Electric Universe Model.,

[Nereid]

I think Velikovsky would warrant a separate thread.
[snip]

I agree.

When you wish to start such a thread, please go right ahead!

[sol88]

Nereid wrote

One more example of the absurd illogic "{insert your favourite mainstream theories here} cannot explain {insert your favourite observations here}, THEREFORE THE EU IDEA MUST BE RIGHT!!!!"

or how bout

One more example of the absurd illogic "{insert your favourite mainstream theories here} cannot explain {insert your favourite observations here}, THEREFORE THE EU IDEA May be worth investigating!!!!"

Pappongo wrote

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.

Seems from this end of the telescope, when mainstream scientist are surprised with a result they just change the stories with comments like "astronomers believe", "scientist think", "astrophysicist suspect" how’s is this any different from say Thornhills "predictions" ??


Pap wrote:

No. The phrasing of Thornhill's predictions has the same character as predictions made by crackpots.

After reading all of your post Papy, you my friend are a troll

None of this will matter much after the first major energy crunch later this year (or sooner) anyway. which is kinda ironic.

A scientist (M.King.Hubbert) stated in the late '50s that America would peak in oil production in the 70s, he was laughed at and humiliated, even called a "crackpot", until 1971, when in fact America peaked in oil production.

He had all the data, charts and theories, anyone could have looked at it but it had never happened before and so was ignored, and so here we are today on the brink of economic and social collapse all because a scientific theory was chosen to be ignored.

If you think this is some irrelevant topic, think again. With our current paradigm of using fossil energy to loft stuff into space when this declines and becomes to expensive to extract then I could state that Willy Wonka has got a chocolate factory on one of Neptune’s moons and you would never be able to prove me wrong with Earth based observations.

But if the EU theory proves correct (and IMHO it will) then Teslas ideas could mean we get "free" energy from space, if not then all this talk will amount to ***** ***** ***** (a friendly exercise - edited by antoniseb).

Sol

[papageno]

sol88,
besides the usual "they used to laugh at [insert name of favourite scientist], but he (or she) has been proven right!", do you have actual arguments showing that Thornhill provided quantitative and testable predictions that fit with the observations?
Do you perhaps have a reference for these predictions, so that we can check for ourselves?

Or do you subscribe to the mors tua, vita mea fallacy, without requiring from the EU proponents the same standard of proof required from mainstream scientists?
Do you have actual evidence of sound reasoning in support of EU ideas, which does not rely on the irrelevant excuse "but the mainstream cannot explain!" ?

[Nereid]

[snip]
After reading all of your post Papy, you my friend are a troll
[snip]

{BAUT rules, an extract} Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators via private message or e-mail. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take swift and appropriate action, so please behave accordingly.

sol88, please keep the content of your posts within BAUT posting guidelines.

Please attack papageno's ideas, logic, sources, etc; do NOT indulge in ad hominem attacks.

You have been warned.

[Nereid]

Nereid wrote

One more example of the absurd illogic "{insert your favourite mainstream theories here} cannot explain {insert your favourite observations here}, THEREFORE THE EU IDEA MUST BE RIGHT!!!!"

or how bout

One more example of the absurd illogic "{insert your favourite mainstream theories here} cannot explain {insert your favourite observations here}, THEREFORE THE EU IDEA May be worth investigating!!!!"
[snip]

As was pointed out in 2002, the rules of this ATM section are somewhat different than those for most internet discussion fora.

Should you, sol88, or any other BAUT member, wish to investigate EU ideas, nothing about being a BAUT member prevents you.

Further, should you wish to present the results of any such investigation here, in this EU thread, you are welcome to do so.

Challenges to the EU ideas presented in this thread by EU proponents are most unlikely to include "investigation of EU ideas is not worth doing".

However, the scope of this ATM section does not easily allow for undirected discussion of why investigation of EU ideas might (or might not) be worth undertaking. For such a discussion, I suggest that interested parties look for a different forum than BAUT.

[P.Asmah]

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.

No, but it is often said that the efficacy of any theory is reflected in its ability to make accurate predictions.

While we might always expect a surprise or two, at what point do we say, hang on a minute, the surprises outweigh the predictions, so there must be a fundamental problem with the existing theory?

Value judgements, anyone?

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.

It is equally fallacious to claim that mainstream theories can survive all surprises. If any theory is that bulletproof, then it's not a theory, but a belief!

