2010-12-11, 00:57 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin I've measured the gravitational constant G. Fascinating, I'd love to see a full description of the methods you used to accomplish this.
2010-12-11, 00:59 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin You clearly didn't since you gave no evidence whatsoever why the scaling factor should be linear. Oh, I apologize, I thought you knew that plasma phenomena were directly scalable across fourteen orders of magnitude (or more).
2010-12-11, 01:00 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Except for the rather fatal flaw that stars form from the interstellar medium interesting...and how exactly are you defining "interstellar medium" so that it allows for the formation of the first stars?
2010-12-11, 01:01 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Tubbythin You're right. I actually gt 9.6*1020 which is near enough 1021. False.
2010-12-11, 04:34 catsmate1	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False. Electromagnetic forces will always dominate plasmas. The observable universe is over 99% plasma. Electromagnetic forces dominate the universe. QED Unfounded and unsupported assertions. Do you have any actual evidence?
2010-12-11, 04:44 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann No, it's many times stronger, and the force between two charged bodies, or even between two birkeland currents, falls off simply with distance, not with the square of the distance. So EM is not only dominant, it's dominant on every scale, and at every distance. Gravitation is a stark misunderstanding of this fundamental property of matter, electrical and magnetic properties, not some metaphysical gibberish masquerading as science. This shows you know zero about the EM theories and models you claim to understand. Later.
2010-12-11, 08:12 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann The observable universe is over 99% plasma. I seem to recall that you have made this claim (or something very similar) many times here in this section of JREF. Yet I have not read any post by you containing evidence for this assertion. Would please state what the evidence is for this claim? Quote: Electromagnetic forces dominate the universe. Ditto. Would please state what the evidence is for this claim?
2010-12-11, 08:14 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann plasma phenomena were directly scalable across fourteen orders of magnitude (or more). What are the fourteen orders of magnitude you are referring to? What are the scaling laws that apply? What is the evidence?
2010-12-11, 10:21 tusenfem	Oh, DeiRenDopa, that is not fair, you are fighting Arthur Mann with the same technique as he is using battling against mainstream plasma(astro)physics. You should know by now that the EU/ES/EC crowd is right and does not have to explain that they are right, you just have to accept that, there is no evidence needed. Asking real science questions receive no answers from Arthur Mann, if he sees something explained and finds that he was wrong (which usually is the case) then he just forgets about it, like the comments that Alfvén made in Cosmic Plasma, that in large bodies the electromagnetic forces cancel out. Apparently, our adversary did not read it or thought it better not to call Alfvén an ... (well I already got a warning for that, but you understand). So, I think it would be best to let our adversary troll out and then move on with business as usual.
2010-12-11, 10:48 Sideroxylon	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Fascinating, I'd love to see a full description of the methods you used to accomplish this. I am sure he will give you one and the ways I have read of doing such a thing are indeed fascinating.
2010-12-11, 11:24 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by catsmate1 Unfounded and unsupported assertions. False. Originally Posted by catsmate1 Do you have any actual evidence? Only a century of experiments with plasma demonstrating this. Ignorance is not proof of absence.
2010-12-11, 11:26 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David This shows you know zero about the EM theories and models you claim to understand. False.
2010-12-11, 11:32 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Yet I have not read any post by you containing evidence for this assertion. read further Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Would please state what the evidence is for this claim? all observations of space
2010-12-11, 11:35 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa What are the fourteen orders of magnitude you are referring to? Seriously? Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa What is the evidence? a century of observing space and experimenting with electricity and plasmas
2010-12-11, 11:41 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by tusenfem the same technique as he is using battling against mainstream plasma(astro)physics. I see you're a little confused. I'm not battling anyone, I'm especially not batting physicists. I agree with them. Originally Posted by tusenfem you just have to accept that, there is no evidence needed. Much evidence has been presented, and dismissed. Obviously one can't perform an experiment in a BBS forum so eventually it comes down to you just taking somebody else's word for it, unless you perform the experiments yourself. I've performed many experiments confirming the electrical nature of phenomena that are poorly understood by most and generally "explained" by other means. Have you? Originally Posted by tusenfem Asking real science questions receive no answers from Arthur Mann, I haven't seen this hypothetical scenario you describe, so it's a straw man. Originally Posted by tusenfem if he sees something explained and finds that he was wrong (which usually is the case) You claim it's usually the case yet I can only think of one or two instances since I started posting here, one was on judo trained fighters choking people, the other was a spelling error, I misspelled Purdue. Originally Posted by tusenfem that in large bodies the electromagnetic forces cancel out. This is wishful thinking and not supported by anything other than the poster's confidence. Originally Posted by tusenfem Apparently, our adversary Again you expose your confusion, I'm not your adversary, you and I are on the same side. Originally Posted by tusenfem So, I think it would be best to let our adversary troll out and then move on with business as usual. If you're waiting for me to "troll out" (what is that, anyway?), you're going to be waiting quite a long time. You also make the same error stating I am your adversary. I am not. If you try to fight with me you'll only wind up fighting yourself.
