Jupiter's great red spot heats planet's upper atmosphere

July 27, 2016
Turbulent atmospheric flows above the storm produce both gravity waves and acoustic waves. Gravity waves are much like how a guitar string moves when plucked, while acoustic waves are compressions of the air (sound waves!). Heating in the upper atmosphere 500 miles above the storm is thought to be caused by a combination of these two wave types 'crashing' like ocean waves on a beach. Credit: Karen Teramura, UH IfA with James O'Donoghue and Luke Moore

Researchers from Boston University's (BU) Center for Space Physics report today in Nature that Jupiter's Great Red Spot may provide the mysterious source of energy required to heat the planet's upper atmosphere to the unusually high values observed.

Sunlight reaching Earth efficiently heats the terrestrial atmosphere at altitudes well above the sur-face—even at 250 miles high, for example, where the International Space Station orbits. Jupiter is over five times more distant from the Sun, and yet its has temperatures, on av-erage, comparable to those found at Earth. The sources of the non-solar energy responsible for this extra heating have remained elusive to scientists studying processes in the outer .

"With solar heating from above ruled out, we designed observations to map the heat distribution over the entire planet in search for any temperature anomalies that might yield clues as to where the energy is coming from," explained Dr. James O'Donoghue, research scientist at BU, and lead author of the study.

Astronomers measure the temperature of a planet by observing the non-visible, infra-red (IR) light it emits. The visible cloud tops we see at Jupiter are about 30 miles above its rim; the IR emissions used by the BU team came from heights about 500 miles higher. When the BU observ-ers looked at their results, they found high altitude temperatures much larger than anticipated whenever their telescope looked at certain latitudes and longitudes in the planet's southern hemi-sphere.

Bright regions at the poles result from auroral emissions; the contrast at low- and midlatitudes has been enhanced for visibility. Great Red Spot (GRS) emissions at midlatitudes can be seen moving under the slit from left to right. The vertical dark line in the middle of the image indicates the position of the spectrometer slit which splits up the light from Jupiter like a prism. Image shown is taken from the slit (slit-jaw imaging) using the "L-filter" (3.13 - 3.53 μm). Credit: James O’Donoghue, Luke Moore and NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF)

"We could see almost immediately that our maximum temperatures at high altitudes were above the Great Red Spot far below—a weird coincidence or a major clue?" O'Donoghue added.

Jupiter's Great Red Spot (GRS) is one of the marvels of our solar system. Discovered within years of Galileo's introduction of telescopic astronomy in the 17th Century, its swirling pattern of colorful gases is often called a "perpetual hurricane." The GRS has varied is size and color over the centuries, spans a distance equal to three earth-diameters, and has winds that take six days to complete one spin. Jupiter itself spins very quickly, completing one revolution in only ten hours.

"The Great Red Spot is a terrific source of energy to heat the upper atmosphere at Jupiter, but we had no prior evidence of its actual effects upon observed temperatures at ," ex-plained Dr. Luke Moore, a study co-author and research scientist in the Center for Space Physics at BU.

Bright regions at the poles result from auroral emissions; the contrast at low- and midlatitudes has been enhanced for visibility. Great Red Spot (GRS) emissions at midlatitudes are noticeable on the planetary disc. Additional info: The vertical dark line in the middle of the image indicates the position of the spectrometer slit, which was aligned along the rotational axis of Jupiter. Image shown is taken from the slit (slit-jaw imaging) using the "L-filter" (3.13 - 3.53μm). Credit: James O'Donoghue, Luke Moore and NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF)

Solving an "energy crisis" on a distant planet has implications within our solar system, as well as for planets orbiting other stars. As the BU scientists point out, the unusually high temperatures far above Jupiter's visible disk is not a unique aspect of our solar system. The dilemma also oc-curs at Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, and probably for all giant exoplanets outside our solar sys-tem.

"Energy transfer to the upper atmosphere from below has been simulated for planetary atmos-pheres, but not yet backed up by observations," O'Donoghue said. "The extremely high tempera-tures observed above the storm appear to be the 'smoking gun' of this energy transfer, indicating that planet-wide heating is a plausible explanation for the ' crisis.' "

Turbulent atmospheric flows above the storm produce both gravity waves and acoustic waves. Gravity waves are much like how a guitar string moves when plucked, while acoustic waves are compressions of the air (sound waves!). Heating in the upper atmosphere 500 miles above the storm is thought to be caused by a combination of these two wave types ‘crashing’ like ocean waves on a beach. Credit: Art by Dillon Yothers with Luke Moore

Explore further: Unsolved mysteries about the solar system's biggest planet

More information: Heating of Jupiter's upper-atmosphere above the Great Red Spot, Nature, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature18940

Related Stories

Hubble captures vivid auroras in Jupiter's atmosphere

June 30, 2016

Astronomers are using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to study auroras—stunning light shows in a planet's atmosphere—on the poles of the largest planet in the Solar System, Jupiter. This observation programme is supported ...

How big is Jupiter's Great Red Spot?

July 25, 2016

When we used to do the Virtual Star Party (and I really need to start those up again, they were super fun), I had the worst luck with Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Whenever Jupiter was in the sky, the Great Red Spot always eluded ...

What is the coldest planet of the solar system?

May 30, 2016

The solar system is pretty huge place, extending from our sun at the center all the way out to the Kuiper Cliff – a boundary within the Kuiper Belt that is located 50 AU from the sun. As a rule, the farther one ventures ...

Image: Jupiter's great red spot viewed by Voyager I

March 20, 2014

At about 89,000 miles in diameter, Jupiter could swallow 1,000 Earths. It is the largest planet in the solar system and perhaps the most majestic. Vibrant bands of clouds carried by winds that can exceed 400 mph continuously ...

Recommended for you

Bright areas on Ceres suggest geologic activity

December 13, 2017

If you could fly aboard NASA's Dawn spacecraft, the surface of dwarf planet Ceres would generally look quite dark, but with notable exceptions. These exceptions are the hundreds of bright areas that stand out in images Dawn ...

Major space mystery solved using data from student satellite

December 13, 2017

A 60-year-old mystery regarding the source of some energetic and potentially damaging particles in Earth's radiation belts is now solved using data from a shoebox-sized satellite built and operated by University of Colorado ...

Spanning disciplines in the search for life beyond Earth

December 13, 2017

The search for life beyond Earth is riding a surge of creativity and innovation. Following a gold rush of exoplanet discovery over the past two decades, it is time to tackle the next step: determining which of the known exoplanets ...

108 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

adam_russell_9615
4.7 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2016
sur-face, av-erage, observ-ers, oc-curs, tempera-tures

Whats up with your spell-check?
691Boat
5 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2016
my guess would be that they are line breaks from the original report Phys.org copied this from.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2016
What they likely found are electric currents.
691Boat
3.4 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2016
What they likely found are electric currents.

please explain further.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (20) Jul 27, 2016
What they likely found are electric currents.

No, what they did find was heating in the upper atmosphere results from the planets internal heat leaking through the storm that is the Great Red Spot to the upper atmosphere via convection.

You know, that same spot that the Lord high Priest of the Electric Fairies of Catastrophe said resulted from Venus being ejected. Because he didn`t know it was a storm.

You are stuck in the imaginary fairy world of a story teller who has used your gullibility and inability to apply critical thinking to suck you into a morass of ignorance and superstition.