If we follow your logic, the surprises can be absorbed ad infinititum, which sounds like a sure-fire trip to Alice In Wonderland.

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.[/i]

Once a hypothesis has the support of observation and prediction, surely it is time to start testing its veracity, and developing it as a theory with some OOM etc. It might be a bit premature to start demanding proofs.

[papageno]

No, but it is often said that the efficacy of any theory is reflected in its ability to make accurate predictions.

And considering that EU proponents are not even producing scientific predictions that can be tested, how effective is their "theory"?

While we might always expect a surprise or two, at what point do we say, hang on a minute, the surprises outweigh the predictions, so there must be a fundamental problem with the existing theory?

Value judgements, anyone?

Are you referring to the opinions of practicing scientists?

What if the "surprises" are the result of incomplete information on the conditions?

It is equally fallacious to claim that mainstream theories can survive all surprises. If any theory is that bulletproof, then it's not a theory, but a belief!

And scientists do not claim this.
They say that the mainstream theories have survived so far all experimental tests thrown at them.
They do not claim that the theories will survive every experimental test.

If we follow your logic, the surprises can be absorbed ad infinititum, which sounds like a sure-fire trip to Alice In Wonderland.

It is not my logic, nor any scientist's.

Once a hypothesis has the support of observation and prediction, surely it is time to start testing its veracity, and developing it as a theory with some OOM etc. It might be a bit premature to start demanding proofs.

The EU proponents are not talking about an hypothesis.
They claim they are basing their work on already quantitatively developed theories. They have enough to do more than OOM estimates.
And their hypothesis still lacks the support of observation.

[ATKINS]

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.

I wasn't sure which list you were talking about, so, by starting with the observed double flash at impact I was taking things in chronological order. I should actually have started even earlier, a short time before impact, with the last pictures taken by the impactor's on-board camera, for example, this one:
Thornhill predicted that Tempel 1 would not look anything like a "dirty snowball" but instead

The [electric] model predicts a sculpted surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges—the opposite of the softened relief expected of a sublimating “dirty snowball”. (A chunk of ice melting in the Sun loses its sharp relief, just like a scoop of melting ice cream.)

and that:

The impact/electrical discharge will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust.

This image and the others taken at even closer range correspond exactly to Thornhill's predictions. Is the mainstream yet again forbidding us to accept the evidence of our eyes and telling us instead to carry on believing what BB theory dictates, in this case their "good old" comet theory (as one of the mainstreamers recently put it)? Not for me, thank you!

The second prediction chronologically was that:

Electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact.

It did, apparently, since the last picture was taken three seconds before impact, when the impactor was still 30 miles away.

We could carry on to examine the fourth, fifth and other chronologically-ordered predictions but perhaps we can leave that to another post if you still stand by your original assertion that I wouldn't be able to defend even the "first" of Thornhill's predictions, as you claimed here:

So how about Atkins going through the thunderbolts palm-reading list and show with examples from the data that the "accurate" predictions are indeed what he claims they are. (Guess you will have a problem starting with the first one).

Starting to look like pretty good "palm-reading", isn't it?

As for your point about "the X-rays that are produced by charge exchange of solar wind oxygen and water from the comet", there was a lot of very healthy scepticism expressed on this point in the thread devoted to the recent Universe Today story "Deep Impact Caused a Great Gush of Water Vapour".

There was a little more on it in this thread from April 6, also rather inconclusive. It's clear that not many mainstreamers are rushing to defend the "250,000 tonnes of water vapour" idea, which is not based on any sort of spectral evidence, but simply extrapolated from the X-ray readings on the basis of a somewhat surprising "theory". This conclusion is, of course, completely contradicted by the direct spectral evidence which, much to the dismay and puzzlement of mission managers, showed, if anything, a decrease in the amount of "water" in the coma after impact, together with huge quantities of very fine dust. Willingale's theory sounds like just a bit more FAIRIEDUST conveniently thrown up to try to save the dirty snowball model in the face of overwhelming evidence disproving it.

