CharlesChandler wrote: Here is my evaluation of the EU on these criteria:
Skepticism of unsupported claims
In general, the EU's debunking of mainstream models is good, though it could be better. On closer scrutiny, mainstream models can be thoroughly disproved — not just dismissed due to problems.
Critical thinking
The EU is critical of others, but not of itself.
Relies on evidence and reason
EU theories are not tied directly to observations — they mainly leverage the fallacy of the false dichotomy, in saying that because the mainstream is wrong, and EM is the next likeliest candidate, people should give it a chance. That's true, but on closer scrutiny, the EU models don't offer much specificity beyond the opening epiphanies.
Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge
I don't knock off points for over-assertiveness, because clearly stated contentions are easier to evaluate. Open-mindedness is a virtue, but cloaking statements in obtuse CYA-speak is not.
Produces useful knowledge
It's too early to tell.
Testability: Performs controlled experiments
EU models ignore the available evidence. For example, the Electric Sun model can't explain why the Sun doesn't look like a plasma lamp.
Attempts to repeat experimental results.
The attempts that have been made (e.g., the blueberry experiment) did not display critical reasoning.
Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
Fail — when questioned, EU proponents merely give "flood" responses, citing more examples that could be considered evidence of its assertions, never considering the flip side, that they might actually be missing something.
Self-correcting
Fail — problems have been identified, but no attempt has been made to fix them.
The last couple of problems do not speak so well to the EU's existing position, but rather, to where it's headed, and are, in fact, the most serious problems of all. Being wrong is a short-term problem. Not wanting to get right is a long-term problem.
I understand now Charles. Excellent post thank you for writing this. These kinds of problems exist in establishment physics as well. I am learning that science as it is understood is more political than scientific, more based on reputations than understanding, more biased and based on falsehoods than creative thinking and considering new observation.
Science as the public relations people have it is much different that what it really is. I have been on a steep learning curve. Man, I wish they could teach this stuff in college. Unfortunately it can only be learned the hard way.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
@Jeffrey: Sorry for going OT here, but I'm committed to answering all questions, just as you are, so please forgive me.
JeffreyW wrote: I've always considered outer space to be an excellent vacuum. 25,000 volts per inch of breakdown voltage, which would translate to ~1,000,000 volts per meter, much different than 1V/m. Where did you get that number Charles?
I know I got it from somewhere, but I haven't found the citation yet. It can be extrapolated from data such as this, which shows the direct relationship between density and resistance:
It can also be extrapolated from the downward slop in a Paschen curve. But that doesn't produce the specific value of 1 V/m. So I'll keep looking.
Sparky wrote:
The EU is critical of others, but not of itself.
There are exceptions. And it depends on who you include in the EU. If EU includes you.....?
That's a good point. The "Electric Universe Community" is actually a motley crew that is not in complete agreement on everything, no matter how short the list of people you include. This is how it always was, and always will be. For example, did Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, and Juergens all agree on everything? No, they agreed on little. Still it concerns me when I see the community rallying to defend EU tenets, and not considering alternatives. I'm firmly committed to the premise that the Universe is electric, and I'm doing critical work, but have I gained any acceptance within the EU community?
Sparky wrote: Would it be possible for you to present views at one of their conferences?
I'm working on it. Right now I'm still working through the implications of my recent findings concerning the "like-likes-like" principle, discussed in the Re: Logic Programing to Check Scientific Theories? thread.
Sparky wrote:
EU models ignore the available evidence. For example, the Electric Sun model can't explain why the Sun doesn't look like a plasma lamp.
Interesting! Would your model present a sun as a plasma lamp?
No — my model has a current divider, where there is a negative layer sandwiched between two positive layers (one of them deeper inside the Sun, and the other being the heliosphere). This makes it possible for there to be a discharge from a broad surface, not pinched into a finite number of discrete channels, and where the particles accelerate as they move away from the current divider, explaining the temperatures in the corona that increase with distance from the Sun.
nick c wrote:
•Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge ◦I don't knock off points for over-assertiveness, because clearly stated contentions are easier to evaluate. Open-mindedness is a virtue, but cloaking statements in obtuse CYA-speak is not.
I do not know what this means?
