Electric Universe Model.,

[P.Asmah]

I maintain that Thornhill’s predictions are “unique in the history of astronomy”? Does anyone wish to contest this by quoting any other examples?

Velikovsky hit a few nails on the head!

[P.Asmah]

Please remind me again, sol88, is the EU idea (it's clearly nowhere near sufficiently fleshed out sufficiently to be called a 'hypothesis' - it can't even be tested, for starters) based on the plasma physics of Alfvén, subsequently extended by hundreds (if not thousands) of (lab-based) scientists?

I can't find the link now, but I think it was Ian Tresman who referenced a paper detailing some of the criticisms of Alfven's work, much of it from Carl Sagan.

Sagan took a dim view of Alfven's criticism of the Big Bang, just for starters.

Perhaps Ian can help me out?

[Nereid]

hi guys
first post here
looking about there is a co-relation with another line of thought.

there is always a possibility of light behaving as a ship floating on water and having a greater variety of guises than thought.
looking at a ship on water the floatation of the particles relies on the arraingement of the particles..the more volume , the greater the bouyancy.
in order for the ship to sink the same number of molecules simply has to become dender.
in considering light travelling from a distant star we should also expect that the light travels this distance differently to our perceptions.But on arriving in our atmosphere it must collaborate in order to arrive at the surface.
the reason for this is the same as the ship floating or sinking.....if light retains the loose arraingement that creates a dark sky at night , then we could see nothing since it could not penetrate anything larger than itself.....meaning that our atmosphere would stop it in it's tracks because it could not "sink"
so the electric universe is correct but relative to the interaction of the medium in which it finds itself.
light hitting a surface changes to heat but tries to survive and conserve itself and so we see the reflection to the degree that it is successful.
cheers
iseason

Welcome to BAUT, iseasons!

I'm sorry to say that I don't understand your post; specifically, what does it have to do with the EU idea (which is the topic of this thread)?

Can you elaborate please?

[Duane]

• I believe that Lerner has responded to Ned Wright's "Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened".
• See Eric Lerner's: Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened".

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Ian, the 2nd link is dead.

[papageno]

Hi, papageno.
I think I've answered your questions in my preceding posts. There's no point in going round in circles.

You are the one dodging my questions.
So, where exactly did you show the quantitative and testable predictions made by Thornhill?

Because the statements you referred to so far sound like a weatherman saying "Tomorrow it may rain" "It could even snow" "It will be cloudy, but only if you look at the sky".

I think my "lightning bolts" example sums up the difficulty there is in making accurate predictions about electrical discharge phenomena even in our own backyard.

An example that has nothing to do with Deep Impact.
If I have two metallic spheres charged with a net voltage and get them closer in a low density atmosphere, I can get much more quantitatively accurate about a discharge than in the case of a lightning bolt in the open.
And this using Electromagnetism and Plasma Physics, just as EU theorists claim to be doing.

So, where are the OOM estimates about the comet-impactor discharge?

It is clearly ridiculous to require quantified predictions in a first-in-the-history-of-astronomy event such as Deep Impact, taking place millions of miles away.

So, why is the surprise displayed by the "mainstream" scientific comunity about the results, so important to you that you have a file of quoted reactions of the mission players?

The important thing is obviously that Thornhill got the phenomena right first time round and I guess he'll be able to give more precise figures,on the basis of the Deep Impact data, next time round when the NASA sees fit to conduct further experiments with impactors.

He did not predict phenomena, he said that phenomena may happen, that we could observe something if NASA plays along, that the instruments may stop working, and so on.
Is this all we can expect after thirty years of work based on theories already developed?

Einstein took 10-15 years years to develop General Relativity, Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Dirac did not need 30 years to develop Quantum Mechanics, nearly from scratch.

Based on what I have seen in this thread, the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology/etc. are not about developing theories that work better than the currently accepted theories.
It is about being against-the-mainstream, being Galileo vs. Church of Rome, David vs. Goliath, a true underdog story, just as conspiracy theorists and moon hoax believers.

[upriver]

Originally Posted by papageno
you did not actually mean that EU proponents have made a prediction about auroras on Jupiter, did you?
Then what is this "prediction from the EU model"? Can you give references or give some more details?

No, I did not.

I was suprised when they said that Io's volcanos were involved and that they were suprised at the correlation with the solar wind.
The only way Io is involved is as part of the circuit.
I thought everybody knew that. The fact that solar wind is responsible for all electrical phenomena in the solar system(aurora, lightning, Saturn spokes, Io volcanos, comets tails, planetary magnetospheres, etc).
As far as an OOM prediction, if I can find the paper that I read before, I will post a link.


I know it dont say solar wind but it says planetary auroras.


"Nov 15, 2005
Electric Currents Big and Small

So, far from being electrically sterile, cosmic plasma is awash with electric current filaments. And just like Frazier's plasma ball, we see the same beauty and evidence of currents in astronomical nebulae, glowing hydrogen HII regions, and planetary auroras.

We live in an Electric Universe!"
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...14currents.htm

[iantresman]

• I believe that Lerner has responded to Ned Wright's "Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened".
  
• See Eric Lerner's: Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened".

Ian, the 2nd link is dead.

Seems to be OK for me now.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[iantresman]

I can't find the link now, but I think it was Ian Tresman who referenced a paper detailing some of the criticisms of Alfven's work, much of it from Carl Sagan.

Sagan took a dim view of Alfven's criticism of the Big Bang, just for starters.

Perhaps Ian can help me out?

Carl Sagan certainly criticized Velikovsky. But I can't think which paper criticized Hannes Alfven's work.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[papageno]

you did not actually mean that EU proponents have made a prediction about auroras on Jupiter, did you?
Then what is this "prediction from the EU model"? Can you give references or give some more details?

