Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[Lloyd]

Aristarchus said: I'm working on another non-fiction regarding the space agency, and have other things to do as to reiterate what has already been shown on this topic as to why CC has not received a response for his inquiry to the presenters and researchers into the EU model.

I seem to be a confused foreigner to your writing style. It's very hard to gather what you're trying to say much of the time. If you're saying you know why the EU team has not welcomed or joined in a discussion with CC and if you want to reveal the reason/s, I'd appreciate hearing them. Otherwise, I may have to reread your message to fathom what you're getting at in other regards. And I don't promise to reread it.

[Aristarchus]

I seem to be a confused foreigner to your writing style. It's very hard to gather what you're trying to say much of the time. If you're saying you know why the EU team has not welcomed or joined in a discussion with CC and if you want to reveal the reason/s, I'd appreciate hearing them. Otherwise, I may have to reread your message to fathom what you're getting at in other regards. And I don't promise to reread it.

Gee, I'm crushed. I guess I should just ignore the 4.15 star ratings/reviews out of five stars for my book on Goodreads, and the five out of five stars ratings/reviews on Amazon. Or the compliments from my editor on my writing style. Or the compliments for my non-fiction work. Or the compliments from my students on making their research papers and resumes more articulate. Often times I'm doing these things while responding on this topic at the same time, and that I'm also not pursuing it with the vigor as applied to my novels and non-fiction work.

I keep forgetting that you. CC, and the rest of the fan club are the authorities and deciders here. Oh, and BTW, it's CC that is complaining about not being approached my the EU researchers regarding his questions - if you can call them questions. Uh, kind of like, CC explaining how according to the EU claims that the Sun should be tubular not spherical, and we're supposed to be convinced that the latter in some way demonstrates CC playing his hand well in the I gotcha game. Yeah, right, that tubular aspect got past Scott and Thornhill, and they're both just sitting back trying to figure this out. You guys are hoot.

Incidentally, do you have as much lack of reading comprehension adroitness with the research papers and web sites I linked and quoted on this topic? Perhaps, you're more comfortable being sent to a page that has a list of research papers with no quotes provided, but rather, sends the reader on a wild goose chase to dig up the material and proper paragraph for an answer to a simple question. Look, as a writer, I understand the pursuit of promotion, but c'mon, I think we get where to go to read CC's research at this point. I also understand that when one can't respond well to a fellow poster, it might play better to deflect and distract about writing style. I guess I just have to get used to the idea that you and CC are of such high importance that I need to contact my editor before posting here. Silly me.

Well, back to the "Most thorough Model" for you. It's such a thorough model that I find it a hoot as you guys try to figure it out. But hey, what would life be without its oxymorons?

[CharlesChandler]

I also understand that when one can't respond well to a fellow poster, it might play better to deflect and distract about writing style.

[Aristarchus]

Thornhill from 2002

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/a-mystery ... -universe/

Pioneer 10 is now 7.4 billion miles from Earth, maybe 90 percent of the way to the heliopause. The electrical model of the solar system predicts that additional anomalies will be found if a distant spacecraft encounters the heliopause while still in contact with Earth. For the heliopause is the “cathode drop” region of the Sun’s electrical influence. It is a region of strong radial electric field, which will tend to decelerate the spacecraft more strongly. Almost the full difference between the Sun’s voltage and that of the local arm of the galaxy is present across the heliopause boundary. As a result, it is the region where so-called “anomalous” cosmic rays are generated by the strong field. It has nothing to do with a shock front and some poorly defined acceleration mechanism. Some measure of the driving electrical potential of the Sun may be gained from the study of “anomalous” cosmic rays. Also we can deduce the driving potential of other stars by the study of normal cosmic rays.

The implications of an electrical dimension to stars are profound. Obviously, if we do not understand our closest star, all speculation about more distant stars and their histories are misguided. Of course, it begs the question of the power source that maintains the galactic charge differentials to power stars. It is here that the electric star hypothesis merges seamlessly with plasma cosmology, which also had its origin in electrical engineering. Plasma cosmology, which is now recognized by the IEEE, is practically unknown amongst astronomers and astrophysicists. The latter have been content to ignore the warnings of Hannes Alfvén, the “father” of plasma physics and plasma cosmology, that their use of plasma theory is outdated and wrong.

[CharlesChandler]

Pioneer 10 is now 7.4 billion miles from Earth, maybe 90 percent of the way to the heliopause. The electrical model of the solar system predicts that additional anomalies will be found if a distant spacecraft encounters the heliopause while still in contact with Earth. For the heliopause is the “cathode drop” region of the Sun’s electrical influence. It is a region of strong radial electric field, which will tend to decelerate the spacecraft more strongly. Almost the full difference between the Sun’s voltage and that of the local arm of the galaxy is present across the heliopause boundary. As a result, it is the region where so-called “anomalous” cosmic rays are generated by the strong field. It has nothing to do with a shock front and some poorly defined acceleration mechanism. Some measure of the driving electrical potential of the Sun may be gained from the study of “anomalous” cosmic rays. Also we can deduce the driving potential of other stars by the study of normal cosmic rays.

