2010-12-10, 05:46 sol invictus	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Peratt has said that plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, not that ignoring gravity can explain gravity. Plasmas are ionized matter and are therefore affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces on every scale and at every distance. As Tubbythin says, that's trivially false. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann If astronomy doesn't include experiment, it's not science. Bear that in mind. Science isn't defined by "experiment", it's defined by falsifiability. Dark matter is a falsifiable hypothesis which so far has withstood observational tests (the recent bullet cluster observations are an excellent example). Originally Posted by Arthur Mann You keep bringing up "debye length" as if it's relevant, so I'll address it. The "debye length" in this context is just the distance at which a plasma can conceal the current it's carrying by "shielding" or hiding behind a region around itself that has become rich with positive ions in response to the electric discharge in question. Total nonsense. Open any plasma physics textbook, or type it in to google, and you'll get a correct definition. The quote you provided mentions the Debeye length, it doesn't define it. Why is it that "electric universe" proponents never know anything at all about basic electrodynamics?
2010-12-10, 08:27 Guybrush Threepwood	Originally Posted by sol invictus Why is it that "electric universe" proponents never know anything at all about basic electrodynamics? And why do they all have the same writing style?
2010-12-10, 08:41 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Which model by Peratt has been debunked? The one that is published.
2010-12-10, 08:45 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann You have some math demonstrating this? I don't agree with the premise, but it would interest me to know how you derived this. Why don't you give use the charge and the magnetic fileds as observed and then do the calculations, the magnetic fields are way too small. What field strength do you think Pwerrat used? have you read the paper? Quote: How big should it be? Show the math. Show Perrat's and how it match the observations. Do you mean his simulation in a ten cm vessel with extremely high magnetic fields? Maybe you should read Perrat, I have. What field strength does he use in the alleged model? What charges and field strengths, how do they match observations?
2010-12-10, 08:49 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I'm not sure what you're talking about, maybe you could be more specific, with dates perhaps, or conclusions, or anything really. Peratt has said that plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, not that ignoring gravity can explain gravity. Plasmas are ionized matter and are therefore affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces on every scale and at every distance. Hahahaha What is the Debye_lengthWP and why would it matter? have you even read anything about plasma? What would the Debye length be in the interstellar medium?
2010-12-10, 08:54 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann If astronomy doesn't include experiment, it's not science. Bear that in mind. [westminister]Wrong wrong wrong wrong, Wrong wrong wrong wrong, Wrong wrong wrong wrong[/wesminister] Science is about observation, the fine structure constant alpha doesn't change when obserevd, regardless of where we look at spectral lines, did you know that?
2010-12-10, 08:56 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann You keep bringing up "debye length" as if it's relevant, so I'll address it. The "debye length" in this context is just the distance at which a plasma can conceal the current it's carrying by "shielding" or hiding behind a region around itself that has become rich with positive ions in response to the electric discharge in question. It's a localized phenomenon that doesn't really affect observation at extreme distances, like all astronomical observations really. I'll stress again that "debye length" is not relevant to the discussion at hand, but just to illustrate "debye length" has nothing to do with any limiting factors, either with charge separation over distances or transmission, of electric current, I'll quote Hannes Alfven: It has everything to do with the distance of the plasma effects that you claim can act at as great a distance as gravity. If you think it is irreleavnt then maybe you should just stop. "In plasma physics, the Debye length (also called Debye radius), named after the Dutch physicist and physical chemist Peter Debye, is the scale over which mobile charge carriers (e.g. electrons) screen out electric fields in plasmas and other conductors. In other words, the Debye length is the distance over which significant charge separation can occur. A Debye sphere is a volume whose radius is the Debye length, in which there is a sphere of influence, and outside of which charges are screened. " Ergo therefore the electrical effects of charge will not extend past the Debye length, what is it for the interstellar medium?
2010-12-10, 08:59 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Observations alone, controlled or capricious, are not experiments. Oh whoops, quick call Fermilab and the LHC!
2010-12-10, 09:01 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I said show me the math because you said Peratt's model predicts a much larger magnetic field for our galaxy than we observe. You're the one making this claim, not me, not Peratt, but you. Show me the math if you expect to convince me. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. I never claimed Peratt's model accurately predicted the nature of the galaxy's magnetic field, you claimed it does not, prove it. So you haven't read Perrat's paper and want us to do your homework, why am I not surprized. For Perrat's model to be accurate it SHOULD match observations, so either it matches reality or is all made up.
