Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 JREF Forum Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

 Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 Tags plasma cosmology

 6th April 2009, 09:04 PM #2321 Sol88 Muse   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 693 Originally Posted by Klimax 1)nothing 2)What's the point? Ahh I see the intellectual police have been called! __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) “Black holes are where God divided by zero.” – Comedian Steven Wright Last edited by Sol88; 6th April 2009 at 09:10 PM.
 6th April 2009, 10:02 PM #2323 Sol88 Muse   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 693 It has everything to do with cosmology and the crew here know it, that's why there being obtuse! If it is an electrical discharge (which is more likely than any other standard proposal) then down come the house of cards, from just one little observation, and as shown over and over in these threads and reiterated by Zuesss, the PTB are scared (money, position and prowess), but defiantly not for the advancement of science and human knowledge. Are you too scared to think outside the box? Standard explination do not stack up! Rille's Quote: Structures Three types of rille are found on the lunar surface: * Sinuous rilles meander in a curved path like a mature river, and are commonly thought to be the remains of collapsed lava tubes or extinct lava flows. They usually begin at an extinct volcano, then meander and sometimes split as they are followed across the surface. Vallis Schröteri in Oceanus Procellarum is the largest sinuous rille. * Arcuate rilles have a smooth curve and are found on the edges of the dark lunar maria. They are believed to form when the lava flows that created a mare cool, contract, and sink. This are found all over the moon, examples can be seen near the south-western border of Mare Tranquillitatis and on the south-eastern border of Mare Humorum. * Straight rilles follow long, linear paths and are believed to be grabens, sections of the crust that have sunk between two parallel faults. These can be readily identified when they pass through craters or mountain ranges. Vallis Alpes is by far the largest graben rille, indeed it is regarded as too large to be called a rille and is itself bisected by a straight rille; Rupes Recta in Mare Nubium is a clearer example. Rilles which show more than one structure are termed hybrid rilles. Rima Hyginus in Sinus Medii is an example, initially formed through a fault and subsequently subject to volcanic activity.  Formation Precise formation mechanisms of rilles have yet to be determined. It is likely that different types formed by different processes. Common features shared by lunar rilles and similar structures on other bodies suggest that common causative mechanisms operate widely in the solar system. Leading theories include lava channels, collapsed lava tubes, near-surface dike intrusion, subsidence of lava-covered basin and crater floors, and tectonic extension. The same features on Mercury are found on Mars, Venus, luna and most of the moons of the gas giant planets! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_system Now it's only looking at picture but ehh! __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) “Black holes are where God divided by zero.” – Comedian Steven Wright Last edited by Sol88; 6th April 2009 at 10:10 PM.
 6th April 2009, 10:15 PM #2324 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,783 Originally Posted by Sol88 Even the similar features we see on the moon CAN NOT be explained in any convectional manner, if you were to take the time to think for your self, you would be surprised. You seem to forget that the sipder crater and ray system on Mercury is unique. Just read what you have lnked to. If it was common then how come all of the astronomers were surprised to see it? Why is there a news release about a common, garden variety feature? There are no similar features, i.e. crater + ray (trough) system on the Moon. In addition: electric discharge has been ruled out as a cause of this unique feature since: There is no charge separation caused by the solar wind (as you assume) because Mercury has a shielding magnetic field. Mercury does not have an atmosphere to support terrestrial forms of lightning. A falsifiable, testable prediction of the idea would be that similar craters would appear elsewhere. For example there should be examples on the Moon since it is exposed to the solar wind. Since more examples are not seen, the idea is falsified. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 6th April 2009 at 10:17 PM.
