JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
seb
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by seb » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:57 pm

Nereid wrote:[...]
seb wrote:Standard astronomy has observed certain phenomena (such as radiation, spectra, etc.) and interpreted those as being at a distance determined in accordance with the Hubble redshift-distance relationship. The calculations of field strengths, electron densities, and so on are made such that they are the values necessary to give those observations at those distances. If the relationship between radiation, spectra, etc. and the fields, densities, etc., are the same in both the standard model and in Peratt's model, which they should be if our understanding of the physics of electricity is correct, then both models should yield similar answers for the same distance. This means that it is irrelevant what distance you choose - if the plasma model were accepted as being correct and the interpreted distance was only 50 yards away, the standard model would also yield the same "right" answers as the plasma model.
(highlight added)

First, as I'm sure you know full well, the various relationships 'scale' with distance in quite a number of different ways.

For example, an observed redshift, interpreted as line-of-sight motion, is independent of distance; surface brightness is also independent of distance; luminosity scales as the inverse square of distance; and so on.
That is true, but a giant tortoise in the distance can look a lot like an ordinary tortoise nearby.
Second, the relationships you list - and others central to Peratt's model - include far more than just "the physics of electricity" (I assume you mean the same as Peratt's "the basic properties of plasmas are the same everywhere", did you?).
That too. I was using it as shorthand for physics of electrons and other charge-related phenomena that have been well researched over the past couple of centuries. On this forum, unless pushed, I try to restrict my choice of descriptive words to "electricity", "EM", or other similarly vague term because there can be many different specific details which might not yet be pinned down in a theory and it would become laborious to keep listing them when talking in only general terms.
Third, Section IV B ("Scaling Simulations to Galactic Dimensions") makes it crystal clear that model - as applied to the reality of observational astronomy, in the form of observable parameters - predicts different values for those parameters, depending on the distances assumed.
Yes, the values will be different for different distances, but my argument was that any theory which is consistent with observations should yield the same answer as any other equally consistent theory, regardless of what distance is used. The comparison between answers does not say anything about correctness, it only tells you that it gives the same answers. Both theories could be equally wrong.
Nobody knows what the charge/mass ratios of stars are because nobody has measured them, AFAIK.
All that is necessary, in this regard, is that they are not anywhere close to those of electrons and ions ... and they are not (stars do not explode at relativistic speeds in tiny fractions of a second, which they would do if their charge/mass ratios were comparable to those of the electron, the proton (hydrogen ion), and helium ions).
Whether the star would explode surely depends on whether it's confined magnetically. I thought your objection was to Peratt's lack of range of different ratios, not his choice of ratio.

Nereid
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Nereid » Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:03 am

seb wrote:
Nereid wrote:Second, the relationships you list - and others central to Peratt's model - include far more than just "the physics of electricity" (I assume you mean the same as Peratt's "the basic properties of plasmas are the same everywhere", did you?).
That too. I was using it as shorthand for physics of electrons and other charge-related phenomena that have been well researched over the past couple of centuries. On this forum, unless pushed, I try to restrict my choice of descriptive words to "electricity", "EM", or other similarly vague term because there can be many different specific details which might not yet be pinned down in a theory and it would become laborious to keep listing them when talking in only general terms.
Thanks for the clarification.

Two quick comments:

First, "physics of electrons" is best described, today, by QED (which is barely a half century old); in fact, quantum mechanics in general is critical to plasma physics ("the basic properties of plasmas"), though semi-classical approximations can be, and are, made.

Second, when you use Peratt's (and now, it seems, your) fundamentals, this is clearly, um, inaccurate: "then both models should yield similar answers for the same distance".
Third, Section IV B ("Scaling Simulations to Galactic Dimensions") makes it crystal clear that model - as applied to the reality of observational astronomy, in the form of observable parameters - predicts different values for those parameters, depending on the distances assumed.
Yes, the values will be different for different distances, but my argument was that any theory which is consistent with observations should yield the same answer as any other equally consistent theory, regardless of what distance is used.
Would you please clarify this?

