Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

[Nereid]

Solar,

Apologies is my comment was too terse; I was referring - intending to refer - to JaJa's posts in that thread, not yours.

Sorry.

[Solar]

Likewise, you have my apologies as well. I couldn't differentiate as to whom you were speaking to and should've sought clarification as well. I did enjoy the fact that you came to the same conclusion (historical context). Again, my apologies. *sigh* .. I just love the internet sometimes <----- sarcasm

[Kapriel]

Did Nereid ever get that ICOPS poster he/she/they was/were after?
I'm way too lazy to flip back one page to find out for sure, but this could be the one:
http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

"POSTER PRESENTATION
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
33rd International Conference on Plasma Sciences (ICOPS)
Traverse City, Michigan
June 4-8, 2006"

What the heck, it's got the same year on it.

[Nereid]

Did Nereid ever get that ICOPS poster he/she/they was/were after?

No.

I'm way too lazy to flip back one page to find out for sure, but this could be the one:
http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

No.

That can be found all over the internet, and is the poster I looked in great detail, back in 2008.

[davesmith_au]

Very apt for this thread I think, is Don Scott's "Tim Thompson - A Rebuttal", the last portion of which is quoted below. I have removed Tim Thompson's name at the end, and have "[insert name here]" so the imaginative can add their favorite pseudoskeptic.

Don reminded me of this paper (no, it's not peer-reviewed) in a private discussion about the recent pseudoskeptic activity on the forum. I'll leave readers to ponder whose name was inserted in that particular discussion.

Enjoy!

Where do we stand?

We stand at a time in scientific history that will be embarrassing to look back on from the vantage point of the next century. An entire subgroup of science consisting of a majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists is now - and has been - smugly ignoring the fruits of 150 or so years of electrical science. This sub-group feels perfectly confident in postulating the existence of processes and entities that cannot be verified experimentally in earthbound labs. When there are perfectly valid electrical explanations for certain phenomena, it is irresponsible to ignore those explanations and invent 'new science' to avoid using them. People will ask, years from now, "How could they have ignored electricity in space when it was staring them in the face?"

Classic astronomy (and its offshoots: helioseismology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc.) have never made any real predictions that turned out to be true - although they are past-masters at inventing 'dynamos' and invisible entities to explain things retroactively. After-the-fact explanations are easy, especially if you can get away with saying "The hidden 'dynamo' did it." Before they were forced into it, classical astronomers were wrong about how the auroras are powered, about the temperature of Venus, about the rocky nature of comets, about x-rays coming from comets and other objects, about the existence of natural radio emissions from the planets. And I claim they are wrong about many things they are now saying about the Sun.

Of course the Electric Sun model is speculative. But these speculations are reasonable extrapolations of the solid, experimentally verified properties of plasma. We are not positive that everything included in the ES hypothesis is 100% correct. We do not claim omnipotence or perfection for our early models. But, the 'standard' astrophysical models are far more speculative. They are built up of speculation cantilevered onto speculation that is ever farther removed from any empirical basis. And a tremendous amount of doubt is piling up about them. They do not explain (without ad hoc and a posteriori adjustments) many of the observations that are being made - as the Electric Sun model does. (The fusion model doesn't even explain why the solar corona exists in the first place, let alone its three million Kelvin temperature inversion.) Each time new data comes in from space probes, astronomers typically announce their surprise and rush 'back to the drawing board'. They then busy themselves modifying (adding complexity to) their models - reminiscent of Ptolemaic epicycles - and emerge confidently claiming they knew this all along. In the one case where they deigned to make reference to anything electrical (the release of magnetic energy) they got it wrong and had to 'discover' new properties of magnetic fields that do not exist.

Call it what you will - Plasma Cosmology, the Electric Universe or the Electric Sky - the thrust of what was started by Kristian Birkeland (when he discovered the true electrical nature of the auroras), Hannes Alfvén, and Irving Langmuir (each of whom were awarded Nobel Prizes for their work) continues. And it willtake more than the confrontational, parochial, pompous smoke screens of pseudoskeptics such as [insert name here] to stop it.

Reproduced with permission.

Cheers, Dave.

[Nereid]

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate place to post comments on what's quoted in Dave Smith's post or not, so I'll just post a couple (in case my post is deleted or moved).

An entire subgroup of science consisting of a majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists is now - and has been - smugly ignoring the fruits of 150 or so years of electrical science.

I do not know what Scott means by "electrical science", but assuming it refers to either classical electromagnetism (summed up in Maxwell's equations) or QED (or both), and how they have been applied to address an understanding of astronomical phenomena, then Scott seems to have written a blatant ad hom (the sort of thing Dave Smith has written extensively about, and denounced strongly), and a grossly ignorant one at that.

So, assuming no intended ad hom (etc), I can only conclude Scott intends 'electrical science' to mean something other than the application of Maxwell's equations and QED to the study of astronomical observations.

This sub-group feels perfectly confident in postulating the existence of processes and entities that cannot be verified experimentally in earthbound labs.

This is kinda ironic, I feel, given how clearly and unambiguously the electrical theorist Thornhill has (apparently) embraced the (postulated, by Arp) "existence of processes and entities that cannot be verified experimentally in earthbound labs" - i.e. intrinsic redshift (of the Arpian kind).

When there are perfectly valid electrical explanations for certain phenomena, it is irresponsible to ignore those explanations and invent 'new science' to avoid using them.

I've spent quite a lot of time trying to find examples of "perfectly valid electrical explanations" for astronomical observations, especially of the 'extra-galactic' kind. By far the best (a view apparently shared by many Thunderbolts forum members) is published in Peratt's two 1986 papers on the formation and evolution of galaxies, and in his book.

I do not know what Scott means by a perfectly valid explanation, but I doubt that he can be referring to Peratt's model (Peratt's simulation, even in his own words, is not an explanation for astronomical phenomena; it's dimensionless).

Perhaps Scott is referring to his own Electric Sun idea? If so, then he must surely be joking! I mean, look at how many people have published critiques of it, online (that's hardly 'ignoring', is it?)

[Nereid]

Continuing ...

Classic astronomy (and its offshoots: helioseismology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc.) have never made any real predictions that turned out to be true

I'm somewhat confused by the words used here; for example:

* 'classic astronomy', as in observational astronomy, is not in the business of making predictions, real or otherwise (it's about observing the sky, and recording those observations in a systematic way)

* helioseismology provided a number of powerful tests of standard solar models, tests of their predictions if you will (predictions which turned out to be consistent with the later helioseismological observations)

* ephemerides, of solar system bodies - quintessential predictions - are extraordinarily accurate, and have been for several centuries; the only real exceptions are the anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury and those which led to the discovery of the original 'dark matter', Neptune

* cosmology, in the form of 'the Big Bang theory', predicted the cosmic abundance of deuterium rather well (predictions consistent with much later observations of its abundance).

With just these examples, what can Scott possibly mean by 'real predictions', 'turned out to be true', and so on?

[Nereid]

Continuing ...

Before they were forced into it, classical astronomers were wrong [...] about the existence of natural radio emissions from the planets.

Does anyone know what Scott is referring to here?

As far as I know, the first planet (other than the Earth) to be identified as a radio source, was Jupiter - Burke and Franklin (1955); here is a popular account of the history.

This was only a couple of decades after the birth of radio astronomy, a period interrupted by World War II ...

[Siggy_G]

Does anyone know what Scott is referring to here?

As far as I know, the first planet (other than the Earth) to be identified as a radio source, was Jupiter - Burke and Franklin (1955); here is a popular account of the history.

I'm not sure, but perhaps Scott indirectly referred to this:

"The planet Jupiter is cold, yet its gases are in motion. It appears probable to me that it sends out radio noises as do the sun and the stars. I suggest that this be investigated."

- Velikovsky, 14th October 1953

This discovery [in 1955] came as something of a surprise because radio astronomers had never expected a body as cold as Jupiter to emit radio waves.

Valentine Bergman & Lloyd Motz, Letter to Science Magazine, 1962

(not so popular account in history)

Source 1: Letter from Prof. Valentine Bargmann and Lloyd Motz
Source 2: Scanned issue of Science Magazine, 1962, Vol 138, "Letters", Page 1350-1352

[Siggy_G]

* cosmology, in the form of 'the Big Bang theory', predicted the cosmic abundance of deuterium rather well (predictions consistent with much later observations of its abundance).

I haven't researched this too much yet, but isn't the predicted cosmic abundance of deuterium (D) one of the criticized aspects of the Big Bang theory? From Eric Lerner's site, an excerpt from his book "The Big Bang Never Happened":

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) predicts the abundance of four light isotopes(4He, 3He, D and 7Li) given only the density of baryons in the universe. These predictions are central to the theory, since they flow from the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of high temperature and density--the Big Bang. In practice, the baryon density has been treated as a free variable, adjusted to match the observed abundances. Since four abundances must be matched with only a single free variable, the light element abundances are a clear-cut test of the theory. In 1992, there was no value for the baryon density that could give an acceptable agreement with observed abundances, and this situation has only worsened in the ensuing decade. The current observations of just three of the four predicted BBN light elements preclude BBN at a level of at least 7 s. In other words, the odds against BBN being a correct theory are about 100 billion to one.

Big Bang Never Happened: Dr. Wright is Wrong

[Plasma Cosmology: ] Deuterium production by the p+p->d+p reaction has been predicted by plasma theory to yield abundances of the order of 2.2x10-5[8]. While more precise calculations will have to be done to improve this figure and to define the range of values that are likely, it is notable that this prediction was made in 1989, at a time when no observations of high redshift D was available and the consensus values for primordial D from Big Bang theory were 3-4 times higher. Yet this predicted value lies within the range of observed high-z D values, although somewhat below the average D values.

A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang (II. The Abundances of Light Elements)

[Nereid]

I haven't researched this too much yet, but isn't the predicted cosmic abundance of deuterium (D) one of the criticized aspects of the Big Bang theory? From Eric Lerner's site, an excerpt from his book "The Big Bang Never Happened":

The literature on this subject is vast, so it's quite a challenge to do justice to it.

However, Steigman (2006) (link is to the preprint abstract) may be as good a place as any to start (the paper was written in late 2005; SBBN = standard big bang nucleosynthesis model).

For the Spergel et al. [2] baryon abundance of eta10 = 6.14 ± 0.25, the SBBN-predicted deuterium abundance is yD = 2.6 ± 0.2. As may be seen in Fig. 5, the current data exhibit the Goldilocks effect: two D/H ratios are "too small", two are "too large", and two are "just right". Nonetheless, it is clear that the sparse data currently available are in very good agreement with the SBBN prediction.

According to ADS, this paper has been cited by 86 others, none of which have Lerner as an author. I couldn't find Steigman (2006) among Lerner's references, in either source you cited (perhaps both were written before 2006?).

The lithium-7 abundance is, of course, the one (primordial light nuclide) that gets most of the attention - its estimated 'primordial' abundance is many sigma different from its predicted, SBBN, abundance. Unfortunately, it's also the only such nuclide that is both created and destroyed, in significant quantities, by multiple physical processes known to be at work in the post-BBN era (it's 'burned' in stars, for example, but created by cosmic ray spallation). In addition, its unambiguous detection is more challenging than that of D (which itself is hard), due to the smaller mass difference with the other stable isotope, lithium-6.

[Goldminer]

Unfortunately, it's also the only such nuclide that is both created and destroyed, in significant quantities, by multiple physical processes known to be at work in the post-BBN era (it's 'burned' in stars, for example, but created by cosmic ray spallation). In addition, its unambiguous detection is more challenging than that of D (which itself is hard), due to the smaller mass difference with the other stable isotope, lithium-6.

Don'cha see, Nereid, how your attitude creeps in to all that you post? I know, everybody is guilty of the same thing. Its just that mainstream thinking promotes its ideas as already proven, when nothing of the sort is true. Most of us Tbolters automatically substitute "thought to be" for "known to be" when dealing with "consensus" idealists.

.

[JohnMT]

Hi all,

Goldminer wrote:

Don'cha see, Nereid, how your attitude creeps in to all that you post? I know, everybody is guilty of the same thing. Its just that mainstream thinking promotes its ideas as already proven, when nothing of the sort is true. Most of us Tbolters automatically substitute "thought to be" for "known to be" when dealing with "consensus" idealists.

I couldn't agree more!

Now my brief rant on the subject.

Over the many, many years and especially of recent times, it seems to me that nothing much has been "proven" by the 'mainstream' science fraternity at all particularly within the realms of Astronomy and Cosmology, which for just one instance is why the likes of Professor Brian Cox's ramblings (he now has his own series on TV) are to myself, a feature and example of complete ineptitude.

His (Brian Cox's) ramblings and rather pathetic deliberations are just a repetition and continual regurgitation of his many years of perpetual indoctrination, courtesy Universities and also courtesy of their most esteemed anciently-minded 'Gas-lit' Victorian Mentors, from which of course they must never deviate...for fear of their standing and jobs etc.

Okay, by all means do whatever it takes to keep your job, but it is the same old story.

Most of these guys (and there are many other examples these days), actually believe without question what it it is that they are conveying toward the public at large to be actually true...and in many cases...at public expense too!

Disgraceful, pompous and extremely contemptuous...in my view.

Like themselves, they want us to be similarly persuaded by their collective coercive and psychological means toward this extreme underhanded and disgraceful manner of approach toward so-called further 'education'.
Pehaps these so-called 'highly educated' ignoramuses/morons, with their "caps and gowns" etc need some sort of a 'Refresher Course' in basic common sense and logical understanding, then the door might open-up towards some measure of progress.

They obviously revere their acquired "Caps and Gowns"?
Yes indeed and of course, for that is what most Clowns wear in the Circus

Nothing personal of course towards any of these people, but I will say in closing this brief rant that may their inept stupidity and ignorance long continue, for it gives us free-thinkers at least ample time, amplitude and ammunition by which to confront their moronic demises and basic ignorance of the sciences.

End of brief rant.

Cheers,

John

[Nereid]

Unfortunately, it's also the only such nuclide that is both created and destroyed, in significant quantities, by multiple physical processes known to be at work in the post-BBN era (it's 'burned' in stars, for example, but created by cosmic ray spallation). In addition, its unambiguous detection is more challenging than that of D (which itself is hard), due to the smaller mass difference with the other stable isotope, lithium-6.

Don'cha see, Nereid, how your attitude creeps in to all that you post? I know, everybody is guilty of the same thing. Its just that mainstream thinking promotes its ideas as already proven, when nothing of the sort is true. Most of us Tbolters automatically substitute "thought to be" for "known to be" when dealing with "consensus" idealists.

So, Goldminer, what evidence do you have that lithium-7 is not 'burned' in stars? What evidence do you have that lithium-7 is not created by cosmic ray spallation?

Most of these guys (and there are many other examples these days), actually believe without question what it it is that they are conveying toward the public at large to be actually true...

Hi JohnMT.

Do you mind if I ask you how you actually know that "these guys" "actually believe without question what it it is that they are conveying toward the public at large to be actually true"?

[Goldminer]

Unfortunately, it's also the only such nuclide that is both created and destroyed, in significant quantities, by multiple physical processes known to be at work in the post-BBN era (it's 'burned' in stars, for example, but created by cosmic ray spallation). In addition, its unambiguous detection is more challenging than that of D (which itself is hard), due to the smaller mass difference with the other stable isotope, lithium-6.

Don'cha see, Nereid, how your attitude creeps in to all that you post? I know, everybody is guilty of the same thing. Its just that mainstream thinking promotes its ideas as already proven, when nothing of the sort is true. Most of us Tbolters automatically substitute "thought to be" for "known to be" when dealing with "consensus" idealists.

So, Goldminer, what evidence do you have that lithium-7 is not 'burned' in stars? What evidence do you have that lithium-7 is not created by cosmic ray spallation?

Nereid, you conveniently left my highlight out of your re-quote of my quote of you! I have no intention of "proving" the impossible. There are probably many explanations for lithium-7's comings and goings. The Electric Star model does not preclude nuclear fission-fusion on the surface of stars, nor does it preclude "spallation."

My highlight in your original quote was here:

"Unfortunately, it's also the only such nuclide that is both created and destroyed, in significant quantities, by multiple physical processes known to be at work in the post-BBN era"



Even Wikipedia's introductory paragraph starts with:

It is thought that the primordial nucleons themselves were formed from the quark–gluon plasma from the Big Bang as it cooled below two trillion degrees."

and further down;

Quantities of these lighter elements in the present universe are therefore thought to have been formed mainly through billions of years of cosmic ray (mostly high-energy proton) mediated breakup of heavier elements residing in interstellar gas and dust.

My point was the difference between "thought" or "maybe" instead of "known" or "for sure."

I don't suppose you "get" my point, but my fellow T-Bolters do!

.