Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[Lloyd]

How to Debate?
- Is it agreeable to everyone for both sides in a debate to supply links to material for discussion? I think it would be helpful to have such links in a convenient location, but this forum doesn't provide a means to do that, unless maybe a moderator would agree to allow someone to edit the OP.
- Should debates have moderators to prevent too much unproductive discussion? It looks like that wouldn't be convenient for this debate, though it may be worth considering for later.
- I imagine debates should start with both sides providing an outline of their models.
- Then it seems that each side should point out what each considers the main errors of the opponent.
- What else is needed for proper debating?

Errors in the Models
Aristarchus, I think CC contends that the main EU model errors seem to be assuming that
- space is an electrical insulator
- the Sun is an anode (receiving power from a galactic electric current)
- the universe is electrodynamic (the EU's new paradigm?), instead of electrostatic.
I assume you and the EU team would contend that CC's errors are the opposite statements, that
- space is an electrical conductor
- the Sun is a cathode (receiving power from stored accretion energy)
- the universe is electrostatic, instead of electrodynamic.
Do you have anything to add?

Points of Contention
Summarizing:
1. space is an electrical insulator (EU) vs. an electrical conductor (CC);
2. the Sun is an anode (receiving power from a galactic electric current) (EU) vs. a cathode (receiving power from stored accretion energy) (CC);
3. the universe is electrodynamic (the new paradigm?) (EU), vs. electrostatic (CC).

Should the debate start with discussing one of those points?

[Sparky]

Ho hum.

Lloyd, this is a condensation of Aristarchus' ability. Otherwise, muddleheaded philosophy.

[Bomb20]

Just for the record: space is not an object! Therefore space can not conduct anything. So, any claim that space could conduct anything is made in error.

[Lloyd]

Space as Conductor or Insulator?
I think you mean to say that space is not a material object. But it is a non-material object. It's a medium in which material objects move. It's apparently correct that space does not actively conduct anything, but it offers no resistance to motion, so it's a conductor in that sense of providing no resistance. Electrical insulators have high resistance. Conductors have low resistance.

[CharlesChandler]

Ho hum.

Don't want to play anymore? And I was just starting to have fun (waste of time though it was).

Do you have a clear idea how the Debye cells formed in the solar system?

I'll try to answer all of your questions, but in one solid block, instead of individually. Let me know if I missed something.

Debye cells are everywhere, and form directly from molecular matter. First, molecules start clumping together, as simple vapor deposition. It two atoms collide, moving slow enough that they don't bounce off of each other, but fast enough to get past the repulsion between their electron shells, or if they got ionized by UV radiation, the atoms will latch onto each other, where the electrons will form covalent bonds. This is a slow but inescapable process.

When the clump gets up to the size of a couple million atoms total, a new process kicks in, namely, Debye charging. At any temperature above absolute zero, particles are moving around, while the electrons move at least an order of magnitude faster than +ions, due to their much smaller mass. As a consequence, any dust grain in the vicinity gets bombarded with more electrons than +ions. For small aggregates of atoms, the electrons tend to just bounce off, because the extra electron is repelled by the electrons already there. But when the dust grain gets up to the point that it has a couple million atoms or more, it can absorb and hold onto extra electrons, because the entire electron cloud simply shifts to accommodate the added electron, and covalent bonding is more powerful than electrostatic repulsion. So smaller aggregates are capable of becoming negative ions, but they aren't terribly stable that way, while larger aggregates, with more than a million atoms or so, are meta-stable with a net negative charge.

If the dust grain is negatively charged, there has to be a +ion somewhere in the vicinity, which will be attracted to the dust grain by the electric force. So sooner or later, it will impact the dust grain. When it does, either one of two things can happen. First, it could impact the dust grain at a high velocity. If so, it gets back its missing electron on impact, and then bounces off the dust grain. Second, if the impact is slow, the incoming +ion gets captured by the dust grain, and held in place by covalent bonding. So once the dust grain gets large enough to host a stable net negative charge, the rate of vapor deposition increases dramatically, since its net charge attracts +ions, which are candidates for accretion. Past that point, there is no theoretical limit to the size of the aggregate. At just a couple million atoms, it's still sub-microscopic, but eventually, it will be an observable dust particle, and it will just continue growing from there.

But I don't know how the original distribution of atoms was created in the first place.

How to Debate?

I totally agree with the problems in debating that you have identified. That's why I did a bunch of work on my site, to provide a more productive environment. We need the ability to edit posts after-the-fact, so that information and logic accumulates, and errors get fixed, instead of the whole thing just scrolling off into the sunset, when by the end of a long thread, you forget how it all began. I prefer the outline format, where assertions get nested questions, which get nested answers. That can go on ad infinitum, but it's all sorted out logically, so you can follow the lines of reasoning. Furthermore, each unique statement only occurs once in the outline, wherever it goes logically. So there is none of the senseless repetition that occurs in threads. All of this is well-supported on my site. Now we just have to get people willing to engage in formalized debates -- that's the hard part. Anyway, I continue to add new material, little bit as a time. It would go a lot faster if it was more than just me working on it.

Just for the record: space is not an object! Therefore space can not conduct anything. So, any claim that space could conduct anything is made in error.

That's what they teach in the schools -- that the only thing that can conduct is a conductor, and it's a thing, not a nothing. Empty space is a nothing, therefore, it cannot conduct. But I disagree. As proof, consider the action of a fluorescent light. A tube is filled with a low density gas, and a voltage is applied to it, sufficient to initiate a glow discharge. As electrons hop from atom to atom, when electron uptake occurs, photons are released, lighting up the room. Now, how do electrons travel through the empty space between atoms? Clearly there is a perfect vacuum between each atom, and the distance is quite large compared to the size of the atoms themselves. If electrons were incapable of traveling through free space, the current in a fluorescent light would travel only by electron transfer on atomic collisions, meaning that the speed would be limited to the speed of sound in that gas. Yet the current actually travels at a respectable percentage of the speed of light. Therefore, those electrons are moving through empty space. A charged particle can travel through a vacuum, in precisely the same way that a neutral particle can -- there doesn't have to be a conductor there if the particle is charged. That's just ancient EE theory that got entrenched before the formulation of the modern atomic theory, and hasn't been updated since. If you're an EE, this error won't cause too many problems, since currents are generally confined to the electron clouds inside solid conductors, and you can get away with thinking that there has to be a conductor there. But when you're talking about currents in space, you're talking about charged particles moving through a lot of empty territory, and the EE concepts of conductors and resistors no longer apply, and you have to look at what is going on at the atomic level to understand it.

@Lloyd: I disagree that space is well-described as a non-material object. Here I follow Tesla, who said that space is nothingness, and therefore doesn't have any properties. So it's correct to say that space doesn't have any resistance. But rather than calling it a non-material conductor, I think that it is more straight-forward to just step down to the atomic level, and look at what the individual particles are doing to create those macroscopic level properties of conductivity and resistance.

[Lloyd]

Space as Object or Nothing?

CC said: @Lloyd: I disagree that space is well-described as a non-material object. Here I follow Tesla, who said that space is nothingness, and therefore doesn't have any properties. So it's correct to say that space doesn't have any resistance. But rather than calling it a non-material conductor, I think that it is more straight-forward to just step down to the atomic level, and look at what the individual particles are doing to create those macroscopic level properties of conductivity and resistance.

Nothingness doesn't exist. Space exists. Therefore, space is not nothingness. It has length in 3 dimensions. Nothingness doesn't have length at all. Length is a property. If it were not for the property of length of space, there would be no distance between material objects. Space is non-matter. Maybe matter is non-space. Everything that exists is an object. Space exists. Therefore, it's an object, a non-matter object.

Solar Wind to Debye Cells
CC, I think I've heard your description of Debye cell formation before, but now I'm asking specifically about those in the solar system, or at least those at the end of the HCS near Saturn. My guess is that most of the solar wind charged particles may combine there into hydrogen. And some of the hydrogen may combine with the dust grains. You think? Do you know if the dust grains tend to be silicates, as it seems like what I read last year or so? Silicates would seem to suggest an origin in rocky body collisions. Don't you think?

You say that during accretion the Debye cells, maybe after becoming filaments, become concentrated in CFDLs, charge-free double layers, within planets and stars. That's a huge increase in density within the volume of the planets and stars, but a huge decrease in density in the surrounding gas cloud. I suppose the accretion process would not use up all of the Debye cells and probably the surrounding space regions would fill in the low density space around the accreted objects. Have you studied H-I and H-II region conditions much yet?

[CharlesChandler]

If it were not for the property of length of space, there would be no distance between material objects.

Good point!

...now I'm asking specifically about those [Debye cells] in the solar system, or at least those at the end of the HCS near Saturn. [...] Do you know if the dust grains tend to be silicates, as it seems like what I read last year or so? Silicates would seem to suggest an origin in rocky body collisions. Don't you think?

Since hydrogen doesn't condense above about 15 K, and since the solar wind is a lot hotter than that, most of the dust grains in our solar system are liable to be heavier elements, such as silicates. Though heavier elements are present in the solar wind, I agree that the bulk of them, especially further out, probably came from rocky bodies. If the Asteroid Belt was formed by a collision, there would be plenty of dust grains to get swept deeper into space by the solar wind.

Have you studied H-I and H-II region conditions much yet?

No, not yet.

[Aristarchus]

Ho hum.

Lloyd, this is a condensation of Aristarchus' ability. Otherwise, muddleheaded philosophy.

Nah. It's just a realization that CC's beeper went off upon me hitting the submit button and he just rattled off something. I decided that I had spent enough time for the night and simply decided to address it later. In addition, realizing that the technique of the debunker is to attempt to goad his/her interlocutor into being defensive.

Let's enumerate the tactics of the debunkers, and before someone states that this is a distraction, I would argue that it exposes them:

1. Place your interlocutor on the defensive. Nitpicking, while at the same time avoiding and and dismissing topics brought up by your interlocutor. This is done to give the illusion that the debunker has gained the upper hand in the discussion. Once the debunker feels he/she controls the flow of the discussion, he/she will appear quite amicable. The hope of he/she is to have the interlocutor doing mad searches on what the debunker has proposed. Much of the debunker claims will lack detail, so it is up to the interlocutor to do the homework. If the debunker does give detail, those details will be based upon his own authority, and thus lacking citations. If citations are given, they're lacking quotation marks and/or direct page links. "See, this is what I read." Falling into the futile task of numerous search query operations on the part of the interlocutor will fail because the discussion has become so muddled due to the lack of a premise provided by the debunker.

2. Appeal to Authority (full of sound and fury, signifying nothing): The debunker does this ad nauseam. An example of this is when CC simply supplied a litany of missions nearer the Sun and Earth. There was no raw data from those missions that he offered. CC says so, and since one is supposed to be in awe from the mere mention of an authoritative reference - well - that is enough. In fact, I recently posted something from a proponent of the EU model attempting to reach out to others with access to raw data and the analytical skills to assist those in the EU, and has yet to be given it due. I find the latter unconscionable for an EU forum.

3. Divine the mind of your interlocutor: A recent example of this is my simple comment "ho hum" interpreted as a non response from me. Well, yeah, but not for the reasons assumed by some of the other posters on this topic. The debunker must insure that he/she is controlling every influence regarding the topic. Occasionally, this involves purposely misrepresenting the intent of other posters.

4. Burying posts: The debunker is very quick with his/her responses to other posters, especially those that challenge the debunker's position. Sometimes the debunker will employ others to assist him/her, and there will be drive by posters that reassert the debunker's position with short terse statements to weight the defense for the debunker.

5. Once the debunker feels he/she is in control, the posts appear from him/her appear amicable, but when tested, this where things go awry. This is not the say that CC doesn't have a right to state what he has posited and researched, but after all the time CC has been here, and after all the questions posed to him regarding his hypothesis/positing, and since he will not give an abstract/abridgment/summary for his hypothesis, can anyone else offer it for him. Stay away from the EU and calling parts of it unrealistic, or the mindlessness of the consensus science, but a well prepared academic abstract, no more than maybe eight-nine sentences.

I want a demonstration of others that follow the logic of CC to do this.

[Aristarchus]

@Lloyd: I disagree that space is well-described as a non-material object. Here I follow Tesla, who said that space is nothingness, and therefore doesn't have any properties. So it's correct to say that space doesn't have any resistance. But rather than calling it a non-material conductor, I think that it is more straight-forward to just step down to the atomic level, and look at what the individual particles are doing to create those macroscopic level properties of conductivity and resistance.

Tesla didn't state that "space is nothingness." What Tesla stated was that space cannot be curved because it lacks properties. Tesla opposed the likes of Eisenstein due to what Tesla, quite rightfully, viewed as metaphysics. However, metaphysics plays a role, IMO. This is where I find Tesla has reached the end of his tether. One can't simply demote something to metaphysics, without giving the latter its due. Tesla saw himself as a voice that would be known in the future, or at least realized for its genius. However, once civilizations die, as all civilizations do, a new culture concept is introduced totally divorced from the culture before. Science wants to be objective, and is therefore doomed to being subjective. What if ... what if ... an electric current is conscious ... and life is an innate property of the universe. Nothing is random. Can you dig it?

[Aristarchus]

“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.” ~ Nikola Tesla

[CharlesChandler]

...

You're wasting your precious time, and ours, with your OT ramblings. The topic is astrophysics, not literary style. The main points of contention have been stated, somewhat more tersely by Lloyd, while I have provided more than enough detail to leave little doubt of my position. If you'd like to engage in a debate concerning the actual physics issues, it's time for you to weigh in.

Points of Contention
Summarizing:
1. space is an electrical insulator (EU) vs. an electrical conductor (CC);
2. the Sun is an anode (receiving power from a galactic electric current) (EU) vs. a cathode (receiving power from stored accretion energy) (CC);
3. the universe is electrodynamic (the new paradigm?) (EU), vs. electrostatic (CC).

Should the debate start with discussing one of those points?

Pick one.

[Lloyd]

Since an abstract for CC's model seems reasonable, I don't mind trying to start working on that tomorrow night, to see if I can do a halfway decent job of it. But don't wait for me to do that. Please, go right ahead and begin the debate. Otherwise, people won't want to read this thread. Will they?

[Aristarchus]

Since an abstract for CC's model seems reasonable, I don't mind trying to start working on that tomorrow night, to see if I can do a halfway decent job of it. But don't wait for me to do that. Please, go right ahead and begin the debate. Otherwise, people won't want to read this thread. Will they?

Lloyd, the debate is not contingent upon other people, but what one has a passion to provide. I wait on no one. Either provide it, or not. Can you? I'm just surprised after all this time that any of the defenders of Charles cannot supply something so critical and fundamental. It's not like I just popped in yesterday to read CC's commentaries. I've been reading Thunderbolt for quite a time without posting and saw the infestation. I think I see the bad seeds. I'm really good at this sort of thing.

P.S. I look forward to the abstract.

[Aristarchus]

Poor, Charles. Seems he's losing his cool. He now quotes me without articulating my words. Patience, the fun is just beginning. Weren't you in a previous post stating how much fun you were having? So, what were you commenting about Tesla, space as nothing? Pray tell, explain this to us. You stated something about Tesla, and did not provide the quote. I did.

Charles, you're about as worrisome to me as a cloudy day. BTW, how do you compensate for the missing neutrinos for an internal ignited Sun. You see, when the quantitative analysis doesn't match the observations. If it is now detected by oscillations, i.e., cheating to replace observation with something that is merely inference. Please explain.

[Aristarchus]

The topic is astrophysics, not literary style.

No. The topic, as named by you, is "Aristarchus vs. Chandler, which I thought as a topic was a bad idea. I'm not responsible for your decisions. APA, MLA, and all the other citations style are produced by scientists for a reason.