I don't have much hope of being able to provide a clear example which would illustrate why this is so unclear (to me at least), but here's one attempt: Sirius, the star, is observed to be a binary. In one theory (with the meaning I think you're using), one is a main sequence star and the other a white dwarf; in another, they're just balls of plasma connected to different Birkeland currents (or filaments). In the former, change the estimated distance to Sirius by a factor of 10, and the theory loses nearly all of its explanatory power. In the latter, nothing changes. This, then, would be a counter-example, showing that your argument (again, to use your word) is false.

(I hasten to add that Peratt's model is like the first 'theory', in my example, not the second)
The comparison between answers does not say anything about correctness, it only tells you that it gives the same answers. Both theories could be equally wrong.
In the case of Peratt's model - which should stand alone - the only thing which counts is comparison with all relevant observations1.

And yes, in (mainstream) extra-galactic astrophysics, if redshifts are not reliable indicators of distances, then 'theory' cannot explain observations.2
Whether the star would explode surely depends on whether it's confined magnetically.
Huh? :?:
I thought your objection was to Peratt's lack of range of different ratios, not his choice of ratio.
Let's recap.

Peratt's model predicts a 'rotational velocity' vs 'radial distance' relationship for 'spirals' that resembles rotation curves of some spirals, derived from astronomical observations (the Hubble redshift-distance relationship is critical to the accuracy of this resemblance).

In Peratt's model,that prediction comes from electromagnetic forces acting on point charges.

The range of values of the magnetic field strength needed for Peratt's model to achieve its resemblance is consistent with estimates of that range, derived from astronomical observations.

Peratt's model assumes just two species - 'electrons' and 'ions'; the former are -ve, the latter +ve, they have the same absolute charge; a single ratio of their masses is assumed.

Stars cannot be either 'electrons' or 'ions'.

Estimates of the rotation curves of spirals, derived from observations, are essentially the same, whether it's neutral gas (hydrogen), ions (several species), or stars whose light is assumed to be the cause of what's observed.

Ergo, Peratt's model is either inconsistent with relevant observations, or is not applicable to them.

1 assuming internal consistency
2 this is one reason why trying to get a better handle on the Hubble constant (the constant of proportionality in the Hubble redshift-distance relationship) was one of the Hubble Key Projects; by the time it was launched, even a factor of ~2 was enough to produce significant inconsistencies (i.e. ~50 vs ~100); as I understand it, in EU theory, redshift and distance are essentially unrelated.

seb
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by seb » Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:33 am

Nereid wrote:[...]
Two quick comments:

First, "physics of electrons" is best described, today, by QED (which is barely a half century old); in fact, quantum mechanics in general is critical to plasma physics ("the basic properties of plasmas"), though semi-classical approximations can be, and are, made.

Second, when you use Peratt's (and now, it seems, your) fundamentals, this is clearly, um, inaccurate: "then both models should yield similar answers for the same distance".
Third, Section IV B ("Scaling Simulations to Galactic Dimensions") makes it crystal clear that model - as applied to the reality of observational astronomy, in the form of observable parameters - predicts different values for those parameters, depending on the distances assumed.
Yes, the values will be different for different distances, but my argument was that any theory which is consistent with observations should yield the same answer as any other equally consistent theory, regardless of what distance is used.
Would you please clarify this?

I don't have much hope of being able to provide a clear example which would illustrate why this is so unclear (to me at least), but here's one attempt: Sirius, the star, is observed to be a binary. In one theory (with the meaning I think you're using), one is a main sequence star and the other a white dwarf; in another, they're just balls of plasma connected to different Birkeland currents (or filaments). In the former, change the estimated distance to Sirius by a factor of 10, and the theory loses nearly all of its explanatory power. In the latter, nothing changes. This, then, would be a counter-example, showing that your argument (again, to use your word) is false.
I don't think so, because you are assuming that we have classified Sirius with its current distance and then are comparing that against what it would be if it were at 10 times or 1/10th that distance. The point is that instead of thinking that it was a large bright star 8.6ly away we would interpret it as a small faint star only 0.86ly away, and classify it accordingly (by way of example only, perhaps white dwarf instead of main sequence). The electric/plasma theories should still match observations and give answers in keeping with a white dwarf at 0.86ly.