I was just saying that I don't mind when somebody makes absolute statements, because it's easier when people just come out with what they have to say, rather than phrasing everything in wishy-washy, tentative terminology.
nick c wrote: As far as the Sun appearing as a filament instead of ball, well there is no requirement for that, it is your own strawman.
What do you mean by "no requirement"? The Electric Sun model doesn't include it, hence its proponents don't have it as a requirement. But that doesn't make it a strawman attack. The behaviors of electric currents in low density media do have this requirement. There isn't enough resistance to prevent the acceleration of electrons to relativistic velocities, even in a weak electric field. And at such velocities, the electrons should get pinched into discrete channels. And once the arc discharge starts, the resistance drops even more, resulting in the further consolidation of neighboring currents. The result should be a finite number of discrete filaments, and the footpoints of these discharges should be the brightest points on the surface of the Sun. What we actually see is a broadly distributed discharge, which defies the laws of electrodynamics. As an analogy, in the electric field under a thunderstorm, we get arc discharges (a.k.a., lightning). We don't get a glowing surface of the Earth, much less a surface in arc mode, and a dark discharge up into the cloud. This is because of the magnetic pinch effect, which consolidates currents into discrete channels. So any hypothesis that asserts that the Sun is in arc mode has to answer this question.
nick c wrote: Note the terella experiment was powered by an external electric current.
It reproduced aurora-like discharges, and in a different configuration, something similar to coronal loops. It did not reproduce a broadly distributed arc discharge from the entire surface that did not resolve into a plasma-lamp-like set of discrete discharge channels.
nick c wrote: Thornhill has proposed an "experimentum cruscis". This can be found on the Holoscience site.
An experimentum cruscis rules out all other possibilities, and demonstrates that the hypothesis in question is the only one that can fulfill all of the requirements. If you're talking about "Saturn's Strange Hot Spot Explained", I hardly see how that rules out all other possibilities — it really only ventures an explanation for something that cannot be explained with conventional science. To call that an experimentum cruscis would be the fallacy of a false dichotomy.
Lloyd
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CC: have I gained any acceptance within the EU community?
Yes, unless I'm not within the EU community.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Lloyd wrote:
CC: have I gained any acceptance within the EU community?
Wouldn't all sizes of things come out of fissioning, including small things?
Gravity of individual body, "captures" another body, as individual unit. That is the reason why the question of mass in my particular question(which is a question of probability), doesn't matter.
viscount aero wrote: Ok I see your idea. The major planets "fissioned" from the Sun whilst the moons of the planets fissioned from the giant planets. That doesn't really explain moons around terrestrial planets however. The Moon did not fission off the Earth. Phobos and Deimos did not fission off Mars.
Actually I don't believe that all the major planets fissioned from the Sun, i think that only our giants did that. I think that the Moon fissioned from Saturn, and Phobos and Deimos are remnants of a destroyed planet.
viscount aero wrote: This is debatable but I can see your position. I personally don't believe they were all captured nor all fissioned. I can see the frequency of moons around the giant planets as being evidence that the moons formed there. But what about the relative center of mass between the Sun and a planet?
The Moon is closer to Earth therefore it doesn't orbit the Sun. It is caught discreetly between the center of mass between the Earth and Sun, favoring Earth. In a capture, the Moon could have been in the vicinity of Earth and not the Sun. Earth's influence upon the Moon would then be greater than the Sun. This can be applied to all other bodies. For example, Io, if captured, was closer to Jupiter's mass than the Sun. Therefore it did not orbit the Sun.
Jupiter and Saturn and the others are also much farther away from the Sun. Their moons, too, could have been captured from much farther out and prevented from orbiting the Sun.
Strictly speaking there are only eight bodies orbiting the Sun, because the bodies in the asteroid and the Kuiper Belt, are being perturbed by the giants. However, you could say that maybe because of immense Sun's radiation, our instruments can not detect "the little objects", that maybe orbit the Sun, like they orbit Jupiter and Saturn. So let's say that in our analysis, we only take the number of the "the bigger bodies", when we are comparing numbers of Jupiter's and Saturn's bodies, versus Sun's bodies. That is in the case of Jupiter and Saturn we take Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, and Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus. That is 11 bodies, of Jupiter and Saturn(only Jupiter and Saturn, we could have enlarged this "sum", if we wanted to), versus 8 bodies, of the Sun. You speak about the "relative center of mass", as a king of counter-argument to my points, but actually it's not. As a matter of probability of, the Sun should have in all circumstances captured more bodies than Jupiter and Saturn, because it's gravitational pull is far stronger than their's. But that is not what we see.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
john666 wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Why?
