
if you cannot understand it, how can you make this decision yourself?

you claim to say "because it's published it must be correct" but that is just saying "i don't know, i am allowing the pro's to make a decision"
BUT
how can you let the pro's make the decision on this, but not the rest of astrophysics? why accept one professional over the other?

this is called a circular argument and shows that you only support evidence that supports your belief- ie: conspiracy ideation/religion
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2015
@cp cont'd
You ...objected to "looks like a duck" science - although I'm still not certain what this is supposed to be
it's simple: just because it looks similar doesn't mean you can claim it is the same... there has to be evidence of correlation and causation, as well as evidence to demonstrate linkage
case in point: crater formation on the moon re: the eu
they say it is because of plasma discharge ignoring the visible evidence we've watched happen, like meteor/micro-meteor strikes... and more, like this: http://physics.ap...5.028001

What you and JT have, if I understand correctly, labeled
and you got it wrong again: it is simple- if you can't provide evidence showing correlation, causation and linkage, then it is simply a matter of "i think this is it but i have no evidence", AKA- "looks like a duck"

this may be a means to start an investigation, but it is NOT evidence/validation of a claim
see above links
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2015
@cp cont'd
lets address your conclusions:
a- but you've not demonstrated where any of the work is viable, your arguments are simply a circular argument and "i think it is because" argument. you show NO evidence other than opinion
science is about the evidence, not opinion- it is not about how good the argument is, it is about how good the evidence is- if you want to argue the above, that is philosophy, english or law

b- again, you are providing opinion, not empirical evidence. plasma physics is accessible in many ways, starting with the FREE MIT link i gave you... there are reasons "some" of ALf's and Birk's work is not considered... read and learn the reasons why

ultimately, the whole above boils down to this: just because the argument sounds good, doesn't mean it is true- this is not religion, law, english or philosophy
for science, it must be repeatable and contain evidence
anyone can claim anything...

follow the evidence, NOT the claims, and you will learn
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2015
@cp
last post... re above- you posted
I feel that any unbiased opinion would agree
what you need to do is learn to differentiate between what someone believes, what is claimed, and what can be proven. i would suggest, again, the MIT link i gave you to learn something about this, but even if that is not up your alley, then i suggest taking Criminal Investigations and Criminal Law courses. they will help you comprehend why eyewitness (looked like/looks like/i saw) is one of the worst levels of evidence one can have... and why repeatable provable forensic evidence (science) holds so much power for convictions

learning about science requires a LOT of hard logical, methodical work... sometimes you can use assumption to start an inquiry... that is where hypothesis comes in... but when something moves into the testing stage and gains "theory" status, it is not because it "sounds good"- it is because of the EVIDENCE supporting it

yep
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2015
"Evidence supporting it" your a big bag a wind. Evidence like the 97% of reality you think is Dark matter. Your science is weak sauce with sprinkles of magic nonsense.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.