In other words, the standard model does not lose its explanatory power just because Sirius's distance is different by a factor of 10, you would just invent another class to plot on the H-R diagram. If doing so caused problems for the stellar model, you would just invent a mechanism to explain it, as is already done with all of the different kinds of stars from brown dwarfs without internal fusion all of the way up to red supergiants burning heavy elements, along with neutron stars and whatever other exotic things there may be out there. Some explanation could be found to fit the observations in hindsight, as has been done numerous times before without much complaint.

To put this another way: let's say that all of our derived/interpreted values for Sirius are done on the basis of it being 8.6ly away, and Peratt's model matches this. If it then turns out to be only 0.86ly away then a recalculation of all of the derived/interpreted values should still yield sensible answers in standard theory, and should still be matched by Peratt's model. If it didn't then there is far more wrong with physics than just Peratt's model. :(
(I hasten to add that Peratt's model is like the first 'theory', in my example, not the second)
The comparison between answers does not say anything about correctness, it only tells you that it gives the same answers. Both theories could be equally wrong.
In the case of Peratt's model - which should stand alone - the only thing which counts is comparison with all relevant observations1.

And yes, in (mainstream) extra-galactic astrophysics, if redshifts are not reliable indicators of distances, then 'theory' cannot explain observations.2
I think it would be fairer to say that present interpretations within the theory cannot explain observations if the distances are all wrong. There are stars from here to 16 billion light-years way (allegedly... ;) ) and they're all supposed to run on fusion; why would fusion fail to work if there were stars within 1.6 billion light years of here, or as far as 160 billion light years? Why would Relativity break down if any star were at a different distance to what it is? Only our interpretation of the observations would fall, and maybe we would find that there are observations which we can no longer interpret - how do you determine the distance to a star or galaxy if it is too far away for parallax measurements and none of your proxies are valid? That is surely a scary prospect for many astronomers, and I reckon that they would cling less tightly to the redshift-distance relationship if there were any viable alternatives available.
Whether the star would explode surely depends on whether it's confined magnetically.
Huh? :?:
What I mean is that if you took a pile of electrons, put them into one place in space, and let them loose then they would fly away with electrostatic repulsion. But we're not talking about electrostatics; the Sun is an electrodynamic system. Whether the magnetic fields would be strong enough would be a case for a calculation to be done, but as said elsewhere, electrons are not accumulating in the Sun, they are travelling through in a circuit. The total charge per cubic metre is relatively low in the scheme of things.
I thought your objection was to Peratt's lack of range of different ratios, not his choice of ratio.
Let's recap.

Peratt's model predicts a 'rotational velocity' vs 'radial distance' relationship for 'spirals' that resembles rotation curves of some spirals, derived from astronomical observations (the Hubble redshift-distance relationship is critical to the accuracy of this resemblance).

In Peratt's model,that prediction comes from electromagnetic forces acting on point charges.

The range of values of the magnetic field strength needed for Peratt's model to achieve its resemblance is consistent with estimates of that range, derived from astronomical observations.
Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. For example, if we measure the rotation of Andromeda as 200km/s then the forces involved if it's 2.5 million light-years away (as per redshift) are quite different to if it is 250 thousand light-years away. Peratt's theory would match the forces given the standard interpretation of redshift. Is that what you mean?

Of course, the assumed masses and the distances over which the fields act would all be different too. A correct model needs to be consistent with observations, and if a certain interpretation (a constraint) is put on the observations then as long as those interpretations are consistent then the model should still (hopefully) fit. Whether Peratt's model is definitely consistent in that way I wouldn't like to say, but it looks to me like it should be; mainstream theories also appear to be consistent. Ideally we need to try reinterpreting/deriving the standard-model data in Table 1 assuming a different distance and then re-run Peratt's simulation at that different distance and see if they still match. :)

This is the problem with much of astronomy, IMHO - so many values are so interdependent that consistent models that match observations can be found, but for which there is little objective evidence for or against. Even if Peratt's model were at odds with the interpretation of observation it would not mean that his model is faulty; it could easily be the interpretation at fault. The same is true, of course, for standard models. Without wanting to go off-topic, the solar neutrino problem was "fixed" by interpreting the observations in light of neutrino oscillations, and then claiming that any model which does not match this "fixed" interpretation must be wrong even if it matches the raw observation.
Peratt's model assumes just two species - 'electrons' and 'ions'; the former are -ve, the latter +ve, they have the same absolute charge; a single ratio of their masses is assumed.