Wouldn't all sizes of things come out of fissioning, including small things?
Gravity of individual body, "captures" another body, as individual unit. That is the reason why the question of mass in my particular question(which is a question of probability), doesn't matter.
Ok I do see what you're saying. But doesn't mass actually matter? If the Sun's gravity (assuming due to its mass) is king of the solar system then its mass, and the mass of objects orbiting it, does matter. You said the Sun should have captured everything including all of the moons, essentially. There should be over 300 planets, etc... So there should not be any moons, only planets?
But moons occur. And not all moons occur for the same reasons. So how do the moons get there? I cited center of mass between the Sun and a planet as an obvious reason for one condition for moons. That's clearly happening at Mars and Earth. It's ok if we don't agree. It's a good talk.
viscount aero wrote: Ok I see your idea. The major planets "fissioned" from the Sun whilst the moons of the planets fissioned from the giant planets. That doesn't really explain moons around terrestrial planets however. The Moon did not fission off the Earth. Phobos and Deimos did not fission off Mars.
john666 wrote: Actually I don't believe that all the major planets fissioned from the Sun, i think that only our giants did that. I think that the Moon fissioned from Saturn, and Phobos and Deimos are remnants of a destroyed planet.
And Phobos and Deimos are caught in the center of mass between Mars and the Sun. Otherwise they would orbit the Sun. But Mars has more influence.
viscount aero wrote: This is debatable but I can see your position. I personally don't believe they were all captured nor all fissioned. I can see the frequency of moons around the giant planets as being evidence that the moons formed there. But what about the relative center of mass between the Sun and a planet?
The Moon is closer to Earth therefore it doesn't orbit the Sun. It is caught discreetly between the center of mass between the Earth and Sun, favoring Earth. In a capture, the Moon could have been in the vicinity of Earth and not the Sun. Earth's influence upon the Moon would then be greater than the Sun. This can be applied to all other bodies. For example, Io, if captured, was closer to Jupiter's mass than the Sun. Therefore it did not orbit the Sun.
Jupiter and Saturn and the others are also much farther away from the Sun. Their moons, too, could have been captured from much farther out and prevented from orbiting the Sun.
john666 wrote: Strictly speaking there are only eight bodies orbiting the Sun, because the bodies in the asteroid and the Kuiper Belt, are being perturbed by the giants. However, you could say that maybe because of immense Sun's radiation, our instruments can not detect "the little objects", that maybe orbit the Sun, like they orbit Jupiter and Saturn. So let's say that in our analysis, we only take the number of the "the bigger bodies", when we are comparing numbers of Jupiter's and Saturn's bodies, versus Sun's bodies. That is in the case of Jupiter and Saturn we take Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, and Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus. That is 11 bodies, of Jupiter and Saturn(only Jupiter and Saturn, we could have enlarged this "sum", if we wanted to), versus 8 bodies, of the Sun. You speak about the "relative center of mass", as a king of counter-argument to my points, but actually it's not. As a matter of probability of, the Sun should have in all circumstances captured more bodies than Jupiter and Saturn, because it's gravitational pull is far stronger than their's. But that is not what we see.
I don't really agree with most of that, particularly this statement which is not really written in understandable English: "Strictly speaking there are only eight bodies orbiting the Sun, because the bodies in the asteroid and the Kuiper Belt, are being perturbed by the giants."
Hundreds of things orbit the Sun. I don't understand why you only feel the larger objects are important. And relative center of mass does matter.