2010-12-11, 11:42 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon I am sure he will give you one and the ways I have read of doing such a thing are indeed fascinating. We'll wait then. Or maybe you can describe the process, since you have some knowledge of it.
2010-12-11, 11:47 D'rok	Originally Posted by tusenfem Originally Posted by Arthur Mann For somebody unfamiliar with plasmas, there's a tendency to refer to them in familiar terms, like "acoustic". This is a class of properties that has no relevance in terms of plasma, plasmas don't obey the same rules as ostensibly "neutral" reality, such as the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer where all known life exists. Ohhhh I guess you do not know the theory developed by a certain Alfvén (I think he got the Nobel prize for it) where the plasma is described as a fluid, it is called magnetohydrodynamics (short MHD). Interestingly, a plasma behaves very much as a fluid (or a gas, but the two are basically the same) and thus there can be sound waves, there can be combinations such as magnetoacoustic waves. Let's see in Alfvén & Fälthammar "Cosmical Electrodynamics" on page 76 the magneto-acoustic waves are discussed: Originally Posted by A&F As a consequence there exist compression waves—magneto-sonic waves or magneto-acoustic waves—that can propagate across the magnetic field by means of the combined action of the hydrostatic and magnetic pressures . or if we would look at Peratt "Physics of the Plasma Universe" (discussing a.o. double layers) we find: Originally Posted by Peratt Page 176: The BGK solutions include double layers, electrostatic shocks, ion-acoustic solitons, and nonlinear wave trains of any potential form. Page 188: the oblique magnetized DL will drift at velocities up to the ion acoustic speed. So, you may think your very clever, and may think that I am just a deluded sheep in the flock of mainstream plasma physicist, but are you really going to say that Alfvén, Fälthammar and Peratt are talking nonsense in their books? Well that would be the EU shocker of the week. Ouch. This is such an epic smackdown that I almost feel sorry for Arthur for being in so far over his head. Almost. So, how about it, Arthur? Would you say that Alfven and Peratt are two fellas who are "unfamiliar with plasmas"?
2010-12-11, 11:51 Sideroxylon	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann We'll wait then. Or maybe you can describe the process, since you have some knowledge of it. I would rather leave that to the experts but it will likely be a variation on the original experiment by Henry Cavendish.