Need I remind you that x-ray emission from comets was only quite recently detected by Chandra: up until they were actually observed, the idea that such a cold object as a "dirty snowball" could emit X-rays seemed totally absurd. And then the Chandra Press Room proudly announced on July 27, 2000, that the "Mystery of Cometary X-Rays [was] Solved":

On July 14, 2000 NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory imaged Comet C/1999 S4 (LINEAR) and detected X-rays from oxygen and nitrogen ions. The details of the X-ray emission, as recorded on Chandra's Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer, show that they are produced by collisions of ions racing away from the Sun with gas in the comet.

"This observation solves one mystery. It proves how comets produce X-rays," said Dr. Carey Lisse of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) leader of a team of scientists from STScI, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Max Planck Institute in Germany, Johns Hopkins University, the University of California, Berkeley, and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "With an instrument like Chandra, we can now study the chemistry of the solar wind, and observe the X-ray glow from the atmospheres of comets as well as planets such as Venus. It may even be possible to observe other, nearby solar systems."

Comets, which resemble "dirty snow balls" a few miles in diameter, were thought to be too cold for such energetic emission, so the detection of X-rays by the ROSAT observatory from comet Hyakutake in 1996 was a surprise. Several explanations were suggested, but the source of cometary X-ray emission remained a puzzle until the Chandra observation of Comet C/1999 S4 (LINEAR). Chandra's imaging spectrometer revealed a strong X-ray signal from oxygen and nitrogen ions, clinching the case for the production of X-rays due to the exchange of electrons in collisions between nitrogen and oxygen ions in the solar wind and electrically neutral elements (predominantly hydrogen) in the comets atmosphere.
(My bold)

"Hydrogen" not "water"... Or is the "theory" subject to on-going change as the need arises?

[ATKINS]

Hi, Papageno,
I'll be responding to what you posted yesterday, but I don't have much time during this Easter holiday and I felt I ought to reply to Tusenfem first.
I'll answer you ASAP.

[P.Asmah]

And scientists do not claim this. They say that the mainstream theories have survived so far all experimental tests thrown at them.

Of course, with the exception of the surprises.

Tempel 1 produced a few surprises, I seem to recall, but, if I understand you right from earlier posts, you see no reason to reconsider standard comet theory?

[papageno]

Of course, with the exception of the surprises.

Tempel 1 produced a few surprises, I seem to recall, but, if I understand you right from earlier posts, you see no reason to reconsider standard comet theory?

What if the "surprises" are the result of incomplete information on the conditions?

And why don't you address the rest of my post?

[sol88]

Papageno,

A question for you to answer, what would be a definitive piece of evidence for the exploration/investigation/research of the EU idea?

I'm just a little curious as to why you would totally trash this idea based on "mainstream" ideas and the proponents not being able to show quantitive and OOM estimates?

Black holes and neutron stars have never been proven and yet they are excepted on face value as "mainstream", but a theory which a least had a very good go at predicting the outcome of an event (nearly exactly) , could even say that next time they smash an impactor into something (isn’t the moon now a target?) then they may be able to allow for some "surprises"

[Van Rijn]

Papageno,

A question for you to answer, what would be a definitive piece of evidence for the exploration/investigation/research of the EU idea?

I'm just a little curious as to why you would totally trash this idea based on "mainstream" ideas and the proponents not being able to show quantitive and OOM estimates?

Don't know about Papageno, but I've been looking at the back and forth in this thread and it is going nowhere. Until the EU proponents start showing quantitative and OOM estimates there isn't even anything to talk about. All I see is fluff: look at this picture, look at this analogy, listen to this word salad, but nothing solid.

If and when EU proponents actually set forth a hypothesis that can be tested it will get interesting. Assuming this hypothetical hypothesis fits observation when using math and logic and makes real, testable predictions (meaning numbers, not word salad) that work better than "mainstream" theory, then there would be something seriously worth looking into.

Black holes and neutron stars have never been proven and yet they are excepted on face value as "mainstream", but a theory which a least had a very good go at predicting the outcome of an event (nearly exactly) , could even say that next time they smash an impactor into something (isn’t the moon now a target?) then they may be able to allow for some "surprises"

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but there are a great number of different types of observations that fit, using math and logic, with the existence of black holes and neutron stars. There are predictions that can and have been made using math and logic based on the existence of black holes and neutron stars that fit observation.

Let me know when the EU group can do even a small fraction of what has been done with, for instance, pulsars.

[P.Asmah]

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but there are a great number of different types of observations that fit, using math and logic, with the existence of black holes and neutron stars. There are predictions that can and have been made using math and logic based on the existence of black holes and neutron stars that fit observation.