You are an Acolyte of the Electric Universe and your fanaticism will not be swayed by evidence nor tempted by observation!

Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 27, 2016
What they likely found are electric currents.

please explain further.

He can`t 691. He thinks it looks like it could be similar to something the Cult of the Sacred Lightning Bolt says might happen.

Want a laugh? Look up "Thunderbolts of the Gods".
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2016
What they likely found are electric currents.

AC or DC...?
691Boat
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2016
@Maggnus
I appreciate the help there. I am just hoping to get an actual explanation from CD85. All I have ever seen him post are one-liners stating what he claims are clearly obvious and easily reproduced results and explanations possible in a lab environment. I was curious what part of the Great Red Spot points towards electric currents.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2016
@Maggnus
I appreciate the help there. I am just hoping to get an actual explanation from CD85. All I have ever seen him post are one-liners stating what he claims are clearly obvious and easily reproduced results and explanations possible in a lab environment. I was curious what part of the Great Red Spot points towards electric currents.

No worries! You won't get an explanation, cause he doesn't understand his own Belief or how it could arise. He'll just copy and paste quotes he thinks are similar from that site I pointed you to. Then insult you if you push him to hard.

Good luck though, and please don't let my disdain prevent you from reading up on it. Keep an open mind! Just don't fall for the preaching of the Acolyte or the Lessor Acolytes who populate the comment section of this site. Ask questions and carry a big stick of critical thinking.

HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 27, 2016
From the article: "... With solar heating from above ruled out ..."

Classic science journalism ... We will tell you our conclusions, but we'll bury our reasons in a paper that costs $32. None of the released materials indicate their logic.

One has to hope that every single person here who is ridiculing the notion of an electrical cause has already done the work to figure out how they ruled out an external cause.

We are listening: Can a single one of you explain how they ruled out external influences like currents flowing over the solar wind?
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (16) Jul 27, 2016
Classic science journalism ... We will tell you our conclusions, but we'll bury our reasons in a paper that costs $32. None of the released materials indicate their logic.
Journals trying to recoup their money and actually make a profit are not controlled by the scientists. The journalists who then report the findings expect a certain level of education and sophistication from their audience. The fact that YOU don't understand it does not mean that they have to explain it (over and over, in your case) to you.

One has to hope that every single person here who is ridiculing the notion of an electrical cause has already done the work to figure out how they ruled out an external cause.
Oh, like say, going to a collage or university?

We are listening: Can a single one of you explain how they ruled out external influences like currents flowing over the solar wind?
Is this a trick question? Changing the burden of proof again. .
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2016
@Maggnus
I appreciate the help there. I am just hoping to get an actual explanation from CD85. All I have ever seen him post are one-liners stating what he claims are clearly obvious and easily reproduced results and explanations possible in a lab environment
@691Boat
i'm not Maggnus, but i thought i would chime in

it will not do you any good because only the true believers will "understand" the message being told
and that is not hyperbole or satire

you can read more about his beliefs in the comments section of this thread:
http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

he tries to actually talk physics with Tim Thompson (a former JPL physicist)

asking for explanations will only get you links to their pseudoscience site
don't expect any legitimate source material or a lot of journal evidence, and what is linked will likely be misinterpreted or misunderstood

(this is also true of the rest of the eu cult - though sometimes they actually link relevant valid science)
Solon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2016
"Sunlight reaching Earth efficiently heats the terrestrial atmosphere at altitudes well above the sur-face—even at 250 miles high, for example, where the International Space Station orbits."

It isn't so simple, and the processes involved in Earths atmosphere are quite complex. I'm sure at Jupiter even more so.

Atmospheric Composition and Vertical Structure
http://ruc.noaa.g...MS-1.pdf
Chris_Reeve
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2016
Re: "he tries to actually talk physics with Tim Thompson (a former JPL physicist)"

Ah yes, Tim Thompson. Here is Tim Thompson admitting that galactic researchers do not actually read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science -- yet they know that it cannot be correct. He at once claims to be an expert and undermines the expertise of all galactic researchers ...

http://www.intern...EF%BB%BF

The truth is that we didn't need him to admit guilt in order to understand how this works. The real message here is the fact that this group here will give him and the other galactic researchers credit for being experts without any need to formulate an actual expertise on the subject matter they critique.

Developing a fluency in the subject you're critiquing is step 1 to becoming a good critic, folks. If you can't even get yourself to read it, well, guess what?
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2016
Re: "It isn't so simple, and the processes involved in Earths atmosphere are quite complex. I'm sure at Jupiter even more so."

Bingo.
Chris_Reeve
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2016
As you read that post by Tim Thompson, don't forget that IEEE is the world's largest technical organization.

When an idea doesn't work, it's time to move on to the next. IEEE has a rich history of success due to their hands-on no-B.S. approach. It's why the semiconductor revolution has been so successful.

Contrast that with what is happening in astrophysics today. These are two completely different worlds. And the narrative we are told to believe is that a universe that is 95% missing is somehow not a failure -- and that IEEE should not be trusted.

If ever there was a group who should be actively looking out for fresh ideas, the astrophysicists and cosmologists are it, people.

That you guys do not see any problems with these behaviors is actually part of the problem itself. Your group has become a giant money-wasting bureaucracy, and you support it with your daily activism.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (16) Jul 27, 2016
Here is Tim Thompson admitting that galactic researchers do not actually read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science -- yet they know that it cannot be correct. He at once claims to be an expert and undermines the expertise of all galactic researchers ..
Yet, that is not actually what he says, is it? I find it telling that you take his comment and place it here, out of context and without consideration of the conversation it was actually taken from.

Tim says that the IEEE is not a forum used by those who actually study the topic in question. He says that not because the publication is poor per se, but because it is not a publication that working cosmologists and astrologists look to for information on the topics they are studying. You are trying to make this sound like some kind of conspiracy. It is not - these are people who work in the topic before us, often after having spent decades earning their degrees, who are faced with an avalanche of data from multiple probes {tbc}
Chris_Reeve
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2016
Re: "You are trying to make this sound like some kind of conspiracy"

Am I?

Carl Sagan's biggest regret about Velikovsky ...

https://www.youtu...N7iVIuhk

"The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. And there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. And the history of the study of our solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong -- and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2016
691 Boat, which LA were ya on Memphis? AS-19 here.

