Immanuel Velikovsky, scientist or twit?

[darkbeaver]

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.

Which observations Dexter, stick to physics, soon as you mention math, I push the button. The tone of your intercourse reminds me of something I've read today.

Catastrophy at work.http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/MarkTwain40627.htm




Of these seven dates, 540 AD stands out as the most accessible, the best documented, and the most severe. The episode had a double minimum, beginning in 536 AD and plunging further yet to another event piggybacked on at 540 AD. Until recently, historians had little notion that this dramatic climatic event had occurred. The accounts left by contemporary observers were poorly understood and overshadowed by later historical events. In fact, those later events, it turns out, may have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the weather of AD 536. The Dark Ages actually were dark.

The Praetorian Prefect Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator wrote a letter documenting the conditions. "All of us are observing, as it were, a blue coloured sun; we marvel at bodies which cast no mid-day shadow, and at that strength of intensest heat reaching extreme and dull tepidity ... So we have had a winter without storms, spring without mildness, summer without heat ... The seasons have changed by failing to change; and what used to be achieved by mingled rains cannot be gained from dryness only."

Another historian, Procopius of Caesarea, a Byzantine, wrote, "And it came about during this year that a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during the whole year, and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear nor such as it is accustomed to shed."

John of Ephesus, a cleric and a historian, wrote, "The sun was dark and its darkness lasted for eighteen months; each day it shone for about four hours; and still this light was only a feeble shadow ... the fruits did not ripen and the wine tasted like sour grapes."

In the wake of this inexplicable darkness, crops failed and famine struck. Out of Africa, a new disease swept across the entire continent of Eurasia: bubonic plague. It ravaged Europe over the course of the next century, reducing the population of the Roman empire by a third, killing four-fifths of the citizens of Constantinople, reaching as far East as China and as far Northwest as Great Britain. John of Ephesus documented the plague's progress in AD 541-542 in Constantinople, where city officials gave up trying to count the dead after two hundred thirty thousand: "The city stank with corpses as there were neither litters nor diggers, and corpses were heaped up in the streets ... It might happen that [a person] went out to market to buy necessities and while he was standing and talking or counting his change, suddenly the end would overcome the buyer here and the seller there, the merchandise remaining in the middle with the payment for it, without there being either buyer or seller to pick it up."

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Which observations Dexter, stick to physics, soon as you mention math, I push the button.

Well, that's pretty much the problem with the EU crowd, they can't or won't do the math necessary to do the physics. The electric sun is a useful case in point. Scott calls Bridgman down for modeling it as a long wire configuration and computing the currents and magnetic fields based on that, but he doesn't provide an alternative analysis, which you have to do if you're going to argue physics with a physicist. Given the kind of cartoons presented at EU sites, the long wire configuration is a perfectly reasonable first approximation, that's what the pictures look like. Bridgman started his analysis by assuming the current must carry as much power as the sun is observed to radiate, calculated currents and fields based on that, subject to reasonable assumptions about electron density and velocity in the current, and showed that the magnetic field from the current must be many orders of magnitude greater than is observed if the electric sun hypothesis is correct. I tried a similar analysis starting from the other end, assuming that the magnetic field generated by the current can be no more than 25% of the earth's field at the earth's distance from it (compasses DO work, after all, and don't vary with Earth's orbital parameters, so 25% is probably overly generous) and calculated how big the current could be and how much power it could carry. I got essentially the same result, the allowable current is far too small to power the sun. Elementary 2nd year EM theory busts the hypothesis.

If you can't do math, you can't do physics.

 

[darkbeaver]

Well, that's pretty much the problem with the EU crowd, they can't or won't do the math necessary to do the physics. The electric sun is a useful case in point. Scott calls Bridgman down for modeling it as a long wire configuration and computing the currents and magnetic fields based on that, but he doesn't provide an alternative analysis, which you have to do if you're going to argue physics with a physicist. Given the kind of cartoons presented at EU sites, the long wire configuration is a perfectly reasonable first approximation, that's what the pictures look like. Bridgman started his analysis by assuming the current must carry as much power as the sun is observed to radiate, calculated currents and fields based on that, subject to reasonable assumptions about electron density and velocity in the current, and showed that the magnetic field from the current must be many orders of magnitude greater than is observed if the electric sun hypothesis is correct. I tried a similar analysis starting from the other end, assuming that the magnetic field generated by the current can be no more than 25% of the earth's field at the earth's distance from it (compasses DO work, after all, and don't vary with Earth's orbital parameters, so 25% is probably overly generous) and calculated how big the current could be and how much power it could carry. I got essentially the same result, the allowable current is far too small to power the sun. Elementary 2nd year EM theory busts the hypothesis.

If you can't do math, you can't do physics.

Scott offered spherical geometry as an alternative. Compasses frequently do not work on earth, I happen to live in a place where the compass cannot be trusted. If you can't do physics you can still do math.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Scott offered spherical geometry as an alternative.

So? He didn't do the calculations to show that his model provides enough power to account for the sun's output without deranging compasses on earth or explaining the observed solar wind. He's just waving his hands again. Besides, he's still claiming the sun is powered by an electric current that arrives from somewhere unspecified, heats up the material of the sun, then goes off to somewhere else unspecified. That's not a sphere, and nowhere does the EU crowd provide a plausible source for the billlions of volts of potential differences that supposedly drive these currents.

Compasses frequently do not work on earth, I happen to live in a place where the compass cannot be trusted.

Again, so? That's due to local conditions where you live, probably magnetic minerals in the environment, it's got nothing to do with the sun's field. If it did you'd notice regular strongly correlated variations in where a compass points, related to the earth's orbital and rotational parameters, and you don't.

You've still got nothing.

 

[petros]

Is the sun's EM at the same frequency of the earths? You can scratch paper all you want if the frequencies vary.

So? He didn't do the calculations to show that his model provides enough power to account for the sun's output without deranging compasses on earth or explaining the observed solar wind. He's just waving his hands again. Besides, he's still claiming the sun is powered by an electric current that arrives from somewhere unspecified, heats up the material of the sun, then goes off to somewhere else unspecified. That's not a sphere, and nowhere does the EU crowd provide a plausible source for the billlions of volts of potential differences that supposedly drive these currents. Again, so? That's due to local conditions where you live, probably magnetic minerals in the environment, it's got nothing to do with the sun's field. If it did you'd notice regular strongly correlated variations in where a compass points, related to the earth's orbital and rotational parameters, and you don't.

You've still got nothing.

Local conditions such as? Magnetic minerals in the environment......like what? Sphere? The earth is oblate. How well does you compass work during a solar storm ?

 

[darkbeaver]

So? He didn't do the calculations to show that his model provides enough power to account for the sun's output without deranging compasses on earth or explaining the observed solar wind. He's just waving his hands again. Besides, he's still claiming the sun is powered by an electric current that arrives from somewhere unspecified, heats up the material of the sun, then goes off to somewhere else unspecified. That's not a sphere, and nowhere does the EU crowd provide a plausible source for the billlions of volts of potential differences that supposedly drive these currents. Again, so? That's due to local conditions where you live, probably magnetic minerals in the environment, it's got nothing to do with the sun's field. If it did you'd notice regular strongly correlated variations in where a compass points, related to the earth's orbital and rotational parameters, and you don't.

You've still got nothing.

I know you assume earths magnetic field is self generated.

(Update: In terms of the outer core, there are no Coriolis forces or effects occurring since both the core and outer core are in the same rotating reference frame – the explanation is simply nonsense).

A/ What assumptions have you made in your calculations.

The suns surface never has been observed to radiate above six thousand K.

Variations in the earths magnetic field have recently necessitated recalibration in at least one airport in the states.
Earth?s Magnetic Field Shifts, Forcing Airport Runway Change | LiveScience

It takes a lot of current to keep lava molten and we can frequently see that current excess shunted to the atmosphere during eruptions. This type of fluid dynamics acts as earths damping
and stabaliser. It,s that dynamic fluid balance that is now affected by the observed solar variation at this time on earth.

 

[petros]

Earth's core has been simulated using sodium for the core. It went dynamic producing EM and regularly lost dipole and flipped.

http://woodrowshew.com/pepi05.pdf

Convective motions in Earth’s outer core are responsible for the generation of the geomagnetic field.


Keep in mind heat is electrons in motion....

 

[darkbeaver]

The explanations of the earths core are very many and very diverse everything from hollow to a small sun. I like to think it's hot and runny only because it leaks all over the planet all the time. How much of a clue do we need?

 

[petros]

The explanations of the earths core are very many and very diverse everything from hollow to a small sun. I like to think it's hot and runny only because it leaks all over the planet all the time. How much of a clue do we need?

It is hotter than the sun.

Once again heat is electrons in motion...what is electricity again?

 

[darkbeaver]

Earth's core has been simulated using sodium for the core. It went dynamic producing EM and regularly lost dipole and flipped.

http://woodrowshew.com/pepi05.pdf

Convective motions in Earth’s outer core are responsible for the generation of the geomagnetic field.


Keep in mind heat is electrons in motion....

Interesting pdf.
Seismic signals are also an open question. If speaker wires from a hi-fi are inserted into a flame (for example, into the mantle of a Coleman lantern), the flame will “make music.” This is the principle behind once-popular plasma speakers. Because both magma and the crystals in rocks are forms of plasma, the explanation for seismic signals can no longer exclude the possibility that they are transduced between acoustic and electromagnetic modes.

Are ideas of Earth’s “liquid core” and “magic mantle” simply artifacts of outdated premises? Are the mechanical deep layers of the Earth instead electrical double layers that convert pressure and displacement waves into electrical waves and back again? Do the “quake signals” that supposedly delineate magma chambers actually indicate coronal discharges around an underground plasma focus?

Modern instruments are capable of testing explanations with greater rigor than is being done. The complacency of geologists is not due to a lack of technology but to a lack of scientific skepticism. Geologists’ unquestioned assumptions may well be hiding plasma volcanoes.Plasma Volcanoes

( one finds soooo many assumptions supporting accepted scientific theory when one starts to dig arround for facts)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

(Update: In terms of the outer core, there are no Coriolis forces or effects occurring since both the core and outer core are in the same rotating reference frame – the explanation is simply nonsense).

No, that's the part that's nonsense, the Coriolis effect is a consequence of the rotating reference frame itself and affects everything in it. Once again you fail to understand basic physics. And BTW, my use of the term "axes" above is the correct plural of the word axis.

 

[darkbeaver]

No, that's the part that's nonsense, the Coriolis effect is a consequence of the rotating reference frame itself and affects everything in it. Once again you fail to understand basic physics. And BTW, my use of the term "axes" above is the correct plural of the word axis.

I there is a consequence at all, in this case, wouldn't we require two or more separate frames of reference? ie; field/armatureAre you saying that the supposed inner core and outer core revolve separately of each other and the rest of the planet? How can a single frame of reference (inner core/outer core/crust) generate unless it revolves in a field?
I understand the physics well enough to know that you nor I have any idea of what the core of earth actually is. Therefore any and all statements about it are hypothetical, aren't they? You keep telling me I don't understand the basic physics that is not understood by science itself yet.

I could hardly assume you meant only one axis. It was a pun.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Are you saying that the supposed inner core and outer core revolve separately of each other and the rest of the planet?

If you have to ask a question like that I despair of ever getting through to you. No of course that's not what I'm saying. You can analyze things entirely in terms of one rotating reference frame. The magnitude of the Coriolis effect on a mass m in a reference frame rotating with angular velocity w is, if my memory is correct, given by 2mwxv, where v is the velocity vector of the mass, bold font indicates a vector in the usual textbook convention and "wxv" indicates the vector cross product. That's a little different from ordinary multiplication, can't multiply vectors quite the same way we do numbers. Note that it has the units of force, which means that anything moving in a rotating reference frame in a direction other than the direction of rotation will appear to experience a sideways deflecting force. In the case of the earth, anything moving away from the equator is deflected to the east, anything moving toward the equator is deflected to the west, as in your artillery shell example above, and in the cyclonic circulation of high and low pressure systems in the atmosphere. The artillery shell and the atmosphere and the various layers of the earth's inner and outer core are all in the same rotating reference frame.

And contrary to populary mythology, the effect isn't large enough to affect water going down a drain.

 

[petros]

the atmosphere and the various layers of the earth's inner and outer core are all in the same rotating reference frame.

And contrary to populary mythology, the effect isn't large enough to affect water going down a drain.

Ihe inner core of Earth spins from one to three degrees a year faster than the crust of Earth. This means that while a point on the crust of Earth moves 360° in a year, a similar point on the inner core would move 361-363° in a year. Thus, over approximately 360 years, the inner core would make one complete rotation more than the crust of Earth. And in the atmoshphere wind blows in several directions. It is how balloonists can navigate.​

How many KW/h does it take to boil rock?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Ihe inner core of Earth spins from one to three degrees a year faster than the crust of Earth.

Really? That's very interesting, I didn't know that. That'll have some interesting implications for how the earth's field is generated, pole reversals and wandering, whole lot of stuff.

How many KW/h does it take to boil rock?

I don't know that either, offhand. I'm sure you can look up latent heats of fusion and vaporization as readily as I can.

 

[petros]

Really? That's very interesting, I didn't know that. That'll have some interesting implications for how the earth's field is generated, pole reversals and wandering, whole lot of stuff. I don't know that either, offhand. I'm sure you can look up latent heats of fusion and vaporization as readily as I can.

Yeah and it also means time inside earth is variable. What other aspects of physics are altered as well in regard to a two timing earth.

From seismic velocities
and cosmic abundances we know that it is
mainly composed of iron-nickel crystals,
and the crystals must exhibit a large degree
of common orientation. The inner core is
predicted to have very high thermal and
electrical conductivity, a non-spherical
shape, frequency-dependent properties and it
may be partially molten. It may be essential
for the existence of the magnetic field and
for polarity reversals of this field (9).
Freezing of the inner core and expulsion of
impurities is likely responsible for powering​

the geodynamo.


All at a different rate of time too. Bizarre.

Frequency dependant properties. What is humming to keep it coherent? The earth? The moon? The sun? The galaxy? Hymn 665 in the Catholic Book of Worship III?

More neat stuff....

The mantle is usually treated as a chemically
homogeneous layer but this is unlikely.
Denser silicates, possibly silicon- and ironrich,
also gravitate toward the lower parts of
the mantle. Crustal and shallow mantle
materials were sweated out of the Earth as it
accreted and some were apparently never in
equilibrium with core material. The effect of
pressure on physical properties implies that
the mantle and core probably irreversibly
stratified upon accretion and that only the
outer shells of the mantle participate in
surface processes such as volcanism and
plate tectonics and only the deeper layers​

currently interact with the core.

Hmmm that means the inner core could very well be sheilded by a layer of silicate glass as insulator. The earth is built like an electric motor. So if you add current....

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yeah and it also means time inside earth is variable.

I don't see that conclusion at all.

Hmmm that means the inner core could very well be sheilded by a layer of silicate glass as insulator. The earth is built like an electric motor. So if you add current....

If it's insulated, you won't be able to add current without breaking it down, which I expect would be catastrophic, on a scale like planetary destruction. I found the original report from the Lamont-Doherty Observatory on this, and it doesn't suggest anything like that, but it makes the point that not only is the core built like an electric motor, it's already running. That's why it turns faster.


Found some other info that partially answers an earlier question of yours, about boiling rock. I couldn't find latent heats of fusion for rock as such, rock composition varies so much it'll be different for every sample, but I did find in the big old CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics some representative items.

Silicon dioxide 237.2 joules per gram
Sodium aluminum silicate 209.6 joules per gram
Magnesium silicate 612.5 joules per gram.

In terms of rock-forming minerals, those are quartz, plagioclase, and olivine. On that basis I'd guess that it'll take on average on the order of 200 to 700 joules per gram to melt rock, with the granitic stuff at the lower end and the basaltic stuff at the higher end. Couldn't find any data on latent heats of vaporization for those in my admittedly cursory search, doesn't seem to be much mineral boiling going on in the test labs.

 

[petros]

I don't see that conclusion at all. If it's insulated, you won't be able to add current without breaking it down, which I expect would be catastrophic, on a scale like planetary destruction. I found the original report from the Lamont-Doherty Observatory on this, and it doesn't suggest anything like that, but it makes the point that not only is the core built like an electric motor, it's already running. That's why it turns faster.


Found some other info that partially answers an earlier question of yours, about boiling rock. I couldn't find latent heats of fusion for rock as such, rock composition varies so much it'll be different for every sample, but I did find in the big old CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics some representative items.

Silicon dioxide 237.2 joules per gram
Sodium aluminum silicate 209.6 joules per gram
Magnesium silicate 612.5 joules per gram.

In terms of rock-forming minerals, those are quartz, plagioclase, and olivine. On that basis I'd guess that it'll take on average on the order of 200 to 700 joules per gram to melt rock, with the granitic stuff at the lower end and the basaltic stuff at the higher end. Couldn't find any data on latent heats of vaporization for those in my admittedly cursory search, doesn't seem to be much mineral boiling going on in the test labs.

So there is very strong evidence it is an electric motor and not just built like one?

All three minerals you mentioned are intrusives that have highest potential of bearing the minerals that are the best conductors. Excellent prewired conductors from surface to mantle.

Yeah there would indeed be one helluva discharge if that insulative layer broke down. Why wouldn't the earth go through violent discharges of energy just like the sun? Is it enough to arc from planet to planet? Perhaps if the sun has massive CMEs that are heavy in iron or other conductive minerals.

I'm curious about the iron discharged from the sun as plasma if the sun is pure hydrogen which is being fused into helium where did the iron come from? Does the sun have a crust or is it just ejected materials sucked in by it's gravity?

If it's chucking Fe as plasma what about the other similar minerals like Cr,Ti, Co, Mn Ni, Zn,Ga and geraniums whcih are all excelent conductors?

So If a mineral rich asteroid bounces off of a planet cracking it's insulative silicate lining and then is sucked into the sun which discharegs conductive asteroid plasma through the already existing dust cloud from the collision there could very well be an interplanetary or planet to moon electric discharges.

This electric thing is by far one of the most interesting and theories going.

It gives me a much stronger belief in the theories of Tesla and pulling all the electricty we need right out of the ether.

And here I thought that the sun having a tail blowing out from the direction of the galactic core which supposed to be a blackhole with gravity gone haywire yet it has a repelling force was trippy enough.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I don't think the electric universe thing has anything to recommend it at this point, there's no plausible mechanism and the consequences we can calculate from its claims are strongly at variance with direct observations. On the core rotation thing, I found a later paper in Nature that revises things downward. The signals are pretty small, and the variances in them that indicate the rotation are hard to extract. It suggested the core's over-rotation is only 0.15 degrees per year. Doesn't alter the principle finding or its implications, it's just that the effect may be a good deal smaller than the data originally suggested.

If there's a charge separation large enough to produce an electric arc between planets, it would also be large enough to completely derange the orbits, electromagnetic forces are 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. There's no evidence that's ever happened, things seem to be pretty stable. As for the elements in the sun, it's at least a second generation star and so contains traces of heavier elements than hydrogen and helium. I don't know offhand what the amounts are, I'll see what I can find out.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I'm finding it a little irritating that I can't locate any legitimate scientific references to this core rotation thing more recent than 2000. Must be using the wrong search key words, which also annoys me because usually I'm pretty good at that.