 6th April 2009, 10:20 PM #2325 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,783 Originally Posted by Sol88 It has everything to do with cosmology and the crew here know it, that's why there being obtuse! Talk about being obtuse: It is not cosmology. Think about the logical consequences of this being plasma cosmology: Scale this "plasma" event up to cosmological scales. Are you happy with a planet (Mercury) that is millions of light years big? __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 6th April 2009, 11:00 PM #2326 Sol88 Muse   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 693 Originally Posted by Reality Check You seem to forget that the sipder crater and ray system on Mercury is unique. Just read what you have lnked to. If it was common then how come all of the astronomers were surprised to see it? Why is there a news release about a common, garden variety feature? There are no similar features, i.e. crater + ray (trough) system on the Moon. In addition: electric discharge has been ruled out as a cause of this unique feature since: There is no charge separation caused by the solar wind (as you assume) because Mercury has a shielding magnetic field. Mercury does not have an atmosphere to support terrestrial forms of lightning. A falsifiable, testable prediction of the idea would be that similar craters would appear elsewhere. For example there should be examples on the Moon since it is exposed to the solar wind. Since more examples are not seen, the idea is falsified. 1 Mercuries magnetic field induces currents in the core! 2 We are not talking atmospheres here though a tenuous one does exist 3 Quote: However, the term has also been used loosely to describe similar structures on a number of planets in the Solar System, including Mars, Venus, and on a number of moons. All bear remarkable structural resemblance to each other. And now Mercury can be added to that list. Quote: Talk about being obtuse: It is not cosmology. Think about the logical consequences of this being plasma cosmology: Scale this "plasma" event up to cosmological scales. Are you happy with a planet (Mercury) that is millions of light years big? WOw!!! you really are ??? Forget the planet, scale the electric and magnetic effects, troll! Quote: millions of light years big But magnetic fields ARE!! __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) “Black holes are where God divided by zero.” – Comedian Steven Wright Last edited by Sol88; 6th April 2009 at 11:03 PM.
 7th April 2009, 12:03 AM #2327 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,783 Originally Posted by Sol88 1 Mercuries magnetic field induces currents in the core! So what? Show that this induced current disharges on the surface at large enough amperage to create craters then you may have a point. Otherwise you are just speculating. Real scientists have actual numbers from their theories that show that craters and ray systems can be created from impact events. Originally Posted by Sol88 2 We are not talking atmospheres here though a tenuous one does exist That is the point - you have not given any source for the electric discharge. Originally Posted by Sol88 3 And now Mercury can be added to that list. What list? If you mean riles then you really need to have your eyes checked. You have one example that looks like the picture that you are obsessed with. This is the spider crater + ray system (really a tough system) on Mercury. Have you ever seen a ray system image? They look nothing like the picture that you are obsessed with, e.g. there is no branching. Quote: A ray system comprises radial streaks of fine ejecta thrown out during the formation of an impact crater, looking a bit like many thin spokes coming from the hub of a wheel. The rays can extend for lengths up to several times the diameter of their originating crater, and are often accompanied by small secondary craters formed by larger chunks of ejecta. Ray systems have been identified on the Moon, Mercury, and some moons of the outer planets. Originally it was thought that they existed only on planets or moons lacking an atmosphere, but more recently they've been found on Mars in infrared images taken from orbit by Mars Odyssey's thermal imager. Also learn to read (emphasis added): Quote: Think about the logical consequences of this being plasma cosmology: Scale this "plasma" event up to cosmological scales. Are you happy with a planet (Mercury) that is millions of light years big? Are you happy with this? I am definitely not happy with it ! Originally Posted by Sol88 Forget the planet, scale the electric and magnetic effects, troll! But magnetic fields ARE!! Are you silly: You quote the formation of a crater as evidence for plasma cosmology and then remove the planet when you scale it up? How is the crater formed at cosmic scales if there is no planet? There are magnetics fields on cosmological scales. You seem to think that theyAre generated by planets like Mercury (wrong). Have similar strengths to planetary magnetic fields (wrong). Experience electric discharges for some reason (wrong). I assume that these cosmological magnetic fields are part of plasma cosmology (or at least one of the many plasma cosmologies). Any plasma cosmology that claims that planetary phenomena are evidence of cosmological phenomena is definitely