Note that this wasn't a blind prediction -- it was a response to anomalies that NASA was already finding.

Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up pictures of Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is being pulled back to the sun by an unknown force. The effect shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that the probe has revealed a new force of nature. Dr Philip Laing, a member of the research team tracking the craft, said: “We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and so far nothing works.” “If the effect is real, it will have a big impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation,” said Dr Laing, of the Aerospace Corporation of California.

So it wasn't a "prediction" per se -- it was an attribution of anomalies that had already been found, to a framework already developed.

[D_Archer]

Pioneer 10 is now 7.4 billion miles from Earth, maybe 90 percent of the way to the heliopause. The electrical model of the solar system predicts that additional anomalies will be found if a distant spacecraft encounters the heliopause while still in contact with Earth. For the heliopause is the “cathode drop” region of the Sun’s electrical influence. It is a region of strong radial electric field, which will tend to decelerate the spacecraft more strongly. Almost the full difference between the Sun’s voltage and that of the local arm of the galaxy is present across the heliopause boundary. As a result, it is the region where so-called “anomalous” cosmic rays are generated by the strong field. It has nothing to do with a shock front and some poorly defined acceleration mechanism. Some measure of the driving electrical potential of the Sun may be gained from the study of “anomalous” cosmic rays. Also we can deduce the driving potential of other stars by the study of normal cosmic rays.

Note that this wasn't a blind prediction -- it was a response to anomalies that NASA was already finding.

Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up pictures of Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is being pulled back to the sun by an unknown force. The effect shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that the probe has revealed a new force of nature. Dr Philip Laing, a member of the research team tracking the craft, said: “We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and so far nothing works.” “If the effect is real, it will have a big impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation,” said Dr Laing, of the Aerospace Corporation of California.

So it wasn't a "prediction" per se -- it was an attribution of anomalies that had already been found, to a framework already developed.

Are you actually being serious here?

The actual prediction is > "additional anomalies will be found"

And these were found with the IBEX mission.

You focus on the probe issue which was not the focus of Wal's prediction. The prediction concerns cosmic rays and what a spacecraft would find/encounter when entering the cathode drop.

Regards,
Daniel

[CharlesChandler]

The actual prediction is > "additional anomalies will be found"

And these were found with the IBEX mission.

You focus on the probe issue which was not the focus of Wal's prediction. The prediction concerns cosmic rays and what a spacecraft would find/encounter when entering the cathode drop.

I don't see how Thornhill's statements in 2002 qualify as predictions that IBEX would find energetic neutral atoms. Thornhill was looking for a current, which necessarily involves ions. The unexpected discovery of energetic neutral atoms doesn't exactly validate Thornhill's prediction of electric currents.

As an analogy, if I predicted that tomorrow would be unusually stormy, and tomorrow turned out to be unusually clear, I could "try" to say that my prediction of unusual weather came true, and perhaps the gullible would believe me. But since the actual outcome was the opposite of what I predicted, it really wouldn't qualify as a confirmed prediction.

[D_Archer]

The actual prediction is > "additional anomalies will be found"

And these were found with the IBEX mission.

You focus on the probe issue which was not the focus of Wal's prediction. The prediction concerns cosmic rays and what a spacecraft would find/encounter when entering the cathode drop.

I don't see how Thornhill's statements in 2002 qualify as predictions that IBEX would find energetic neutral atoms. Thornhill was looking for a current, which necessarily involves ions. The unexpected discovery of energetic neutral atoms doesn't exactly validate Thornhill's prediction of electric currents.

As an analogy, if I predicted that tomorrow would be unusually stormy, and tomorrow turned out to be unusually clear, I could "try" to say that my prediction of unusual weather came true, and perhaps the gullible would believe me. But since the actual outcome was the opposite of what I predicted, it really wouldn't qualify as a confirmed prediction.

First you think 'additional anomalies' means the tug on the probe and now it is 'electric currents'. Have you studied cathode drops? Wal preditcted what you would find when you enter a cathode drop > 'additional anomalies', that is not a very specific prediction but somehow you attack whatever you think it means, which is not what it means.

So we got a region of space that is very active, that is predicted by EU and not by any other theory. The cathode drop IS a double layer, the ENAs are a by product of the interactions taking place.

Regards,
Daniel

[CharlesChandler]

First you think 'additional anomalies' means the tug on the probe and now it is 'electric currents'. Have you studied cathode drops? Wal predicted what you would find when you enter a cathode drop > 'additional anomalies', that is not a very specific prediction but somehow you attack whatever you think it means, which is not what it means.