On the article, I had always figured that since the 'Dark Spot' Was dark that it would be pulling in and thus transferring a good deal of energy, enough to help keep it's own structure intact.
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2016
Martín López Corredoira: Cosmologist / Astrophysicist / Philosopher / Published 50 Academic Papers, Often as Lead

The Twilight of the Scientific Age

"Creativity is blocked. It seems that the system gives the message that no ideas are needed. It seems the system, through its higher authorities, is saying that science only needs to work out the details. It is accepted that the basis of what is now known is correct, that present-day theories are more or less correct and only manpower is needed to sort out some parameters of minor importance. A Copernican revolution is totally unthinkable within the current system."
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2016
Martín López Corredoira: Cosmologist / Astrophysicist / Philosopher / Published 50 Academic Papers, Often as Lead

The Twilight of the Scientific Age

"the more controversial the topic, & the more of a challenge it is to established ideas, & the newer the approach, then the more difficult will be the problems in publishing it, & the higher the probability of its being rejected. Gillies ... argues that when a researcher makes an advance which is later seen as a key innovation & a major breakthrough, a peer review may very well judge it to be absurd & of no values ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2016
(cont'd)

"... As noted by Van Flandern ... peer review in journals interferes with the objective examination of extraordinary ideas on their merits. Maddox ... who was editor of the journal Nature, has said that if Newton submitted his theory of gravity to a journal today, it would almost certainly be rejected as being too preposterous to believe. On the one hand, there is a failure to select novel ideas ... On the other hand, the refereeing process trends to conformity."
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2016
Robert Anton Wilson with Robert Shea
The Illuminatus! Trilogy

"Every fact of science was once damned. Every invention was considered impossible. Every discovery was a nervous shock to some orthodoxy. Every artistic innovation was denounced as fraud and folly. The entire web of culture and 'progress,' everything on earth that is man-made and not given to us by nature, is the concrete manifestation of some man's refusal to bow to Authority. We would own no more, know no more, and be no more than the first apelike hominids if it were not for the rebellious, the recalcitrant, and the intransigent. As Oscar Wilde truly said, 'Disobedience was man's Original Virtue.'"
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2016
Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives (p82, 2001)

"The scientific ideologies, or 'paradigms,' that scientists internalize during their training guide their thinking in every important area of their work, determining, for example, the particular abstractions or models they use, the procedures they consider valid and even their notion of what constitutes progress and understanding. But how are the paradigms chosen? As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn observed, paradigms are incommensurable -- that is, there is no transcendent scientific framework in which one can compare paradigms and choose the best, and so such choices are made on the basis of values, or social factors ..."

(cont'd)
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (18) Jul 27, 2016
and then are faced with another avalanche of publications, all demanding their attention and time.

In the midst of all that, Peratt starts publishing not in a journal that would be able to critically consider his comments, but rather in one he knows will not be honestly reviewed. Not because they are dishonest, but because they dio not have the expertise.

The point of this is that Peratt s perfectly aware that the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) is NOT a publication that an astronomer or cosmologist would read, and he chose it purposefully knowing this. He was trying to duck the review process by his peers, by catering to those who did not understand that he was intending to discuss cosmological phenomena, and did not have the where with all to subject his ideas to actual review by those who understand what he is claiming.

And that is the point Tim is making. But there is more to this that Chris is trying to gloss over.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2016
(cont'd)

"... Since no two paradigms solve the same problems, the choice between them involves deciding which problems it is most important to solve -- clearly a question of values. In any historical era the values of those at the top of the social hierarchy dominate: as a result the paradigms that emerge from the scientific competition have a built-in tilt toward establishment priorities. Through the paradigms, then, social forces direct scientific work even in the rare cases when employers or funding agencies do not ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2016
(cont'd)

"... Because they internalize both the paradigms and their employers' priorities and values, scientists, at least in their own eyes, are completely nonpartisan in their work: They don't 'get political.' They don't think about, let alone challenge, the ideology built into their techniques. Contrary to popular images of scientists as challengers of established beliefs (like Galileo or Einstein), the vast majority of scientists never seek to test their paradigms and do not participate in paradigm disputes. They don't waste their employers' coin by getting caught up in efforts to overthrow existing worldviews or to establish new ones. Instead, they tend to treat the accepted models of reality as reality itself."
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (19) Jul 27, 2016
Notice the Gish Gallop from Chris? If one has nothing worth saying, cover it by offering multiple quotes from "authorities" (a logical fallacy), whether germane to the subject or not, to overwhelm your opponent (and the audience) is a sea of contradictory and cross purposed oratory to hide your lack of content.

Well done Chris, you have learned the lesson well. No wonder you are a Lessor Acolyte!

Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2016
Re: "The point of this is that Peratt s perfectly aware that the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) is NOT a publication that an astronomer or cosmologist would read"

You seem completely unaware of the sheer volume of electrical cosmology papers which have been published in IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science. This journal has been in operation for more than half a century by now, and consistently publishes on the topic of the application of laboratory plasma physics to the astronomical context. The Astrophysical Journal has never (intentionally) published on that topic; and there is no doubt that were such papers submitted, they would be rejected. For those of us who have spent time talking to the critics of the EU, we already know how these arguments go by now.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (18) Jul 27, 2016
See, Chris is trying to get people to ignore the fundamental failures of the religion he has chosen to represent. He is using the time tested method of bait and switch to try and get people to overlook how poor the whole Pantheon of the Great Lightning Bolts theory actually is. How empty and contradictory it is, and how it has the hallmarks not of science, but of fantasy and religion.

Even if Tim doesn't read the meandering flotsom that is Peratt's musings on electric cosmology (which is not stated by Tim, as he HAS read it) , it does not take away from the fact the the Pantheon is without base and without evidence. Like claiming a meteor striking Arizona is an electrical strike when there are observed fragments of the impactor that caused it!

Like the Acolyte claiming there is no evidence of reconnection, when the probes we have placed in orbit HAVE OBSERVED IT! Or claiming Worlds in Collision is a work of science when it clearly is an imaginative work of alternate reality.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2016
Re: "Even if Tim doesn't read the meandering flotsom that is Peratt's musings on electric cosmology (which is not stated by Tim, as he HAS read it) , it does not take away from the fact the the Pantheon is without base and without evidence."

I've spent much time reading Tim's rebuttals. He exhibits no particular knowledge of plasmas at all. There is no reason at all to believe that Tim himself reads IEEE.

What he does instead is exactly what you guys do: He simply argues against the subject which he refuses to study himself.

Your eagerness to make assumptions about Tim's arguments will be readily discovered by anybody who actually looks up his claims against it. What he talks about is conventional astrophysical theory. That's it.

There is no need for a conspiracy when somebody clearly explains that their entire group refuses to read the subject they aggressively critique.
Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2016
Solving an "energy crisis" on a distant planet has implications within our solar system, as well as for planets orbiting other stars. ... The dilemma also oc-curs at Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, and probably for all giant exoplanets outside our solar system.

Simply, the same process of photon blue shifting that in part powers the both the sun, and more massive bodies such as galactic core stars, also powers growing planets such as the gas giants. It also powers smaller bodies to a lesser degree such as Pluto and Ceres, causing internal heating that recycles the surfaces of these bodies into less cratered regions than expected.

Recall that the more massive the body, the more energy therein is created.

But this is just too much for conventional wisdom to consider. So it doesn't. And yet the answer is right there for the taking by forward thinkers. But not by most readers herein.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2016
There are discussion threads, most of which are closed due to the posting violations of people like Chris Reeves and Sol88 and Zuezzzz and others, who do the same gish-galloping as Chris is doing in this thread (along with other violations of forum etiquette). He pulled the comment from Tim from here: http://www.intern...t4782369
but you can go to pretty much any established, physicist/scientist led, well moderated site (Here is Universe Today: http://cosmoquest...as-here) and you will fins the same general arguments; Peratt is a visionary and the science world is against him, etc - yet every single actual physicist or cosmologist or other scientists in similar disciplines universally say it is bunkum. The only people who argue for it are catastrophists like Reeves and other laymen who have read Velikovski.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2016
Am I?
Failing miserably, but yes you are trying.
Carl Sagan's biggest regret about Velikovsky ..
Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. "
You should read that again. And again. Velikovski's fiction was just that , and Sagan was one of the biggest critics of his fantasies being promoted as science. He argued that Velokovski's ideas were so sloven, so poorly backed by science or even a logical progression , that it could be readily and easily dismissed on it's merits. He argued that suppressing his ideas was foolish and unnecessary because the ideas so clearly failed all on their own if one simply looked closely at the claims that were laid out.