scientific woo. Planetary phenomena (e.g. magnetospheres, etc.) are evidence of the validity of plasma physics at planetary scales and support for the ability to scale plasma properties from lab scales to planetary scales and further to interstellar scales. Getting back to your original obsession - the spider crater on Mercury (for some reason you have derailed yourslef into riles). The spider crater and the surrounding terrain differ in the density of craters. This leads to a difference in age depending on the rate of formation of craters. This will be some 1000's of years. Note that the Spider crater itself has no clear craters within it. There are some features that I think may be craters or debris from the crater wall. Hypothesis 1: The Spider crater and troughs were created in one event (a lightning strike). Falsifiable Prediction 1: The Spider crater and troughs are the same age. Hypothesis 2: The Spider crater and troughs were created in two events. Falsifiable Prediction 2: The Spider crater and troughs are different ages. Data: The density of craters on the Spider crater and the terrain containing the troughs (and even in the troughs themselves) is different. Standard astronomy tells us that the crater is a different age from the troughs by a number of years (probably 1000's of years). For the fourth time Sol88: Which falsifiable prediction is supported by the data? __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 7th April 2009, 01:06 AM #2328 Klimax NWO cyborg (3930K inside)     Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9 Posts: 7,883 Originally Posted by Sol88 Ahh I see the intellectual police have been called! So why did you ask?Once all possible explanations are discarded before question asnwered by explanations,why do you ask then? (And no intelectual police,but it looked too strange) __________________ ModBorg Engine: Ibalgin 400
 7th April 2009, 01:51 AM #2329 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 1,111 Originally Posted by Sol88 Ahhh so we have found aurora on Mercury then? Links and citations please! Remember Mars and Venus surprises! No, but that does not mean people have not looked, and if it were found, it will not mean that you get the "prediction award." __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom)
 7th April 2009, 02:07 AM #2330 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 1,111 Originally Posted by Sol88 But those papers Tusenfem are saying currents are being induced in the core? What happens then? That just makes it all a lot more simple. I had not noticed that they consider the currents to flow in the core (that shows me, I should not just quickly skim the abstract, although I read the Glassmeier paper). Then you just have the original field and the disturbance superposed. The simplest way to see this is at Ganymede, because there the situation is very simple with a harmonically changing magnetic field. Originally Posted by Sol88 The solar wind is very dynamic and because of Mercuries position right next door to the Sun, what happen if a killer CME blew by? Such as the Carrington Event? and that's only going back couple hundred years! How old is Mercury? I'll wager it's seen it's fair share of large events! Ehhh really? Is the solar wind much more dynamic at Mercury than at Venus or Earth? Care to show that? And Mercury will most definitely be hit by CMEs, not question about that, and then what? Yes, it could be like the "Carrington event", which is this year exactly 150 years ago, and not a "couple of hundred". Mercury is as old as the planetary system, so about 4 billion years. And then what, if it has seen "its fair share of large events"? Originally Posted by Sol88 What happens when one of those babies runs into a planet with an induced magnetic field? Like Mercury! Mercury has a permanent internal magnetic field onto which induction effects are superposed. The effects will be very similar as at Earth, with the one thing that Mercury's magnetic permanent internal field is so much smaller that the Earth's. Originally Posted by Sol88 All the criteria for my hypothesis are there! Everything by what was on the other end of the discharge! charge separation and charge equalization. it's what electricity does! but now the mods have been called in, I see everyone here is going to let this compelling piece of evidence that the universe (or at least our soar system) is electricaly active and gravitationally stagnate! Even the similar features we see on the moon CAN NOT be explained in any convectional manner, if you were to take the time to think for your self, you would be surprised. Well, then show us, how this works, and not just handwaving, I can do that well enough myself. Look at the geological characteristics of this spider thingy. It is clear that lots of the structure have different ages. That you cannot explain with one little lightning bolt. And what "mods" have been called in? Are you getting paranoid? Unless you can show us a REAL model, then there is nothing to discuss. __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom)