The planet and moon systems of the gas giants are also much farther away from the Sun than the closer rocky planets. The giant planets are both farther away and larger, and more moons orbit them generally. More moons orbit the gas giants because the gas giants are more massive and attract more things---or the gas giants "create" the moons locally. Which process is happening at which planet? And are the same things happening at each planet?
john666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Ok I do see what you're saying. But doesn't mass actually matter? If the Sun's gravity (assuming due to its mass) is king of the solar system then its mass, and the mass of objects orbiting it, does matter. You said the Sun should have captured everything including all of the moons, essentially. There should be over 300 planets, etc... So there should not be any moons, only planets?
But moons occur. And not all moons occur for the same reasons. So how do the moons get there? I cited center of mass between the Sun and a planet as an obvious reason for one condition for moons. That's clearly happening at Mars and Earth. It's ok if we don't agree. It's a good talk.
My question is a question of probability.
viscount aero wrote: I don't really agree with most of that, particularly this statement which is not really written in understandable English: "Strictly speaking there are only eight bodies orbiting the Sun, because the bodies in the asteroid and the Kuiper Belt, are being perturbed by the giants."
Hundreds of things orbit the Sun. I don't understand why you only feel the larger objects are important. And relative center of mass does matter.
The planet and moon systems of the gas giants are also much farther away from the Sun than the closer rocky planets. The giant planets are both farther away and larger, and more moons orbit them generally. More moons orbit the gas giants because the gas giants are more massive and attract more things---or the gas giants "create" the moons locally. Which process is happening at which planet? And are the same things happening at each planet?
Hundreds of things, do not, orbit the Sun. The Sun has gravitational influence on them, but so do the giants(we are speaking here about the asteroid and Kuiper Belt). In other words, they are being perturbed by the giants, and because of that they have complex motions. As for the giants and their moons, I think that the spherical moons, were generally speaking, all created by the giant planets that they orbit.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
john666 wrote: Hundreds of things, do not, orbit the Sun. The Sun has gravitational influence on them, but so do the giants(we are speaking here about the asteroid and Kuiper Belt). In other words, they are being perturbed by the giants, and because of that they have complex motions.[/b] As for the giants and their moons, I think that the spherical moons, were generally speaking, all created by the giant planets that they orbit.
Perhaps go into that more. The Kuiper Belt is like an outer asteroid belt, a giant ring of material around the Sun. How is that not orbiting the Sun?
john666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
john666 wrote: Hundreds of things, do not, orbit the Sun. The Sun has gravitational influence on them, but so do the giants(we are speaking here about the asteroid and Kuiper Belt). In other words, they are being perturbed by the giants, and because of that they have complex motions.[/b] As for the giants and their moons, I think that the spherical moons, were generally speaking, all created by the giant planets that they orbit.
Perhaps go into that more. The Kuiper Belt is like an outer asteroid belt, a giant ring of material around the Sun. How is that not orbiting the Sun?
The Kuiper Belt is not orbiting the Sun, because the objects that make up the Belt, are perturbed by the giants. As for the reason why the Kuiper Belt looks like a "giant ring of material around the Sun", that is because of the influence of the Sun's charge field, on the Belt. Miles Mathis has shown that Sun emits photons(charge field), that act as a force opposite to gravity(repulsion). The Kuiper Belt is "space junk from outwards" that is going towards the Sun, but the Sun, because of the emission of its charge field, is able to repulse the Belt from going "into the Sun".
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
john666 wrote:
The Kuiper Belt is not orbiting the Sun, because the objects that make up the Belt, are perturbed by the giants.
You're not answering the question. That isn't an answer. Explain "perturbed by the giants" as being uninvolved with or disallowing the K-belt to orbit the Sun.
john666 wrote: As for the reason why the Kuiper Belt looks like a "giant ring of material around the Sun", that is because of the influence of the Sun's charge field, on the Belt. Miles Mathis has shown that Sun emits photons(charge field), that act as a force opposite to gravity(repulsion). The Kuiper Belt is "space junk from outwards" that is going towards the Sun, but the Sun, because of the emission of its charge field, is able to repulse the Belt from going "into the Sun".
This sounds like you're describing the same mechanics behind the YORP effect. Is this what you are saying?
john666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
john666 wrote:
The Kuiper Belt is not orbiting the Sun, because the objects that make up the Belt, are perturbed by the giants.
You're not answering the question. That isn't an answer. Explain "perturbed by the giants" as being uninvolved with or disallowing the K-belt to orbit the Sun.
john666 wrote: As for the reason why the Kuiper Belt looks like a "giant ring of material around the Sun", that is because of the influence of the Sun's charge field, on the Belt. Miles Mathis has shown that Sun emits photons(charge field), that act as a force opposite to gravity(repulsion). The Kuiper Belt is "space junk from outwards" that is going towards the Sun, but the Sun, because of the emission of its charge field, is able to repulse the Belt from going "into the Sun".
This sounds like you're describing the same mechanics behind the YORP effect. Is this what you are saying?
I have answered the question. The Sun has an influence on the movement of the Belt, but that is not an orbit around the Sun, because there are other influences on the Belt, and these influences, are the giants. So if you would still want to claim that the objects in the Belt, are orbiting around the Sun, you would also have to claim that they are orbiting around the giants as well.
I have answered the question. The Sun has an influence on the movement of the Belt, but that is not an orbit around the Sun, because there are other influences on the Belt, and these influences, are the giants.
My very limited understanding is that all objects within a radius effect gravity. So, the further out in the solar system one calculates, the more objects that add up to the total gravity influence. Mathis includes his charge field as part of the gravity field.
Mercury orbits the sun... Venus orbits the sun and mercury, and so on. It hurts my head to think how they all relate.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: @Jeffrey: Sorry for going OT here, but I'm committed to answering all questions, just as you are, so please forgive me.
JeffreyW wrote: I've always considered outer space to be an excellent vacuum. 25,000 volts per inch of breakdown voltage, which would translate to ~1,000,000 volts per meter, much different than 1V/m. Where did you get that number Charles?
I know I got it from somewhere, but I haven't found the citation yet. It can be extrapolated from data such as this, which shows the direct relationship between density and resistance:
It can also be extrapolated from the downward slop in a Paschen curve. But that doesn't produce the specific value of 1 V/m. So I'll keep looking.
Thank you Charles. I think the Conductivity Per Altitude page could use a revamp, as I have just initially found that the Paschen Curve when it was empirically verified for specific gases was inside of pressures of 10^-3 Atm, not the pressures of outerspace which for all intents and purposes is some very low number, more like, zero Atm. When we get down to pressures such as 10^-18 Pascal, it is easier to say no pressure at all.
The extreme vacuum of outer space was not yet known by the empiricists of 1889. They did find a strange behavior in which the breakdown voltage was not linear as a function of pressure and gap length, for a specific pressure and gap length (in others words, not a vacuum at all). But there is a problem, that same problem is taking a function that is reasonable inside of a small band of results and applying it universally and to its unreasonable conclusions. In other words, the gap length appears to increase with decreasing pressure for pressures lower than 10^-1 Torr cm, but that is a huge problem. Looking at the graph though, it would be easy to say, "look the line clearly goes up into infinity" meaning the purer the vacuum, the bigger the gap available to arc.
Just because a graph appears to go up and up and up as a vertical asymptote, does not mean that there IS a vertical asymptote. It could drop back down to nothing, this is not shown in the math equation though. The Paschen function is wrong for pressures below 10^-4 Atm, not only is it wrong, it can't be applied to pressures below 10^-4 Atm, because pressures that approach near vacuum means you have no gas to even measure! Which then leads me to the conclusion, you can't have a Paschen function or curve in a vacuum, because the Paschen function is for gases and vacuum is gas-less.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Thus regarding the above statement, there is no equation or function that I know of to describe the breakdown voltage in near vacuum. It is just assumed to not really have a breakdown voltage, as there is nothing to conduct the electricity!
Sure we have electrical current in outerspace, but those currents and their magnetic fields are a direct result of there being plasma present in incredibly large clouds!
The picture below is very different than the picture below it. They are not the same things! One has matter and plasma, the other is vacuum!
There is something about vacuum that intrigues me. How is it even possible to have an area with "no matter"? This is where my mind is headed in references to quasars and pulsars. Something about quasars/pulsars, some process, takes the pure vacuum of outer space and transforms it into matter. Energy to matter. I think vacuum itself has to be some type of pure energy field. Something other than "magnetic fields" something other than "plasma".
It can be extrapolated from data such as this, which shows the direct relationship between density and resistance:
