Challenges to Nereid

[Nereid]

I'd like to use this thread to record all the challenges that Thunderbolts Forum members have issued to me, as well as their source, and any threads in which I accept any challenges, and address them.

So far I've noted only two (you need to click on the links to understand the full challenge, including its context):

1) By Aristarchus: "unless you're willing to discuss Arp's research and inquiry into gravitational lensing"

2) By MrAmsterdam: "Are you in for it?"

[Shelgeyr]

I offered not a specific challenge, but more of a general "have at thee!" open-ended invitation in the "Regarding recent guests to our forum..." thread. I said:

I know that my own hypotheses are outlandish. They even sound so in my own ears. I still think they're true - or to be more precise "mostly true" - but I'll never know for certain without someone happily smashing to pieces the weak points (or flat our wrong parts) of my reasoning.

So as a participant, I say Welcome Aboard, Potential Adversaries! Well met!

Please be gentle!

The reason I haven't yet presented a specific hypothesis for you (if you're willing) to shoot full of holes is because frankly I'm not yet ready. I'm still soliciting help with the math. But they're coming, and I don't expect instant agreement from anyone with what I will be proposing, even though I am taking pains to ensure that the facts and formulas are on "my side", to the best of my ability.

I hope you're still around and slugging it out at that time!

So if you'll accept a "challenge in waiting", I know that I will greatly value - and probably benefit from - your feedback, and I seriously do not expect you to be on board with what I propose.

Besides, obsession aside, if I'm wrong, anyone who proves to me that I'm wrong will be doing me a great favor.
I know that the sting of having my ox gored will fade, and I really don't care to waste time chasing false ideas.
But since I don't want to waste your time either, it will have to wait until I can properly explain and support these hypotheses.

And lest that last paragraph sounds pre-defeatist or like I'm hedging my bets, please know this - I'm onto something. I'm convinced it is real, I'm convinced it is big, and I'm trying to fearlessly savage my own arguments first before anyone else can - partly because I’ve been very inspired by Richard Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" speech, and mainly because I’m egotistical enough that I’d rather not be proven a fool in front of this big a forum.

[davesmith_au]

Not a very "challenging" challenge, more of an invitation but one I hope you will accept Nereid, and it's a bit outside your usual lines of discussion, but I think you'll enjoy the change.

On a thread on the Planetary Science board, Dave Talbott has posted a link to the latest segment of a video currently under production, Symbols of an Alien Sky Part 2 and has asked for feedback regarding that segment, which looks closely at much of the scarring on Mars.

Please understand that this is a "rough draft" as it were, and also that it's part of a much larger and broader production. Constructive comment is sought, and I'd like to read your thoughts on the material. Whilst any factual errors are gladly received, I am more interested in the strength of the presentation, that is if it gives you cause at all, to re-think any aspects of planetary geology. Please respond on that thread to keep all the relevant comments in one place.

Cheers, Dave.

[Nereid]

Here's one more challenge, by Goldminer: "exactly what "problems" are there with that document?"

I have accepted this challenge, in the sense that I will start a thread in the Electric Universe section (or add to an existing one) and discuss why "that document" fails.

[Goldminer]

Here's one more challenge, by Goldminer: "exactly what "problems" are there with that document?"

I have accepted this challenge, in the sense that I will start a thread in the Electric Universe section (or add to an existing one) and discuss why "that document" fails.

Pleezz keep me informed when and where you undertake "this challenge," by PM or whatever means. Thanx. Goldminer

[MrAmsterdam]

Hello Nereid,

Not one, but two challenges.

Challenge 1.

Let's assume this is the sun just 15 minutes before it disappears down the horizon.
Could you explain in your "astrophysical" perspective what's happening here?

-

The second challenge will be about asteroids observations and trying to build an empirical experiment based on the assumed properties of the medium. I need some time to collect information for this challenge.

[Nereid]

Hello Nereid,

Hi MrAmsterdam, Happy New Year!

Not one, but two challenges.

Challenge 1.

Let's assume this is the sun just 15 minutes before it disappears down the horizon.
Could you explain in your "astrophysical" perspective what's happening here?

Sundown_new.jpg

Sorry, I can't.

Why not?

Because I'd be doing nothing more than a subjective, visual interpretation.

Can you provide at least some meta-data? For example:
* location (of the imaging system, a camera?)
* direction it's pointing
* time of day/day of year/etc
* size of field of view
* colour coding/filters used/etc
* flux-pixel value relationship (crudely, how many photons, incident on the detector correspond to what pixel value, from 0 to 255)
* geometric distortions in the field of view (if any)

[MrAmsterdam]

Hello Nereid,

Hi MrAmsterdam, Happy New Year!

Not one, but two challenges.

Challenge 1.

Let's assume this is the sun just 15 minutes before it disappears down the horizon.
Could you explain in your "astrophysical" perspective what's happening here?

Sundown_new.jpg

Sorry, I can't.

Why not?

Because I'd be doing nothing more than a subjective, visual interpretation.

Can you provide at least some meta-data? For example:
* location (of the imaging system, a camera?)
* direction it's pointing
* time of day/day of year/etc
* size of field of view
* colour coding/filters used/etc
* flux-pixel value relationship (crudely, how many photons, incident on the detector correspond to what pixel value, from 0 to 255)
* geometric distortions in the field of view (if any)

And a happy new year to you too

In response to you remarks...

You may choose any day.
You may choose any location ( but we need to see the sun going down)
Color coding? I assume the you mean the electromagnetic frequency? Good question. Lets stick to our human eyes frequencies.
Size of field is not important as long we can see the sun and a horizon.
The flux-pixel value relationship? You may choose your own sensor - but lets stick with the visible frequencies.

geometric distortions in the field of view.....mmm......would that relate to the sensor in use?

Let me add some extra information here. I dont think the phenomena at display here was known till the first spaceprobes were brought into space, but I need to check that fact. Dont pin me down on the 15 minutes window, but the phenomena in question happens just before the sun goes down and dissapears completely down the horizon.

Btw. I thought this phenomena was well known in the astrophysical community....one of the explanations of bending of light.

[MrAmsterdam]

Hi Nereid,

In retrospect the first challenge is not that "astrophysical" in its nature, so I might put you on the wrong track here.
It can be used however to illustrate the fact that no matter what sensors you are using (including our own eyes), explanations for the sensor data can be counterintuitive...

The sun on the picture is not there anymore. The sun already passed down the horizon arround 15 minutes ago. The explanation why we still see the sun (even though it passed down the horizon) is the mirage effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Mirage of astronomical objects
Main article: Mirage of astronomical objects

A mirage of an astronomical object is a naturally-occurring optical phenomenon, in which light rays are bent to produce distorted or multiple images of an astronomical object. The mirages might be observed for such astronomical objects as the Sun, the Moon, the planets, bright stars and very bright comets. The most commonly observed are sunset and sunrise mirages.

[Goldminer]

Here's one more challenge, by Goldminer: "exactly what "problems" are there with that document?"
I have accepted this challenge, in the sense that I will start a thread in the Electric Universe section (or add to an existing one) and discuss why "that document" fails.

So, anyhow, I contacted Pierre Marie Robitaille, who commented thus: "My work speaks for itself and does not require defense on the internet." After rereading the article I agree. Your silence is acquiescence that you have no case. Unless you have secretly posted an answer somewhere around here.

[Jarvamundo]

Epic comment.

For those interested, a little background on Robitaille's work to date.

http://molspect.mps.ohio-state.edu/chem ... itail.html
Pierre-Marie Robitaille
Ph.D. in Chemistry, Iowa State University, 1986

My primary research focuses on the theoretical and experimental aspects of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Spectroscopy. Early in my career, I devoted considerable attention to the spectroscopic analysis of in-vivo cardiac metabolism in the normal and failing heart using both 13C- and 31P NMR methods. During the course of these studies a spatial localization technique was developed which enabled the sampling of myocardial biochemistry non-invasively from the outer surface to the inner surface of the heart. This has permitted the acquisition of an intra-organ rate measurement, namely the transmural analysis of the forward creatine kinase rate. In addition, an in-vivo analysis of Krebs cycle activity as a function of changing work in the intact in-vivo myocardium has also been conducted. The primary questions were centered on how the myocardium regulates its choice of oxidized substrate as a function of increased work. More recently, I have concentrated on the development of new instrumentation for MRI. This has included the design and assembly of the first torque compensated asymmetric gradient coil. From 1995-2000, I was responsible for conceiving and assembling the world's first ultra high field clinical MRI system. This multi-million dollar system is now housed within University Hospitals and operates at a field strength of 8 Tesla. In order to ensure the success of this instrument, I also led the effort to construct new high frequency (340 MHz) RF coils of sufficient size to excite the human head. The 8 Tesla MRI system has now acquired some of the world's most spectacular images of the human brain. My current interests lie in gaining an understanding of RF power requirements in MRI and in the fundamental understanding of signal to noise. In turning my attention to this problem, I seek an increased understanding of what it means to say that NMR is a "thermal" method. This has renewed my interest in the study of thermodynamics and blackbody radiation.

[kiwi]

Hi Nereid,



If it were possible to be arranged would you be prepared to debate the EU with Wal Thornhill on a live pod-cast?

cheers

[David Talbott]

So, even without looking at the context of this para, it's pretty clear that I meant 'electrical theorists have produced essentially no quantitative work in the same subject area as that of Lerner's papers (in the last ~3 decades)'."

Out of respect for Nereid's request and mharratsc's suggestion, in the next couple of days let's zero in on the meaning of the sentence above, offered up on a different thread:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 135#p47980

[Aristarchus]

So, even without looking at the context of this para, it's pretty clear that I meant 'electrical theorists have produced essentially no quantitative work in the same subject area as that of Lerner's papers (in the last ~3 decades)'."

Don Scott, for example, cites the quantitative work of Peratt and others in his papers and books, which is standard procedure for those writing down their research. This is the first obvious fact that exposes the invalidity of Nereid's question. In fact, Peratt complimented Scott for his adept knowledge of his work in that it was written in language accessible to others: “It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work.” ~ Peratt

Secondly, a review of the two biographies of Scott compared with Lerner will answer the part of the question pertaining to "electrical theorists have produced essentially no quantitative work in the same subject area as that of Lerner's papers." Is Nereid actually suggesting that researchers do not borrow from other subject areas?

Thirdly, what kind of resource funding does someone like Scott have as compared with someone who is President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc., or in the case of Peratt doing research for Los Alamos National Laboratory, in addition to the kind of funding in the establishment science for a something on the order of CERN.

Lastly, I can only assume the "(in the last ~3 decades)" was an added by Nereid so as to cover her bases for the fact that, yeah, there's probably been quantitative research done in the field of Electrical and Computer Engineering in those past decades. This is important, because it provides an example that indeed there is a quantitative component to Scott’s work, but Peratt explained Scott's research in the following:

D. Scott reiterates the fundamentals of electrical engineering as applied to many fields of human endeavor, illustrating when experimental knowledge has been correctly or incorrectly applied and where pitfalls may be expected (Maxwell’s equations derive from Faraday’s experiments twenty equations with twenty unknowns, which were reduced to four by H. Hertz and O. Heaviside four decades later). As Scott points out, in engineering, the correctness of the application is obvious; the device either works as designed or does not. However, in less accessible environments such as space and cosmic plasma, the information gathered is often not obvious, insufficiently located (Earth or satellite), or incomplete. In addition, of course, controlled laboratory experiments – the final adjudicator in science – are typically absent in space research. As the backdrop for this elucidation, Scott uses the multidisciplinary origins of the plasma universe[5].

As for Ransom and Thornhill, Peratt articulates and reveals -

A document that is worth more than a cursory glance is that of C.J. Ransom and W. Thornhill, who recognized many planetary features as suggestive of marks from electrical discharges. They report experimental results that will give those of us who study such phenomena, and likely our planetary geologist colleagues, good reason to ponder.

This was published in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science in August of 2007. Peratt might be referring to the paper (viz), Plasma-Generated Craters and Spherules. Authors: Ransom, C. J.; Thornhill, Wallace. Publication: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 35, issue 4, pp. 828-831.

[mharratsc]

We need to consider here, however, that Ms. Nereid has already called into question Dr. Peratt's understanding of the universe.

She has already commented on the fact that the model created by Dr. Peratt that modeled galactic rotation did not, in fact, actually match up with observations of galactic rotations, therefore was invalid.

So either A) we need to cite other sources than Dr. Peratt's long-published papers, or B) need to show that Dr. Peratt's simulation does in fact correctly model rotations of at least some few particular galaxies as he described.

Or both, preferably.