 7th April 2009, 07:32 AM #2332 Sol88 Muse   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 693 Originally Posted by Reality Check So what? Show that this induced current disharges on the surface at large enough amperage to create craters then you may have a point. Otherwise you are just speculating. Real scientists have actual numbers from their theories that show that craters and ray systems can be created from impact events. That is the point - you have not given any source for the electric discharge. What list? If you mean riles then you really need to have your eyes checked. You have one example that looks like the picture that you are obsessed with. This is the spider crater + ray system (really a tough system) on Mercury. Have you ever seen a ray system image? They look nothing like the picture that you are obsessed with, e.g. there is no branching. Also learn to read (emphasis added): Are you happy with this? I am definitely not happy with it ! Are you silly: You quote the formation of a crater as evidence for plasma cosmology and then remove the planet when you scale it up? How is the crater formed at cosmic scales if there is no planet? There are magnetics fields on cosmological scales. You seem to think that theyAre generated by planets like Mercury (wrong). Have similar strengths to planetary magnetic fields (wrong). Experience electric discharges for some reason (wrong). I assume that these cosmological magnetic fields are part of plasma cosmology (or at least one of the many plasma cosmologies). Any plasma cosmology that claims that planetary phenomena are evidence of cosmological phenomena is definitely scientific woo. Planetary phenomena (e.g. magnetospheres, etc.) are evidence of the validity of plasma physics at planetary scales and support for the ability to scale plasma properties from lab scales to planetary scales and further to interstellar scales. Getting back to your original obsession - the spider crater on Mercury (for some reason you have derailed yourslef into riles). The spider crater and the surrounding terrain differ in the density of craters. This leads to a difference in age depending on the rate of formation of craters. This will be some 1000's of years. Note that the Spider crater itself has no clear craters within it. There are some features that I think may be craters or debris from the crater wall. Hypothesis 1: The Spider crater and troughs were created in one event (a lightning strike). Falsifiable Prediction 1: The Spider crater and troughs are the same age. Hypothesis 2: The Spider crater and troughs were created in two events. Falsifiable Prediction 2: The Spider crater and troughs are different ages. Data: The density of craters on the Spider crater and the terrain containing the troughs (and even in the troughs themselves) is different. Standard astronomy tells us that the crater is a different age from the troughs by a number of years (probably 1000's of years). For the fourth time Sol88: Which falsifiable prediction is supported by the data? Reality Check, Quote: Real scientists have actual numbers from their theories that show that craters and ray systems can be created from impact events. Maybe you could help me here, I've done a fair bit of searching on the net and I am having trouble finding any papers or even pictures of test done involving the science behind impact cratering. As you are up to speed on this phenomena, are you able to show me any peer reviewed papers on the explanation of the many different varieties of impact formations e.g Flat floor, terraced wall, central peak et cetera? Quote: There are magnetics fields on cosmological scales. You seem to think that theyAre generated by planets like Mercury (wrong). Have similar strengths to planetary magnetic fields (wrong). Experience electric discharges for some reason (wrong). I assume that these cosmological magnetic fields are part of plasma cosmology (or at least one of the many plasma cosmologies). Any plasma cosmology that claims that planetary phenomena are evidence of cosmological phenomena is definitely scientific woo. and further where on Earth did you get that conclusion, I think you are confused here. Mercury is just an example of what a tiny itsy bitsy little planets magnetic field can do! __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) “Black holes are where God divided by zero.” – Comedian Steven Wright Last edited by Sol88; 7th April 2009 at 07:34 AM.
 7th April 2009, 07:43 AM #2333 Sol88 Muse   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 693 DD wrote Quote: Thanks Ben. Sol**, here is your prediction from the model. A ten tera volt source would be required to meet the discharge model of crater formation. Now have at it, where and how does this work? Hypothetical models and then how it might work, thanks. We know have observation, correlation leading to prediction. So now comes the interesting part, the part where PC usually falls aprt. How do you model a system to create that ten teravolt discharge? This could be really important to the PC/EU theory Sol88. 10 x 1012V sounds a lot is it? where'd that figure come from? I gave fairly good description in post 2282 even had a crack at some maths, but which variables shall we use in which equation since Peeks Law was more to do with corona discharge on a wire inside the Earths atmosphere. We want one for a sphere in a plasma stream. __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) “Black holes are where God divided by zero.” – Comedian Steven Wright Last edited by Sol88; 7th April 2009 at 07:46 AM.