2010-12-10, 09:02 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann He did say it, and he has decades of researching plasmas in the lab to back it up. I think I'll let the readers decide who they think is wrong. Peratt, a respected physicist of Los Alamos National Laboratory, or you, an anonymous BBS poster. Gladly: And where is your citation, what source, what paper or journal?
2010-12-10, 09:16 Ziggurat	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I said show me the math because you said Peratt's model predicts a much larger magnetic field for our galaxy than we observe. You're the one making this claim, not me, not Peratt, but you. Show me the math if you expect to convince me. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. I never claimed Peratt's model accurately predicted the nature of the galaxy's magnetic field, you claimed it does not, prove it. I believe I already pointed out this link to you elsewhere, but perhaps you never looked it up: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...96#post3420696 You'll probably object to this since I use the standard value for the mass of the sun, but you've never put forward an alternative mass, nor have you explained how to obtain the Keplerian orbits of the planets without using the standard mass. So if you don't accept the numbers I gave, we can try whatever numbers you like. Give me a charge on the sun and a mass for the sun, and I'll run through the calculations again and calculate how big the galactic magnetic field needs to be.
2010-12-10, 09:36 Longfellow	Originally Posted by sol invictus ...(snip) Why is it that "electric universe" proponents never know anything at all about basic electrodynamics? Probably because if they knew anything at all about basic electrodynamics, they wouldn't be "electric universe" proponents.
2010-12-10, 10:14 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Observations alone, controlled or capricious, are not experiments. Observations are the results of experiments. Astronomical observations are the results of astronomical experiments. Much like the observation of the top quark at the LHC was result of an (several if you like) experiments. Etc etc. Quote: I asked for experimental evidence, not mere observation and speculation. Rotation curves of galaxies do not provide even indirect evidence of "dark matter". Its not "mere observation". The observations are the result of astronomical experiments. They provide evidence that is supportive of the dark matter hypothesis. They don't conclusively prove that dark matter exists. But then I never claimed they did. Quote: We do not need to invoke "dark matter" to explain why galaxies do not obey gravity. They don't obey gravity because they are plasmas. Plasmas are dominated by electromagnetic forces. And yet you are completely incapable of supporting this claim with quantitative evidence. That would be because it is a completely false assertion. Quote: It's very different. It's saying an astronomer who practices cosmology is also a cosmologist and vice versa. That's a very simple idea, and pretty much irrefutable, unless you start redefining those words in mid-sentence. A nuclear physicist who does a bit of atomic physicist is also an atomic physicist. It doesn't stop nuclear and atomic physics being two different fields.
2010-12-10, 10:18 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann He did say it, and he has decades of researching plasmas in the lab to back it up. I think I'll let the readers decide who they think is wrong. Peratt, a respected physicist of Los Alamos National Laboratory, or you, an anonymous BBS poster. They don't need to pick who to believe. They can do the calculations for themselves. They can, for example, calculate the ratio of gravitational to electrostatic forces on a proton from a star of charge 1e. They will find that the gravitational force is something like 20 orders of magnitudes stronger than the electrostatic one. Quote: Gladly: Please provide the full context of that quote. Without it its all a bit meaningless.
2010-12-10, 10:23 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin They can, for example, calculate the ratio of gravitational to electrostatic forces on a proton from a star of charge 1e. They will find that the gravitational force is something like 20 orders of magnitudes stronger than the electrostatic one. False.
2010-12-10, 10:24 Ziggurat	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False. The calculation is rather easy to perform. So why don't you do it and show us all Tubbythin is wrong? Or if you can't, we could do it for you. Just say the word.
2010-12-10, 10:26 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Astronomical observations are the results of astronomical experiments. Please cite an "astronomical experiment" that verifies your beliefs. Originally Posted by Tubbythin Much like the observation of the top quark at the LHC was result of an (several if you like) experiments. Top quark? Hahahahaha. Originally Posted by Tubbythin They provide evidence that is supportive of the dark matter hypothesis. Cite one example. Originally Posted by Tubbythin And yet you are completely incapable of supporting this claim with quantitative evidence. False, as I've demonstrated numerous times. Originally Posted by Tubbythin That would be because it is a completely false assertion. False. Originally Posted by Tubbythin A nuclear physicist who does a bit of atomic physicist is also an atomic physicist. It doesn't stop nuclear and atomic physics being two different fields. If you say so.
2010-12-10, 10:28 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Longfellow Probably because if they knew anything at all about basic electrodynamics, they wouldn't be "electric universe" proponents. Cite one property of basic electrodynamics that conflicts with "electric universe" models.
2010-12-10, 10:29 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I said show me the math because you said Peratt's model predicts a much larger magnetic field for our galaxy than we observe. I said no such thing. I said: Quote: The one that ignores gravity in supposed simulations of gravity. which was a typo and should have been "...simulations of galaxies". Quote: You're the one making this claim, not me, not Peratt, but you. I made no such claim about magnetic fields (not recently anyway). I claimed that he ignpred gravity. You can show me that I'm wrong if you like. Quote: Show me the math if you expect to convince me. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. I never claimed Peratt's model accurately predicted the nature of the galaxy's magnetic field, you claimed it does not, prove it. If it ignores gravity for high mass, net neutral objects then it cannot possibly be correct. If it does not ignore gravity then you can show me how it is included.
2010-12-10, 10:30 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False. Show me I'm wrong quantitatively that I'm wrong then.
2010-12-10, 10:31 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I believe I already pointed out this link to you elsewhere, but perhaps you never looked it up: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...96#post3420696 I read it, it's not relevant to this thread. Originally Posted by Ziggurat You'll probably object to this since I use the standard value for the mass of the sun, but you've never put forward an alternative mass, nor have you explained how to obtain the Keplerian orbits of the planets without using the standard mass. The sun and all the planets are charged bodies able to interact electrically, therefore gravity is mooted, attempts to derive the masses of planets using gravity models and the observed orbits can not succeed except by accident. Originally Posted by Ziggurat So if you don't accept the numbers I gave, we can try whatever numbers you like. Go ahead, try whatever numbers you like. Originally Posted by Ziggurat Give me a charge on the sun and a mass for the sun, and I'll run through the calculations again and calculate how big the galactic magnetic field needs to be. You've already made positive claims, making them again in the absence of any support isn't any more convincing. If you insist on a number, the charge of the sun is one unit. Run with it.
2010-12-10, 10:31 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Ziggurat The calculation is rather easy to perform. So why don't you do it and show us all Tubbythin is wrong? Or if you can't, we could do it for you. Just say the word. Hell, if he looks hard enough he'll find where I did this exact calculation already.
2010-12-10, 10:34 Arthur Mann	Incidentally, here is a brief analysis of the data in question: Z machine discharges take on the order of 30-40 microseconds. Discharge target is approximately 2.5cm. The size of solar flares can reach 100,000km. This gives a scaling factor of about four billion. 30-40 microseconds X scaling factor = 1.4-1.9 days. We look at the duration of observed solar flares, it's 24-48 hours. 1.4-1.9, both well within the range of durations of solar flares. Conclusion: STRONG confirmation of model
2010-12-10, 10:39 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin I said no such thing. False. Originally Posted by Tubbythin I claimed that he ignpred gravity. It isn't Peratt that ignores gravity, it's the plasmas that he studied which ignored it. Originally Posted by Tubbythin You can show me that I'm wrong if you like. See above. Originally Posted by Tubbythin If it ignores gravity for high mass, net neutral objects then it cannot possibly be correct. False, and non sequitur besides.
2010-12-10, 10:39 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Please cite an "astronomical experiment" that verifies your beliefs. My belief in what? Quote: Top quark? Hahahahaha. What about the top quark is funny? Quote: Cite one example. I did The rotation curve of neutral hydrogen in Andromeda. Other examples include (but are not limited to) rotation curves of other galaxies including our own (though this is actually more difficult than for other nearby galaxies), studies of the bullet cluster and studies of the rotation curves of galaxy clusters. Quote: False, as I've demonstrated numerous times. Then it will be trivially easy for you to provide links to all that quantitative evidence won't it. That would make me look really stupid. Quote: False. And still not a single shred of quantitative evidence to back it up. Just a statement "False". It doesn't get much more anti-science than that. Quote: If you say so. I do.
2010-12-10, 10:41 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David And where is your citation, what source, what paper or journal? Citation for what? Source for what? Paper or journal containing what? If you need my help to do even the most basic research such as where a famous person works or what their occupation is, I'm afraid you're going to fail, because I'm not going to help you.
2010-12-10, 10:42 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Incidentally, here is a brief analysis of the data in question: Z machine discharges take on the order of 30-40 microseconds. Discharge target is approximately 2.5cm. The size of solar flares can reach 100,000km. This gives a scaling factor of about four billion. 30-40 microseconds X scaling factor = 1.4-1.9 days. We look at the duration of observed solar flares, it's 24-48 hours. 1.4-1.9, both well within the range of durations of solar flares. Conclusion: STRONG confirmation of model Erm, Apart from anything you've completely failed to provide any evidence why the scaling factor should be linear. So, no. It most certainly isn't any kind of confirmation whatsoever. This is ignoring the fact that the z machine bears little to no resemblance to our sun whatsoever.
