thunderbolts of gods

[rudeboy]

did you ever watch «thunderbolts of the gods in google video?
it challenges some scientific views, if you care to watch.
and a revolutionary new interpretation of them. The Thunderbolts Project calls into question not only countless modern scientific assumptions, but also the billions of dollars of big-science government and corporate funding that continues to preserve and entrench questionable theories - elevating them to the status of doctrine - while systematically excluding legitimate alternatives that threaten the status quo

it contains some interestoing thoughts on Plasma

[rudeboy]

did you ever watch «thunderbolts of the gods in google video?
it challenges some scientific views, if you care to watch.
and a revolutionary new interpretation of them. The Thunderbolts Project calls into question not only countless modern scientific assumptions, but also the billions of dollars of big-science government and corporate funding that continues to preserve and entrench questionable theories - elevating them to the status of doctrine - while systematically excluding legitimate alternatives that threaten the status quo

it contains some interestoing thoughts on Plasma

it seems Einstein and those who developed the Big Bang theory ignored comletely electricity
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

[MRC_Hans]

it seems Einstein and those who developed the Big Bang theory ignored comletely electricity
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

Be specific, please. Which thesis are you discussing?

Hans

[Sideroxylon]

It seems to be about plasma cosmology. The video doesn't get off to a good start by fitting symbols from world mythology as evidence that the ancients were seeing a vastly different sky than today.

[sol invictus]

it seems Einstein and those who developed the Big Bang theory ignored comletely electricity
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

That's an interesting claim.... Einstein is just a little bit well-known for postulating that the speed of light is always constant. It may be news to you, but light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and the equations of EM were a big part of Einstein's motivation for special relativity. Later, when he developed general relativity, Einstein understood out how to correctly couple electromagnetism to gravity.

As for cosmology, no one ignored electricity - it's just not relevant for some class of things (the motion of stars, for example, for the simple reason that the universe is electrically - but not gravitationally - neutral). But it is important for many other phenomena, and astrophysicists use it constantly.

[Dancing David]

did you ever watch «thunderbolts of the gods in google video?
it challenges some scientific views, if you care to watch.
and a revolutionary new interpretation of them. The Thunderbolts Project calls into question not only countless modern scientific assumptions, but also the billions of dollars of big-science government and corporate funding that continues to preserve and entrench questionable theories - elevating them to the status of doctrine - while systematically excluding legitimate alternatives that threaten the status quo

it contains some interestoing thoughts on Plasma

Hiya, RB Welcome, it seems we have discussed Woobolts of the Gods. It has some interesting ideas, and some really poorly supported ones as well.

But there is little to actually support most of what they talk about. They also self reference themselves shamelessly and sort of misrepresent most facts and data. Plasma is interesting but it is not the Magic School Bus. You might want to start here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90595

[Zeuzzz]

If you liked thunderbolts of the gods you will also like the documentary on plasma cosmology and issues with the Big Bang approach on youtube: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UEbatH0ssYE Featuring noted experts Eric Lerner, Fred Hoyle, The burbidges and others.

Thunderbolts of the gods and electric universe/cosmos theories should be taken with a pinch of salt, some ideas a very logical and seem to make a lot of sense, some are a bit ambiguos. There is little material published about this in journals, though there are few that have popped up over the last few years, mainly in plasma and electricity journals. Take this interesting publication in Pulsed Plasma Science in 2008, which is a slight varient of the electric sun theory, and explains the origin of the solar wind, the huge variation in the solar wind (sometimes it stops nearly completely for days, something hard to explain with gravitational confinement based nuclear core models), the temparature minimum above the photosphere and other issues: http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

[Tubbythin]

it seems Einstein and those who developed the Big Bang theory ignored comletely electricity
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

Erm. You do know that one of Einstein's seminal 1905 papers was called "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", right?

[Reality Check]

...snip...
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf


Not a great paper to cite:

It is by an electrical engineer (Donald E. Scott).
There is one outright mistake - "It has also been reported [8] that the neutrino flux from the Sun may vary inversely with sunspot number."
But the actual abstract from this 30 year old paper states that no variation is seen:
"He explained that, in the late 1960s, the neutrino production rate in the solar core seemed to be dependent on the degree of the solar activity, as he could only refer to the early results on the neutrino flux observations. It is shown here that this idea is not supported by the data on the neutrino flux obtained since 1968.".
Donald E. Scott ignores that fact that the observed number of neutrinos just happen to match the predictions of the dtandard fusion model of stars.

[Zeuzzz]

Donald E. Scott ignores that fact that the observed number of neutrinos just happen to match the predictions of the dtandard fusion model of stars.
[/LIST]


Rubbish. There was no prediction from the model. We've been here before. The gravitational nuclear core model has usually come up very, very short in the prediction area. Usually the data is collected and the model is adjusted Ad Hoc to account for the observations by adding various extra theories to make it fit.