 7th April 2009, 07:44 AM #2334 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,704 Originally Posted by Sol88 Reality Check, Maybe you could help me here, I've done a fair bit of searching on the net and I am having trouble finding any papers or even pictures of test done involving the science behind impact cratering. As you are up to speed on this phenomena, are you able to show me any peer reviewed papers on the explanation of the many different varieties of impact formations e.g Flat floor, terraced wall, central peak et cetera? and further where on Earth did you get that conclusion, I think you are confused here. Mercury is just an example of what a tiny itsy bitsy little planets magnetic field can do! Hmm, we have coherent sentences, no spelling errors, logical progression of thoughts -- this must be a ghost writer! __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 7th April 2009, 07:57 AM #2335 sol invictus Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,417 Originally Posted by Sol88 It has everything to do with cosmology and the crew here know it, that's why there being obtuse! Sol88, as a kindness I'll correct your childish misunderstanding of the term "cosmology". In physics and astrophysics, cosmology is the study of the universe on the very largest scales and at the very earliest times. That means not planets, not stars, not solar systems, not even galaxies - but clusters of galaxies. To give you a sense of the scale, your crater on Mercury is about 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000 the size of the observable universe. Your contention that it has anything at all to do with cosmology is much more absurd than claiming the study of elephant populations is relevant to molecular biology.
 7th April 2009, 08:07 AM #2336 Sol88 Muse   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 693 RC wrote Quote: Have you ever seen a ray system image? They look nothing like the picture that you are obsessed with, e.g. there is no branching. Have a long close look at some of the rayed craters (they do have some bearing on the spider crater as the mechanism's maybe similar) and look at the termination point of the rays in relation to the central "impact"? most are off center? Tycho and Copernicus: Lunar Ray Craters Credit & Copyright: Steve Mandel, Hidden Valley Observatory You know just an observation __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) “Black holes are where God divided by zero.” – Comedian Steven Wright
 7th April 2009, 08:15 AM #2337 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,783 Originally Posted by Sol88 RC wrote Have a long close look at some of the rayed craters (they do have some bearing on the spider crater as the mechanism's maybe similar) and look at the termination point of the rays in relation to the central "impact"? most are off center? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...on8_mandel.jpg Tycho and Copernicus: Lunar Ray Craters Credit & Copyright: Steve Mandel, Hidden Valley Observatory You know just an observation And nothing like the pattern produced by an electric discharge(no branches). You know just an observation __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 7th April 2009, 08:20 AM #2338 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,783 Originally Posted by Sol88 Maybe you could help me here, I've done a fair bit of searching on the net and I am having trouble finding any papers or even pictures of test done involving the science behind impact cratering. Google: formation of impact craters. ArXiv gives 183 preprints about impact craters. Originally Posted by Sol88 and further where on Earth did you get that conclusion, I think you are confused here. Mercury is just an example of what a tiny itsy bitsy little planets magnetic field can do! Firstly it is not an example of what the magnetic field can do. It is a "looks like a duck and so must be a duck" hypothesis. Now you have to show itquacks like a duck (e.g. find a powerful enough power source), flies like a duck (e.g. show that the electric arc actually produces the features), and has the DNA of a duck (e.g. find more examples). This all requires a model, mathematics, predictions and all of those science things. At best it is an example of planetary science. It has nothing to do with cosmology. You may as well say that switching on a light is evidence of electricity and so is part of cosmology. What about static electricity? Bar magnets? What about the weather patterns on Pluto? I could ask you about every single thing that is in this tiny itsy bitsy little solar system. Would you say that everything is cosmological? __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 7th April 2009, 08:25 AM #2340 Dancing David Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,701 Originally Posted by Sol88 DD wrote 10 x 1012V sounds a lot is it? where'd that figure come from? I gave fairly good description in post 2282 even had a crack at some maths, but which variables shall we use in which equation since Peeks Law was more to do with corona discharge on a wire inside the Earths atmosphere. We want one for a sphere in a plasma stream. If believe if you read Ben's post, you will know exactly where it came from. Scaling the size of the crater to an explosion of known strength. The rest is up to you, momentum can easily provide impact energies that high. And as I said there are a number of issues for you to model. 1. Energy source. 2. Energy storage. 3. Discharge mechanism. __________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
 7th April 2009, 08:34 AM #2341 Sol88 Muse   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 693 Thanks RC will read some tomorrow! __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) “Black holes are where God divided by zero.” – Comedian Steven Wright
 7th April 2009, 08:44 AM #2343 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,783 Originally Posted by Sol88 So why are we still searching for answers to standard cosmology's questions. This is obvious even for you Sol88: To answer the questions! There are several remaining questions, e.g.What is the composition of dark matter? What is the composition of dark energy? BBT is a factor of 2 out with the abundance of lithium. Is this a problem with BBT or the model used to predict the formation of Li in stars? Note that the first question is one that even plasma cosmology will have to answer - but given that it cannot even address the CMB thermal and power spectra this is unlikely. __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 7th April 2009, 08:53 AM #2344 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Location: Graz, Austria Posts: 1,111 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Hmm, we have coherent sentences, no spelling errors, logical progression of thoughts -- this must be a ghost writer! Not so: "test" should be "tests" "phenomena" should be "phenomenon" but still, impressive by Sol88 standards __________________ 20 minutes into the future This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages (Max Headroom)
 7th April 2009, 09:32 AM #2346 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,452 Originally Posted by Sol88 Can we see the surface of Jupiter now? I call ********! Your ignorance is apalling. That you use it as an argument is amusing. __________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey
 7th April 2009, 09:38 AM #2347 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,452 Originally Posted by Sol88 Eot-Wash experiments have been falsified by the pioneer effect! Black Holes are a mathematical construct. Dark matter is a hypothetical mathematical construct. Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy. How can someone with so little knowledge of layman-level physics possibly claim to know more than the experts in the field ? Ignorance breeds confidence. __________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey
 7th April 2009, 09:47 AM #2348 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,452 Originally Posted by Sol88 I am not a mathematician by a long shot! And maths is no substitute for common sense! Why, yes. Yes it is a good substitute for common sense because common sense is what we USED to use to explain the universe and it got us gods and witches. __________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey
 7th April 2009, 09:56 AM #2349 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,452 Originally Posted by Sol88 Anaconda wrote But it's just so much fun, watching them blindly follow and regurgitate the standard party line! Well it's a good thing you're foregoing those evil mathematical equations and skipping straight to the common sense, eh ? Quote: The pictures ARE the data Just like conspiracy theorists. __________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey
 7th April 2009, 10:10 AM #2350 ben m Illuminator   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,643 Originally Posted by Sol88 Where are you getting your numbers from? Did you happen to read these papers? Or are you still looking for your wall socket to plug you electrical cord in? I take you do understand what induced means in this context? Magnetic induction INDUCED MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS AT PLANET MERCURY You did NOT present an "induction" hypothesis for crater formation. You posted a bunch of photos of voltage-driven, low-magnetic-field electric arcs. If you want to throw away that hypothesis, it's fine with me, but that's what you proposed and that's all that I see in your "Mercury looks like Y" photos. That was your hypothesis (as far as you had thought it out), now you recognize that it's a stupid hypothesis. Now that we've got that out of the way, please do not forget yourself and repost a bunch of pictures of welding arcs, discharge sparks, etc., since they have nothing to do with your hypothesis any more. Moving on to your new hypothesis: "the Spider Crater on Mercury represents the discharge of some sort of magnetic induction effect" This is, sorry to say, even stupider. Why don't you draw us a diagram showing just one example of a variable magnetic field---from what source? With what direction? Changing in what direction and with what time dependence?---which, to your best understanding of the vector equation $\nabla \times \vec{E} = \partial\vec{B}/\partial t$, would generate fields appropriate for a 10^14 Joule discharge. Take your time and think about it. (Or perhaps you don't want to think about it, you just want to assume that eventually you'll find some Web page somewhere with the words "electromagnetic" and "Mercury" in it, and that's all you need to do to topple mainstream science.)