In the case of Black Holes, the math is derived and extrapoltaed from the theory, so it works just fine. If the theory turns out to be wrong, then the math will likewise be sucked into oblivion!

The EU crowd might just as well come up with their own math, for what it's worth. I think observations and predictions might be a better place to start!

[P.Asmah]

And why don't you address the rest of my post?

--->

What if the "surprises" are the result of incomplete information on the conditions?

Yes, indeed. Moreover, what if the theory is based on a total lack of accurate information? The assumptions that begat the dirty snowball model maybe way out. It's certainly beginning to look that way.

[ATKINS]

In the case of Black Holes, the math is derived and extrapoltaed from the theory, so it works just fine. If the theory turns out to be wrong, then the math will likewise be sucked into oblivion!

The EU crowd might just as well come up with their own math, for what it's worth. I think observations and predictions might be a better place to start!

Above all, despite what mathematicians actually seem to believe, maths is only another, albeit specialized, language, with all the inherent failings and limitations of any language, as I argued in post #59 in the "Sani5's ideas on maths and physics" thread:

Math is actually only a language, or tool , which we use to attempt to describe "reality". In this respect, it is essentially no different from that other language, or tool, which we call "English", without which you wouldn't have been able to make the points you have made and I wouldn't be able to respond to you.

In any language, there are terms which some people believe to describe reality and which others don't. In what way, for example, is the word "God" (or "Gott", 'Dieu", etc. in other languages) essentially different from a term such as "cosmological constant" invented by Einstein, whose meaning or simple existence is similarly a mere matter of faith (fervently upheld by some, fiercely disputed by others)? Idem for DE and DM, of course...

The apparent objectivity of math should not lead us to believe that it actually and necessarily describes reality. Math-inspired FAIRIE DUST ("Fabricated Adhoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories") is essentially no different from the FAIRY-TALES (e.g. "The Emperor's Clothes") we were told as kids.

__________________

[Nereid]

The EU crowd might just as well come up with their own math, for what it's worth. I think observations and predictions might be a better place to start!

(my bold)

Concerning the Thornhill Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions:

How did he determine the charges that the comet and impactor would have ("charge imbalance")?

How did he work out what the voltage difference would be ("It is a “low-voltage” comet")?

What proportion of the energy of the discharge did Thornhill determine would go into producing X-rays ("Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile")? Mechanical excavation of the crater (and ejection of the jet material) ("initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out)")? Heating of the impactor (presumably to vapourisation)? Others? How did he calculate these?

What is the origin of the charges (i.e. how did the comet and impactor acquire their charges)?

Has anyone (other than Thornhill) seen the methods (equations, numbers, algorithms, etc) that Thornhill used to make his predictions (even in outline)?

Is 9P/Tempel-1 special in any way (so far as short period comets go)? (Other than that it was the target of Deep Impact, of course).

[sol88]

Van Rijn:

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but there are a great number of different types of observations that fit, using math and logic, with the existence of black holes and neutron stars. There are predictions that can and have been made using math and logic based on the existence of black holes and neutron stars that fit observation.

What happens at, or after singularity is reached?

What’s the maths and the OOM's for that state of matter?

But me being the mathematician you might as well be speaking Mandarin, but I would like to have a crack at a few experiments with the sole aim of falsifying the currently accepted view.

Like I ask before, what would be more or less a definitive experiment for the current mainstreamers to consider this theory at least worth investigating a little further, better than just plain sailing down the river De Nial with the stereo going flat out.

Soll88

[papageno]

A question for you to answer, what would be a definitive piece of evidence for the exploration/investigation/research of the EU idea?

A self-consistent model that is not contradicted by available experimental data would be a nice start.
Vague predictions, with disclaimers blaming others in case of failure, is not.

I'm just a little curious as to why you would totally trash this idea based on "mainstream" ideas and the proponents not being able to show quantitive and OOM estimates?

I don't trash them based on mainstream ideas.
I point out that EU proponents never come up up with a scientifically valid alternative to the mainstream.

Pointing at the failures of the mainstream does not equal showing that EU ideas fit with the observations.
EU proponents claim to base their work on Plasma Physics.
This branch of Physics is well developed theoretically, and allows for quantitative work. Yet we don't see any quantitative work from EU proponents, just vague statments and plenty of rants against the mainstream. They are not doing science, they are trying to play modern-day Galileos.