No, I did not.

So, if you did not mean that EU proponents made predictions about Jupiter's auroras, why did you claim:

And I would say that is a prediction from the EU model.

Or do you think that any work involving Solar Wind is automatically in support of EU models?

I was suprised when they said that Io's volcanos were involved and that they were suprised at the correlation with the solar wind.
The only way Io is involved is as part of the circuit.

Kulsrud, Plasma Physics for Astrophysics, chapter 3 "Magnetohydrondynamics", section 4 "Io and Jupiter". Astophysicists know the Io-Jupiter connection at least since the sixties.
Also, see tusenfem's post:

Indeed, the main processes are driven by the mass expulsion of Io (~1 tonn per second!!!) ...

[...]

It is a mis-statement that all aurora in the Jovian magnetosphere are caused by the mass loss of Io. I have no idea why they would assume that the auroras would not be influenced by the solar wind, it goes against my expectation as a magnetospheric physicist.
I can but conclude that again a press release states things that may not be totally correct just to get more public attention.

I thought everybody knew that. The fact that solar wind is responsible for all electrical phenomena in the solar system(aurora, lightning, Saturn spokes, Io volcanos, comets tails, planetary magnetospheres, etc).

I understand that it is Electric Universe, but I don't think it is fair to ignore the magnetic field and gravity of the Sun and of the planets.

As far as an OOM prediction, if I can find the paper that I read before, I will post a link.

What OOM prediction?
Didn't you say that there is no EU model for this?

By the way:

"Earth-like processes" is not synonymous of "only EU/PC models can explain it".
Auroras on Earth are not explained in terms of EU/PC views.

[...]

You have yet to show that the new information supports "EU models".
You have to realize that if current models cannot account for some observation, it is not automatically implied that "EU models" can.

[tusenfem]

I guess your "psychic" and "palm-reading" need to be added to the list of what I've called "inelegant, unscientific value judgements". Perhaps we should keep an up-dated record of such comments, which do more to discredit the author and his views than Thornhill's predictions.

Let's be serious: Thornhill didn't just predict that "unexpected things" would happen, he predicted what would happen and he was right (see my preceding post).

Let's see if I "have a problem starting with the first one". How about the two flashes at impact? Reference to these two flashes have now mysteriously disappeared from NASA's Deep Impact site, but we probably all still remember them, together with the extraordinary first guess explanation that the impactor must have ploughed through something soft (the first flash?) before producing the real flash deep inside the comet. (That explanation has apparently also disappeared, for obvious reasons...).

There are still contemporary articles on the web which conserve the memory of Thornhill's predicted double flash, for example:


I maintain that Thornhill’s predictions are “unique in the history of astronomy”? Does anyone wish to contest this by quoting any other examples?

I was thinking of the other first item on the list, about no abundance of water, which would be in direct contradiction to the X-rays that are produced by charge exchange of solar wind oxygen and water from the comet.

[Eta C]

Thank you for the recommendation. Make sure you get your commission from Amazon.

Oh ho ho. Very droll. It is to laugh.

So, what we have here is yet another example of an ATM type putting down a recommendation to go out and actually study some real physics. I suppose you'd rather base your opinions on an ATM website than actually going out and studying some real plasma physics for a change.

I posted this particular link in another thread, but it may apply here as well. Note characteristics number 18 and 19. I think we've just seen an example of it.

Edit: I'm withdrawing this comparison as noted in post 2158 due to a misunderstanding of P.Asmah's intent in the quoted statement. EC.

[P.Asmah]

Carl Sagan certainly criticized Velikovsky. But I can't think which paper criticized Hannes Alfven's work.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

I have found the paper, which you actually emailed me some time ago

Alfven’s Programme in Solar System Physics
Stephen G. Brush

It details the success of some of Alfven's predictions, and notes that this did not help in terms of his ideas being accepted at the time. Sagan in particular was critical of Alfven.

Anyone who is interested, PM me, and I will forward the .pdf.

Cheers
P.Asmah

[P.Asmah]

Oh ho ho. Very droll. It is to laugh.

So, what we have here is yet another example of an ATM type putting down a recommendation to go out and actually study some real physics.

Shurely shum misundersandeng.

I have ordered the book, as I have done so after a number of your recommendations in the past. Don't put yourself down.

Thanks again
P.Asmah

[ATKINS]

Hi, papageno.
I think I've answered your questions in my preceding posts. There's no point in going round in circles.

You are the one dodging my questions.

This seems to be one of your standard forms of defense.... I'm certainly not "dodging your questions", you just don't like the answers I'm giving so you ignore them and then claim I haven't made them. I've now made five posts on this topic: #2077, #2114, #2126, #2128 nd #2129 and I've answered all the questions, sometimes twice or three times over. But if we have to, let's do it all for one last time... For good measure, I intend to respond to every line of your post.

So, where exactly did you show the quantitative and testable predictions made by Thornhill?

To deal with these three concepts separately:

1. "Predictions": I established in post #2114 in answer to yourself that what Thornhill posted on the Thunderbolts site on July 3 2005, 24 hours before impact, were indeed "predictions" rather than "post-event rationalizations":

   Since you seem to have read my slightly earlier post about Thornhill’s Deep Impact predictions (you refer to my link to the Thunderbolts page which I only provided in the earlier post), you will presumably have read my point 2: "Is the fact that they were a pre-event prediction rather than post-event interpretation important", where I point out that these are pre-impact predictions and not post-event rationalizations. The difference between the future and the past is binary: “pre”, not “post”, “a priori, not “a posteriori”, “before the event” not “after the event”.

   These are thus what we call "predictions", from the Latin meaning "said before".
   
   
2. "Quantative": I pointed out in post #2126 (answering Fram), that it was ludicrous to require anything "mathematical" given that this was to be a first-in-the-history-of-astronomy event (more on this below, in the discussion on the "lightning bolt" analogy). And I made the point, in the already cited post #2114 in answer to yourself, that the whole issue was binary anyway, so quantification was irrelevant at this stage:

   Finally on this point, there is absolutely no need for quantification, since the whole thing is also binary: either there was an electric discharge between Tempel 1 and the impactor or there wasn't. The precise "quantities" of discharge are irrelevant at this point. All the evidence indicates that there was a powerful electric discharge, in which case we live in a very different sort of universe from the one which mainstreamers would have us believe in.

3. "Testable": I pointed out in post #2077, addressed to Nereid, that Thornhill's predictions could be tested again whenever the NASA (or any other space agency) chose to conduct similar experiments on other comets or asteroids:
   

   My final point is that the sort of predictions Thornhill made also meet another essential criterion for assessing scientific validity, that of being reproducible. Each time in the future that impactors are sent to crash into other comets and asteroids, I'm sure the EU people will be delighted to make further predictions. They will be better able to quantify their predictions since Tempel 1 now stands as a yardstick against which to compare the characteristics of future impacts which, according to the EU theory, will vary directly as a function of the degree of eccentricity of the target's orbit around the sun.

   The EU people can't realistically be expected to conduct this sort of experiment themselves since they presumably lack the necessary funding....

Let's move onto your next point:

Because the statements you referred to so far sound like a weatherman saying "Tomorrow it may rain" "It could even snow" "It will be cloudy, but only if you look at the sky".

I used the weatherman analogy myself in post #2126, in answer to Fram:

If you want to knit pick, perhaps "accurate" was indeed not the right word. What about "right" (as opposed to "wrong")? If the weatherman forecasts rain tomorrow and it rains, most people would say he was right. If it snows, most people would say he was wrong. Where does the maths need to come in, in assessing if he was right or wrong?

I think the analogy proves my point, not yours: predictions and forecasts are either right or wrong (and you don't always need maths to decide the matter). Thornhill's predictions were right.

I think my "lightning bolts" example sums up the difficulty there is in making accurate predictions about electrical discharge phenomena even in our own backyard.

An example that has nothing to do with Deep Impact.
If I have two metallic spheres charged with a net voltage and get them closer in a low density atmosphere, I can get much more quantitatively accurate about a discharge than in the case of a lightning bolt in the open.
And this using Electromagnetism and Plasma Physics, just as EU theorists claim to be doing.

Here again, your demonstration proves my point, many thanks! The "lightning bolt" example has everything to do with Deep Impact and the absurdity of requiring anything other than the most general quantification. Your analysis of the difference between your laboratory experiment with two metallic spheres and "the case of a lightning bolt in the open" establishes precisely the graduation of difficulty I'm talking about. If you admit that you can "get much more quantitatively accurate about a discharge than in the case of a lightning bolt in the open" (but which can still be observed regularly not far from home), you must also necessarily admit that it is infinitely more difficult to be "quantitatively accurate" about something like Deep Impact which happened for the first time in the history of astronomy, millions of miles away from your lab or anyone's backyard. Given your own argument, can we as of now agree that your own reasoning has finally settled the "relevance of quantification as applied to the Deep Impact predictions" issue in Thornhill's favour?

As for your "And this using Electromagnetism and Plasma Physics, just as EU theorists claim to be doing" comment, they are doing it. As I have asked repeatedly without getting the least response from anyone, how otherwise can you explain the correctness of their predictions if they are not based on the findings of Electromagnetism and Plasma Physics and the proven scalability of the phenomena observed in the lab? This is very precisely the "method in [their] madness".

So, where are the OOM estimates about the comet-impactor discharge?

There aren't any and I've explained why, just as you can't make any OOM estimates concerning the lightning bolts occurring every day on Earth. The time will come for serious study of the quantification of such phenomena as the electric discharge at Deep Impact which the EU people predicted, but that time will only come once the reality of those phenomena has been actually accepted by the mainstream. The quantification can only be done by instruments and experimental protocols which have been integrated into space missions set up for that purpose. We are still clearly very far from that but it's certainly not the fault of the EU people!

It is clearly ridiculous to require quantified predictions in a first-in-the-history-of-astronomy event such as Deep Impact, taking place millions of miles away.

So, why is the surprise displayed by the "mainstream" scientific comunity about the results, so important to you that you have a file of quoted reactions of the mission players?

(???) I don't see the connection. But I'm pleased to see you acknowledge the reality of the "surprise displayed by the mainstream scientific comunity about the results": with this sort of admission we're really starting to make progress here. Do I really need to answer you? Let's just say that if I had to choose between two horse-racing pundits, one of whom regularly and confidently picks the winner (even if he can't say how many lengths the horse is going to win by - I don't care, anyway) and the other who consistently expresses surprise and dismay when his chosen horses regularly finish way down the field and often fall at the first fence, I know where I'd put my money. What about you?

The important thing is obviously that Thornhill got the phenomena right first time round and I guess he'll be able to give more precise figures,on the basis of the Deep Impact data, next time round when the NASA sees fit to conduct further experiments with impactors.

He did not predict phenomena, he said that phenomena may happen, that we could observe something if NASA plays along, that the instruments may stop working, and so on.

As I said earlier, "predict" comes from the Latin "said before" and this is what Thornhill did. As for Thornhill's use of the conditionals "may" and "could", I pointed out in post #2114 that this was dictated by the necessary degree of uncertainty regarding the size of the charge difference between Tempel 1 and the impactor due to the factors concerning the eccentricity of orbits which Thornhill identified:

Comet Tempel 1, which NASA selected for the Deep Impact mission, is certainly not ideal for testing the electrical hypothesis. Of course, NASA scientists do not realize this, since the issue of electrical charge has no place in standard theory.