You are trying to rewrite history. And we have been over this already Lessor Acolyte - so why are you trying to restate it here as if it has not already been addressed? That is another strong indication that the ideas you are presenting are pseudo-science!
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2016
You seem completely unaware ... journal has been in operation for more than half a century ...publishes on the topic of the application of laboratory plasma physics to the astronomical context. The Astrophysical Journal has never (intentionally) published on that topic; and there is no doubt that were such papers submitted, they would be rejected. For those of us who have spent time talking to the critics of the EU, we already know how these arguments go by now.
If they are rejected, it is because they have no foundation in reality. They do not attempt to discover, they strive to support a preconception. They are not science, they are the predetermined support for a proposition that has been firmly discredited. Every single major prediction made by Velikovski and the High Priests of the EU Cult have been shown to be wrong! Every single one!
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2016
I've spent much time reading Tim's rebuttals. He exhibits no particular knowledge of plasmas at all. There is no reason at all to believe that Tim himself reads IEEE.

What he does instead is exactly what you guys do: He simply argues against the subject which he refuses to study himself.

Your eagerness to make assumptions about Tim's arguments will be readily discovered by anybody who actually looks up his claims against it. What he talks about is conventional astrophysical theory. That's it.

There is no need for a conspiracy when somebody clearly explains that their entire group refuses to read the subject they aggressively critique.
You ignore the fact that your religious leaders have made claims that are directly addressed by the field Tim teaches and has spent his entire career studying. You further ignore the fact that the entire religion is an upside pyramid resting on the imaginative interpretation of ancient paintings by one man!
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2016
But more than that, you ignore that the predictions regarding stars, comets, planets, craters and other aspects of the religion you promote have been shown to be wrong. When all of the predictions of a theory do not survive the scrutiny of actual observations, the theory should be dropped!

Instead you and the other Acolytes ignore the observations and sit at your computers pretending you have some mystical knowledge to dispute things you do not even take the time to learn about. The study of nuclear fusion in stars has been spectacularly successful in explaining those things we see and predicting those things that we have later found. The Church of the Sacred Lightning Bolts cannot even say that about the closest star!

Velikovski was a brilliant man and an excellent story teller. He put forward a story that initially looked ok and he spent a lot of time supporting his story with his interpretations of symbols and drawings that superficially seemed logical. Superficially.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 28, 2016
A final point. You and the other Lessor Acolytes, but especially The Acolyte, do your religion a serious disservice by claiming that every single article that touches on, mentions or hints at magnetism or electrical phenomena or plasma or any iterations of those things somehow supports the religious edict you seek to have others believe.

Only a pseudo-science or a religion claims proof in every single article. It is a hallmark that those with critical thinking skills watch for.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2016
Re: "Peratt is a visionary and the science world is against him, etc - yet every single actual physicist or cosmologist or other scientists in similar disciplines universally say it is bunkum. The only people who argue for it are catastrophists like Reeves and other laymen who have read Velikovski."

Let's not forget that Peratt acted as an advisor to the Department of Energy on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In a crucial sense, the government -- and you -- already invested much trust into him.
Chris_Reeve
1.3 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2016
Re: "He argued that Velokovski's ideas were so sloven, so poorly backed by science or even a logical progression , that it could be readily and easily dismissed on it's merits. He argued that suppressing his ideas was foolish and unnecessary because the ideas so clearly failed all on their own if one simply looked closely at the claims that were laid out."

Science is not actually well-equipped to handle the specific situation of a complex historical sequence of planetary upheaval -- events which of course we see through our telescopes today, but which the scientific community only recently came to realize are possible (and have thus failed to incorporate them into the current theories). Such events scramble the very dates and strata which are used to decode that sequence.

This is why Sagan was wrong: Because science does have limits, and human testimony can in some cases provide irreplaceable clues.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 28, 2016
Re: "Peratt is a visionary and the science world is against him, etc - yet every single actual physicist or cosmologist or other scientists in similar disciplines universally say it is bunkum. The only people who argue for it are catastrophists like Reeves and other laymen who have read Velikovski."

Let's not forget that Peratt acted as an advisor to the Department of Energy on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In a crucial sense, the government -- and you -- already invested much trust into him.

Well not "me" as I am not American. But your point is an example of the logical fallacy of plea to authority. The fact that Peratt had knowledge and expertise in one field does not necessarily mean he is right about another. His claims should be (and are) considered on their merits.

Peratt is a very smart man. That makes his decisions on where to publish all the more egregious - he knows what he is doing, and that raises the bar from duplicitous to deceptive.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 28, 2016
Yet that too, really means nothing and does not speak to his claims. His claims should rightly be taken on their own merit, to stand or fail based not on him or his reputation or work in other fields, but the correctness of his scientific argument. And in this, his claims fail.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 28, 2016
Science is not actually well-equipped to handle the specific situation of a complex historical sequence of planetary upheaval -- events which of course we see through our telescopes today, but which the scientific community only recently came to realize are possible (and have thus failed to incorporate them into the current theories). Such events scramble the very dates and strata which are used to decode that sequence.

This is why Sagan was wrong: Because science does have limits, and human testimony can in some cases provide irreplaceable clues.
This is nonsense! You resort to the argument of the religious. "And lo, the Earth moved upon the Heavens, and a new star was begat by Jupiter blah blah blah"

You are free to chose whatever religion floats your boat. But do not mistake the tenants of faith with the exactitude of science. And human testimony is notoriously unreliable and subject to the superstitious fear of the unknown.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 28, 2016
galactic researchers do not actually read IEEE's...
IEEE is the world's largest technical organization
@chris
while you are at it, check out the impact in astrophysics

more to the point: why would you read about astrophysics (AP) in a journal/site that doesn't have AP's who can peer review?

engineers do NOT study AP (see any Uni curriculum for evidence), however AP's actually DO study plasma physics (again: any Uni curriculum validates this; or ask CD as i've posted the evidence to her more than 40+ times)

also consider: AP's also have plasma physics labs that also include engineers, (like: PPPL.gov ) and yall eu can't get the AP correct when they read studies because you don't know AP at all

so flooding with irrelevant info while not comprehending the information in them isn't going to help your argument as you've already demonstrated that you can't comprehend context wi/Thompson above -as Maggnus notes
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 28, 2016
@chris cont'd
Science is not actually well-equipped to handle the specific situation of a complex historical sequence of planetary upheaval
1- science is the only method that is equipped to deal with facts and reality

2- religion and myth are definitely not equipped

3- your comment is nonsensical

one last major point:
history isn't a good indicator of anything except intent, human nature and the ability to predict behaviour... even Human history is only good at the above.

you are forgetting that the scientific method takes pains to remove bias etc so that the results are reproducible and we can build upon the facts

This makes your entire eu cult pseudoscience and a religion because you're not:
1- able to predict anything before the fact
2- able to be validated by secondary non-related sources
3- able to promote fact over belief

.