2010-12-10, 10:42 Ziggurat	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I read it, it's not relevant to this thread. Yes it is. It's a direct comparison of Peratt's model to obervations. Quote: The sun and all the planets are charged bodies able to interact electrically, therefore gravity is mooted Gravity doesn't vanish even if another larger force is present. But if you think these other interactions are all electrical, and they're really so much larger than gravity, then you should be able to derive charges on the planets and the sun. So, what are the charges involved? I'm curious about what you think the various planets are made of if the masses are really supposed to be significantly different from the accepted values. I'm also curious about whether you think the accepted value of the mass of the earth is significantly wrong, given that the method for determination involves the use of uncharged solid masses which are therefore unaffected by the charge of the earth. Quote: Go ahead, try whatever numbers you like. I already did. You don't like the numbers I used, but you won't provide alternative numbers. Quote: If you insist on a number, the charge of the sun is one unit. Run with it. The point of doing these calculations is to compare results with observations. If you don't specify the units, then that cannot be done.
2010-12-10, 10:43 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David So you haven't read Perrat's paper False. Originally Posted by Dancing David and want us to do your homework False. Originally Posted by Dancing David why am I not surprized. That's readily explained. It's because you're beginning with assumption and ignoring any evidence that falsifies those assumptions. Originally Posted by Dancing David For Perrat's model to be accurate it SHOULD match observations, so either it matches reality or is all made up. It matches reality, of course.
2010-12-10, 10:43 D'rok	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann The sun and all the planets are charged bodies able to interact electrically, therefore gravity is mooted, attempts to derive the masses of planets using gravity models and the observed orbits can not succeed except by accident. In that case a) what is the mass of the sun, and b) how does one calculate it?
2010-12-10, 10:44 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False. Then quote me. Quote: It isn't Peratt that ignores gravity, it's the plasmas that he studied which ignored it. Except they don't. This is a completely false claim. As you'd see if you did the calculation I suggested. I can only come to the conclusion that you're incapable of doing this really rather basic calculation. Quote: See above. See what above? Quote: False, and non sequitur besides. True and certainly not a non sequitur. Do you know what a non sequitur is?
2010-12-10, 10:45 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David It has everything to do with the distance of the plasma effects that you claim can act at as great a distance as gravity. No, you misunderstand it. It's the distance at which a plasma discharge (such as a birkeland current) can hide itself from remote observation by "shielding" itself with positive ions. It's a local effect, beyond which it doesn't apply, so at vast distances (such as those between stars) it is moot. You'd know this if you actually learned what the term meant.
2010-12-10, 10:47 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David [westminister]Science is about observation Science requires observation, but it also requires experiment. If you have observation without experiment, you fail, you are not doing science.
2010-12-10, 10:48 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David What would the Debye length be in the interstellar medium? In terms of this discussion, debye length would be irrelevant.
2010-12-10, 10:49 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David The one that is published. I'm sorry, which model was that again?
2010-12-10, 10:54 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by sol invictus As Tubbythin says, that's trivially false. Wrong before, wrong now, still. Originally Posted by sol invictus Science isn't defined by "experiment", it's defined by falsifiability. Science requires more than falsifiability. Falsifiability is essential, but so is experiment. Originally Posted by sol invictus Dark matter is a falsifiable hypothesis False. Originally Posted by sol invictus which so far has withstood observational tests (the recent bullet cluster observations are an excellent example). False.
2010-12-10, 10:55 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Wrong before, wrong now, still. Then do the really trivial calculation I suggested.
2010-12-10, 10:58 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Except they don't. This is a completely false claim. Plasmas indeed ignore gravity, as they are affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces. Gravity is mooted. This is one of the fundamental properties of matter. Tell me, what experiments have you performed to verify plasmas are not so unaffected by gravity? What experiments have you performed that demonstrate electromagnetic forces do not dominate?
2010-12-10, 10:59 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Then do the really trivial calculation I suggested. See above where I prove mathematically that laboratory experiments of solar flares scale very nicely with the observed phenomenon.
2010-12-10, 11:00 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by D'rok In that case a) what is the mass of the sun, and b) how does one calculate it? Both good questions.