[sol88]

edit by antoniseb to add context: This post was in the Star Explodes Inside Another Star discussion in story comments. I've moved it here for any further discussion.

Just as a wacky proposition, what if this is not indeed a black hole or neutron star accreting matter into a singularity, but instead of, this is a Z-pinch under going Bifurcation, as proposed by the EU theorists?

Sol

[sol88]

Pap,

A self-consistent model that is not contradicted by available experimental data would be a nice start.

question still stands, unless you expect me to give you the theory for everything, what would be a definitive experiment?

Sol

[Nereid]

Van Rijn:

What happens at, or after singularity is reached?

What’s the maths and the OOM's for that state of matter?

But me being the mathematician you might as well be speaking Mandarin, but I would like to have a crack at a few experiments with the sole aim of falsifying the currently accepted view.

I'm not sure what this has to do with EU ideas - can you explain please?

For example, are you proposing an EU idea, in terms of an internally consistent explanation for good observational results (e.g. those of SgrA*)? If so, please put them on the table.

Like I ask before, what would be more or less a definitive experiment for the current mainstreamers to consider this theory at least worth investigating a little further, better than just plain sailing down the river De Nial with the stereo going flat out.

Soll88

This has been answered at least once before - if there aren't any quantitative predictions (from any EU idea), even in principle, there are no tests that can be done on those ideas.

To expand a bit: ATKINS has claimed that Thornhill's 'predictions' matched the results from the experiment (impact with a comet). At the moment, it would seem that only Thornhill knows how those 'predictions' were made (see my earlier post). Unless and until the methods/approaches/whatever that he used could be examined/dissected/whatever, this isn't science, much less a part of astrophysics based on plasma physics.

So, the direct answer is "so far, there is no EU theory; therefore nothing can be investigated (much less an experiment designed)."

Would you like to put an EU theory on the table, sol88?

[Nereid]

Pap,



question still stands, unless you expect me to give you the theory for everything, what would be a definitive experiment?

Sol

Only an EU theory, sol88 ... this is no chicken and egg; the theory comes first, then you design an experiment to test it.

[papageno]

question still stands, unless you expect me to give you the theory for everything, what would be a definitive experiment?

I already explained my answer: the EU proponents have to produce a scientifically viable theory.
They need to produce a self-consistent model not contradicted by experimental data already available, before they can ask for specific experiments to test their ideas.

At this point, the EU theorists - despite thirty years of work based on already quantitatively developed theories - have produce only vague predictions, determined by unknown methods and stuffed with disclaimers to blame others in case they fail.

[sol88]

Originally Posted by sol88
Van Rijn:

What happens at, or after singularity is reached?

What’s the maths and the OOM's for that state of matter?

But me being the mathematician you might as well be speaking Mandarin, but I would like to have a crack at a few experiments with the sole aim of falsifying the currently accepted view.

I'm not sure what this has to do with EU ideas - can you explain please?

For example, are you proposing an EU idea, in terms of an internally consistent explanation for good observational results (e.g. those of SgrA*)? If so, please put them on the table.

Just curious to know what happens to the maths after this point is reached? I think I reacl the maths breaks down at a singularity, is this correct?

My idea will be put on the table after my question reagrding the maths at a singularity question is answered in a succint way. It will help me with the equation I have been working on.

Papageno wrote:

I already explained my answer: the EU proponents have to produce a scientifically viable theory.

What's unviable about it?

Sol88

[Nereid]

Just curious to know what happens to the maths after this point is reached? I think I reacl the maths breaks down at a singularity, is this correct?

This EU thread, in the ATM section of BAUT, is an inappropriate place to ask such a question.

I have started a new thread, in BAUT's Q&A section, on this very topic.

Please keep an eye on it.

My idea will be put on the table after my question reagrding the maths at a singularity question is answered in a succint way. It will help me with the equation I have been working on.

I, for one, am very much looking forward to this.

I already explained my answer: the EU proponents have to produce a scientifically viable theory.

What's unviable about it?

Sol88

As presented by EU supporters, here in this EU thread in the ATM section of BAUT?

If you would be so kind as to point us all to where that 'scientifically viable EU theory' has been presented, here in this EU thread?

Please provide either a link, or a post number (or a series of such).

