Immanuel Velikovsky, scientist or twit?

[darkbeaver]

I read this last night, dynamo stuff. from th geologist Louis Hissink







“Earth’s magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting

atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has “hurricanes”–whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth’s rotation. These complex motions generate our planet’s magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect”. Rest of post here“
​

The problem here is that there is no Coriolis force per se, but is instead an illusion from the result of observing motion from a rotating reference frame.
Rather it should be termed the Coriolis EFFECT.
Imagine a cannon at the North Pole pointed to the equator from which a projectile is fired to the equator – its motion is at right angles to the earth’s rotation, which is to the east, and once in flight will appear to deflect westwards from the point of view of an earthly observer. But there is no force operating on the projective forcing it to the west – it’s just an illusion that an observer on the earth experiences by being on a rotating reference frame and the projectile not.
However it seems to have been reified into a real physical force that is used to explain the motion of cyclonic atmospheric effects as well as the mechanism believed to generate the earth’s geomagnetic field in the outer core, (not that anyone has actually made an in situ measurement of incidentally). As suggested elsewhere here, cyclonic motion is better explained by the mechanics of Birkeland Currents.Louis Hissink's Crazy World | Musings that some think might be crazy now but tomorrow?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Isn't electrical discharge a product of fusion?

No, fusion's a nuclear process, electrical discharges are products of charge separation.

Does the sun ever discharge plasma at our earth because it's going through magnetic flip and loses dipole causing the sun to go into having multiple poles causing overload mayhem to our electrical grid or telecomm?

It's doing it all the time, it's called the solar wind. It varies with the sun spot cycle, and sometimes it throws out big blobs of stuff in what's called a coronal mass ejection. Both can play havoc with power distribution and telecommunications systems, but it's not the sun's field that does it, it's the charged particles that arrive here from it. The sun's magnetic field is actually pretty weak at our distance from it, the earth's field greatly overpowers it. If the sun's field were a significant fraction of the earth's field at this distance, compasses would be completely unreliable.

How would a solar system exist if a star had no electromagnetism extending out along the ecliptic plane?

I don't know what you mean by electromagnetism in the context of extending out along the ecliptic (that's not how it behaves), but I don't see that its absence would prevent a solar system from forming or being stable, gravitation is the determining factor at that scale. A star without electromagnetism wouldn't be a star though, radiation is electromagnetic. The fields extend radially in all directions, not just along the ecliptic.

 

[darkbeaver]

I gave you that link a long time ago, but I was pretty sure you wouldn't read it. It's a review of his book The Electric Sky by a legitimate astrophysicist. Among the mistakes Scott makes is to state, on the basis of no evidence at all, that the laws of physics are different in the distant cosmos than they are here on Earth, that anything that hasn't been tested in the lab or in situ can't be real, that astrophysical claims can't be tested, he confuses mathematical logic with philosophical logic, he distrusts the mathematical models that are the only basis for generating numerical predictions for testing hypotheses, relies heavily on the "if it looks like X it must be X" fallacy--he was the one who claimed the Grand Canyon is a Lichtenberg figure--, he seems to know nothing of quantum mechanics and fails to realize that the quantum mechanics that explains the spectra and energy source of stars is the same quantum mechanics that enables modern microelectronics. He must think we do the latter by magic.

I may have read it and forgotten it. I do read contrary stuff. As you no doubt understand, since the entire field of astrophysics is under a massive cloud of suspicion right now, I don't think it's very easy to tell the good astrophysicists from the bad before we have some good evidence. If you come across that particular review again, in reasonable time, I will certainly read it.

 

[petros]

No, fusion's a nuclear process, electrical discharges are products of charge separation.

Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's doing it all the time, it's called the solar wind. It varies with the sun spot cycle, and sometimes it throws out big blobs of stuff in what's called a coronal mass ejection. Both can play havoc with power distribution and telecommunications systems, but it's not the sun's field that does it, it's the charged particles that arrive here from it.

Particles of what being ejected? Plasma?

The sun's magnetic field is actually pretty weak at our distance from it, the earth's field greatly overpowers it. If the sun's field were a significant fraction of the earth's field at this distance, compasses would be completely unreliable. I don't know what you mean by electromagnetism in the context of extending out along the ecliptic (that's not how it behaves), but I don't see that its absence would prevent a solar system from forming or being stable, gravitation is the determining factor at that scale. A star without electromagnetism wouldn't be a star though, radiation is electromagnetic. The fields extend radially in all directions, not just along the ecliptic.

What you are referring to is the "heliopause", which is the limit of the Sun's magnetic reach and is estimated to be up to14 billiion miles from the Sun. Currently, Voyager I is approaching this milestone.

FAR OUT huh?

Did you know hat the sun has a tail from the galactic wind?

 

[darkbeaver]

At the suns core there is no nuclear fusion that only occurs far off the surface in the corona. There can be no convection of nuclear generated heat radiation from the center of the sun to the surface because the suface is observed to be around six thousand K .

 

[Dexter Sinister]

However it seems to have been reified into a real physical force that is used to explain the motion of cyclonic atmospheric effects as well as the mechanism believed to generate the earth’s geomagnetic field in the outer core

BAD physics. That is a completely false and stupid misrepresentation of the Coriolis effect. Think about it a bit: if an artillery shell's trajectory can be observed to deflect, why wouldn't a parcel of air, or anything else, moving over a rotating surface, be similarly deflected? It's quite unnecessary to invoke Birkeland currents, the explanation for the artillery shell's motion also suffices to explain the others, they're the same phenomenon.

 

[darkbeaver]

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac 01 March 2010

“Essential to the received theory is the conviction that inside the sun is a steep temperature gradient, falling toward the photosphere, along which the internal energy flows outward. If we stack this internal temperature gradient against the observed temperature gradient in the solar atmosphere, which falls steeply inward, toward the photosphere, we find we have diagrammed a physical absurdity: The two gradients produce a trough at the photosphere, which implies that thermal energy should collect and become stuck there until it raises the temperature and eliminates the trough. That this does not occur seems to bother no one. But suppose we remove the hypothetical internal temperature gradient. What then? Why then we see that the sun’s bloated atmosphere and the “wrong-way” temperature gradient in that atmosphere point strongly to an external source of solar energy.” — Ralph E. Juergens, (1972)

BAD physics. That is a completely false and stupid misrepresentation of the Coriolis effect. Think about it a bit: if an artillery shell's trajectory can be observed to deflect, why wouldn't a parcel of air, or anything else, moving over a rotating surface, be similarly deflected? It's quite unnecessary to invoke Birkeland currents, the explanation for the artillery shell's motion also suffices to explain the others, they're the same phenomenon.

You should think about that for a bit.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Particles of what being ejected? Plasma?

Yep, mostly electrons and protons, and overall it's electrically neutral, which it wouldn't be if there were any reality to the electric sun hypothesis. Solar wind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you are referring to is the "heliopause", which is the limit of the Sun's magnetic reach...

No it isn't what I was referring to, and that's not quite what the heliopause is. I was referring to the fact that the field spreads in all directions away from the sun, not just along the ecliptic, and the heliopause is where the outward pressure of the solar wind is stopped by the interstellar medium.

You should think about that for a bit.

I have, probably far longer and more deeply than you have, and I've worked the problems on the Coriolis effect as a physics undergraduate, they're a fairly straightforward matter of vector cross products in the differential equations of motion in moving axes. And you know perfectly well I'm not going to take any citation from Holoscience seriously, I'm not even going to look at it anymore. There's no science there.

 

[darkbeaver]

Yep, mostly electrons and protons, and overall it's electrically neutral, which it wouldn't be if there were any reality to the electric sun hypothesis. Solar wind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia No it isn't what I was referring to, and that's not quite what the heliopause is. I was referring to the fact that the field spreads in all directions away from the sun, not just along the ecliptic, and the heliopause is where the outward pressure of the solar wind is stopped by the interstellar medium.

I have, probably far longer and more deeply than you have, and I've worked the problems on the Coriolis effect as a physics undergraduate, they're a fairly straightforward matter of vector cross products in the differential equations of motion in moving axes. And you know perfectly well I'm not going to take any citation from Holoscience seriously, I'm not even going to look at it anymore. There's no science there.

I wasn't suggesting you hadn't thought about it Dexter I was suggesting a that a bit more was needed, and cost nothing. You're accomplishment is not at question here. This is a civilized discussion of physics, I fail to understand fully your objection to criticism which incidentally as a card carrying scientist you are obliged to entertain directly in the service of science. So entertain or get lost.

I'm not sure how an artillery shell is an apt analogy of a constant field let alone the chain of generated fields and all the intersections, all variable. So I can visualize (just barely) swirling eddys and currents in fuild mediums, like very hot ionized electric transmission oil and some of the valves.

 

[petros]

No it isn't what I was referring to, and that's not quite what the heliopause is. I was referring to the fact that the field spreads in all directions away from the sun, not just along the ecliptic, and the heliopause is where the outward pressure of the solar wind is stopped by the interstellar medium.

What is unique about the ecliptic? Is it on a very fine boundary?Is it on the north side or the south side?

 

[darkbeaver]

"they're a fairly straightforward matter of vector cross products in the differential equations of motion in moving axes."

Of course but is that true of both double bladed and single bladed axes?

 

[petros]

cough...


Coronal mass ejections release huge quantities of matter and electromagnetic radiation into space above the sun's surface, either near the corona or farther into the planet system or beyond (interplanetary CME). The ejected material is a plasma consisting primarily of electrons and protons, but may contain small quantities of heavier elements such as helium, oxygen, and even iron. It is associated with enormous changes and disturbances in the coronal magnetic field.



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

 

[darkbeaver]

"And you know perfectly well I'm not going to take any citation from Holoscience seriously, I'm not even going to look at it anymore. There's no science there."

Please we know there is a war raging at the heart of science between good and evil, try to keep your hate for your former brother and sister credentialed stampt and weighed scientist outside of this public thread frequented by civilians.





Democritus and the Scientific Method

"Democritus, however, does seem not only to have thought carefully about all the problems, but also to be distinguished from the outset by his method." -- Aristotle, philosopher, On Generation and Corruption, Book I, 350 B.C.

"Of all the more ancient systems, the Democritean is of the greatest consequence. ... Now for the first time do we have a rigorous, scientifically useful hypothesis." -- Friedrich W. Nietzsche, philosopher, The Pre-Platonic Philosophers, 1872-1876

"Aristotle consequently reckons Democritus, in spite of his moral sayings, among the Physicists...." -- Eduard Zeller, philosopher, History of Greek Philosophy, 1881

"For reasons that will appear soon scientists are very much inclined to regard the Ionians (Thales, Anaximander, etc.), and, above all, the great atomist, Democritus as their spiritual ancestors." -- Erwin Schrödinger, physicist, Nature and the Greeks, 1954

"Whenever this kind of thing happens one has to envisage two possibilities. The first is that the early thinkers made a lucky guess which later proved to be correct. The second is that the thought pattern in question is not so exclusively based on the recently discovered evidence as the modern thinkers believe...." -- Erwin Schrödinger, physicist, Nature and the Greeks, 1954

"Democritus was, indeed, the most successful of the Greek natural philosophers in the uncanny accuracy of his ideas (at least from our present viewpoint)...." -- Isaac Asimov, author, Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 1982

"...it is for his physics that Democritus is today most famed." -- Paul R. Cartledge, professor, Democritus, 1997

"This record is far too good to be chalked up to lucky guesses. Such consistently successful results show that Democritus and his followers had developed a powerful new system for gaining knowledge -- they had begun to explore empirical science, and its methods, thousands of years before it rose up again...." -- Robert L. Oldershaw, cosmologist, Democritus - Scientific Wizard of the 5th Century B.C., Speculations in Science and Technology, Volume 21, Number 1, Pages 37-44, 1998

"Democritus (c. 460-370 B.C.E.), considered the father of modern science, was the last of the pre-Socratics and is best known for creating mechanical explanations for all of nature that surrounded him." -- Pamela Gossin, Encyclopedia of Literature and Science, 2002

"[Democritus was] the first particle physicist." -- Leon M. Lederman, physicist, The God Particle, 2006

In response to:

"It seemed to Democritus that the atoms of each element were distinct in size and shape and that it was this distinction that made each element different in properties. The actual substances we could see and handle were composed of mixtures of the atoms of the different elements, and one substance could be changed into another by altering the nature of their mixture. All this sounds remarkably modern to us, but Democritus had no way of appealing to experiment for corroboration. (The Greek philosophers did not experiment but came to their conclusions by arguing from 'first principles.')" -- Isaac Asimov, author, A Short History of Chemistry, 1979

and ...

"Democritus went on to interpret the universe in atomic terms and came up with a number of suggestions that sound quite modern. However, it all rested on pure reasoning. He could suggest no evidence for the existence of atoms other than 'this is the way it must be'. ... One of those who came under the influence of Gassendi was the English scientist Robert Boyle (1627-1691), and with him atomism enters a new phase; it is no longer a matter of philosophy and deduction, but rather one of experiment and observation." -- Isaac Asimov, author, Understanding Physics, 1966

and ...

"D's views - all his views - were purely theoretical and in no way empirically based or tested." -- Paul R. Cartledge, professor, July 14th 2009

I present the following refutation in particular:

"This record is far too good to be chalked up to lucky guesses. Such consistently successful results show that Democritus and his followers had developed a powerful new system for gaining knowledge -- they had begun to explore empirical science, and its methods, thousands of years before it rose up again...." -- Robert L. Oldershaw, cosmologist, Democritus - Scientific Wizard of the 5th Century B.C., Speculations in Science and Technology, Volume 21, Number 1, Pages 37-44, 1998
Posted by OilIsMastery

Labels: Democritus, Scientific Method

 

[darkbeaver]

Charles Ginenthal effectively wiped out the [Venus] greenhouse theory


YouTube - Charles Ginenthal on Venus - Part 1 of 5

YouTube - Charles Ginenthal on Venus - Part 2 of 5

YouTube - Charles Ginenthal on Venus - Part 3 of 5

YouTube - Charles Ginenthal on Venus - Part 4 of 5

YouTube - Charles Ginenthal on Venus - Part 5 of 5


The text:
http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/ginenthl.txt

 

[petros]

YouTube - Venus.....

If a CME releases protons and electrons as plasma and EM then there has to be electricity in the form of heat. Heat is protons and electrons in motion after all.

 

[darkbeaver]

Deep Impact 2 - More Surprises in Store
October 27, 2010 ~ Wal Thornhill

The Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1 was perhaps the most successful space mission for confirming Electric Universe predictions and confounding the consensus view of comets as inert, primordial icy bodies. If the scientific method were truly applied, the puzzles from Deep Impact 1 should have been cause for a review, not just of the current paradigm but also of every choice that led up to it.
[ More... ]

This website [holoscience.com] carried the only prediction of the unexpected initial flash before impact: “before physical impact occurs, we may expect a sudden discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile. It will have the characteristic light-curve of lightning, with rapid onset and exponential decay. The question is, will it be a mere spark or a powerful arc?” Also, I predicted that instead of seeing very little impact effect: “the energetic effects of the encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in the same way that was seen with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 at Jupiter.”

Meteors glow because of charge equalization between it and the earth, they are charged negative with respect to the earth.

 

[petros]

I wonder what sort of **** storm the planets are in for when the sun passes through the galactic plane and the sun's tail envelopes the ecliptic?

 

[darkbeaver]

I wonder what sort of **** storm the planets are in for when the sun passes through the galactic plane and the sun's tail envelopes the ecliptic?

Well we don't have long to wait. I think the effect has already begun, as we approach intersection it will get stronger. I'm of the opinion that it will be significant.

After reading those paragraphs, TB's describing my work, as being a 'theology', is a low-blow. Gratuitous comments such as this are an indication that his urge to attack me has overcome his reason. It is modern astrophysics that demands its followers 'believe' in unseen, immeasurable entities such as WIMPS, MACHOs, Dark Matter, and Inflatons as a matter of 'faith' without proof. The reification of abstractions such as point-masses, magnetic field lines, and mathematical singularities into real entities that can have an effect on matter in real space are classic theological transmogrifications - miracles. If TB wants to see a supporter of this species of Creationism, he can simply look in a mirror.

[...] CONCLUSION

Astrophysics pseudo-skeptics like Bridgman have certain recognizable characteristics in common.

1. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
2. They refuse to consider any electrical causation for anything in space.
3. When confronted with =in your face evidence' such as the image of a high redshifted QSO in front of a more distant, low redshifted galaxy, they resort to arguments (usually involving math or statistics) to disprove – or at least make you doubt – what your eyes are telling you. The old Groucho Marx line comes to mind: “Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?”
4. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. The fact that they have been voted upon and accepted by a self-involved, insular group of 'experts' does not make them true. Winning a hand vote is not the same thing as scientific validation.
5. It is clear that they have never been exposed to the basic properties of plasma nor the fundamental inter-relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents. But they feel free to lecture those who have.
6. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

[...]

Because I see no willingness on Bridgman's part to discuss things calmly, with mutual respect, he remains, in my view, simply one more pseudo-skeptic who claims to know-it-all – not an open minded scientist.

Don Scott

[Editor's note:

As noted above, these are just a few excerpts from the rebuttal which covers the following topics:

PULSARS
MISREPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT I SAY
THE (NON)USEFUL PRODUCTS OF ASTROPHYSICS
THE IMPORTANCE OF IN SITU MEASUREMENTS
TRUSTING MATHEMATICAL MODELS
IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’
AD HOMINEM ATTACKS
GRAVITATIONAL LENSING
GENERAL RELATIVITY DOES INCLUDE ELECTROMAGNETISM
NAKED SINGULARITIES ARE NOT BLACK HOLES
OUTFLOWS FROM ACCRETING BLACK HOLES ARE NOT HAWKING RADIATION
GRAVITY VS ELECTRICITY
SOLAR AND NUCLEAR ENERGY ERRORS
MISSING NEUTRINOS
NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN SOLAR FLARES
POWERING THE SUN FROM THE OUTSIDE
SUN’S MAGNETIC FIELD
CURRENTS IN SPACE
SOLAR ELECTRON VELOCITIES
MISCELLANEOUS SOLAR SILLINESS
CRATER FORMATION
DARK MATTER
THE WMAP MAP
DOUBLE LAYERS
MAGNETIC FIELDS EASIER TO MEASURE
OPEN MAGNETIC FIELD LINES
RECONNECTION
NEUTRON STARS
LACK OF MATHEMATICS
NON-NUMERICAL AXES
LUMPED CIRCUIT ELEMENTS
WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM?
MORE LIKE CREATIONISM THAN I EXPECTED
BINARY POWERED PULSARS
OBSERVATIONS
CONCLUSION​

A full copy of Dr. Scott's rebuttal in pdf format can be obtained here]


SITE SEARCH









*** NEW DVD ***

E-BOOKS

VIDEO (FREE viewing)


PREDICTIONS


MULTIMEDIA

 

[darkbeaver]

[FONT=Arial,helvetica]head?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,helvetica]You probably thought, as we did, that the function of the hammerhead shark's weirdly shaped head was to separate the eyes and thus improve binocular vision. This is not the case. The visual fields of the hammerhead's eyes do not overlap at all. Each eye presents the brain with a separate, completely different image to integrate. What, then, could be the purpose of the hammer head? No one really knows, but three suggestions are as follows: [/FONT]

1. [FONT=Arial,helvetica]
2. The head acts as a hydrofoil and gives the heavier-than-water, swimbladderless shark better swimming control.
3. Grooves on the hammer head channel water toward the nostrils, providing "stereoscopic sniffing."
4. The head is a platform for electromagnetic sensors that help locate prey. Stingrays are a favorite food of the hammerhead, and the shark may de-tect them electromagnetically, as surmised by the author of this article in the following encounters:
   
   "I have observed great hammerheads swimming close to the bottom, swinging their heads in wide arcs (a motion common, in a lesser degree, to all large sharks) as if using the increased electroreceptive area of their hammer like the sensor plate of a metal detector. Sometimes, these animals would doubleback to scoop up one of several stingrays hiding in the bottom silt. The minute electrical pulse that keeps the stingray's heart and spiracles operating betrays their presence to a hungry hammerhead."​
   [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,helvetica](Martin, Richard; "Why the Hammer Head?" Sea Frontiers, 35:142, 1989.) [/FONT]

 

[Dexter Sinister]

A full copy of Dr. Scott's rebuttal...

It's pretty lame, to anybody who knows the real science. You can see some of Dr. Bridgman's responses here, starting about a quarter of the way down the page. There's a lot more on the site, but that's probably enough to sprain the brains of the EU crowd, there are some differential equations in it. The fact remains, quantitative analyses of the EU claims are sharply at variance with observations, which to any rational thinker counts as disconfirmation.