2010-12-11, 14:26 tusenfem	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I see you're a little confused. I'm not battling anyone, I'm especially not batting physicists. I agree with them. False Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Much evidence has been presented, and dismissed. Obviously one can't perform an experiment in a BBS forum so eventually it comes down to you just taking somebody else's word for it, unless you perform the experiments yourself. I've performed many experiments confirming the electrical nature of phenomena that are poorly understood by most and generally "explained" by other means. Have you? Actually, yes I have, I performed experiments on double layers at the Alfven laboratory of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I haven't seen this hypothetical scenario you describe, so it's a straw man. Well, so far your answers have mainly been "False" without any explanation. When asked to comment on Alfven writing in Cosmic Plasma that for large bodies the electromagnetic forces cancle out, you have never deigned to do so. I guess your straw man just burned down. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann You claim it's usually the case yet I can only think of one or two instances since I started posting here, one was on judo trained fighters choking people, the other was a spelling error, I misspelled Purdue. Your claims about the Debye length and what it represents were plainly wrong, just to give an example and you never even tried to correct me after I gave my discussion about it. Of course you could consider me a lots cause. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann This is wishful thinking and not supported by anything other than the poster's confidence. Ah, I see, as long as Alfven agrees with you it is okay, but as soon as He says something that does not agree, He is suddenly wishful thinking, mmmmm. I even quoted Alfven from his book, so it cannot be wishful thinking from me. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Again you expose your confusion, I'm not your adversary, you and I are on the same side. Oh, I certainly doubt that we are on the same side, most definitely not with respect to electromagnetic and plasma theory and experiments. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann If you're waiting for me to "troll out" (what is that, anyway?), you're going to be waiting quite a long time. You also make the same error stating I am your adversary. I am not. If you try to fight with me you'll only wind up fighting yourself. Really, fighting myself?!?!!?! E.g. don't think I will ever support that gravity is an electromagnetic by product, that road has been travelled by some peeps and has been shown lacking, I will never claim that Debye screeing will screen off currents in a plasma, I see plasmas as gas/fluid with associated (magneto)acoustic properties, etc. etc. We're at different sides of the river.
2010-12-11, 15:04 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann all observations of space The fibre so far: AM: The observable universe is over 99% plasma. DRD: Would please state what the evidence is for this claim? AM: all observations of space ----------------------------------------- On my bookshelf there is space between two books on the top shelf. I observe this space. How is my observation of (this) space evidence for your claim that the observable universe is over 99% plasma? It is possible that you were too terse in your response; perhaps you could try again to answer my question?
2010-12-11, 15:11 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Seriously? a century of observing space and experimenting with electricity and plasmas The fibre so far: AM: plasma phenomena were directly scalable across fourteen orders of magnitude (or more). DRD: What are the fourteen orders of magnitude you are referring to? AM: Seriously? AM: plasma phenomena were directly scalable across fourteen orders of magnitude (or more). DRD: What are the scaling laws that apply? AM: {no response} AM: plasma phenomena were directly scalable across fourteen orders of magnitude (or more). DRD: What is the evidence? AM: a century of observing space and experimenting with electricity and plasmas ==================== So, yes, seriously what are the fourteen orders of magnitude you are referring to? What are the scaling laws that apply? As you will, I'm sure, be among the first to acknowledge, "a century of observing space and experimenting with electricity and plasmas" is not evidence that plasma phenomena are directly scalable across fourteen orders of magnitude (or more). So, what, specifically, is the evidence that plasma phenomena are directly scalable across fourteen orders of magnitude (or more)?
2010-12-11, 15:16 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Electromagnetic forces dominate the universe. Would please state what the evidence is for this claim? Arthur Mann, you seem to have overlooked this question, when you responded to my post. What, specifically, is the evidence that electromagnetic forces dominate the universe? Please include in your answer an explanation of what you mean by "dominate". Thanks in anticipation.
2010-12-11, 15:50 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False. The fact that you state EM foces act at a distance in a linear fashion means that you don't know anything about EM forces.
2010-12-11, 19:25 ben m	Hi folks, the "Arthur Mann" trolling episode is over: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=194600
2010-12-12, 03:48 tusenfem	Ah, how sad, it was just getting fun!
2010-12-12, 04:28 Dancing David	Who was that masked troll?
2010-12-12, 14:05 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Dancing David Who was that masked troll? If you look at the tags you'll (probably) be unsurprised to learn it was cev08whatever.
2010-12-12, 14:10 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon I would rather leave that to the experts but it will likely be a variation on the original experiment by Henry Cavendish. Pretty much. But a bit smaller.
2010-12-12, 23:32 Astroman	Guys, there's no point in arguing with these flips. It doesn't matter what you say or write, arguing with these "electric universe" proponents is a waste of time. Very few of them actually understand science, of any sort. You can't argue with the ignorant for the simple reason that there's nothing to argue against. They parrot other people's arguments and because they have little understanding of the basic science behind what they're talking about, they can easily argue around anything you may care to point out to them. That's what is happening here. The hard thing is having to learn how to ignore fools like this, simply because ignoring them, whilst the preferred method of normally seeing people like this off doesn't work in this case. The reason being is that like all pseudoscience, it appears to be very palatable and easy to swallow and unfortunately the average joe, whom most of these guys are, fall for this sort of nonsense hook, line and sinker. It follows much the same course as religion and its proponents pretty much believe in its veracity with the same sort of mindless zeal. I've given up on arguing with these guys....it was simply too frustrating and I have far more important and interesting things to do than argue with people that just won't listen to reason and real science. As far as they're concerned, we are idiots and in reality this is nothing more than a juvenile peeing up the wall contest for them...or at least that what this devolves into eventually.