 7th April 2009, 10:19 AM #2351 DeiRenDopa Master Poster   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,378 but, but, ... ben m: a) he did not even recognise that E and B were in bold (considerably earlier, when I was still trying to engage in a discussion with him), much less understood that it made a difference (not to mention why) b) he has no idea what a vector is, much less what a vector equation is c) you missed his post, quoted by Belz, where he declares that you don't need no equations (common sense is all you need) d) but worst of all, ben m, you have no pictures in your post! not even a smilie!
 7th April 2009, 10:26 AM #2352 sol invictus Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,417 Originally Posted by Zeuzzz So, how do Clowe et al get from what was actually indicated to what they claimed? Only though a big assumption, which is in no way supported by their data. The major assumption is that all of the baryonic, ordinary matter is in the form of hot plasma or bright stars in galaxies. So 99% of the matter in the universe is NOT in plasma?!???!!??? What an admission from a PC/EU advocate! What's unique and amazing about your post is that you're actually almost right. As you point out, the main conclusion we can draw from the Bullet cluster observations by themselves is merely that very little of the mass in those clusters is in plasma. Of course when you throw in everything else we know from other observations, it's highly unlikely that the excess matter is baryonic (there just aren't any good baryonic candidates) - which is why they weren't very careful with the wording in their paper. Last edited by sol invictus; 7th April 2009 at 12:01 PM.
 7th April 2009, 05:33 PM #2355 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: San Gabriel Valley, east of Los Angeles Posts: 963 Pantheon Fossae: Too Much to Handle? Originally Posted by Sol88 Seems standard astronomers can not account for such different forms of "impact" craters found on so many bodies in the solar system, or at least no consistent explanation! Even if the statement were true, it would be irrelevant; it does not mean that your explanation must be, or even could be right. Indeed, while blathering away about Pantheon Fossae, you have ignored my response in Post 2267. Are you going to admit that I am too much for you to handle?
 7th April 2009, 05:43 PM #2356 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,185 Originally Posted by Sol88 Surely smashing something into something else in the lab should be able to reproduce these effects! Even very large >1mt thermonuclear blast can not replicated these crater features?? Why would you expect it to? First off, that's small compared to the energy released in many asteroid collisions. Secondly, why would you expect an explosion and an impact to produce the same results? The energy transfer mechanisms aren't identical, nor are the ratios of energy to momentum. You didn't source your picture (bad form), but it appears to come from the Sedan test. In this test, the bomb was detonated under ground. So even if we could use surface detonations of a bomb to simulate asteroid impacts (it's not clear that we can), it should be fairly obvious that subterranean detonations will not produce the same dynamics as a surface impact. So it's absolutely no surprise that the crater doesn't look like what you'd get from an asteroid impact. But I bet you never even stopped to consider whether this was a surface detonation or an underground one, did you? __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 7th April 2009, 05:54 PM #2357 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,783 Originally Posted by Sol88 So the spider crater shall be swept under the carpet as just a little impact crater with some idiosyncrasies! We'll (eventually) find the evidence that tells us it's an impact crater over laid on a graben system! Not many people engaged in trying to understand what this feature is and means, RC had a crack, but unfortunately came up with even more outlandish claims than me! wOw! I made no claims. I merely pointed out in my opinion that the image looked like 2 separate events due to the lack of craters in the spider crater compared to the surrounding terrain. These could be 2 impact events or something else. My amateur guess: A volcanic area created by the formation of the Caloris Basin with a recent impact crater in the center. It is definitely not a graben system which is a depressed block of land bordered by parallel faults. Nothing could be more outlandish than your physically impossible claim that you based on the fallacy that if something looks like somtheing else than it must be that. Originally Posted by Sol88 Everyone else dodged the question? Or just waved it of as an impact crater and from some of the papers RC sent us a link for, they *(mainstream) have NOT been able to replicate the terraced walls, central peaks, flat floors, crater chains and ray/spider features of so many of the solar systems idiosyncratic crater system. "so many" Is that 1, 100, 1000 or 1000000000 craters that