Well, forgive me for "trying" to figure out what it means. The EU isn't making much of an attempt to get theory linked directly to observations, with specific physical forces doing the work. That's the test of a theory, and I'm testing theories (mine and everyone else's). If you think that a little bit of hand-waving that could be correct is sufficient, and that challenging it would just be wrong, then you'll believe anything. Ah but people like that tend to latch onto things, so it isn't that you'll believe everything. Gullibility and tenacity tend to go hand-in-hand. But you have latched onto a model that never had much specificity in the first place, and which hasn't changed in 10 years, and where the proponents aren't addressing the issues. The joy in that will pass the point of diminishing returns.

If you're going to latch onto something, remember that good science is not a position -- it's a process. If you stick to a good process, you'll make forward motion, and eventually, all will be revealed. But if you use a bad process and instead stick to a position no matter what, all of your revelations are behind you.

So we got a region of space that is very active, that is predicted by EU and not by any other theory.

Here's another one:

May, H. D., 2008: A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879

The basic idea is that particles in the interstellar wind impinge on the heliosphere, and the ions get embedded deeper than the electrons, due to their greater mass. This sets up a DL, with positive charges in the interior, and negative charges on the exterior.

I have generalized this principle to explain phenomena at other scales, such as comets, asteroids, and meteoroids. I can prove that comets are surrounded by just such a DL, and for precisely the same reason. One of the proofs is that despite the fact that comets typically move through the IPM at ~45 km/s, which is supersonic, the jets emanating from their interiors show no signs of being affected by supersonic winds sweeping across them. This would only be possible if the jets are spraying into a sheath that shields them from the impinging winds.

I can also demonstrate that meteoroids have similar sheaths. The drag force on a meteoroid should be absolutely unbelievable, since boundary layer separation would definitely occur on the leeward side, and thus the meteoroid's speed should be braked by a near perfect vacuum on the trailing surface. Yet meteoroids are not decelerated per the predictions of fluid dynamics. This is explained as the consequence of the friction-less plasma sheath that builds up around the meteoroid. Then there is the glowing coma, which is clearly hosting electrostatic discharges, but which doesn't make much sense in the EU model, where the potential is between the meteoroid and the Earth, and the discharge should be a lightning strike to ground. The glowing coma makes perfect sense if the meteoroid separated charges in the atmosphere, and those charges recombine later in the coma.

I could go on, but the point here is that it's easy to find observations that prove that EM is at work in all of these phenomena, and there we agree. It isn't all that hard to come up with epiphanies on how EM does the job. But not all of those epiphanies are actually going to work. So, if you know that you're right about the presence of EM, and THEN you do the additional work to find out precisely how EM does the job, you'll liable to be rewarded with a highly accurate model that makes very specific contentions on the forces responsible for the phenomena, and this will stand up to continued scrutiny. Then again, if you just latch onto the very first epiphany that comes along, and if it doesn't turn out to be correct, the initial joy will turn to frustration as you see that it cannot be made to accurately describe the phenomena. And if you're not careful, you'll get entrenched in your position, and you'll employ all manner of rhetorical devices to defend your position from perceived attacks. I can think of two great examples of people doing precisely that, to hold onto existing positions. One of them is the mainstream. The other is the EU. Frankly, I don't see a difference in process there. The only difference is that they have competing positions, while they approach the defense of such positions with the same methods. Meanwhile, I'm making progress, by keeping an open mind, and insisting that successful theories have to account for the phenomena by identifying the specific forces at work.

[Zendo]

[...]
I could go on, but the point here is that it's easy to find observations that prove that EM is at work in all of these phenomena, and there we agree. It isn't all that hard to come up with epiphanies on how EM does the job. But not all of those epiphanies are actually going to work. So, if you know that you're right about the presence of EM, and THEN you do the additional work to find out precisely how EM does the job, you'll liable to be rewarded with a highly accurate model that makes very specific contentions on the forces responsible for the phenomena, and this will stand up to continued scrutiny. Then again, if you just latch onto the very first epiphany that comes along, and if it doesn't turn out to be correct, the initial joy will turn to frustration as you see that it cannot be made to accurately describe the phenomena. And if you're not careful, you'll get entrenched in your position, and you'll employ all manner of rhetorical devices to defend your position from perceived attacks. I can think of two great examples of people doing precisely that, to hold onto existing positions. One of them is the mainstream. The other is the EU. Frankly, I don't see a difference in process there. The only difference is that they have competing positions, while they approach the defense of such positions with the same methods. Meanwhile, I'm making progress, by keeping an open mind, and insisting that successful theories have to account for the phenomena by identifying the specific forces at work.

You hit the nail on the head. This is why it's so extremely important to keep tinkering, not getting stuck in the same track.

[Aristarchus]

First you think 'additional anomalies' means the tug on the probe and now it is 'electric currents'. Have you studied cathode drops? Wal preditcted what you would find when you enter a cathode drop > 'additional anomalies', that is not a very specific prediction but somehow you attack whatever you think it means, which is not what it means.

Yes. Everything must comport to CC's "detailed analysis." If one challenges his views, then that poster simply isn't being fair to CC. Evidently, CC should be able to come to a EU forum and denigrate the former's model without receiving a thorough challenge to his positing. It's like water over stone when one tries to explain to CC that the paradigm for research on the academic and establishment science doesn't exist to begin a quantitative analysis for the EU model. Perhaps, CC thinks that Scott and Thornhill should fund and launch their own probes.

However, he doesn't quote Scott or Thornhill, but leaves that to his interlocutor. When the latter does provide quotes and links to EU's research papers, he then dismisses them. When one does a follow up, CC has other explanations, e.g., ask him to explain the random electric current and diffusion regarding the Scott paper that I linked.

Meanwhile, his detailed analysis is still faced with questions, and that comes from his supporters. It's not a question of CC presenting his case, but his mode of discussion appears to me to obfuscate. For example, why is CC even discussing what was discovered recently beyond the solar system regarding the probes, when he is on record stating that the probes' data nearer the Sun and Earth, suffice?

[Lloyd]

There's almost zero useful discussion here from the Aristarchus side of this debate. There's mostly just arrogant and derogatory comments from him. I doubt if the EU team appreciates being defended by him. I won't be participating henceforth, unless some actual scientific discussion appears.

[Aristarchus]

There's almost zero useful discussion here from the Aristarchus side of this debate. There's mostly just arrogant and derogatory comments from him.

In my post above yours, could you please quote me from that post as to what specifically you perceive as derogatory? I have used the term shill in my other responses on this topic, but I do not consider that an ad hominem, as it is my perception with evidence from CC's postings combining views from the establishment science with his positing. My very first post on this topic I made it clear as to how I was going to approach the discussion along with the credentials that I have, or lack thereof.

By no means do I claim to be an expert in the sciences and electronics, but I do engage with questions and do careful analysis. I do take pride in knowing that I knew those that worked in the Defense Department and NASA that asked me to have a beer or coffee to discuss scientific issues.

As for the following:

I doubt if the EU team appreciates being defended by him.

Probably, but I don't seek validation from others. My wife cringes when she takes me to her corporate get together's. I know I can be an a-hole at times. For what's it worth, I apologize.

If one does want to discuss the science, I would appreciate a follow up on the Brownian motion and Diffusion current. It's a shame you're leaving this topic, because one of my enjoyments reading the Thunderbolt forums are your postings on the Saturn Myth and your interview with Dwardu Cardona.

For the record, I do have a very good rapport with faculty and students. If you met me in person, I would venture to guess that you probably find me with quite an amiable disposition.

[Lloyd]

In my post above yours, could you please quote me from that post as to what specifically you perceive as derogatory? I have used the term shill in my other responses on this topic, but I do not consider that an ad hominem, as it is my perception with evidence from CC's postings combining views from the establishment science with his positing.

The EU team accepts most data presented by conventional science and CC does as well, but is also skeptical in many cases, just as the EU team is. CC's model has little in common with the standard model and what similarities there are are only superficial. His model places the electric force and sometimes the magnetic as primary and more significant than gravity.

Some of Aristarchus' recent derogatory remarks:
1. Yes. Everything must comport to CC's "detailed analysis." [Sarcasm, implying that CC's analysis is amateurish and that he makes unfair demands.]
2. If one challenges his views, then that poster simply isn't being fair to CC. [Sarcasm, implying that CC is unfair.]
3. Evidently, CC should be able to come to a EU forum and denigrate the former's model without receiving a thorough challenge to his positing. [Name-calling of CC as a denigrator, i.e. one who unfairly criticizes. His criticisms are very fair.]
4. Perhaps, CC thinks that Scott and Thornhill should fund and launch their own probes. [Sarcasm, implying unfairness and irrationality.]

[Aristarchus]

Lloyd,

Seriously? You want us to believe that I should pull punches to such an extent in the discussion that you perceive those statements from me as derogatory? Those statements from me fall under literary and rhetorical devices. Shame on you for even attempting to deliver those statements in a response loaded with some kind of indictment. I stand by those statements based on my reading of CC's postings. If you're going to attempt to censor, at least be honest about it and don't hide behind the false pretense of indignation. And just what is it called, when you denigrate a fellow poster by stating that they have nothing new to offer the discussion?

BTW, any response from you regarding the random electrical current diffusion pertaining to solarwinds? Thanks in advance.