Unless you can find and post here a prediction made from the properties of the nuclear model before the data was collected, I dont believe this for a second.

[sol invictus]

Rubbish. There was no prediction from the model. We've been here before.

And you remain just as wrong.

The gravitational nuclear core model has usually come up very, very short in the prediction area. Usually the data is collected and the model is adjusted Ad Hoc to account for the observations by adding various extra theories to make it fit.

Unless you can find and post here a prediction made from the properties of the nuclear model before the data was collected, I dont believe this for a second.

Your hero Hoyle was responsible for one of the most famous, back in his salad days.

Another spectacular example is neutrinos: the theory predicted a certain flux of solar electron neutrinos, but the experiments showed only a fraction. Based on that theorists proposed a bold solution involving a modification of fundamental particle physics - neutrino oscillations - which was confirmed years later by multiple independent experiments (for example, by directly producing neutrinos with nuclear reactors and then detecting them along a long baseline).

The solar model was so good only a profound change in what were believed to be the basic laws of physics could explain the discrepancy, that change was confirmed independently, and we learned something amazing about the subatomic particles by observing the sun.

[joobz]

It is by an electrical engineer (Donald E. Scott).
This is the second engineering dis I read on the forums in the past Day.

Why does being an engineer discount the article? engineers publish in all manners of science journals. It's a rather silly blanket statement that his background makes him unqualified.
Do you discount Frank Tipler's god equation by claiming he's a physicist?
Do you discount Behe as only a biologist?
Do you consider James Watt's Contributions to Thermodynamics as insignificant because he was just an engineer?

Perhaps you mean to imply that he's publishing something outside his field and therefore shouldn't be considered. Well, perhaps you should inform the countless chemical, electrical, mechanical and materials engineers who are currently involved in medical research. I suggest start by Telling the Chemical Engineer, Bob Langer (A member of the national academy of sciences, engineering and medicine) that his revolutionary contributions to medicine was not relevant.


Note that I am not defending DE Scott. I know nothing of this subject and it may very well be that he's an idiot about astronomy. But that isn't because he's an engineer.

[Dancing David]

Note that I am not defending DE Scott. I know nothing of this subject and it may very well be that he's an idiot about astronomy. But that isn't because he's an engineer.

Nope but the theory is idiotic to say the least.

[Dancing David]

Rubbish. There was no prediction from the model. We've been here before. The gravitational nuclear core model has usually come up very, very short in the prediction area. Usually the data is collected and the model is adjusted Ad Hoc to account for the observations by adding various extra theories to make it fit.

Unless you can find and post here a prediction made from the properties of the nuclear model before the data was collected, I dont believe this for a second.

Your opinion is motes, but I will remind you Zeuzzz that you have yet to come up with any support for your pet theories. This includes the electric sun model. As of yet, you can safely say ' a very small portions of the sun's energy comes from some source that Scott proposes'.

But yes we have been down this road before, you have no data and you have no model...

I will read it when you post it.

[sol invictus]

Note that I am not defending DE Scott. I know nothing of this subject and it may very well be that he's an idiot about astronomy. But that isn't because he's an engineer.

Being an engineer doesn't disqualify him from saying something sensible about astrophysics, that's true - but it also doesn't qualify him for it. Engineers learn essentially none of the relevant knowledge during their training, and gain none of it in their work. So an engineer has at most a mild head start over the typical technically-minded layperson in this arena.

Anyway, regardless of his qualifications his work is total bunk.

[Tubbythin]

Rubbish. There was no prediction from the model. We've been here before. The gravitational nuclear core model has usually come up very, very short in the prediction area. Usually the data is collected and the model is adjusted Ad Hoc to account for the observations by adding various extra theories to make it fit.

Unless you can find and post here a prediction made from the properties of the nuclear model before the data was collected, I dont believe this for a second.

Look Zeuzzz... The predicted neutrino flux from the standard solar model was found to be lower than expected. This meant that either:
a) The SSM wasn't quite right
b) The Standard model of particle physics wasn't quite right.

Subsequently, multiple, independent experiments using neutrinos from different sources (the Sun, the atmosphere, nuclear reactors) have consistently shown that b was the problem. The SSM esential predicted the number of neutrinos that should be observed based on the SM. Because the SM was wrong (or rather, not quite right), so was the prediction of the SSM. Now if weadd neutrino oscillations to the SM (which have been confirmed by multiple independent observations), the SSM no longer gives the wrong answer. Basically, the SSM wasn't adjusted at all.

Its a bit like Dave saying to Jim, what is the value of f(x) if x = 5? Jim replies, "well according to my model f = x2, so f(x) = 25". Albert goes out and measures f and finds it to be 16.
So either f doesn't equal x2 (Jim is wrong), or x doesn't actually equal 5 (Dave gave Jim the wrong number).
If x doesn't equal 5 but equals 4, Jim wasn't wrong. He was just fed the wrong number. Similarly, if neutrinos do oscillate there doesn't have to be any changes to the SSM.

[Ziggurat]

The Thunderbolts Project calls into question not only countless modern scientific assumptions

Typically by completely misunderstanding them.

but also the billions of dollars of big-science government and corporate funding that continues to preserve and entrench questionable theories

Corporations don't give a hoot about cosmology or astronomy. They have absolutely no preference for one model over another, because it makes no difference to them. I'm afraid you're positioning yourself as a bit of a conspiracy theorist here, and that doesn't do much for your credibility.

[Zeuzzz]

Sol, Ziggy, David, Tubby, RC, do you have a theory that can explain the data showing a two day 98% reduction (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm) in the solar wind? If you know of such an explanation, please post it here.

:D

And saying the sun stopped performing nuclear fusion for two days is not an answer.

[Ziggurat]

Sol, Ziggy, David, Tubby, RC, do you have a theory that can explain the data showing a two day 98% reduction (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm) in the solar wind?

No, I do not. I'm not a solar physicist. Do you? No, you do not. You may have some hand-waving arguments, but you don't have anything that can reasonably be called a theory.

But from the press release, it sounds like NASA does have such a theory. From your source: "Fourteen years ago [from 1999], Scudder and Dr. Don Fairfield of Goddard predicted the details of an event such as occurred on May 11".

And saying the sun stopped performing nuclear fusion for two days is not an answer.

When you can figure out an upper bound for the charge on the sun, we can discuss whether or not you can get an electric sun model to make any sense. Until then, I'll stick with the standard fusion model (which I'd bet Scudder and Fairfield used).

[Tubbythin]

Sol, Ziggy, David, Tubby, RC, do you have a theory that can explain the data showing a two day 98% reduction (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm) in the solar wind? If you know of such an explanation, please post it here.

:D

And saying the sun stopped performing nuclear fusion for two days is not an answer.

Why would anyone answer that?

[Reality Check]

Sol, Ziggy, David, Tubby, RC, do you have a theory that can explain the data showing a two day 98% reduction (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm) in the solar wind? If you know of such an explanation, please post it here.

:D

And saying the sun stopped performing nuclear fusion for two days is not an answer.

That is correct - no one would say "the sun stopped performing nuclear fusion for two days". What they would say is that the solar wind detected around the Earth reduced by 98% for 2 days.

This is a statement about the local conditions in space around the Earth (the ACT and Wind spacecraft orbited the L1 and L2 points). It is not a statement about the global conditions of the Sun.

Thus the explanation is that the already known variation of the solar wind hitting the Earth hit a low record from May 10-12, 1999.

[sol invictus]

Sol, Ziggy, David, Tubby, RC, do you have a theory that can explain the data showing a two day 98% reduction (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm) in the solar wind?

Do you have an explanation for why there was an earthquake and massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004? No? Well in that case, I guess we should abandon everything we've learned about geology over the last few centuries and replace it with the theory that there's a giant lizard with a twitch living at the center of the earth.

[Dancing David]

Sol, Ziggy, David, Tubby, RC, do you have a theory that can explain the data showing a two day 98% reduction (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm) in the solar wind? If you know of such an explanation, please post it here.

:D

And saying the sun stopped performing nuclear fusion for two days is not an answer.

The point is this Zeuzzz, the electric star model does not work, it does not provide enough energy.
The electric sun model does not explain the H-R diagram.
There is no semi rigid structure provided by EM fields in the galaxy.

i have patiently asked you to back up the claims made by plasma cosmology. Show the data, show how the model works and how it fits the data.

Your model does not even explain why the sun shines, so please start there.

Why did the solar wind stop, good question.

Where are the currents available to:
-explain why the sun shines under the electric sun model?
-where are the charges needed given the galactic magnetic field to explain the galactic rotation curve?

That is the problem with Thunderbolts of Woo Zeuzzz, it can poke holes in standard cosmology, which is fine.

But it can't explain anything to boot.

So again I ask you for the plasma cosmology model that explains anything and has data to match the explanation.

Or alternatively since you mentioned the electric sun, where does the energy come from Zeuuzzz, you know the current needed to make the sunshine? In the past you have been unable to provide the data which shows that there is a current going into the sun. Or why the sun does not explode.

I think that there is a place for plasma in the standard model.

[Dancing David]

Do you have an explanation for why there was an earthquake and massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004? No? Well in that case, I guess we should abandon everything we've learned about geology over the last few centuries and replace it with the theory that there's a giant lizard with a twitch living at the center of the earth.

Really it is a race of highly advanced pick elephants...