[sol88]

Neried wrote:

Please keep an eye on it.
Quote:
My idea will be put on the table after my question regarding the maths at a singularity question is answered in a succinct way. It will help me with the equation I have been working on.

I, for one, am very much looking forward to this.

Sorry to disappoint Nereid, but I cant complete my equation till the mainstreamers can fill in that part of the equation, it is the missing link . I mean come on how absurd, because the maths breaks down so does the theory! Surely a well though out multi-billion dollar budget theory can do better, don't you think??

So I could give you my theory on it but it wouldn't amount to much if I can't show you the maths, OOM's and quantative estimates now would it! Or I could take a leaf out of the mainstreamer book and say the maths for my interpretation of the EU idea breaks down at the point of discharge but nether the less it still works.

Now this lillte thought exercise was done to show just how hypocritical the mainstreamers can be.

[sol88]

Nereid Quote:
Originally Posted by P.Asmah
The EU crowd might just as well come up with their own math, for what it's worth. I think observations and predictions might be a better place to start!

(my bold)

Concerning the Thornhill Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions:

How did he determine the charges that the comet and impactor would have ("charge imbalance")?

How did he work out what the voltage difference would be ("It is a “low-voltage” comet")?

What proportion of the energy of the discharge did Thornhill determine would go into producing X-rays ("Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile")? Mechanical excavation of the crater (and ejection of the jet material) ("initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated—filamentary—not sprayed out)")? Heating of the impactor (presumably to vapourisation)? Others? How did he calculate these?

What is the origin of the charges (i.e. how did the comet and impactor acquire their charges)?

Has anyone (other than Thornhill) seen the methods (equations, numbers, algorithms, etc) that Thornhill used to make his predictions (even in outline)?

Is 9P/Tempel-1 special in any way (so far as short period comets go)? (Other than that it was the target of Deep Impact, of course).

First up

How did he determine the charges that the comet and impactor would have ("charge imbalance")?

How did he work out what the voltage difference would be ("It is a “low-voltage” comet")?

He predicted that there would be a voltage difference, which there was, and since that was the case then the comet must be charged!

I think it should now be up to the big boys to work out the OOM's and quantative predictions based on observed fact.

then

What is the origin of the charges (i.e. how did the comet and impactor acquire their charges)?

very simple static charge, I work in the fuel industry and they are very heavy on the dangers of static electricity discharge, the little booklet I was re-reading this morning stated that any two different materials that move against one another will produce a potential difference (charge) and this is only in liquids moving thru a pipeline, imagine then a rocky body moving thru plasma!!

I also saw a program were the ancient Romans valued Amber because it could be charged (simply rubbing it on something) and then held its charge, and remember this is a nonconductive substance, but after a time it loses it charge thru what the booklet call "relaxation", if it could not "relax" fast enough it might just give you a static spark!! .i.e. a comet on a elliptical orbit.

So it stands to reason the generator of charge imbalance in space could be as simple as static build up!!!

Question is how much charge would build up on a galactic scale?

Sol

[Van Rijn]

Neried wrote:

Sorry to disappoint Nereid, but I cant complete my equation till the mainstreamers can fill in that part of the equation, it is the missing link . I mean come on how absurd, because the maths breaks down so does the theory! Surely a well though out multi-billion dollar budget theory can do better, don't you think??

So because of an understood limitation of (apparently) unrelated theory, you will not begin to even present an EU hypothesis. Anyway, the result is the same: You have nothing worth discussing, the only thing you can do is complain about the horrors of the mainstream while presenting absolutely nothing.

[Nereid]

1) The H-R diagram (in the EU idea, stars should have no particular colour-luminosity relationship)

2) Pulsars (in the EU idea, there is no way such extreme stability in period, and such relatively smooth changes in period, could arise)

3) The Hulse-Taylor pulsar, and other binary pulsars, and the double pulsar (in the EU idea, the features in the timing data - which match predictions of GR to an astonishing extent - cannot even exist)

4) The sound spectrum of the Sun - helioseismology (the Sun's temperature/density/composition profile, in the EU idea, cannot give rise to what's observed)

5) Solar neutrinos (not the fact of their existence, but their energy spectrum, are impossible under the EU idea).

... and so on.

So, the EU idea has already been tested, and has failed at least these five tests.

Of course, if any EU proponent can point us to papers which do account for these five sets of observations (quantitatively, of course) ...