cannot be explained (yet)? I never posted any links to papers. But I do know (but from memories of distant astronomy classes) that "the terraced walls, central peaks, flat floors, crater chains and ray/spider features of so many of the solar systems idiosyncratic crater system" have been replicated. The exception is the 1 "spider feature" that you are obsessed with. You have three (count them Sol88: 1, 2, 3) images. There have been 1000's of craters that have been imaged and are not idiosyncratic. Originally Posted by Sol88 Seems standard astronomers can not account for such different forms of "impact" craters found on so many bodies in the solar system, or at least no consistent explanation! why? If it's too hard just forget about it and move along eh? Is that scientific progress? Let see: Millions of impact craters in the solar system. 1000's of them have been photographed and explained. You have a few that scientists are not sure about. Guess what - that is science (investigating the unknown). Learn to live with it! Do you want to get back to plasma cosmology sometime (maybe this century )? __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 7th April 2009, 06:07 PM #2358 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,783 My guess is that you stopped reading the linked page when you got something that fitted your preconceived idea and missed the actual explanation. Originally Posted by Sol88 Quote: The June 2001 MOC image reveals many surprises about this feature. For one, the crater is not located at the center of the bright area from which the dark rays radiate. The rays point to the center of this bright area, not the crater. Further, the dark material ejected from the crater--immediately adjacent to the crater rim in the picture on the right (above, B)--is not continuously connected to the larger pattern of rays. Asymmetries in crater form and ejecta patterns are generally believed to occur when the impact is oblique to the surface. The offset of the crater from the center of the rays suggests that the meteor struck at an angle, most likely from the bottom/lower right (south/southeast). The strange geometry of the rays is quite different from that seen for rays associated with impact craters on the Moon and other airless bodies; one possible explanation is that they resulted from disruption of dust on the martian surface by winds generated by the shock wave as the meteor plunged through the martian atmosphere before it struck the ground. LINK __________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
 7th April 2009, 06:44 PM #2359 Sol88 Muse   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 693 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Even if the statement were true, it would be irrelevant; it does not mean that your explanation must be, or even could be right. Indeed, while blathering away about Pantheon Fossae, you have ignored my response in Post 2267. Are you going to admit that I am too much for you to handle? no I did not! You said in post 2267 Quote: Why the geological explanation should not be rejected 1) The Apollodorus crater is entirely consistent with impact crater shapes, both from physical models, and from laboratory experiments modeling impact features. There is no reason to reject this as an impact feature. 2) The assumption of pre-existing extensional stress in Caloris Basin is consistent with the observed presence of circumferential graben in the outer Caloris Basin, and is consistent with extensional stress in terrestrial basins. 3) The shape and pattern of channels in Caloris Basin is consistent with the geological interpretation that they are grabens. 4) There is no fundamental energy problem; the impact and pre-existing extensional stress provide all of the energy necessary to explain the work done in creating the grabens. And RC wrote Quote: I made no claims. I merely pointed out in my opinion that the image looked like 2 separate events due to the lack of craters in the spider crater compared to the surrounding terrain. These could be 2 impact events or something else. My amateur guess: A volcanic area created by the formation of the Caloris Basin with a recent impact crater in the center. It is definitely not a graben system which is a depressed block of land bordered by parallel faults. Whoo boy They are! not wait there not...who knows! __________________ I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ... (DeiRenDopa) I'm always in the plasma, it's just the density that varies! (Sol88) “Black holes are where God divided by zero.” – Comedian Steven Wright
 7th April 2009, 07:05 PM #2360 The Man Scourge, of the supernatural     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 7,517 What does Reality Check's post have to do with you not responding to what Tim Thompson posted? Since you keep referring to RC are you the Richard Cranium of which you speak? __________________ "Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained") "for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius")

JREF Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit