solrey wrote:I'd like to remind our audience that Peratt's double radio lobe simulations produced high redshift sources in the early to mid steps of the time series.
I gotta hand it to you solrey, when it comes to making imaginative leaps, quite unconstrained by facts, you are a star.
Have you forgotten
this, in response to exactly that claim of yours earlier? "
the bottom line, for now, is that the values of at least some key parameters in Peratt's simulation - per his 1986 papers and book - are dependent on redshift being a sufficiently reliable indicator of distance." Curious eh? In order to "produce high redshift sources", Peratt relies upon the Hubble redshift-distance relationship (i.e. no intrinsic redshift)!
It's acknowledged that observations confirm intrinsic redshift relating to both galaxy evolution and quasars. This has been predicted in one way or another in the results of Peratt's simulations and Arp's observations.
Let's see now, the confirmation that the Hubble redshift-distance relationship is totally broken (e.g. objects with redshifts of ~0.1 to >2 are at the same distance as galaxies whose redshift-independent distances have been determined to be ~4 Mpc) relies upon the Hubble redshift-distance relationship (in the sense of redshift being a sufficiently reliable indicator of distance). Hmm ... how do you spell 'inconsistent'?
davesmith_au wrote:
Such "well-established theory" is based on gravity being the prime mover of all things universal.
I did not know that Dave.
For example, I thought that both the neutron star and solar fusion examples were based, primarily, on many decades of research into nuclear physics. Can you give me some examples of papers on the behaviour of nuclei which are "
gravity being the prime mover of all things universal" please?
EU posits this is not the case. That something is "well-established" does not make it correct. That it is theory is just that. That fusion cannot be sustained in the lab must at least allow for other ideas to be considered. That neutrons in the lab are not stable must at least allow other ideas to be considered. Both of these things have NOT been observed, nor established beyond that gravity-centric theory won't allow anything else to be considered.
I'm a big fan of allowing other things to be considered!
However, my point - the one you are quoting - was a quite different one; namely, that in EU theory what I have called theoretical derivations (a shorthand) are not accepted, period (plasma physics aside). In these two cases, I have not yet found any material by electrical theorists which allows anything else to be considered.
Besides, you have not commented on why it is that the TPOD/Arp ideas concerning galaxy redshifts are acceptable, despite there being a) no experimental results, done in labs here on Earth, producing 'intrinsic redshifts', and b) no theoretical derivation of 'intrinsic redshifts' from plasma physics. Do you regard this as a misrepresentation for EU? If so, would you be kind enough to explain why?
mharratsc wrote:do you suppose any chemists would have issue with this blind-faith astronomical statement regarding the behavior of neutrons outside of the Island of Stability?
I expect that they'd be hopping mad/bemused/think you were nuts/etc for using the qualifier "blind-faith"!
Apart from that, no, not at all.
And is there some bit of esoteric logic to which they attribute the concept of two hydrogen atoms collapsing together to form the first two neutrons to 'glue' together in the first place??
Sorry Mike, I have no idea what this question means; would you mind rephrasing it please?
Regarding the stability of neutrons: as with much of physics (including plasma physics), energy considerations are important. A neutron can be stable if there is no path to decay that involves an input of energy from nothing (that's a simple word-level explanation, easily misunderstood of course). Neutrons in stable nuclei (isotopes) are stable because their decay (to a proton, electron, and neutrino) requires energy; an isolated neutron is not stable because its decay releases energy (if these were chemical reactions, we'd use words like endothermic and exothermic). In neutron-rich, unstable isotopes, neutrons decay because such a decay - in that nuclear environment - releases energy; in proton-rich unstable isotopes, protons 'decay' (by electron capture, for example) to form a neutron (there's a neutrino involved too) because such a decay - in that nuclear environment - releases energy. In neutron degenerate matter, the neutrons are stable (i.e. do not decay) because to do so would require energy, not release it.
In terms of the physics, this is equivalent to the [OIII] 495.9 and 500.7 nm 'forbidden' lines; they are possible according to the theory, but cannot be observed in labs because we can't create the physical conditions under which they'd be observable; the same with neutrons, we can't create the physical conditions under which they are stable (except, of course, in stable isotopes, of elements other than H).
Regarding fusion in a lab based upon the 'nuclear genie' model- why is it that they are having to dump more power into maintaining the magnetic fields than they can get out of the reactor? According to theory, it 'just happens' in a free-floating ball of hydrogen gas in the middle of the solar system! "Well-established", you say?
Same thing Mike; if the physical conditions under which fusion can take place were able to be created in labs here on Earth, we'd see it (fusion); however, it'd be exceedingly wimpy (the energy produced per unit of volume is underwhelming to say the least; the Sun is so bright because it has such a huge volume).
It's exactly the same with plasma physics; assume scalability many orders of magnitude beyond what's possible in any lab, and Peratt's model can be taken seriously; require that your lab house a twisted pair of Birkeland currents ~35 kpc apart (and in diameter), and you're in the same place as fusion-powered stars.
I tawt I taw a puddy tat... 
I did, I did, I did taw a puddy tat! 