No wonder you are a Lessor Acolyte!
@Maggnus
actually, i think chris is a sock
691Boat
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2016
@Steelwolf
You are correct. Was on the mighty Memphis 2001-2006, so never pulled up to the Proteus. We did pull up to the Emery S. Land in LaMad and the Frank Cable in Guam.
lynnerr55
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2016
I think all of us are missing the point when it comes to Jupiter. I think Jupiter and other similar planets are really another class of Brown Dwarf stars which would explain the heat in it's atmosphere.
Phys1
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 28, 2016
I think all of us are missing the point when it comes to Jupiter. I think Jupiter and other similar planets are really another class of Brown Dwarf stars which would explain the heat in it's atmosphere.

This is not in line with public, readily available information. For example:
"... Jupiter would need to be about 75 times as massive to fuse hydrogen and become a star ... Jupiter still radiates more heat than it receives from the Sun; the amount of heat produced inside it is similar to the total solar radiation it receives. This additional heat is generated by the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism through contraction. This process causes Jupiter to shrink by about 2 cm each year."
https://en.wikipe...and_size
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 28, 2016
... Science is not actually well-equipped to handle the specific situation of a complex historical sequence of planetary upheaval -- events which of course we see through our telescopes today, but which the scientific community only recently came to realize are possible (and have thus failed to incorporate them into the current theories).

On the contrary, science is actually well-equipped.
It is the cranks who are not well-equipped.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2016
You ignore the fact that your religious leaders have made claims that are directly addressed by the field Tim teaches and has spent his entire career studying.

Timmy teaches pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo such as MHD and MR, and he uses pith ball electrostatics to "prove" EU/PC to be wrong. Plasma processes are highly electrodynamic, he's not even in the right textbook and his ignorance is so staggering he doesn't even know it. Timmy is so far disassociated with any real plasma physics it's laughable.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 28, 2016
I think all of us are missing the point when it comes to Jupiter. I think Jupiter and other similar planets are really another class of Brown Dwarf stars which would explain the heat in it's atmosphere.
Um, no, and you are using circular reasoning. It is as correct to say that brown dwarf stars are just another class of gas giant planets.

The IAU has decided that brown dwarf stars are those objects that are large enough to support at least an initial round of deuterium fusion. Jupiter is not large enough to do this. Note that the definition is, to say the least, fuzzy, but for now, it works.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2016
Timmy teaches pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo such as MHD and MR, and he uses pith ball electrostatics to "prove" EU/PC to be wrong. Plasma processes are highly electrodynamic, he's not even in the right textbook and his ignorance is so staggering he doesn't even know it. Timmy is so far disassociated with any real plasma physics it's laughable.
I was wondering when the Acolyte himself would chime in! Insulting to the last, of course.

You know nothing about this stuff Acolyte. You don't understand observation, you don't understand progress, and you don;t know what you are talking about except to preach your religious dogma.

You are an Acolyte of the Church of the Lightning God, and you will not be swayed by evidence or observation that does not conform to your predetermined religious tenants.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2016
Timmy teaches pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo such as MHD
@cd
then by your same definition, hannes alfven not onyl taught it, but also helped to create it, therefore you are promoting a crackpot (per your own definitions)

your own EE's also teach MHD, so that means, by definition, that any EE is also teaching pseudoscience, per your claims

perhaps you want to re-think your stupidity?
...is so far disassociated with any real plasma physics...
how would you know?

you have absolutely no evidence
*plus*
you can't demonstrate any proficiency in plasma physics basics, let alone demonstrate, with any evidence at all, where the problem lies... all you have are "claims" and "your opinion"

IOW- ya got nothing

i have yet to see a single validated study proving your point re: plasma physics vrs MHD
whereas i've provided you with plenty

like:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3492

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5057

need more evidence against you?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2016

No wonder you are a Lessor Acolyte!
@Maggnus
actually, i think chris is a sock
For who? I don't think this is a fair characterization. While I do not agree with pretty much any aspect of the EU Fantasy Lightning God pantheon he defends, I think he has spoken well in his defence and has remained mostly respectful, even somewhat open-minded, with regards to the failures of EU.

He seems an intelligent man who has been taken in by a program designed specifically to take people in. He is not alone in this. As I recall, you once believed that GHG's were not real. The key is having an open mind, and critically assessing the evidence, right?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2016
For who?
@Maggnus
still working on that one... at times he mimic's Hannes or early CD posts, so either they've both had a serious impact on chris (probable) or there is a commonality that needs to be addressed.

I also see a lot of similarities to the former carlo_piantini (check out the arguments that one had with Jean Tate - https://sciencex....eanTate/ )

either the eu academy is prolific with spreading similar tactics, strategy and wording choices or there is a similarity between people, thus my suspicions.

*

however, i am also *not sure* about the identity of chris, hence my choice of wording: "i think".

perhaps i should have said "i suspect"?

i am still collecting evidence, but that doesn't mean i can't suspect. just passing on what i suspect is all...
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2016
For who?
@Maggnus
still working on that one... at times he mimic's Hannes or early CD posts, so either they've both had a serious impact on chris (probable) or there is a commonality that needs to be addressed.

I also see a lot of similarities to the former carlo_piantini (check out the arguments that one had with Jean Tate - https://sciencex....eanTate/ )

either the eu academy is prolific with spreading similar tactics, strategy and wording choices or there is a similarity between people, thus my suspicions.

*

however, i am also *not sure* about the identity of chris, hence my choice of wording: "i think".

perhaps i should have said "i suspect"?

i am still collecting evidence, but that doesn't mean i can't suspect. just passing on what i suspect is all...

Fair enough. I think his words should be taken at face value until he proves to be something different. I do understand your concern though.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2016
I was wondering when the Acolyte himself would chime in! Insulting to the last, of course.

Oh the irony, claiming I'm insulting while I'm only stating facts while you go post after post spreading lies and ignoring scientific evidence. Pretty typical of your type.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2016
I would expect under closer inspection that this column of "hot gases" is spinning at or near the same speed as the Red Spot.

And to answer the question above as to how they eliminated exterior heating source, they give the answer in the abstract;
This hotspot, by process of elimination, must be heated from below, and this detection is therefore strong evidence for coupling between Jupiter's lower and upper atmospheres, probably the result of upwardly propagating acoustic or gravity waves.

Basically just a wild guess based upon the same faulty preconceptions that misleads climate scientists on Earth. Most likely what they are observing is electric induction heating which is driving the "Big Red Spot" and the other observed phenomena.
691Boat
4 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2016
Most likely what they are observing is electric induction heating which is driving the "Big Red Spot" and the other observed phenomena.

Does Earth suffer from electric induction heating? If so, where and how is it observed? If not, why not?
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2016
I know electromagnetic or magnetic induction, snd electrostatic induction.
I don't know electric induction. What is it and, by Jove, what evidence do you have that it would be at all important here?
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2016
Re: "Does Earth suffer from electric induction heating? If so, where and how is it observed? If not, why not?"

It's an active field of research, funded by NASA. But, the term that is more commonly used is electric joule heating. See the work of Yue Deng at the University of Texas.

It typically occurs at the poles, and not much is known about it today because they're still ironing out how it relates the ionosphere through close observation of the noctilucent clouds and other phenomena.

As the situation stands, models are incapable of even incorporating changes in E-field over time and space due to insufficient resolution and observation.