Stars cannot be either 'electrons' or 'ions'.

Estimates of the rotation curves of spirals, derived from observations, are essentially the same, whether it's neutral gas (hydrogen), ions (several species), or stars whose light is assumed to be the cause of what's observed.

Ergo, Peratt's model is either inconsistent with relevant observations, or is not applicable to them.
Given the "flat" shape of the rotation curve, Peratt's model is no less inconsistent or inapplicable than gravity. ;) What shape of galaxy and what rotation curve would you expect Peratt's model to yield if stars were given a mix of lower charge/mass ratios?

Nereid
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Nereid » Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:07 am

seb wrote:I don't think so, because you are assuming that we have classified Sirius with its current distance and then are comparing that against what it would be if it were at 10 times or 1/10th that distance. The point is that instead of thinking that it was a large bright star 8.6ly away we would interpret it as a small faint star only 0.86ly away, and classify it accordingly (by way of example only, perhaps white dwarf instead of main sequence). The electric/plasma theories should still match observations and give answers in keeping with a white dwarf at 0.86ly.

In other words, the standard model does not lose its explanatory power just because Sirius's distance is different by a factor of 10, you would just invent another class to plot on the H-R diagram. If doing so caused problems for the stellar model, you would just invent a mechanism to explain it, as is already done with all of the different kinds of stars from brown dwarfs without internal fusion all of the way up to red supergiants burning heavy elements, along with neutron stars and whatever other exotic things there may be out there. Some explanation could be found to fit the observations in hindsight, as has been done numerous times before without much complaint.

To put this another way: let's say that all of our derived/interpreted values for Sirius are done on the basis of it being 8.6ly away, and Peratt's model matches this. If it then turns out to be only 0.86ly away then a recalculation of all of the derived/interpreted values should still yield sensible answers in standard theory, and should still be matched by Peratt's model. If it didn't then there is far more wrong with physics than just Peratt's model. :(
Thanks for making the effort to try to explain this. However, I really can't make head nor tail of it. :cry:

Anyway, no one - not even Peratt - has worked on this model (and simulation) for over two decades now, and unless and until someone does, there's little point to this kind of speculation, is there?
I think it would be fairer to say that present interpretations within the theory cannot explain observations if the distances are all wrong. There are stars from here to 16 billion light-years way (allegedly... ;) ) and they're all supposed to run on fusion; why would fusion fail to work if there were stars within 1.6 billion light years of here, or as far as 160 billion light years? Why would Relativity break down if any star were at a different distance to what it is? Only our interpretation of the observations would fall, and maybe we would find that there are observations which we can no longer interpret - how do you determine the distance to a star or galaxy if it is too far away for parallax measurements and none of your proxies are valid? That is surely a scary prospect for many astronomers, and I reckon that they would cling less tightly to the redshift-distance relationship if there were any viable alternatives available.
Once again, I'm having difficulty following much of this; however one part is surely wrong: while there would undoubtedly be some astronomers for whom it would be a scary prospect, I think many would be excited, and some downright ecstatic.