Short-period comets, which move on modestly elliptical paths (the orbit of Tempel 1 stretches roughly between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars) will not experience the degree of electrical imbalance experienced by long-period comets on much more elliptical paths that take them out well beyond the orbital distances of Neptune or Pluto. The latter have much more time to adjust to the more negative voltage of regions remote from the Sun. The voltage difference of short-period comets as they approach the Sun will be much less than that of long-period comets, and they will not discharge as energetically.

Nevertheless, the electrical theorists say that even a weak candidate for a test of the electrical hypothesis should be sufficient to make a good case.

Integrating into expectations the existence of proven but as yet unquantified variables seems to me like impeccable scientific method. Don't you agree?

Is this all we can expect after thirty years of work based on theories already developed?

Again, I'm pleased to see your implicit acnowledgement that Thornhill's predictions were indeed "based on theories already developed" (so there was "method in his madness" after all!) As for the "Is this all we can expect after thirty years of work [...]?" sneer, it just smacks of sour grapes.

Einstein took 10-15 years years to develop General Relativity, Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Dirac did not need 30 years to develop Quantum Mechanics, nearly from scratch.

So what? Here again, I don't see the connection. Or perhaps you're predicting it may take another 50 years for the mainstream to accept the evidence for charge difference at astronomical levels? I hope not!

Based on what I have seen in this thread, the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology/etc. are not about developing theories that work better than the currently accepted theories.

Could you give precise references, please? (but without rehashing for the n'th time the standard "When are you finally going to answer my questions?" line).

It is about being against-the-mainstream, being Galileo vs. Church of Rome, David vs. Goliath, a true underdog story, just as conspiracy theorists and moon hoax believers.

I've added these further five examples to my list of what I've called "inelegant, unscientific value judgements" concerning Thornhill's predictions. Frankly, I find your calling into question both the motivation and the intelligence of those who no longer swallow mainstream FAIRIEDUST (Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories) insulting. We are neither mystics nor morons.
In my own case, I am not a professional astronomer, I have absolutely no vested interests in either supporting or attacking BB theory, so I have nothing even slightly resembling an axe to grind. I was in fact myself a fairly devout mainstreamer up to a couple of years ago but I now believe that the sheer accumulation and weight of highly disturbing evidence coming in from experiments like Deep Impact and from ever more precise images at all wavelengths has henceforth made many mainstream positions untenable.

[Nereid]

Zero, I appreciate your effort to clarify the implications of the HR diagram. But as I said before, it stands as observation. Eventually any Electric sun theory will have to explain it. At the moment there is no complete theory, just a lot of more or less educated guesses. In time the developing theory will have to acount for all observations. The less people work on it, the longer this will take.
[snip]

Hmm, interesting.

Since the underlying (physics) theory (for EUers' ideas) was established many decades ago, and many mainstream astrophysicists use it (and have used it) every day, perhaps there's a good reason why so few people work on the Electric sun idea?

(please stop calling it a theory ... or, if you wish to so do, please point to where this theory has been published).

[Nereid]

Velikovsky hit a few nails on the head!

Which ones (in the context of this, the EU thread)?

[Nereid]

Please remind me again, sol88, is the EU idea (it's clearly nowhere near sufficiently fleshed out sufficiently to be called a 'hypothesis' - it can't even be tested, for starters) based on the plasma physics of Alfvén, subsequently extended by hundreds (if not thousands) of (lab-based) scientists?

I can't find the link now, but I think it was Ian Tresman who referenced a paper detailing some of the criticisms of Alfven's work, much of it from Carl Sagan.

Sagan took a dim view of Alfven's criticism of the Big Bang, just for starters.

Perhaps Ian can help me out?

May I take this as a confirmation that the underlying physics of EU/PU/PC ATM ideas is plasma physics?

[biknewb]

Hmm, interesting.

Since the underlying (physics) theory (for EUers' ideas) was established many decades ago, and many mainstream astrophysicists use it (and have used it) every day, perhaps there's a good reason why so few people work on the Electric sun idea?

(please stop calling it a theory ... or, if you wish to so do, please point to where this theory has been published).

Hi Nereid
I' have been around this forum long enough to appreciate the difference between the scientific and the everyday meaning of the word theory.
In this particular instance I deliberately used theory in the scientific sense, but after the word "eventually".
I am confident there will be a real electric theory in the future, complete with very complicated equations. But by then it will all be mainstream stuff.

[biknewb]

Hmm, interesting.

Since the underlying (physics) theory (for EUers' ideas) was established many decades ago, and many mainstream astrophysicists use it (and have used it) every day, perhaps there's a good reason why so few people work on the Electric sun idea?

Certainly there are reasons, let's just hope they are good ones.
A good reason would be that the ideas are too outrageous and require a lot of work, like fundamental reconsideration of available observations.
A bad reason would be to just go on with what already is working; plain inertia.

My recommendation has always been to evaluate observations in both views. It is twice as much work and double the fun.

gerards regards

[tusenfem]

Certainly there are reasons, let's just hope they are good ones.
A good reason would be that the ideas are too outrageous and require a lot of work, like fundamental reconsideration of available observations.
A bad reason would be to just go on with what already is working; plain inertia.

My recommendation has always been to evaluate observations in both views. It is twice as much work and double the fun.

gerards regards

Several pages ago we have already gone through the idea of the electrical sun, based on a circuit model. I cannot find the correct post at this point (search does not seem to work right now). But in the post I showed that for a circuit giving the sun enough power electrically, the interplanetary magnetic field would be orders of magnitude larger than we measure at the moment. And those calculations were done using the same theories thae PU/EU uses as a foundation, i.e. electrodynamics and plasma physics.

[P.Asmah]

May I take this as a confirmation that the underlying physics of EU/PU/PC ATM ideas is plasma physics?

Alfven, the father of plasma physics, was perhaps the first to recognise the cosmological implications.

The role of plasma/EM in this regard is under debate in this thread, is it not? There seem to be a number of differing perspectives.

[P.Asmah]

Which ones (in the context of this, the EU thread)?

Velikovsky, having taken a scholarly approach to comparative mythology, argued that electromagnetism must play a bigger role in astrophysics in general, and our solar system in particular. He had a number of discussions with Einstein in this regard.

The phenomena which he believed were being described by a number of ancient cultures strongly suggested EM related events to his mind.

[Nereid]

Zero, I appreciate your effort to clarify the implications of the HR diagram. But as I said before, it stands as observation. Eventually any Electric sun theory will have to explain it. At the moment there is no complete theory, just a lot of more or less educated guesses. In time the developing theory will have to acount for all observations. The less people work on it, the longer this will take.
[snip]

Hmm, interesting.

Since the underlying (physics) theory (for EUers' ideas) was established many decades ago, and many mainstream astrophysicists use it (and have used it) every day, perhaps there's a good reason why so few people work on the Electric sun idea?

(please stop calling it a theory ... or, if you wish to so do, please point to where this theory has been published).

Hi Nereid
I' have been around this forum long enough to appreciate the difference between the scientific and the everyday meaning of the word theory.
In this particular instance I deliberately used theory in the scientific sense, but after the word "eventually".
I am confident there will be a real electric theory in the future, complete with very complicated equations. But by then it will all be mainstream stuff.

Certainly there are reasons, let's just hope they are good ones.
A good reason would be that the ideas are too outrageous and require a lot of work, like fundamental reconsideration of available observations.
A bad reason would be to just go on with what already is working; plain inertia.

My recommendation has always been to evaluate observations in both views. It is twice as much work and double the fun.

gerards regards

Several pages ago we have already gone through the idea of the electrical sun, based on a circuit model. I cannot find the correct post at this point (search does not seem to work right now). But in the post I showed that for a circuit giving the sun enough power electrically, the interplanetary magnetic field would be orders of magnitude larger than we measure at the moment. And those calculations were done using the same theories thae PU/EU uses as a foundation, i.e. electrodynamics and plasma physics.

Just to extend what tusenfem has already said ... if the ES (Electric Sun) idea is that it is powered (mostly) by an ISM current, then we can put it into the 'long-debunked' category, even without asking any ES proponent to provide specific details of the 'theory'.

Why?

Because no current (flow of electrons and/or ions) large enough to power the Sun has been detected (there are other reasons too, discussed at length in this thread).

So, unless you have a way to dig the ES 'theory' out of the hole of the lack of observations of any currents sufficient to power the Sun, it might be a good idea to drop the word 'theory'.

On a related note, it's curious that ATKINS - defending claims concerning Thornhill's 'predictions' about Deep Impact - may have (inadvertently) shown that the ES idea - as required in the 'electric comet' idea - is even more inconsistent with good observational results. And this particular 'observational result' doesn't require a space probe - all you need do is go outside and see how bright the Sun is (if there were currents sufficient to produce the Deep Impact effects that Thornhill claims, then the Sun would be much brighter than it is). More later.

[Nereid]

Alfven, the father of plasma physics, was perhaps the first to recognise the cosmological implications.

The role of plasma/EM in this regard is under debate in this thread, is it not? There seem to be a number of differing perspectives.

Thanks for that.

To clarify, this thread is for discussion of EU/PU/PC/ES ideas.

The discussion will be conducted within the framework of this ATM section.

Specifically, any BAUT member wishing to do so may make (ATM) claims, present cases, etc directly related to the EU/PU/PC/ES ideas. This, of couse, includes the key foundation aspects - what is the underlying physics, what is the scope of the ideas, where are the core idea published, and so on.

Other BAUT members (or even the same ones who made the claims!) may ask questions about them, attack those presentations and claims, and generally challenge the claimants to defend the ideas they have proposed.

Such challenges should be mounted within the general framework of this forum (astronomy and space science).

It is a very long thread.

We have covered all aspects of the EU/PU/PC/ES ideas, as presented by proponents of those ideas.

The only aspects that seem to me to be still open are upriver's recent posts (and papageno's questions on them), ATKINS' claims regarding Thornhill's Deep Impact 'predictions' (and papageno's questions on them), and VanderL's answers to papageno's questions about VanderL's claims.

Do you have any new aspect, material, cases, or claims (etc) directly concerning the EU/PU/PC/ES ideas that you wish to present, P.Asmah?

[Nereid]

Velikovsky, having taken a scholarly approach to comparative mythology, argued that electromagnetism must play a bigger role in astrophysics in general, and our solar system in particular. He had a number of discussions with Einstein in this regard.

The phenomena which he believed were being described by a number of ancient cultures strongly suggested EM related events to his mind.

For avoidance of doubt, will you be presenting any of these claims - so that BAUT members may question, challenge, and attack them, here in this EU thread?

[papageno]

PART 1/2

You are the one dodging my questions.

This seems to be one of your standard forms of defense.... I'm certainly not "dodging your questions", you just don't like the answers I'm giving so you ignore them and then claim I haven't made them. I've now made five posts on this topic: #2077, #2114, #2126, #2128 nd #2129 and I've answered all the questions, sometimes twice or three times over. But if we have to, let's do it all for one last time... For good measure, I intend to respond to every line of your post.

I asked you to point us to the quantitative and testable predictions made by Thornhill about Deep Impact.
The only reference you have given is that one page from the Thunderbolts website, that I addressed already.