Whether or not its at play for this observation remains to be seen. There's just not enough known. But, to be clear, it is completely premature to "rule it out" -- which is why people should behave in more scientific manner when it comes to this topic.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2016
@CR
You state that the authors of the paper underlying the PO article do not behave in a sufficiently scientific manner. Do you base that solely on the PO article? If so, you would be guilty of what you accuse others of. Or do you base that on the actual paper they published?
I could not get free access to the actual paper. Could you and if so, how?
Moreover, aurora effects on Jupiter are well-known but I am not aware of a relation to the Red Spot.
http://www.nasa.g...mosphere
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2016
Oh the irony, claiming I'm insulting while I'm only stating facts while you go post after post spreading lies and ignoring scientific evidence. Pretty typical of your type.
You ARE insulting, and you haven't stated any facts, and you wouldn't know what scientific evidence was if it fell on you.

You are an Acolyte of the Sacred Magnetic Lightning, and you will not be swayed by evidence or observation.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2016
Basically just a wild guess
No, an educated presumption based on evidence and observation.
based upon the same faulty preconceptions that misleads climate scientists on Earth.
because cantthink knows nothing of the evidence or science surrounding geophysics or climatology, he thinks no one else does either. Very typical of a indoctrinated Acoloyte of any faith-based religion.
Most likely what they are observing is electric induction heating which is driving the "Big Red Spot" and the other observed phenomena.
"That which can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". A laughable, unseen, unknown, magic forcefield.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2016
It's an active field of research, funded by NASA. But, the term that is more commonly used is electric joule heating. See the work of Yue Deng at the University of Texas.

It typically occurs at the poles, and not much is known about it today because they're still ironing out how it relates the ionosphere through close observation of the noctilucent clouds and other phenomena.

As the situation stands, models are incapable of even incorporating changes in E-field over time and space due to insufficient resolution and observation.

Whether or not its at play for this observation remains to be seen. There's just not enough known. But, to be clear, it is completely premature to "rule it out" --
Let's see what Ms Deng says: http://www.uta.ed...sics.php

http://onlinelibr...abstract

RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2016
Hi Maggnus, Chris_Reeve. :)

Just reading through again. Saw your exchange.

An observation re JOURNALS choosing from hundreds to publish only few they can manage:

Most journals have limited resources for peer review/other necessary aspects; which leads them to "specialize" in order to make better returns for their 'inputs' (yes, they are run for profit, not charity or philanthropy).

So you may find that many potential contributors are often told something to the effect:

"Your submission does not fit this journal's specific publication policy; you would be better submitting to a journal which specializes in the subject matter of your paper".

As this may be what has happened to the many papers which Chris_Reeve alludes to that were published in other-than astrophysical journals, then Tim's insinuation of "avoiding astrophysical journals" may be a self-serving one to say the least.

Curious: Why don't Astrophysicists not read IEEE papers for "related" knowledge"? :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2016
PS: @ Chris_Reeve. :)

Before I go, another observation; re your quote of Carl Sagan:
...and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
I too have been pointing this out, via my urgings to "look for the gems among the dross" and "even from the mouths of bases and fools their sometimes comes a new idea worth investigating if you haven't got a better idea yourself" and such like exhortations to listen and read closely without arrogantly and foolishly kneejerking to attack, based on person/source, an interesting idea without proper scientific due diligence before dismissing as 'crank', 'crazy' or whatever.

Like Carl Sagan, I tried to get that message through to the nasty types who believe that just because they go along with the orthodoxy they are more worthy of respect than others and have carte blanche to insult and attack even when they may be wrong themselves.

I haven't time anymore for all that. Can't stay and discuss. Good luck. :)
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2016
Re: "I haven't time anymore for all that. Can't stay and discuss. Good luck. :)"

What they do not know is that I am an investigative journalist as my side job. I use these interactions to identify what to include in my controversy curriculum. Let them think they are winning; it keeps them talking, and that keeps my own work growing.

I am learning a lot about how people think, and I'm actually doing something to fix the problems I see. There is a plan that's been in action already for a while now. I'm not new. Nobody here has -- so far -- ever said the name of a critic or pointed to a critique that I wasn't already aware of. I've also run most of these claims personally with the very experts they are speaking of; I wouldn't be here if I hadn't already done all of that.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2016
What they do not know is that I am an investigative journalist as my side job. I use these interactions to identify what to include in my controversy curriculum. Let them think they are winning; it keeps them talking, and that keeps my own work growing.
Uh huh, sure you are. It is not about winning you thick headed ass. Science doesn't try to win and it can't ever lose. A fact is a fact, and frankly your belief or lack thereof is neither required nor cared about. Maybe one day you will grow up enough to understand that simple truth.

What a sad display of self aggrandizement. You know nothing, but deign to preach condescendingly about the imaginings of someone who saw lightning bolts in cave paintings on a site of science like it has equal footing.

Your idiocy is revealed. You lose, Lessor Acolyte.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2016
Here is Tim Thompson admitting that galactic researchers do not actually read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science -- yet they know that it cannot be correct. He at once claims to be an expert and undermines the expertise of all galactic researchers ..
Yet, that is not actually what he says, is it? I find it telling that you take his comment and place it here, out of context and without consideration of the conversation it was actually taken from.
Precisely. Denier lie #7942.

Tim says that the IEEE is not a forum used by those who actually study the topic in question. He says that not because the publication is poor per se, but because it is not a publication that working cosmologists and astrologists look to for information on the topics they are studying.
Exactly. The IEEE exists to promulgate electronics engineering standards, not new research.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2016
SOr claiming Worlds in Collision is a work of science when it clearly is an imaginative work of alternate reality.
Wow, Velikovsky? That was debunked decades ago.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2016
[contd]
The upshot is, IEEE isn't the right place to publish your new astrophysics theory. I'm surprised they even agreed to publish this and mark it down to the same problem that produces a stream of candidates who claim to "know SQL" because their previous job involved clicking on a button that executed SQL statements on a server they didn't have credentials to access.

Obvious questions: "Construct a join statement."
Failing candidate answers: "What's a 'join?'"
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2016
[contd]. I'm surprised they even agreed to publish this a?'"
I believe Peratt was invited to be a guest editor on a couple of occasions, and I think he is (or was) one of the main experts they invite to provide peer review. It seems he has some pull with the owners or at least the editors.

It gives him a venue, and he can say he has published.

Gee, I wonder why the "apprentice investigative journalist" didn't mention that!!
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2016
It gives him a venue, and he can say he has published.

As usual, magnutts being disingenuous at best, but likely malicious is the intent. Peratt published quite a few papers in several different journals.

http://www.plasma...ers.html

http://www.plasma...ogy.html
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2016
Re: "The upshot is, IEEE isn't the right place to publish your new astrophysics theory."

I would perhaps agree with you were it not for the rigid adherence within your own community to assumptions which observations consistently refute. The uniformitarian assumption has become an unquestionable dogma for your group.

Interpretations of mankind's first stories as testimony to astronomical events is largely dismissed even though hypotheses can and have been formulated which exhibit extraordinary explanatory powers.

People -- even well-respected astronomers like Halton Arp -- who question the Big Bang are considered persona non grata.

Classical physics explanations -- like electricity -- are ridiculed, and highly mathematical ideas which few understand and which oftentimes lack even a hope of a physical basis are prioritized.

Given what is happening, there's honestly not much here which can be salvaged.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
As usual, magnutts being disingenuous at best, but likely malicious is the intent. Peratt published quite a few papers in several different journals.
The question, Acolyte, was why would that journal even publish his (Peratt's) paper. I never said or intimated he didn't publish elsewhere, and I am pretty sure Reeve and I even discussed other papers Peratt published.

I can be (and have been) disingenuous to the foolish fantasies of EU in general and Velikovski in particular, so you really don't have to make up instances of it Acolyte. I have been totally clear in stating my disdain for your stupid defense of a stupid theory, and my dislike and disrespect of you in particular. No arm waving necessary.

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
Nice back peddling from a consummate liar.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2016
I would perhaps agree with you were it not for the rigid adherence within your own community to assumptions which observations consistently refute.
You are arm waving. Give examples.
The uniformitarian assumption has become an unquestionable dogma for your group.
Uniformitarian?! Is that even a word? DId you mean Unitarian? Making up words is not very good journalism Lesser Acolyte.

Interpretations of mankind's first stories as testimony to astronomical events is largely dismissed even though hypotheses can and have been formulated which exhibit extraordinary explanatory powers..
Sure, just asked an Imam. Or a priest.

You keep on about this subject, yet fail to provide even the most mundane of examples. Your cries of repression and conspiracy are a laughable response to rightful and almost universal contempt of the interpretations made by Velikovski and Sitchin and Hoagland and others. They are fantasies built on biases supported by wishful thinking.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2016
Nice back peddling from a consummate liar.

Says the empty headed, rhetoric spouting Acolyte of the Magic Lightning Rods.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2016
People -- even well-respected astronomers like Halton Arp -- who question the Big Bang are considered persona non grata.
You keep making this same mistake. You should really spend some time investigating the claims you make. Arp was a well respective and award winning scientist who feel in love with his own alternative explanation to the exclusion of evidence against it.

Classical physics explanations -- like electricity -- are ridiculed, and highly mathematical ideas which few understand and which oftentimes lack even a hope of a physical basis are prioritized.
Thats called "physics" Lesser Acolyte.

Given what is happening, there's honestly not much here which can be salvaged.
You mean by pointing out the quackery of the EU Mysticism? You are probably right. Here is an article to ponder: http://hozturner....rse.html
barakn
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2016

No wonder you are a Lessor Acolyte!
@Maggnus
actually, i think chris is a sock
For who? I don't think this is a fair characterization. While I do not agree with pretty much any aspect of the EU Fantasy Lightning God pantheon he defends, I think he has spoken well in his defence and has remained mostly respectful, even somewhat open-minded, with regards to the failures of EU.

He seems an intelligent man who has been taken in by a program designed specifically to take people in. He is not alone in this. As I recall, you once believed that GHG's were not real. The key is having an open mind, and critically assessing the evidence, right?

Chris_Reeve is a sock of HannesAlfven and plasmasrevenge. Chris Reeve is the actual name of the meatsuit that owns these accounts, so we could perhaps think of HannesAlfven as being pre-socks of Chris_Reeve.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2016
Chris_Reeve is a sock of HannesAlfven and plasmasrevenge. Chris Reeve is the actual name of the meatsuit that owns these accounts, so we could perhaps think of HannesAlfven as being pre-socks of Chris_Reeve.

GASP! You are not saying that Chris was typing as BOTH Hannes AND Reeves in the same thread are you! Why that CAN'T be right because Reeve is an Investigative Journalist! Why look, he says it right here in this thread!

Is it true Chris? Are you these three all rolled up into one?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2016
What they do not know is that I am an investigative journalist as my side job
@chris
i find this comment is not supported by the evidence because:
1- if you were an "investigative journalist" you would know how to research, which includes learning how to weigh facts and consider the sources:
considering the electric universe as a viable source when it can't predict, field a non-falsified hypothesis and continues to post known blatant pseudoscience? what they do speaks volumes about it's credibility - and any "investigative journalist" would know to steer clear of them and their sources

2- research doesn't mean accepting something as valid simply because it's posted on the internet or in a book

sorry, but this seems a whole lot like a one time job you did for a high-schol project than a real "investigative journalist"... especially to anyone who actually has done research, and even more so to someone who's scientifically literate doing research

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
@chrisR cont'd
I am learning a lot about how people think, and I'm actually doing something to fix the problems I see
by supporting pseudoscience?
WTF? you really think you're fixing a problem by supporting and posting pseudoscience to a science news aggregate?
really?
rigid adherence within your own community to assumptions which observations consistently refute
no, the rigidity comes from the lack of evidence to support the pseudoscience, not from the observations

just because you don't know what research is happening doesn't mean research isn't happening on said topics... any real "investigative journalist" would know that one
Interpretations of mankind's first stories ... largely dismissed
b/c of scientific evidence and the lack of evidence from the stories

correlation =/= causation: myths =/= facts
... electricity -- are ridiculed
a real "investigative journalist" would know this is a blatantly false claim
see PPPL.gov etc
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
where is 24Volts righteous indignation when you see this from the eu?
Eh 24?
http://www.plasma...ers.html

http://www.plasma...ogy.html
@cd
1- pseudoscience =/= science: the eu is considered pseudoscience and linking references to personal or owned sites that contain pseudoscience (even when science is also included) means the site caters to pseudoscience over factual analytical scientific information

2- source is important: if you can't link the journals or cite references then it's bullsh*t, especially when your links refer to known pseudoscience sites that include falsified material debunked by science

3- it doesn't matter how many legit publications are out there on anyone: argument from authority isn't the same as argument from evidence, nor is it valid unless you're establishing credentials

the eu isn't establishing credentials: it's already debunked as pseudoscience
there is no argument there
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
Is it true Chris?
@Maggnus
considering he stated:
... I'm actually doing something to fix the problems I see. There is a plan that's been in action already for a while now. I'm not new.
and considering that there are a lot of similarities (as i've noted in the past) between CR and other posters...

there is a good chance he has a lot of socks

though i would also note that i am not 100% sure about which sock is whom WRT the eu nutters

... i don't track them as much as i used to given that they gave up actually producing evidence and stuck to trolling or being a groupie

even CR above is limited in actual evidence for his claims (almost all of them, BTW)

note the lack of references, links etc for a "real investigative journalist"?
does that seem logical?
especially one who has "done all of that" research...

and the claims WRT mainstream science?
wow

ROTFLMFAO

investigative journalist: /b/ro RULE 37
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2016
Hi Maggnus, Chris_Reeve. :)

Reading through. Observing your exchange. Re:
It is not about winning you thick headed ass. Science doesn't try to win and it can't ever lose. A fact is a fact, and frankly your belief or lack thereof is neither required nor cared about. Maybe one day you will grow up enough to understand that simple truth.


@Maggnus, it's not 'science' to keep insulting people.

Conflating "scientists" (the persons) with "Science" (the method/knowledge base) may lead to cross-purpose misunderstandings which may cause one to insult others.

Consider the difference between science and scientist(s):

While "science" itself MUST be neutral and proceed according to the known facts as they become confirmed; this is not necessarily the case with "scientists". Eg, the Bicep2 'scientists' DID "try to win" over their "rivals" (Planck project); compromising scientific rigor/objectivity for dreams of Nobel 'prize'.

Separate the two. :)
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2016
@RealityCheck

I very much enjoyed your distinction.

There is an almost PR aspect to the responses here. You are real. Most of what happens here is smoke and mirrors. Anybody with some common sense can see that it's a defensive posture. I don't even bother pointing it out.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2016
@RC
@Maggnus, it's not 'science' to keep insulting people.
No, it's not. Why don't you stop?
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
There is an almost PR aspect to the responses here.
PR's from puppets, sock boy. Responses to pseudoscience are deservedly negative, as you and new buddy of distinction are acutely aware.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2016
There is an almost PR aspect to the responses here
@Chris
actually, you are correct here: problem is you don't see that the PR is being put out by the eu cult, not mainstream science or advocates

why does the eu need to propose these "astrophysics truths" in a news aggregate site with no peer review?

why can't they publish in journals that are relevant?

part of it is eu defensive posturing, but you seem to not be able to comprehend that the eu posturing is also an attempt to lend credibility to their belief system by gaining acolytes and being associated with a site that caters to physics/science news - it's the thrill of the "con"

you can see these same people being deleted on sites like Science Magazine, AAAS, SciForums and other moderated sites where the mods are educated enough to tell pseudoscience from science

but you still think all that is conspiracy?
think on this: http://journals.p....0075637
FineStructureConstant
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2016
@Chris - you talk about the eventual adoption of new, groundbreaking, paradigms by the physical sciences as having been a struggle against prejudice. Very true - scientists are people, after all, and subject to the same petty motives that any of us are capable of.

But you will note that every single one of those (unpopular) paradigms were nonetheless supported by copious evidence, theories with strong quantitative predictive power, and were underpinned by rigorous mathematical reasoning. Every one.

The EU, by contrast, has neither evidence, nor any kind of quantitative predictive power. What it does have is a collection of anecdotes, myths, and unsubstantiated inventions: it's no wonder that its' critics are so scathing in their condemnation of it AS SCIENCE.

As a set of beliefs, it's OK - nobody minds which God the EU believers wish to abase themselves to. But you can't call it science - it's hokey, duct-taped together with Lego (what shall we build today?) reasoning.
barakn
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2016
Most of what happens here is smoke and mirrors. Anybody with some common sense can see that it's a defensive posture. -Chris_Alfven

Smoke and mirrors, like posting using two different names to the same article?
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2016
@RealityCheck

I very much enjoyed your distinction.

There is an almost PR aspect to the responses here. You are real. Most of what happens here is smoke and mirrors. Anybody with some common sense can see that it's a defensive posture. I don't even bother pointing it out.
"Defensive posture"!?! That is bloody HILARIOUS! You have been caught in sock-puppetry, lies, and deception and you claim those who take you to task on them are defensive! You, who promotes myth over fact, who claims the imaginative fictions of a story teller reinventing the stories gleaned from paintings on a cave wall should be put on par with the evidence of science say that WE are defensive? You are a fucking joke Reeve or Hannes or Plasmic or whoever you are pretending to be today.

No wonder you are a Lesser Acolyte! At least the Acolyte doesn't resort to suck-puppetry and appeals to his own authority! "Investigative Journalist"! What a lying snake you are!
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2016
@RC - why you self righteous, ignorant, clueless piece of shit. I usually ignore your verbose bullshit because I realized long ago that you have nothing of substance to add to any conversation you are involved in. Your "hit and run" messages and insincere self-depreciating holier than thou attitude gall. I am not sure why you decided to butt into this conversation, other than Ira has been maybe ignoring your stupid ass for too long.

You have nothing on any crank on here Pretender. Apparently your work on your Toes is proceeding at about the same pace as usual - as in, nothing of substance anywhere. Still 2 years away right Pretender?

The only separating you do is separating reason from reality. That you have the gall to lecture anyone on anything says everything that needs to be said about you. You Pretend to be objective. You Pretend to know that which you have no idea about. You Pretend to work on Toes. Get lost Pretender.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RC
@Maggnus, it's not 'science' to keep insulting people.
No, it's not. Why don't you stop?
So your only response is the juvenile "Yes I know you are, but what am I?" retort devoid of actual recognition of the point made for your benefit? Not good, mate. Why bother to make such silly retorts that demean all the otherwise good contributions you've made to discussion? Rethink it all, mate. Do better. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2016
Hi FineStructureConstant. :)
@Chris - ...every single one of those (unpopular) paradigms were nonetheless supported by copious evidence, theories with strong quantitative predictive power, and were underpinned by rigorous mathematical reasoning
While I appreciate your perspective on anyone who puts PR and scams over science objectivity and falsifiability etc, I also want to point out that the 'mainstream' are not as innocent of doing the same as you seem to believe.

Consider: "copious evidence" has sometimes consisted merely of incorrect assumptions based interpretations of the observations. That is not "evidence", but interpretation based on preconceptions. That is how Big Bang got a toe-hold as a 'paradigm'; but is now slowly (after long decades!) being dismantled, as newly discovered evidence/observations come in to support prior challenges to BB 'paradigm'.

As for "underpinned by theory/mathematical reasoning": so why the flawed Bicep2/LHC 'claims'?

Caution. :)
epoxy
Jul 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2016
Hi Maggnus. :)
I realized long ago that you have nothing of substance to add to any conversation you are involved in. Your "hit and run" messages and insincere self-depreciating holier than thou attitude gall. I am not sure why you decided to butt into this conversation, other than Ira has been maybe ignoring your stupid ass for too long.

You have nothing on any crank on here Pretender.
Feel better after that 'venting', mate? Good.

To answer your assertions, in order:

A number of people on and off line know of my work already, so you're uninformed about that.

I reminded you that 'personal insults' is not an acceptable substitute for 'science', at any time or place.

Actually it's me that has been (reluctantly) leaving Ira's post alone lately, as I'm too busy to 'play' nowadays.

"Crank/Pretender"? But I have often pointed out things that have proven correct in the science/behavior all along (while you mostly 'insult'; not good).

Rethink it all, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2016
PS @ Maggnus, and Forum:

Gotta go do some off line work now.

Discuss nicely now, hey? Cheers all. :)
epoxy
Jul 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2016
@epoxy
I read on wikipedia:
"The effect is caused by the non-concentricity of the Earth and its magnetic dipole, and the SAA is the near-Earth region where the Earth's magnetic field is weakest relative to an idealized Earth-centered dipole field."
Where's the "cold fusion" in there?
Who are "the physicists" that you are talking about ?

Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2016
@CR

There is an almost PR aspect to the responses here.

At least we agree that there is _no_ PR aspect to the responses here.
Almost pregnant is not pregnant at all.
epoxy
Jul 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2016
Such an effect should be symmetric

Non-concentricity is asymmetry.
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2016

That is how Big Bang got a toe-hold as a 'paradigm'; but is now slowly (after long decades!) being dismantled, as newly discovered evidence/observations come in to support prior challenges to BB 'paradigm'.

I don't see that happening at all. Back it up.
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2016
I was wondering when the Acolyte himself would chime in! Insulting to the last, of course.

Oh the irony, claiming I'm insulting while I'm only stating facts while you go post after post spreading lies and ignoring scientific evidence. Pretty typical of your type.

First worry about understanding human speech monkey goracle sock, then learn to drive first, these astronomical topics will only make you go looney... ;)

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.