The idea - apparently quite common among forum members who write on it - that there's 'clinging' going on with respect to the Hubble relationship, in face of mountains of high quality, objective, independently verifiable evidence to the contrary (whether any viable alternatives exist or not) is, um, well, er, how about downright laughable.
What I mean is that if you took a pile of electrons, put them into one place in space, and let them loose then they would fly away with electrostatic repulsion. But we're not talking about electrostatics; the Sun is an electrodynamic system. Whether the magnetic fields would be strong enough would be a case for a calculation to be done, but as said elsewhere, electrons are not accumulating in the Sun, they are travelling through in a circuit. The total charge per cubic metre is relatively low in the scheme of things.
I think we're too far from Peratt's model by now for further discussion on this to be meaningful; for example, Peratt's model does not include 'stars in a circuit' (or as part of a circuit).
Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. For example, if we measure the rotation of Andromeda as 200km/s then the forces involved if it's 2.5 million light-years away (as per redshift) are quite different to if it is 250 thousand light-years away. Peratt's theory would match the forces given the standard interpretation of redshift. Is that what you mean?
Not necessarily the forces, but all the parameters in Table 1 (that table contains no parameter of the 'force' kind); the model requires that all the parameters in Table 1 have values consistent with those found in the literature (which values are all, as far as I can tell, derived using the Hubble relationship, or are independent of distance, there's no third kind).
Of course, the assumed masses and the distances over which the fields act would all be different too. A correct model needs to be consistent with observations, and if a certain interpretation (a constraint) is put on the observations then as long as those interpretations are consistent then the model should still (hopefully) fit. Whether Peratt's model is definitely consistent in that way I wouldn't like to say, but it looks to me like it should be; mainstream theories also appear to be consistent. Ideally we need to try reinterpreting/deriving the standard-model data in Table 1 assuming a different distance and then re-run Peratt's simulation at that different distance and see if they still match. :)
Took us a while, but now we're here; yes, that's right.
This is the problem with much of astronomy, IMHO - so many values are so interdependent that consistent models that match observations can be found, but for which there is little objective evidence for or against.
It should come as no surprise to you that astronomers do not (would not?) agree with you; in fact, many would argue that vast amounts of painstaking (Dave Smith might say pedantic) work has been done, over many decades, to make the conclusions sound, and the consistencies robust. There certainly were some nice surprises a century or so ago (e.g. the discovery that 'Cepheids' were not a homogeneous class of object), and may well be some more to come (e.g. a rather exotic form of matter is responsible for at least some of the diffuse interstellar bands).

Saying this another way, a typical response from an astronomer - stripped of whatever politenesses there may be - might be 'get thee to a library!'
Even if Peratt's model were at odds with the interpretation of observation it would not mean that his model is faulty; it could easily be the interpretation at fault.
Of course, that's always true.

However, for whatever reason, no one seems to have done any work on this model - supposedly one of only two (three?) quantitative results in the entirety of EU/PC theory - so all we can do is have these, ultimately fruitless, discussions, isn't it?
The same is true, of course, for standard models. Without wanting to go off-topic, the solar neutrino problem was "fixed" by interpreting the observations in light of neutrino oscillations, and then claiming that any model which does not match this "fixed" interpretation must be wrong even if it matches the raw observation.
You're right, it is off topic (and, IMHO, your description is almost solrey-like, in the amount of straw it contains).
Peratt's model assumes just two species - 'electrons' and 'ions'; the former are -ve, the latter +ve, they have the same absolute charge; a single ratio of their masses is assumed.

Stars cannot be either 'electrons' or 'ions'.

Estimates of the rotation curves of spirals, derived from observations, are essentially the same, whether it's neutral gas (hydrogen), ions (several species), or stars whose light is assumed to be the cause of what's observed.

Ergo, Peratt's model is either inconsistent with relevant observations, or is not applicable to them.
Given the "flat" shape of the rotation curve, Peratt's model is no less inconsistent or inapplicable than gravity. ;)
I'm not sure, but this seems, to me, to be logically equivalent to saying 'that orange looks round, the Sun looks round, therefore my Sun-is-an-orange model is no less inconsistent or inapplicable than your Sun-is-a-ball-of-plasma one'.

Did I understand this right?
What shape of galaxy and what rotation curve would you expect Peratt's model to yield if stars were given a mix of lower charge/mass ratios?
Who can say? Unless and until the model is developed further, we'd be speculating.

