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

[Nereid]

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?

I guess I failed to communicate then.

You see, I was commenting on what seb wrote ("The question is [...] one of deciding which formulae to apply to astronomical phenomena. That decision is inherently qualitative and subject to further observations.") I was - and still am - interested to learn what further observations seb (or you, or any electrical theorist) could suggest should be done.

From the rest of your post, would it be reasonable to conclude that it doesn't matter what further observations are done, because any and all are equally good (because there's nothing quantitative to test)?

Also, surely the answer to your question ("Do any of the abundant observations and measurements since the space age began falsify the EU hypothesis?") would be something like this, wouldn't it?: since the EU hypothesis is not quantitative, no measurement or observation could falsify it, even in principle.

[ETSubmariner]

. . . since the EU hypothesis is not quantitative, no measurement or observation could falsify it, even in principle.

I have to call non sequitur; it does not follow that the qualitative is unable to be falsified, which it can by predictive logic, verisimilitude and cross classification, nor is the qualitative 'un-science' by its use of heuristic concept. Empirical content is observation or experiment, of which there is a plethora here. That said, low empirical content at on-set is a flexibility of any side of this research engine to relate the variety of empirical phenomenon to it's description (which is the only process of science - description), and the construction of empirically grounded theory.

A quantitative assignment is for the masses to apply, but to the individual it may not appear, just as an individual who believes the sky is beautiful is to his friend false if that friend believes the sky is ugly. The debate of science being one or the other is the great universal insolvent.

[seb]

[...]
You see, I was commenting on what seb wrote ("The question is [...] one of deciding which formulae to apply to astronomical phenomena. That decision is inherently qualitative and subject to further observations.") I was - and still am - interested to learn what further observations seb (or you, or any electrical theorist) could suggest should be done.

We have sent several space probes to comets and planets, some of which were sent to land or crash. I think a few more of this kind would be useful.

For example, when comet nuclei have been photographed they commonly show bright white spots which are interpreted as ice (or other volatiles) in the dirty snowball theory and as a form of St Elmo's Fire in electric comet theory. If we sent a probe to descend slowly towards the nucleus (for a soft landing, not like Deep Impact) then should we not find that electrical discharges would return quite different data to ice? Are mainstream astronomers sufficiently interested in what their ice may or may not look like to make such a mission? Probably not; but it would be an interesting view of the landing site if the electrical theory is right. Maybe one of the missions to land on a comet will perform this function; it would be a good test if they could land on some "ice".

A similar one would be to send a probe, in a controlled descent for soft-landing, straight into one of the supposed volcanoes on Io. That's assuming that the volcano doesn't move out of the way before the probe reaches it.

Then we should drop probes into the "lakes" on Titan, preferably while an orbiter confirms that there is liquid at the landing site. Such interpretation of radar data has to date been taken as "proof" that there is liquid methane on Titan, so surely it is worth doing a direct observation to check that proof.

There will be many sensors that you could attach to such space probes to acquire a lot of supporting evidence, but even just a plain visual camera and temperature sensor would do a lot to make or break the competing theories. No space mission is cheap, but the few tens of millions of dollars it would cost is nothing compared to what is spent by so many people on the ground theorising about what might not be true.

From the rest of [David Talbott's] post, would it be reasonable to conclude that it doesn't matter what further observations are done, because any and all are equally good (because there's nothing quantitative to test)?

I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that. There are lots to be quantitatively tested, but we need measurements to know what those quantities are and not only can some not be made remotely, many cannot be made simultaneously. Knowing what orders of magnitude one variable is could affect the details of a model, or even the entire choice of which model to use. We still don't really know how many electrons and protons are in the various regions of the solar system, what speed they're travelling at, and in what direction. Some measurements have been made, maybe enough to sway some details of some models, but not enough to decide whether which model is most likely to be right.

Gravity-related models are simple: mass is mass, gravity relates directly to it; gravity only behaves one way; the function of gravity over space is consistent; you can map the gravitational field according to the obviously big, bright lumps of matter floating about; all mass behaves consistently within a gravitational field; and two gravitational objects interact in simple ways. Electricity is not so simple; even if you know that two bodies are highly charged, and even if you know what those charges are, how that manifests itself in an interaction between them depends on a lot more than just their charges and distance. How do you go about measuring their internal charge distribution or their conductivity, no matter how much maths you have your disposal? With gravity, a misjudgement of mass only affects the magnitude of an effect; with electricity a misjudgement of the characteristics can give a completely different effect.