2010-12-13, 05:36 Dancing David	Yes and no, I learn a lot in these threads and the lurkers are out there...watching us...all the time...look there is one now behind that noun!
2010-12-13, 21:13 Zeuzzz	Originally Posted by Astroman Guys, there's no point in arguing with these flips. It doesn't matter what you say or write, arguing with these "electric universe" proponents is a waste of time. Very few of them actually understand science, of any sort. You can't argue with the ignorant for the simple reason that there's nothing to argue against. They parrot other people's arguments and because they have little understanding of the basic science behind what they're talking about, they can easily argue around anything you may care to point out to them. That's what is happening here. The hard thing is having to learn how to ignore fools like this, simply because ignoring them, whilst the preferred method of normally seeing people like this off doesn't work in this case. The reason being is that like all pseudoscience, it appears to be very palatable and easy to swallow and unfortunately the average joe, whom most of these guys are, fall for this sort of nonsense hook, line and sinker. It follows much the same course as religion and its proponents pretty much believe in its veracity with the same sort of mindless zeal. I've given up on arguing with these guys....it was simply too frustrating and I have far more important and interesting things to do than argue with people that just won't listen to reason and real science. Well damn me, Stephen Hawkins appears to have joined the forum to gaze down on us mortals with his omniscientific cosmological knowledge (or is that emotive stereotypical hyperbole?) Quote: As far as they're concerned, we are idiots and in reality this is nothing more than a juvenile peeing up the wall contest for them...or at least that what this devolves into eventually. Dude. Chill. If you want a shower to clean off from your last "peeing up the wall contest" just have one, then post something of substance. But maybe better to use another thread that's not based on a theory that's been largely falsified on gravitational scales. To change your last statement into a less black and white, them vs us, evil vs good, machiavellist type view; "As far as we're concerned, we are all idiots" .. Now that I could agree with.
2010-12-13, 21:15 Zeuzzz	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Pretty much. But a bit smaller. I hear this so much from people I meet and it gets highly irritating after a while.
2010-12-14, 01:12 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I hear this so much from people I meet and it gets highly irritating after a while. OK...?
2010-12-14, 01:15 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Well damn me, Stephen Hawkins appears to have joined the forum to gaze down on us mortals with his omniscientific cosmological knowledge (or is that emotive stereotypical hyperbole?) I'm guessing you mean Stephen Hawking.
2010-12-14, 04:43 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz then post something of substance. Well, when will you?
2010-12-19, 22:47 Astroman	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Well damn me, Stephen Hawkins appears to have joined the forum to gaze down on us mortals with his omniscientific cosmological knowledge (or is that emotive stereotypical hyperbole?) If I am who you say I am, then posting anything of substance to this forum would be a waste of my time, simply because you would never be able to understand what I had posted...and neither would 99% of the people who are members here.
2010-12-20, 02:07 Siggy_G	Originally Posted by Astroman Guys, there's no point in arguing with these flips. It doesn't matter what you say or write, arguing with these "electric universe" proponents is a waste of time. I can relate to your frustration. Engaging in internet forum discussions is perhaps the least productive and prosperous thing one can do (unless one is paid to sit there doing it), compared to various endeavors. But those discussions has a magnetic effect – you are either involving yourself in something you find interesting or you are being attacked/challenged, where a response is called for. Electric Universe proponents meet a wall of "we already know how the Universe works, so don't bother asking questions or consider other mechanisms for our vicarious explanations". If one explains mechanisms with own words, one lacks citations. If one cite or quote primary sources (proponents of a hypothesis, sites or articles), they are not scientific enough. If one quotes relevant papers, one is only cherry picking. Also, there's a good bit of misconceptions of what the Electric Universe is about (such as assuming we ignore the effect of gravity), and "the experts" do of course make pronouncements that's supposed to debunk any new approaches to astrophysical or cosmological challenges. Originally Posted by Astroman As far as they're concerned, we are idiots and in reality this is nothing more than a juvenile peeing up the wall contest for them...or at least that what this devolves into eventually. If you represent mainstream astrophysiscists or cosmologists, I don't think EU people view you as idiots. But you belong to a rigid system apparently uncapable of tolerating new approaches, and unwilling to see that many of the current descriptions for how large scale mechanisms work, do in fact explain little. (warping time-space, dark matter, dark energy etc.).
2010-12-20, 04:01 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Siggy_G I can relate to your frustration. Engaging in internet forum discussions is perhaps the least productive and prosperous thing one can do (unless one is paid to sit there doing it), compared to various endeavors. But those discussions has a magnetic effect – you are either involving yourself in something you find interesting or you are being attacked/challenged, where a response is called for. For once I may agree. Quote: Electric Universe proponents meet a wall of "we already know how the Universe works, so don't bother asking questions or consider other mechanisms for our vicarious explanations". I don't recall having ever seen that. Could you cite an example? Quote: If one explains mechanisms with own words, one lacks citations. A clear definition of what is meant by "Plasma Cosmology" or "Electric Sun Theory" etc would be generally useful. There doesn't seem to be much consensus amongst the proponents. Once established the next thing is to provide quantitative evidence to support the theory. Quote: If one cite or quote primary sources (proponents of a hypothesis, sites or articles), they are not scientific enough. Depends on what they're being cited in response too. If a proponent is asked for quantitative evidence and they cite a descriptive, qualitative piece then they are not answering the question at hand. Quote: If one quotes relevant papers, one is only cherry picking. Only if one takes the quote out of context. Quote: Also, there's a good bit of misconceptions of what the Electric Universe is about (such as assuming we ignore the effect of gravity), Peratt's model does, to the best of my knowledge, ignore gravity. Quote: and "the experts" do of course make pronouncements that's supposed to debunk any new approaches to astrophysical or cosmological challenges. Pardon? Quote: If you represent mainstream astrophysiscists or cosmologists, I don't think EU people view you as idiots. But you belong to a rigid system apparently uncapable of tolerating new approaches, How on Earth is it rigid??? As a few examples, in the 20th century we went: From the Milky Way is the limits of the Universe to the Milky Way is just one tiny insignificant galaxy out of many. From the Universe is static and infinitely old to the Universe is constantly evolving and expanding with a finite age (probably). From not really having a clue where the Sun's power came from having a clear mechanism which can explain the power output, longevity and some nucleosynthesis that is backed up by data. Quote: and unwilling to see that many of the current descriptions for how large scale mechanisms work, do in fact explain little. (warping time-space, dark matter, dark energy etc.). Huh? Warping of space-time is a result of general relativity. General relativity explains countless pieces of data to extraordinary precision and is pretty important keeping those GPS systems working. Dark matter can explain a whole slew of observations eg rotation curves of galaxies, rotation curves of galactic clusters, observations like the bullet cluster... And dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant, for example, can explain the empirical observation of the increase in expansion rate of the Universe that requires no change to the formalism of general relativity which, as I've already said, explains countless pieces of data to extraordinary precision.
2010-12-20, 04:07 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Siggy_G I Electric Universe proponents meet a wall of "we already know how the Universe works, so don't bother asking questions or consider other mechanisms for our vicarious explanations". If one explains mechanisms with own words, one lacks citations. If one cite or quote primary sources (proponents of a hypothesis, sites or articles), they are not scientific enough. If one quotes relevant papers, one is only cherry picking. Wrong thread for this Siggy_G. But if Scott's theory is correct why is the solar wind comprised of positive, negative and neutral ions. The problem is that the EU theories do not so far male predictions that match the observable data. You got a good one present it. Perratt's models for galaxy formation do not match the observable data.
2010-12-20, 04:14 dafydd	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False. Only a century of experiments with plasma demonstrating this. Ignorance is not proof of absence. So we can take it that you have no evidence?