I think the following words, by Siggy_G, can be found rather widely (in one form or another): "[Peratt's model] seems to explain galaxies’ rotation curves without the need for dark matter". One firm conclusion from taking a look at Peratt's model is that it does not explain the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, as derived from observations of the stars in those galaxies.

seb
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by seb » Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:47 pm

Nereid wrote:
Seb wrote:This is the problem with much of astronomy, IMHO - so many values are so interdependent that consistent models that match observations can be found, but for which there is little objective evidence for or against.
It should come as no surprise to you that astronomers do not (would not?) agree with you;
It comes as no surprise at all. :)
However, for whatever reason, no one seems to have done any work on this model - supposedly one of only two (three?) quantitative results in the entirety of EU/PC theory - so all we can do is have these, ultimately fruitless, discussions, isn't it?
A lot of the discussions will surely be fruitless because there is always an element of faith on both sides. Mainstream supporters have faith that someone will find a way to make their models explain the anomalies; EU supporters have faith that those anomalies will eventually force astronomers into accepting the significant role of electricity. Incompatible faiths invariably lead to pointless goings round-and-round. It becomes a choice based on balance of probabilities and which side seems the most plausible. Both sides are simply waiting for evidence and a brainwave.

Mainstream supporters can point to a large body of literature and very well developed (highly resourced) theories to support their faith. EU supporters have to get by on a very small body of literature and poorly developed (under-resourced) theories to support their faith.

There is an element of reality here that needs qualitative judgement, not a quantitative analysis within a pre-accepted framework when that framework may be incomplete. There may well be omissions, inaccuracies, limitations, or whatever, in the EU/PC literature, but such problems caused no long-term damage to the accepted mainstream theories when they went through a similar phase, so there is little reason to think that they will cause long-term damage to any qualitatively reasonable theory.

There is also little reason to doubt that if/when the role of electricity is acknowledged and integrated into mainstream theories that the mainstream supporters will think that they've always believed it, and may be unable to comprehend how the PC/EU supporters could have imagined themselves at odds with the mainstream. :roll:

Nereid
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Nereid » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:13 pm

seb,

Aristarchus recently cited some material by Ari Brynjolfsson, on plasma redshift (sorry, I'm feeling lazy right now; it should be quite easy to find the thread).

One thing that really struck me reading that material is just how much work - quantitative work - Brynjolfsson has done, how much he's published, how developed his ideas (and models) are, etc.

Yet he's entirely on his own!

So if just one guy can publish so much stuff, on his own, what's holding back the legions of EU proponents? Why, for example, do Scott and Thornhill have so little (in the way of quantitative published work), compared with Brynjolfsson?

He - Brynjolfsson - is not alone of course; search the web and you'll fairly quickly find many lonely 'alternative' theorists have published quite detailed, quantitative material, complete with models and (in some cases) quite sophisticated tests (to show a match between their theory and observation). What's the problem with EU theory?

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Goldminer » Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:48 am

Nereid wrote:What's the problem with EU theory?
Nothing, it scales from laboratory to the universe. You of the cognitive dissonant consensus system want us to believe that you cannot see the evidence. You think we should gloss the obvious the same way you do. You want us to believe, for example that you know more about microwaves than an expert like Robitaille, who has demonstrated that the CMB is another expensive fantasy.

You expect us to ignore the filamentary nature of the Universe at all scales. You expect us to buy into dark bunkum the way consensus Priests demand. You ignore the Comet and the Future of Science, and etc. Your nose has been drubbed at TB Forum a bunch of times, yet you think we can't see the abrasions on your face, as you gloss onward?

.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
Contact:

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by davesmith_au » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:24 am

Hmmm, the high-tech term "dark bunkum" seems to be getting some good mileage, one day I'm gonna tell my grandkids where the term came from. "Look, your Poppa coined a scientific term back in the day..." 8-) :lol:
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster

seb
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by seb » Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:54 pm

Nereid wrote:seb,
Aristarchus recently cited some material by Ari Brynjolfsson, on plasma redshift (sorry, I'm feeling lazy right now; it should be quite easy to find the thread).
I found his papers on Arxiv. http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Br ... /0/all/0/1
One thing that really struck me reading that material is just how much work - quantitative work - Brynjolfsson has done, how much he's published, how developed his ideas (and models) are, etc.

Yet he's entirely on his own!

So if just one guy can publish so much stuff, on his own, what's holding back the legions of EU proponents? Why, for example, do Scott and Thornhill have so little (in the way of quantitative published work), compared with Brynjolfsson?

He - Brynjolfsson - is not alone of course; search the web and you'll fairly quickly find many lonely 'alternative' theorists have published quite detailed, quantitative material, complete with models and (in some cases) quite sophisticated tests (to show a match between their theory and observation). What's the problem with EU theory?
I think that there is only really one problem with EU theory - too many variables that have yet to be settled.