Also, surely the answer to your question ("Do any of the abundant observations and measurements since the space age began falsify the EU hypothesis?") would be something like this, wouldn't it?: since the EU hypothesis is not quantitative, no measurement or observation could falsify it, even in principle.

Why does something need to be quantitative to be falsifiable? To use James Randi's popular quote, if I said that I had a unicorn in my garden then would be that a quantitative claim? Would it not be falsifiable by simply looking and seeing that my garden does not contain a unicorn?

Which part of the EU theory would you like to falsify? Let's try the idea that the "volcanoes" on Io are not actually volcanoes but are plasma effects. Not at all quantitative but easily falsifiable - visit the volcano and see what it looks like.

[Siggy_G]

Gravity-related models are simple: mass is mass, gravity relates directly to it; gravity only behaves one way; the function of gravity over space is consistent; you can map the gravitational field according to the obviously big, bright lumps of matter floating about; all mass behaves consistently within a gravitational field; and two gravitational objects interact in simple ways.

Not to mention, if one observes way stronger "gravity" effects than the observed and probable mass for the given region, one just adds proportionally more mass - even if it is of the undetectable type or the hypothesized ultra-dense type. Now the model is consistent...

Magnetic fields, and the electric currents that cause them, will affect objects of mass as well. To which degree, would depend on the strength of the magnetic field of the objects, the external magnetic field they're influenced by and the objects' inertial mass. If a bar magnet A is placed on a low-friction surface, and you approach it with another bar magnet B, bar magnet A will be partly or fully pushed or repelled by bar magnet B. Of course, these magnets have a fairly strong magnetic field compared to their mass (and compared to stars' mass/magnetism ratio). If the following (astro)physcisists find it plausible that a magnetic field can affect the stars (and their magnetosphere), especially in the outer region of a galactic disc where gravity declines, then, well, doesn't that explicitelly say that magnetic fields can affect stars dynamically?

Magnetic fields and the outer rotation curve of M3

This conclusion seems very reasonable, as magnetic fields are amplified and act “in situ”, and therefore they become increasingly important at the rim, where gravity becomes weaker. The best-fit model of the magnetic fields requires a field strength slowly decreasing with radius. This slow decrease is compatible with present values of the strength derived from observations of the polarized synchrotron emission of the disc, but clearly we need measurements of Faraday rotation of extragalactic sources at this large radii to confirm that the magnetic field is present up to this distance and to trace unambiguously the regular component. Hence, future experiments such as LOFAR1 and SKA2 (Beck 2009), will be extremely important, allowing a detailed explorations on the galactic edge as well as in the intergalactic medium. This work was partially supported by projects

[David Talbott]

You see, I was commenting on what seb wrote ("The question is [...] one of deciding which formulae to apply to astronomical phenomena. That decision is inherently qualitative and subject to further observations.") I was - and still am - interested to learn what further observations seb (or you, or any electrical theorist) could suggest should be done.

Wow. I'm glad I found this post of yours, Nereid, because I almost missed it. So let's see if we can communicate. Where should the new telescopes be pointed, you ask. If we live in an electric universe, why not let each telescope go where its targeted slice of the electromagnetic spectrum is most abundantly exhibited? That's what they're all doing anyway, and it's amongst the primary reasons for the growing interest in the Electric Universe. Why would we complain about the direction telescopes have been pointed, for heaven's sake? Everything revealed about hourglass discharge formations of nebulas and galaxies, or polar jets of Herbig Haro objects, or synchrotron radiation sources, or dozens of other electromagnetic phenomena are of spectacular interest. This is the universe that caught astronomers by surprise in the space age. Why would we need to be selective?

I had good reason to write above: "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."

But in your rhetorical response you imply the reverse of the truth, effectively denying what has occurred as a matter of historic fact. With the endless surprises of the space age, advocates of a gravity-only universe lost the opportunity to falsify the Electric Universe hypothesis. Instead, discovery after discovery has dragged them to the gate of a new paradigm, a change of mind with one inescapable requirement: that they consider the role of electric currents across the cosmos. I can't imagine what useful purpose could be served by attempting to deflect readers from the truth of the matter, as when you write:

From the rest of your post, would it be reasonable to conclude that it doesn't matter what further observations are done, because any and all are equally good (because there's nothing quantitative to test)?

Also, surely the answer to your question ("Do any of the abundant observations and measurements since the space age began falsify the EU hypothesis?") would be something like this, wouldn't it?: since the EU hypothesis is not quantitative, no measurement or observation could falsify it, even in principle.

That last sentence is going to irritate a lot of folks. When you find a corner of the universe that is not dominated by the signature of electromagnetic emissions and high energy electric discharge, you will have a foothold for a counterargument to the EU. The quantitative tests are being carried out every day. The raw data are quantitative, up to a level that categorically precludes what was an undeniable assumption of orthodox astronomy prior to the space age. Radio sources in space are confirmed and quantified. It was engineers who built the first radio telescopes and astonished astronomers with their findings. X-ray sources are confirmed and quantified, thanks to electrical engineers. (As electrical engineers understand, nothing in nature compares with the efficiency of electric fields in generating X-rays.) Synchrotron radiation in space is quantified. It was predicted by Hannes Alfvén, but the astronomical community was certainly not looking for it. Acceleration of charged particles to nearly the speed of light was never expected, and only electric fields can accomplish that feat.

In the hope of communication, I'll rephrase my earlier challenge to you, Nereid. Consider Hannes Alfvén and Sydney Chapman pondering the universe in 1950 and for the following sixty years. Which one will have had to change his mind a thousand times? To me the question seems incredibly simple. Sydney Chapman, expressing disdain for Alfvén's predecessor Kristian Birkeland, categorically denied any role of electric currents across interplanetary space, and by extension any currents across interstellar or intergalactic distances. He saw only disconnected islands, such as the earth's ionosphere, with no electric connectivity between Earth and the Sun.

But what is the value today of Chapman's elegant mathematical model of the ionosphere, or his celebrated peer reviewed articles on the subject? If Chapman had been redeemed, discrediting Birkeland and Alfvén, you'd have something to shout about and your last comment would make some sense. But the space age took science in a radically different direction, and it is still doing so. The opportunity to falsify the electric universe hypothesis as a whole has been categorically lost due to decades of discovery. What remains is the opportunity to falsify discrete components of the hypothesis, such as the electric sun, electric comet, or electrical scarring of planets and moons. I certainly won't have the time to match your abundant posting here, but this, again, is why I'd really like to see us proceed with the debate on the electric Sun. That's a reasonable starting point for a focused discussion based on things that are now known, something our readers are eagerly awaiting.

[Nereid]

I've time, now, for only a quick response, so the posts by seb, Siggy_G, and David Talbott will have to wait a while.

. . . since the EU hypothesis is not quantitative, no measurement or observation could falsify it, even in principle.

I have to call non sequitur; it does not follow that the qualitative is unable to be falsified, which it can by predictive logic, verisimilitude and cross classification, nor is the qualitative 'un-science' by its use of heuristic concept.

Quite right ETS, I was too terse, and made an assumption or two too far (an especially silly mistake, on this forum).

It is entirely possible, perhaps even almost obvious, that the EU hypothesis can be - and has been - falsified on grounds of internal inconsistency, or inconsistency with Maxwell's equations, etc; "predictive logic, verisimilitude and cross classification" as you put it (a good example might be 'the Electric Sun hypothesis').

Empirical content is observation or experiment, of which there is a plethora here.

Indeed.

However the empirical evidence, from observation and experiment, is all quantitative.

That said, low empirical content at on-set is a flexibility of any side of this research engine to relate the variety of empirical phenomenon to it's description (which is the only process of science - description), and the construction of empirically grounded theory.

That might be reasonable at some superficial level, except for the fact that Peratt seems to have had no difficulty developing a good quantitative model, and if you check out the papers by Lerner (in the links Siggy_G provided earlier), you have to wonder how it is that he was able to produce so much quantitative work in such a short time, in the same subject area as EU theory, yet electrical theorists have produced essentially nothing in what, 40 years?

[ETSubmariner]

. . . yet electrical theorists have produced essentially nothing in what, 40 years?

Have we not? Hmmmm.

[Aristarchus]

That might be reasonable at some superficial level, except for the fact that Peratt seems to have had no difficulty developing a good quantitative model, and if you check out the papers by Lerner (in the links Siggy_G provided earlier), you have to wonder how it is that he was able to produce so much quantitative work in such a short time, in the same subject area as EU theory, yet electrical theorists have produced essentially nothing in what, 40 years?

Another comment riddled with contradictions. It totally ignores the endorsement from Anthony Peratt on Scott's book, The Electric Sky:

http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/tes-a.htm

“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.”

– Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He is the author of Physics of the Plasma Universe and numerous published papers.

Then there's the fact that Don Scott gave a presentation at the Goddard Space Flight Center

Yep. Nothing to see here. Now, move along folks.

[David Talbott]

That might be reasonable at some superficial level, except for the fact that Peratt seems to have had no difficulty developing a good quantitative model, and if you check out the papers by Lerner (in the links Siggy_G provided earlier), you have to wonder how it is that he was able to produce so much quantitative work in such a short time, in the same subject area as EU theory, yet electrical theorists have produced essentially nothing in what, 40 years?

Nereid, this statement of yours is not only offensive, you are ignoring the factual impact of Thunderbolts Project researchers on working scientists. What separates you from these scientists is that, in your every word, you seem to deny the concrete value--the essential role--of interdisciplinary research in re-directing scientific investigation. It's already happening. Wal Thornhill is not a mathematician. So what? Does this mean that his practical knowledge of how plasma and electricity, electric circuits, and electric discharge work can be ignorred? Does this mean that the success of his concrete predictions, challenging all expectations of standard theorists, mean nothing? I would like to see you cite just one theorist of the past 15 years, challenging popular assumptions, with a higher record of success than Wal Thornhill.

The only reason to believe anyone in a scientific debate is the predictive ability of his underlying claims. The preposterous implication of your repeated statements is that scientists need not consider evidence if it's not presented in the framework of a mathematical model. Surely no credible scientist--or mathematician, for that matter--would make such a claim. Mathematics is useful tool in support of insight. But where does this idea come from that you can ignore insight until it's mathematically expressed? That idea would be the virtual end of insight in the sciences.

Well, maybe that's the curse on the theoretical sciences today... But if your interest is legitimately scientific I just can't believe you would be so unaware of what, to others, is all too obvious.

[seb]

It is entirely possible, perhaps even almost obvious, that the EU hypothesis can be - and has been - falsified on grounds of internal inconsistency, or inconsistency with Maxwell's equations, etc; "predictive logic, verisimilitude and cross classification" as you put it (a good example might be 'the Electric Sun hypothesis').

I would disagree with that for a couple of reasons. One reason is that, as David said, the general idea has been strengthened by discoveries, not falsified; any falsification occurs to individual details. The second reason, related to the first, is that all widely-encompassing ideas contain details which are mutable and replaceable without destroying the widely-encompassing idea. Most of science thrives on such ideas. How many quantitative details of gravity have come and gone, yet the notion of a gravity universe still persists. Why should the notion of an electric universe be discarded just because some parts might have to come and go?

Nereid, this statement of yours is not only offensive, you are ignoring the factual impact of Thunderbolts Project researchers on working scientists. What separates you from these scientists is that, in your every word, you seem to deny the concrete value--the essential role--of interdisciplinary research in re-directing scientific investigation. It's already happening. Wal Thornhill is not a mathematician. So what? Does this mean that his practical knowledge of how plasma and electricity, electric circuits, and electric discharge work can be ignorred? Does this mean that the success of his concrete predictions, challenging all expectations of standard theorists, mean nothing? I would like to see you cite just one theorist of the past 15 years, challenging popular assumptions, with a higher record of success than Wal Thornhill.

There seems to be a popular image of scientists as being somehow different to other humans. Maybe Ed Wood et al are to blame... They are no more clever, no more knowledgeable, no more highly educated, no more imaginative than any other group. They are not guardians of truth, they are no more able to find truth than those in any other discipline, and they are no more capable of adhering to scientific principles than anybody else. They are simply people whose job involves using the scientific method. Science is nothing more than a method and a body of knowledge which is open to all, regardless of their academic or professional title. It is most certainly not a club to which only a specialist academic elite are allowed.

When one writes an article it is written according to the expectations of the readership - when writing for a scientific or engineering journal it is in the style of a scientific article acceptable to peers' expectations (and could vary according to which journal you choose); when writing for a lay-audience it is more prosaic and less technical. The same article could appear in many guises. Just because somebody does not write an article that would meet the expectations of a group of scientists in a particular field does not make the ideas contained within it any less valid. Surely it should be within the wit of any scientist to look beyond the writing style and extract the intended meaning. Also it would be absurd to believe that people whose job title is not "scientist" can not take part in science or are unable to out-think people whose job title is "scientist", but unfortunately it seems to be a rather popular notion in society.

The only reason to believe anyone in a scientific debate is the predictive ability of his underlying claims. The preposterous implication of your repeated statements is that scientists need not consider evidence if it's not presented in the framework of a mathematical model. Surely no credible scientist--or mathematician, for that matter--would make such a claim. Mathematics is useful tool in support of insight. But where does this idea come from that you can ignore insight until it's mathematically expressed? That idea would be the virtual end of insight in the sciences.

Quite right. Where would geology or biology be if they had to provide quantitative predictions before being accepted? If some science groups want to (mis)appropriate the term "science" to exclude anyone beyond a narrow definition then that is up to them, but it does not change the nature of science or the validity of anybody's work - it merely changes peoples' titles.

[Siggy_G]

Where would geology or biology be if they had to provide quantitative predictions before being accepted?

That's a good point - combined with David Talbott's post. What we see so often is the skeptics' demand for a complete mathematical model ("show me the math!") before any new hypothesis can be explored or looked into. First thing to look into is - is it probable? Could observations and data be explained along these lines (of the proposed model)? I'd say that a qualitative model or hypothesis does atleast point to what to look for and develop on - that later can be turned into something more quantitative. If one already has a model that's both qualitiative and quantitative, and that predicts everything, then that would overgo the Big Bang model with a gigantic leap, no more work needed and Nobel price is awaiting. Is that the requirement before a proposed model is found to be plausible?

[ETSubmariner]

Nereid, this statement of yours is not only offensive, you are ignoring the factual impact of Thunderbolts Project researchers on working scientists.

The only reason to believe anyone in a scientific debate is the predictive ability of his underlying claims.

Thank you, Mr. Talbott. Clear and precise as always.

I enjoy the Electric Universe hypothesis for it's consistent message across disciplines, and for its consistent predictability as new data flows from the mainstream's machinery; telescopes and gizmos that care little for authority figures (a true scientist then, it seems, even if a machine) and even less whether gravity or electrical forces apply primarily (and yet support one over the other every time).

I find verisimilitude from the foundational EM up into basic chemical process, water, life and solar activity. I find nothing similar in the standard gravitational model. There is no analog at any scale for a "constant nuclear bomb". There is no analog at any scale for multi-directional vector gravitational waves.

There are, however, double layers at all scales. This is charge separation at all scales.

Lastly, I found it surprising that Nereid chose my reply as the one that took less time to answer; my reply underpinned the entirety of science itself. Too few words?

I say enough of this, Nereid, please. Here's a nice video about double layers / charge separation in water for you instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7jKL2-B0QA

[Nereid]

Sigh.

You know folks, I trip myself up a lot, don't I?

Here's what I wrote: "yet electrical theorists have produced essentially nothing in what, 40 years?"

Yes, I did write that!

But the whole para is this:
"That might be reasonable at some superficial level, except for the fact that Peratt seems to have had no difficulty developing a good quantitative model, and if you check out the papers by Lerner (in the links Siggy_G provided earlier), you have to wonder how it is that he was able to produce so much quantitative work in such a short time, in the same subject area as EU theory, yet electrical theorists have produced essentially nothing in what, 40 years?"

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)'.

Which is a true statement, is it not?

And how did the "quantitative" get in there?

More context, and important context at that (did anyone click on the link?)

But on that too, I ask you, those who've responded, to engage me in debate in the part of this forum where I presented my own views.

Now, can we get back to Peratt's two 1986 papers and his book, specifically, to his model of galaxy formation and evolution?

[mharratsc]

Perhaps Ms. Nereid is right- the title of this particular thread is aimed at the discrediting of Dr. Peratt's expertise, and not specifically regarding challenges to the EU model or its components.

There Is, however, a thread dedicated to challenges towards our guest in regards to the standard model which can be found here:

Challenges to Nereid

Perhaps that would be a better location from which to begin the debate on the Electric Sun hypothesis?

[David Talbott]

Okay, I've added the heart of Nereid's point above to the Challenges to Nereid thread.

Since the issue relates most fundamentally to "The Future of Science," that is a good place to begin discussion of the distinction between a mathematician and a scientist. When someone says, "show me the math" but is incapable of acknowledging elementary insight—even at the level of game-changing discovery—that person is not a scientist. He may indeed be a qualified mathematician, but mathematics divorced from a broader investigation is not science.

Sadly, I've yet to see from Nereid anything approaching a reasonable perspective on Wal Thornhill's or Don Scott's work. The endless repetition of the same line about "quantification" can only add an exclamation point to this observation. No doubt Nereid could make a much more useful contribution if she would try, of that I'm certain. But is the intent here to get to the truth of the matter, or simply to further a ruse on behalf of scientific orthodoxy? A Joanie One Note, on a mission from God to defend orthodoxy, never questioning the common pretenses of "settled science," cannot have in mind either the dynamic nature of discovery or the essential integrity of science. The first requirement of good science is the eagerness to be redirected when the underlying assumptions are not working. Again, this is why a debate on the electric sun hypothesis is needed to put things into perspective.

Also, the "Challenges to Nereid" thread does indeed deserve more attention than it has gotten.