The rest was an attempt on your part to argue that the claims on that page constitute prediction in a scientifically sensible way.
But they don't: 1. Thornhill does not give quantitative estimates that can be compared to experimental data; 2. Thornhill phrased his predictions in a way that allows him to weasel his way out of a failure, by saying that the conditions were not right to fulfill his predictions or blaming NASA for his insuccess.
The reasons why Thornhill's claims are not predictions in a scientific sense has been explained ad nauseam, but that does not stop you from claiming victory.

So, where exactly did you show the quantitative and testable predictions made by Thornhill?

To deal with these three concepts separately:

I already explained that the operative concept is quantitative and testable prediction.
You are simply trying to redefine "prediction in scientific sense" into a definition that fits with Thornhill's statements.
By doing so you are setting up a double standard to favor Thornhill and relieve him from satisfying the burden of proof normal scientists have.
If Thornhill's claims do not satisfy the normal burden, they are worthless as scientific predictions.

1. "Predictions": I established in post #2114 in answer to yourself that what Thornhill posted on the Thunderbolts site on July 3 2005, 24 hours before impact, were indeed "predictions" rather than "post-event rationalizations":

Since you seem to have read my slightly earlier post about Thornhill’s Deep Impact predictions (you refer to my link to the Thunderbolts page which I only provided in the earlier post), you will presumably have read my point 2: "Is the fact that they were a pre-event prediction rather than post-event interpretation important", where I point out that these are pre-impact predictions and not post-event rationalizations. The difference between the future and the past is binary: “pre”, not “post”, “a priori, not “a posteriori”, “before the event” not “after the event”.

These are thus what we call "predictions", from the Latin meaning "said before".

I already that being "pre-event" does not make them scientific predictions.
Even astrologers can give "pre-event" predictions.

2. "Quantative": I pointed out in post #2126 (answering Fram), that it was ludicrous to require anything "mathematical" given that this was to be a first-in-the-history-of-astronomy event (more on this below, in the discussion on the "lightning bolt" analogy).

The observation of Uranus was a first in the history of astronomy, the discovery of electromagnetic waves was a first in the history of physics, but this did not stop astronomers and physicists from doing quantitative estimates.
Thornhill claims his theory is based on Plasma Physics, well developed quantitatively, yet after thirty years of work and with the chance of testing it with a first-in-the-history-of-astronomy experiment, he does not even bother to do order-of-magnitude estimates based on his theory.
If he had made quantitative and testable predictions and these had been tested successfully, it would have been like General Relativity solving quantitatively the problem of the precession of Mercury's perhelion.
Yet all we get is "maybe", "could even be", "if NASA will look for the effects"... guesses of the same nature as predictions made by astrologers.

And I made the point, in the already cited post #2114 in answer to yourself, that the whole issue was binary anyway, so quantification was irrelevant at this stage:

Finally on this point, there is absolutely no need for quantification, since the whole thing is also binary: either there was an electric discharge between Tempel 1 and the impactor or there wasn't. The precise "quantities" of discharge are irrelevant at this point. All the evidence indicates that there was a powerful electric discharge, in which case we live in a very different sort of universe from the one which mainstreamers would have us believe in.

The point us to the evidence that shows without ambiguity that such discharge happened. Explain us specifically and in the relevant details how the evidence shows that such discharge occurred.
But if the evidence does not show it?

Electrical interactions with Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if NASA will look for them.

[...]

If temperature measurements are made with sufficient resolution...

What does this mean?
Didn't Thornhill inform himself about the details of the instruments and conditions for this first-in-the-history-of-astronomy experiment, in order to be able to prepare predictions of effects that could be detected by the instruments?
Apparently not, otherwise he would not have put a disclaimer blaming NASA in case his predictions fail.
With such diclaimer he made his predictions worthless and put himself at the level of crackpots.

3. "Testable": I pointed out in post #2077, addressed to Nereid, that Thornhill's predictions could be tested again whenever the NASA (or any other space agency) chose to conduct similar experiments on other comets or asteroids:

My final point is that the sort of predictions Thornhill made also meet another essential criterion for assessing scientific validity, that of being reproducible. Each time in the future that impactors are sent to crash into other comets and asteroids, I'm sure the EU people will be delighted to make further predictions. They will be better able to quantify their predictions since Tempel 1 now stands as a yardstick against which to compare the characteristics of future impacts which, according to the EU theory, will vary directly as a function of the degree of eccentricity of the target's orbit around the sun.

The EU people can't realistically be expected to conduct this sort of experiment themselves since they presumably lack the necessary funding....

EU theorists would have more credibility if they stopped blaming the others for their failures.
It is up to EU theorists to prove that their theories are viable alternatives to the current models.
But apparently it is more important to them to appear like modern day Galileos.

Let's move onto your next point:

Because the statements you referred to so far sound like a weatherman saying "Tomorrow it may rain" "It could even snow" "It will be cloudy, but only if you look at the sky".

I used the weatherman analogy myself in post #2126, in answer to Fram:

If you want to knit pick, perhaps "accurate" was indeed not the right word. What about "right" (as opposed to "wrong")? If the weatherman forecasts rain tomorrow and it rains, most people would say he was right. If it snows, most people would say he was wrong. Where does the maths need to come in, in assessing if he was right or wrong?

I think the analogy proves my point, not yours: predictions and forecasts are either right or wrong (and you don't always need maths to decide the matter). Thornhill's predictions were right.

The statements on the Thunderbolts page do not constitute scientific predictions, being stuffed with "maybe", "could be", undefined quantities, disclaimers blaming NASA.
Why don't you point us to the real, quantitative and testable predictions made by Thornhill based on his theory, so that we can compare the numbers with the experimental data?

I think my "lightning bolts" example sums up the difficulty there is in making accurate predictions about electrical discharge phenomena even in our own backyard.

An example that has nothing to do with Deep Impact.
If I have two metallic spheres charged with a net voltage and get them closer in a low density atmosphere, I can get much more quantitatively accurate about a discharge than in the case of a lightning bolt in the open.
And this using Electromagnetism and Plasma Physics, just as EU theorists claim to be doing.

Here again, your demonstration proves my point, many thanks! The "lightning bolt" example has everything to do with Deep Impact and the absurdity of requiring anything other than the most general quantification. Your analysis of the difference between your laboratory experiment with two metallic spheres and "the case of a lightning bolt in the open" establishes precisely the graduation of difficulty I'm talking about. If you admit that you can "get much more quantitatively accurate about a discharge than in the case of a lightning bolt in the open" (but which can still be observed regularly not far from home), you must also necessarily admit that it is infinitely more difficult to be "quantitatively accurate" about something like Deep Impact which happened for the first time in the history of astronomy, millions of miles away from your lab or anyone's backyard. Given your own argument, can we as of now agree that your own reasoning has finally settled the "relevance of quantification as applied to the Deep Impact predictions" issue in Thornhill's favour?

Your analogy with lightning in atmosphere is like comparing apples with oranges.
It is like comparing ballistics on Earth with orbital mechanics of planets.

The system Impactor-Comet is very simple compared to our atmosphere.
Two metallic spheres with net voltage, in an "atmosphere" of low-density neutral plasma, is a more accurate model for the event than generic lightning bolts in our atmosphere.

The orbit of the comet was known, so were the paths of the probe and the impactor.
The characteristics of the impactor were well known, so were the instruments on board the of the probe and the impactor.
EU theorists claim to have the right theory for comets, but they did not bother to provide quantitative estimates for this first-in-the-history-of-astronomy experiment, the perfect chance to test their theory.
It is absurd that scientists would not try to strengthen their case by giving quantitative predictions.

As for your "And this using Electromagnetism and Plasma Physics, just as EU theorists claim to be doing" comment, they are doing it. As I have asked repeatedly without getting the least response from anyone, how otherwise can you explain the correctness of their predictions if they are not based on the findings of Electromagnetism and Plasma Physics and the proven scalability of the phenomena observed in the lab? This is very precisely the "method in [their] madness".

Electromagnetism and Plasma Physics have theories well developed quantitatively.
If EU theorists are basing their work on these theories, why are they not giving quantitative estimates?

Since EU theorists like to point to the scalability of laboratory phenomena as support for their ideas, why didn't they do it for Deep Impact.
Two metallic spheres charged with a net voltage getting closer in a low-density neutral plasma is exactly that kind of lab experiment EU theorists refer to.
I can picture the Mythbusters doing it, why not EU proponents?

This only lends support to my idea that EU proponents are not interested in science, but in appearing like modern Galileos.

So, where are the OOM estimates about the comet-impactor discharge?

There aren't any and I've explained why, just as you can't make any OOM estimates concerning the lightning bolts occurring every day on Earth.

I already explained that lightning bolts on Earth are not a good model for Deep Impact.
I explained what I would have used to model the event, and it turns out that it that kind of lab experiment EU theorists like to refer to in support of their ideas.

So, what is stopping EU theorists to make such estimates based on their theories and scaling up lab experiments?

You are simply looking for excuses with your lightning bolt analogy.

The time will come for serious study of the quantification of such phenomena as the electric discharge at Deep Impact which the EU people predicted, but that time will only come once the reality of those phenomena has been actually accepted by the mainstream.

First you emphasized that Thornhill predicted unobserved phenomena, now you say that EU theorists have to wait until those phenomena are accepted by the mainstream.

If EU theorists have not been working on quantitative theories, what have they been doing in the last thirty years?

The quantification can only be done by instruments and experimental protocols which have been integrated into space missions set up for that purpose. We are still clearly very far from that but it's certainly not the fault of the EU people!

Oh no! It's all Big Bad NASA's fault if EU theorists have not provided quantitative predictions!
If EU proponents are interested in proving the scientific viability of their theories, they have to show first that they can explain the available data.
But this requires quantitative work, which they cannot do because the mainstream has first to accept their point of view, right?
The mainstream has to come to the EU theorists so that They can reveal the Truth!

Don't you see a that this attitude of EU proponents is un-scientific?

The more you describe EU theorists, the more they look like crackpots after other people's money: "Give me your money, and I'll give you my quantitative theory!"

[papageno]

PART 2/2

It is clearly ridiculous to require quantified predictions in a first-in-the-history-of-astronomy event such as Deep Impact, taking place millions of miles away.

So, why is the surprise displayed by the "mainstream" scientific comunity about the results, so important to you that you have a file of quoted reactions of the mission players?

(???) I don't see the connection. But I'm pleased to see you acknowledge the reality of the "surprise displayed by the mainstream scientific comunity about the results": with this sort of admission we're really starting to make progress here.

Conspiracy theorists, moon hoax believers, UFOs-are-ETs believers, most of the ATM proponents, including many EU/PC supporters, subscribe to a fallacy that I like to call mors tua, vita mea.
Mors tua = the establishment/government/NASA/mainstream cannot explain/are surprised of a certain phenomenon.
Vita mea = my conspiracy/moon hoax/UFO/ATM theory explain that phenomenon.
The fallacy consists in this: mors tua happens, therefore, by default, necessarily, automatically, vita mea must be true.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works.
If mainstream scientists are surprised by an experimental result, this does not necessarily prove that an ATM theory can explain it.

Despite the un-scientific nature of this fallacy, ATM proponents like to collect quotes form mainstream scientists which say how unexpected certain observations were, as if this surprise somehow supports the ATM theory.
What these proponents don't get, is that the ATM theory has to prove to be able to explain the observation, independently of the surprise of mainstream scientists.

You, by admitting to collect quotes of surprise by mainstream scientists, ticked another box in the CT checklist, showing to subscribe to the mors tua, vita mea fallacy.

Do I really need to answer you? Let's just say that if I had to choose between two horse-racing pundits, one of whom regularly and confidently picks the winner (even if he can't say how many lengths the horse is going to win by - I don't care, anyway) and the other who consistently expresses surprise and dismay when his chosen horses regularly finish way down the field and often fall at the first fence, I know where I'd put my money. What about you?

By your own admission the EU theorists have not put forward any quantitative work. Therefore they do not provide an viable alternative to the mainstream models.

He did not predict phenomena, he said that phenomena may happen, that we could observe something if NASA plays along, that the instruments may stop working, and so on.

As I said earlier, "predict" comes from the Latin "said before" and this is what Thornhill did. As for Thornhill's use of the conditionals "may" and "could", I pointed out in post #2114 that this was dictated by the necessary degree of uncertainty regarding the size of the charge difference between Tempel 1 and the impactor due to the factors concerning the eccentricity of orbits which Thornhill identified:

[snip!]

Integrating into expectations the existence of proven but as yet unquantified variables seems to me like impeccable scientific method. Don't you agree?

No. The phrasing of Thornhill's predictions has the same character as predictions made by crackpots.
He clearly left open the possibility to blame NASA or other factors in case he failed:.
He did not say: "If this does not happen, then my theory is wrong".
He said: "If this does not happen it is because NASA did not look for it, or because the instruments did not have enough resolution."

There is nothing impeccably scientific in his claims.

Is this all we can expect after thirty years of work based on theories already developed?

Again, I'm pleased to see your implicit acnowledgement that Thornhill's predictions were indeed "based on theories already developed" (so there was "method in his madness" after all!) As for the "Is this all we can expect after thirty years of work [...]?" sneer, it just smacks of sour grapes.

You are twisting my words.
I acknowledge that EU theorists claim they are basing their work on well established theories.
But their claims are refuted by their actions.

Einstein took 10-15 years years to develop General Relativity, Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Dirac did not need 30 years to develop Quantum Mechanics, nearly from scratch.

So what? Here again, I don't see the connection. Or perhaps you're predicting it may take another 50 years for the mainstream to accept the evidence for charge difference at astronomical levels? I hope not!

You are missing the point.
After thirty years of work based on well develope, quantitative theories, EU proponents still do not provide quantitative works.
Yet more revolutionary theories require less time to be developed into fully formalized and quantitative theories from scratch.
It is obvious that EU theorists are not putting much effort in their own work.

Based on what I have seen in this thread, the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology/etc. are not about developing theories that work better than the currently accepted theories.

Could you give precise references, please? (but without rehashing for the n'th time the standard "When are you finally going to answer my questions?" line).

On this board we have seen plenty of CT/MHB/ATM/crackpots doing exactly what EU/PC proponents do.
Just read the rest of my post.
If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like duck... then it must be a duck.

It is about being against-the-mainstream, being Galileo vs. Church of Rome, David vs. Goliath, a true underdog story, just as conspiracy theorists and moon hoax believers.

I've added these further five examples to my list of what I've called "inelegant, unscientific value judgements" concerning Thornhill's predictions. Frankly, I find your calling into question both the motivation and the intelligence of those who no longer swallow mainstream FAIRIEDUST (Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories) insulting. We are neither mystics nor morons.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.
I simply note the un-scientific behavior of EU proponents and point to the similarities with the behavior of conspiracy theorists and moon hoax believer.
On this board we have a pretty good idea how they behave and what might drive them.

If you think that I am mistaken, then by all means prove it.
Show us the quantitative work done by EU theorists, so that we can compare it to the available experimental data, and see for ourselves that they are right, instead of having to rely on vague predictions and second-hand descriptions of their work.

In my own case, I am not a professional astronomer, I have absolutely no vested interests in either supporting or attacking BB theory, so I have nothing even slightly resembling an axe to grind. I was in fact myself a fairly devout mainstreamer up to a couple of years ago but I now believe that the sheer accumulation and weight of highly disturbing evidence coming in from experiments like Deep Impact and from ever more precise images at all wavelengths has henceforth made many mainstream positions untenable.

You just ticked another box in the CT checklist: "I used to be a sceptic, but the overwhelming evidence convinced me!"
Point us to the quantitative work done by EU theorists and show us that the experimental evidence supports it.

And on this bombshell, I'll end the post!

[Eta C]

Shurely shum misundersandeng.

I have ordered the book, as I have done so after a number of your recommendations in the past. Don't put yourself down.

Thanks again
P.Asmah

Apology extended in this case (other disagreements I have with you on the EU hypothesis notwithstanding). Consider my comparisons to Seigel's website withdrawn. Still the crack about collecting a commission from Amazon was uncalled for and accounts for my rather acerbic initial response.

[P.Asmah]

Do you have any new aspect, material, cases, or claims (etc) directly concerning the EU/PU/PC/ES ideas that you wish to present, P.Asmah?

No, but I hope this does not preclude me from contributing to this thread. I am following it with interest.

[P.Asmah]

For avoidance of doubt, will you be presenting any of these claims - so that BAUT members may question, challenge, and attack them, here in this EU thread?

I think Velikovsky would warrant a separate thread. I have recently finished Worlds in Collision, again, after reading it many years ago.

I find some of his arguments interesting, and they leave nagging questions in my mind, even if many in the mainstream do consider his work to have been thoroughly debunked.

Perhaps recent developments in plasma cosomology lend support to his ideas? Bring on the backlash!