All of the basics are, essentially, worked out quantitatively. Look at any decent textbook on electromagnetism and plasma and you will find the EU counterparts to Newton and Relativity - all quantitatively described and well tested. What more do you want people to provide with respect to this? The question is not one of the quantifying of electricity (it is already very well quantified), it is one of deciding which formulae to apply to astronomical phenomena. That decision is inherently qualitative and subject to further observations.

Many people are able to argue and debunk each other's debunking, which shows just how qualitative the problem is. The debunking might look quantitative - it involves the application of formulae, the plugging in of numbers, etc. - but the arguments arise due to a difference of interpretation. Some people say "formula A applies", others say "no, formula B applies". Which is it? It might actually turn out to be formula C. This is why more observations are needed - to settle such arguments and then once we've ruled out what it can't be it will be easier to figure out what it must be. :) It is also entirely possible that we discover new electrical behaviour as we gather more evidence, and solutions proposed today may look a little naive in 50 years time with everyone grumbling that if only we had looked earlier...

Nereid
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Nereid » Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:58 pm

Goldminer wrote:
Nereid wrote:What's the problem with EU theory?
Nothing, it scales from laboratory to the universe.
Nice one, GM, nice one.

My question came at the very end of a post, which basically asked why it was possible for some who have developed 'alternative theories' - working entirely alone - to have done so to the point of publishing detailed, quantitative models, while EU theorists - who have a great deal of support (and are several in number) - seem to have produced nothing like that (and my comment, and question, was in response to seb's "EU supporters have to get by on a very small body of literature and poorly developed (under-resourced) theories to support their faith").
You of the cognitive dissonant consensus system want us to believe that you cannot see the evidence. You think we should gloss the obvious the same way you do. You want us to believe, for example that [...] You expect us to ignore [...] You expect us to buy into [...] You ignore [...] Your nose has been drubbed at TB Forum a bunch of times, yet you think we can't see the abrasions on your face, as you gloss onward?
May I, as politely as I possibly can, suggest that you read, and then re-read, what you wrote? And then, having read it - carefully - may I suggest that you go back and read - very carefully - what I actually wrote?

Having done that, may I then ask, politely, that you think about how you and I could engage in a science-based exchange of words, so that it could rise to even a minimal standard of meaningful dialogue?

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Goldminer » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:41 pm

Yes, I think we should get the foundation questions answered first, such as why you think that document fails since it destroys a whole chunk of conventional theory, doesn't it? I think you are cute with egg on you face. If you think posting elaborate sounding jargon is scientific, good luck! I require my intercourse with others to at least make common sense. Have you read Arp's books yet? Your posts indicate that if you did, you didn't comprehend much.

,
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Siggy_G » Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:29 am

Nereid wrote:I think the following words, by Siggy_G, can be found rather widely (in one form or another): "[Peratt's model] seems to explain galaxies’ rotation curves without the need for dark matter". One firm conclusion from taking a look at Peratt's model is that it does not explain the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, as derived from observations of the stars in those galaxies.
I wanted to respond to the comment field you linked to, but apparently it's locked. I'll paste my response here, since you brought it up and since it's relevant:
I see that Siggy_G is continuing to tirelessly promote plasma cosmology (PC), despite the many responses given, in many fora (Tom Bridgman’s, for example). (...)
I wonder who's most tireless, Nereid. In fact, I don't have resources to involve in all forum discussions to the extent I'd like at all. And it's not any promotion, but I like to add some info or corrections when I happen to come over standard model proponents' (promoters?) so-called debunks of Plasma Cosmology (or the Electric Universe) that don't take all things into accout, or do attacks based on misconceptions.

Plasma Cosmology is not limited to Peratt's galaxy model, while it does explain rotation curves of volumes of matter without the need for a convenient halo of dark matter surrounding it (as if such a halo wouldn't introduce other dynamic that aren't observed). Peratt also points to principles explored by Hannes Alfvèn, K. G. Felthammer, P. Carlquist et al, explaining large scale structures from electrodynamic interactions and pinch effects. I think Eric Lerner mentions several points in favour of Plasma Cosmology, also relevant to the same Electric Universe aspects, that are less justified in the Big Bang model.

Instead of me mentioning example 3, 4, 5... as you request, I suggest you read Lerner's articles (with references to papers) as well as statements made by Alternative Cosmology Group:

Lerner: The Big Bang Never Happened - index

A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang
( IEEE paper )

Alternative Cosmology Group - index

Lerner / Lieu: Growing mass of evidence challenges “concordance cosmology” but elicits no response. Why the Silence?

Nereid
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by Nereid » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:27 am

seb wrote:I think that there is only really one problem with EU theory - too many variables that have yet to be settled.
[...]
The question is not one of the quantifying of electricity (it is already very well quantified), it is one of deciding which formulae to apply to astronomical phenomena. That decision is inherently qualitative and subject to further observations.
Are you saying that no one - not you, Siggy_G, and certainly not electrical theorists - could suggest where to point any of the premier 'telescopes' (Fermi, XMM-Newton, GALEX, Hubble, Herschel, SPT, VLA, LOFAR, to pick just a few) to do observations that might test any aspect of EU theory (as it applies to 'beyond the solar system' astronomical phenomena)?
This is why more observations are needed - to settle such arguments and then once we've ruled out what it can't be it will be easier to figure out what it must be.
Cool! I got it wrong.

So, seb, what are those observations?
Goldminer wrote:Yes, I think we should get the foundation questions answered first
See you here then.
Siggy_G wrote:I wanted to respond to the comment field you linked to, but apparently it's locked.
I see that you were able to post a comment to that blog entry; I've added one of my own.
Plasma Cosmology is not limited to Peratt's galaxy model,
Indeed.
while it does explain rotation curves of volumes of matter without the need for a convenient halo of dark matter surrounding it
Just not the rotation curves actually observed.
Peratt also points to principles explored by Hannes Alfvèn, K. G. Felthammer, P. Carlquist et al, explaining large scale structures from electrodynamic interactions and pinch effects.
"explaining" in seb's sense - a plausible, hand-waving, qualitative case can be made ... but no one has even tried to do any quantitative work (well, Alfvén did, quite some time ago, but his model turned out to be inconsistent with later astronomical observations).

Oh, and did you mean Falthammer? As in Carl-Gunne?

David Talbott
Site Admin
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by David Talbott » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:10 am

Nereid wrote:
seb wrote:I think that there is only really one problem with EU theory - too many variables that have yet to be settled.
[...]
The question is not one of the quantifying of electricity (it is already very well quantified), it is one of deciding which formulae to apply to astronomical phenomena. That decision is inherently qualitative and subject to further observations.
Are you saying that no one - not you, Siggy_G, and certainly not electrical theorists - could suggest where to point any of the premier 'telescopes' (Fermi, XMM-Newton, GALEX, Hubble, Herschel, SPT, VLA, LOFAR, to pick just a few) to do observations that might test any aspect of EU theory (as it applies to 'beyond the solar system' astronomical phenomena)?
Nereid , unless I'm misreading you here, your question expresses a profound misunderstanding. The issue is: Do any of the abundant observations and measurements since the space age began falsify the EU hypothesis? Given the specificity of the hypothesis--electric currents and high energy electric discharge events across the cosmos--the space age has had thousands of opportunities to disprove the electric universe. Just imagine a proponent of standard theory in 1950 standing alongside a proponent of the electric universe. Of these two imaginary figures, which one will have had to change his mind a thousand times? At some point it's going to register with folks that almost all of the surprises of the space involve the signature of electric currents and magnetic fields, associated with electromagnetic radiation across the entire spectrum--the one thing that standard theory, prior to the space age, consistently overlooked.

User avatar
ETSubmariner
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work...

Unread post by ETSubmariner » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:26 pm

David Talbott wrote:The issue is: Do any of the abundant observations and measurements since the space age began falsify the EU hypothesis? Given the specificity of the hypothesis--electric currents and high energy electric discharge events across the cosmos--the space age has had thousands of opportunities to disprove the electric universe.
Precision.

Thank you, Mr. Talbott. Please keep up the good work.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest