Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not - Page 89

Dancing David · 15th June 2012, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Sigh.

Reality check. I said I don't care about your views on plasma cosmology. Or to make a bullet point list.

And what do you do?

I didn't even say it was a science in that post, so straw-man.

Wait, forget the above sentence, else your going to start arguing with that.

I'll try again:

Is the epistemic approach to cosmology that Afven started, which was subsequently followed up by a fair few models in support of this by Lerner and Peratt et al, laregly ignored today by the cosmological community at large, who now invest all their interest in BBT derived theories, based on their interpretation of multitudes of astrophysical data they have assigned cosmological significance to?

(I understand you will disagree with the italicized part, so please answer the non italicized as a separate question, if you feel the need. The answer to the first should be a very very simple answer, even a yes or no will suffice)

Zuezzz,

What specifically do you think should be paid attention to that is not?

Such broad statements are hard to parse and understand.

So if you wish to discuss this then please discuss the specific theories of Perrat, Lerner and Alven you think are getting short shrift.

For example, which of Perrat's work is not getting attention you feel that it should? The study he did with plasma and the appearance of galaxy shaped structures does not scale to reality, he used a 10 cm vessel and very strong magnetic fields to produce the wholes that sort of look like galaxies but have no bearing on the actual galaxies, size and magnetic fields.

Lerner has spent a lot of time just talking about why he doesn't agree with the big bang, which aspects of his work in regards to plasma cosmology would you like to get more attention. He is totally wrong about black holes, for example.

Dancing David · 15th June 2012, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...17018721_n.jpg

I suggest you present the facts you wish us to consider then Zuezzz

Kwalish Kid · 15th June 2012, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You know what I mean. Or do I have to, again, link you to Alfvens original paper where he explains the epistemic differences in approach? ie, Origin in time is not allowed, due to violation of the laws of physics as we currently know it, and that the originator of the idea himself (Hoyle) only proposed it as a joke idea, that seemed to gain what he considered completely irrational support from cosmologists at large ever since, which he saw as nothing more than an idea based on (what was at the time) just a brain thought inferred from one possible way to look at, what was at the time, very limited data. There are more, but being the "expert" you are I expect you know them all, so quote them.

I hope this passage isn't showing two stunning pieces of ignorance.

1. The idea that there is an origin time in the standard cosmological model. There isn't; t₀ refers to the present time.

2. The idea that Hoyle proposed an origin time as a joke idea. Hoyle proposed an eternal model and he did not propose it as a joke.

Zeuzzz · 15th June 2012, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid

I hope this passage isn't showing two stunning pieces of ignorance.

Me too

Quote:

1. The idea that there is an origin time in the standard cosmological model. There isn't; t₀ refers to the present time.

You need to define that more clearly.

As t₁₇ refers to the time taken for x number of future based turtles that comprise the past universe; its NOT turtles all the way down in the standard turtle model of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Quote:

2. The idea that Hoyle proposed an origin time as a joke idea. Hoyle proposed an eternal model and he did not propose it as a joke.

He coined the term the Big Bang to mock the idea of such an unscientific ex nihilo derived basis for the universe. He was subsequently amazed that people seemed so accepting of interpreting the data in support of this idea, and continued his amazement as cosmological EM data was sculpted round this spuriously grounded axiomatic framework to the detriment of seeking non-finite derived cosmological explanations for such data, either from more local galactic theories of origin or other means that do not lead to such paradoxical situations as the Big Bang does.

Is that clearer?

And david, trying to find the paper so I don't misquote, but got to shoot out now so will have to wait.

Dancing David · 15th June 2012, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

He coined the term the Big Bang to mock the idea of such an unscientific ex nihilo derived basis for the universe.

It is not ex nihilio, it is 'we don't know'.

catsmate1 · 15th June 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...17018721_n.jpg

What has that got to do with the nonsense spouted by PC believers?

ben m · 15th June 2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

S
Is the epistemic approach to cosmology that Afven started, which was subsequently followed up by a fair few models in support of this by Lerner and Peratt et al, laregly ignored today by the cosmological community at large, who now invest all their interest in BBT derived theories, based on their interpretation of multitudes of astrophysical data they have assigned cosmological significance to?

What a scientist wants to do is to actually describe what's going on in the natural world---to state what's out there, to state what laws it obeys, and to have those statements turn out to be right.

They don't want to invent an "epistemic approach", by which I think you mean a thought process by which to generate new hypotheses. And I don't think that's what Alfven actually wanted to do---I think he was trying to generate an actual hypothesis himself. And his hypotheses largely failed to describe the natural world we observe.

How did this get twisted into an "epistemic approach"? I think that's a position of retreat, or of spin-doctoring. "New epistemic approach" sounds much better than "failed set of hypotheses"! It absolves you from having to defend anything specific Alfven said. ("Sure, maybe Alfven said that intergalactic voids must contain 0.1 g/cc of electron-positron pairs, any maybe this isn't perfect, but it illustrates his epistemic approach.") Heck, it absolves you from having to find actual science calculations about Alfven's ideas. ("We still can't tell you whether the Milky Way is magnetized, or what would happen if it was, or ways to test it one way or another, but the important thing is to think about it.")

Reality Check · 17th June 2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Ok, you ignore and refuse to answer my question.

I did not ignore your question.
I noted that it is moot because you presented no evidence for Alfvén's epistemic approach to cosmology.
AFAIK Alfven never started any epistemic approach to cosmology. He stated an alternative cosmological model that has been shown to be wrong using the standard scientific approach.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Or do I have to, again, link you to Alfvens original paper where he explains the epistemic differences in approach? ie, Origin in time is not allowed, due to violation of the laws of physics as we currently know it, and that the originator of the idea himself (Hoyle) only proposed it as a joke idea, ....

Yes you do have to cite Alfvens original paper where he

states a obvious error because the laws of physics as we currently know them say nothing about time having an origin or not.
P.S. BB does not not state that time has an origin.
thinks that a joke by Hoyle somehow invalidates BB theory?

Actually the term "Big Bang" was a joke by Hoyle. He did not "originate the idea" (of BB?)

You are the one making the assertion that Alfven had an epistemic approach to cosmology. You need to back it up with evidence.

ETA: Maybe you mean his presentation for the Golden Jubilee of the Indian Academy of Sciences, Cosmology: Myth or Science? (PDF), in 1984. This is an opinion piece, nor a peer-reviewed paper.
The big problem is that you may be citing a 1984 presentation that has been made redundant by the progress of science. He points out that there were alternative theories for the CMB but these were all falsified by later observations (perfect black body spectrum = universe once in a hot dense state = BB theory = plasma cosmology is falsified!). There are some other debunked theories, e.g. hierarchical cosmologies need a certain fractal dimension to the distribution of galaxies but we now know that this criteria is unlikely to be meet.
It contains a couple of rather inane implications, e.g. that theorists should not use mathematical models to speculate about physics, (i.e. the solutions to GR should not be looked at!). But that is what theorists need to do. They have to explore the implications of a new theory so that when experiments are performed they results can be used to falsify the theory.

Zeuzzz · 17th June 2012, 03:13 PM

I like fish cake.

You should try it.

brantc · 18th June 2012, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

But that is what theorists need to do. They have to explore the implications of a new theory so that when experiments are performed they results can be used to falsify the theory.

When that happens let me know..... It seems as though standard cosmology has never falsified anything except that which it(the status quo) doesnt agree with...

Dancing David · 18th June 2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by brantc

When that happens let me know..... It seems as though standard cosmology has never falsified anything except that which it(the status quo) doesnt agree with...

That is quite untrue, many estimates of the age of the universe have changed over time, why is that BrantC ?

Why is it that theories of the accretion of planets change so often? Or the origin of the moon? Or the steady state universe?

I think you made a political statement of rhetoric, what data does PC match? Show us, please. I don't think you have anything or an example of what should have been falsified in mainstream cosmology. My guess is that you know little of either.

Just the politics of Thunderbolts or something like that.

ben m · 18th June 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by brantc

When that happens let me know..... It seems as though standard cosmology has never falsified anything except that which it(the status quo) doesnt agree with...

No, it's the other way around. The set of things that have been falsified are not put into the standard cosmology any more.

It's like saying, "Supposedly the NTSB regulates car safety. I ask you what safety defects it found, and you cite the Ford Pinto! But nobody drives Ford Pintos, they're death traps. Apparently the NTSB only tests things that the 'status quo' didn't want to drive anyway."

Reality Check · 18th June 2012, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by brantc

When that happens let me know..... It seems as though standard cosmology has never falsified anything except that which it(the status quo) doesnt agree with...

Read what I wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

But that is what theorists need to do. They have to explore the implications of a new theory so that when experiments are performed they results can be used to falsify the theory.

It is the empirical data that falsifies the theory. Thus "standard cosmology has never falsified" is wrong.

There is a large body of evidence supporting standard cosmology.
There are a couple of bits of evidence that throw doubt on standard cosmology, primarily the Li abundance.
So standard cosmology is sort of in the position that Newtonian gravity was at around 1900. There is strong evidence for it but an few observations show that it is not perfect. So what will happen is that a cosmological "GR" will replace standard cosmology. This of course will match all of the existing evidence for standard cosmology and have similar features, e.g. a Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

Contrast this plasma cosmology which is not even cosmology (a scientific model about the cosmos)

!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).
The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.

This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection.
...list of the many mutally exclusive and mostly debunked theories snipped...

I will go as far as stating that plasma cosnology does not exist because no one has given the actual definition of it in this thread and it has not been found elsewhere.

Zeuzzz · 27th July 2012, 03:17 PM

Heh this was a pleasant surprise last night when I was watching Russia Today.

Plasma Fusion -- hoax or breakthrough reality?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Ziggurat · 27th July 2012, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Plasma Fusion -- hoax or breakthrough reality?

From their own video, they don't have the densities required to turn this into a power generator. All of their claims might be accurate, but it might be impossible for them to scale up the densities to the point of working for power generation. So I'm not ready to claim it's a hoax, but I'm not terribly impressed by it either.

Oh, and all that stuff about profitable wars and oil companies suppressing fusion? Typical Russian Television paranoia and conspiracy propaganda. Wars are money losers, and government funding for fusion is low because it's been a non-productive field of research in terms of practical payoff. Oil companies aren't suppressing fusion research because no oil company with a lick of sense is going to see fusion research as any sort of threat.

Zeuzzz · 28th July 2012, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

From their own video, they don't have the densities required to turn this into a power generator. All of their claims might be accurate, but it might be impossible for them to scale up the densities to the point of working for power generation. So I'm not ready to claim it's a hoax, but I'm not terribly impressed by it either.

Oh, and all that stuff about profitable wars and oil companies suppressing fusion? Typical Russian Television paranoia and conspiracy propaganda. Wars are money losers, and government funding for fusion is low because it's been a non-productive field of research in terms of practical payoff. Oil companies aren't suppressing fusion research because no oil company with a lick of sense is going to see fusion research as any sort of threat.

I sort of agree, Lerner's experiment is still below the Lawson criterion. As others have learned in the past 50+ years of fusione efforts, getting the temperature is the easy part - the density and confinement time are key to real energy production. This criterion is significantly higher for this reaction.

Zeuzzz · 28th July 2012, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh, and all that stuff about profitable wars and oil companies suppressing fusion? Typical Russian Television paranoia and conspiracy propaganda. Wars are money losers, and government funding for fusion is low because it's been a non-productive field of research in terms of practical payoff. Oil companies aren't suppressing fusion research because no oil company with a lick of sense is going to see fusion research as any sort of threat.

Your thinking too scientifically, try to envisage the corporate dimension to such a fusion and how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding. There is definitely a large business incentive to ridicule such cheap alternative fusion methods when so much money is involved.

Acleron · 28th July 2012, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Your thinking too scientifically, try to envisage the corporate dimension to such a fusion and how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding. There is definitely a large business incentive to ridicule such cheap alternative fusion methods when so much money is involved.

And there is an even larger business incentive to make up claims of 'doing it better than those scientists'. The profit ratio is very high when you don't have to study, do the research or make something that works.

Zeuzzz · 28th July 2012, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Acleron

And there is an even larger business incentive to make up claims of 'doing it better than those scientists'. The profit ratio is very high when you don't have to study, do the research or make something that works.

Are you alleging academic misconduct?

That's quite a serious allegation, and to just be hand waving it away carefree on a pubic forum without even checking the science first ... just seems bizarre.

I have the journal publication if you want it.

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysic...d=68&Itemid=86

Quote:

BOOK

The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House/Times Books, 1991

SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

Fusion reactions from >150 keV ions in a dense plasma focus plasmoid, E. J. Lerner, S. K. Murali, D. M. Shannon, A. M. Blake, and F. Van Roessel, Phys. Plasmas 19, 032704 (2012)
Theory and Experimental Program for p-B11 Fusion with the Dense Plasma Focus. Eric J. Lerner, S. Krupakar Murali and A. Haboub. JOURNAL OF FUSION ENERGY. January 2012, Volume 30, Number 5, 367-376.
Tolman Test from z = 0.1 to z = 5.5: Preliminary Results challenge the Expanding Universe Model. Lerner, E. J. 2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-2. ASP Conference Series, Vol. 413, Proceedings of the conference held 7-11 September 2008, at Port Angeles, Washington, USA. Edited by Frank Potter. San Francisco, Astronom1ical Society of the Pacific, 2009., p.12
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF Authors: Lerner, Eric J. 1st CRISIS IN COSMOLOGY CONFERENCE, CCC-1. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 822, pp. 60-74 (2006).

Ziggurat · 28th July 2012, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Your thinking too scientifically

No, I'm thinking economically. The economics of the conspiracy theory make no sense.

Quote:

try to envisage the corporate dimension to such a fusion and how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding.

The people who would lose that money aren't corporations, they're the research scientists. Who don't have a lot of political clout.

Quote:

There is definitely a large business incentive to ridicule such cheap alternative fusion methods when so much money is involved.

No, there really isn't. And I guarantee you that their method won't be cheap to scale up to higher densities. Besides, nobody is ridiculing them.

Zeuzzz · 28th July 2012, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Besides, nobody is ridiculing them.

Didn't say they were being ridiculed, it's more the point that they are being ignored so have to resort to the media.

Ironically, major western companies and governments have refused to invest more money in this technology based on advise from their 'scientific advisors' saying it's woo. They have had to get a contract with Iran apparently, and have received considerable interest from asian scientists and china too.

Ziggurat · 28th July 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Ironically, major western companies and governments have refused to invest more money in this technology based on advise from their 'scientific advisors' saying it's woo. They have had to get a contract with Iran apparently, and have received considerable interest from asian scientists and china too.

And how do you know that it's not bad science? I mean, aside from the fact that you want it to be true, what makes you think it is? How would you even know?

In terms of financial incentives, the incentive for somebody to claim they've got something worth funding when they don't is a lot higher than the incentive for an agency to deny funding for good science. There are few high-level conspiracies in the world, but scams are a dime a dozen.

Zeuzzz · 28th July 2012, 08:48 AM

How do you know? Do you want the full paper? Or are you just assuming it's bad science as the prevailing view on jref is that plasma cosmology is just that? They have a very good plan to quickly reach the the Lawson criterion if I recall correctly.

Ziggurat · 28th July 2012, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

How do you know?

I don't. But then, I'm not claiming conspiracies either.

Quote:

Do you want the full paper? Or are you just assuming assuming it's bad science as the prevailing view on jref is that plasma cosmology is just that?

Um... nothing about your link had anything to do with plasma cosmology. So no, it's got absolutely nothing to do with plasma cosmology's complete failure.

Quote:

They have a very good plan to quickly reach the the Lawson criterion if I recall correctly.

Lots of people have good plans to achieve things they can't actually achieve. Nobody makes plans for how to fail. I don't consider you to be qualified to evaluate whether or not their plan is good. I do consider specialists in the field, the kind of people funding agencies rely on to review proposals, to be in a good position to evaluate their funding proposals. The only argument you can make for why to believe you and not them is a conspiracy theory, and I simply don't find that credible.

Zeuzzz · 28th July 2012, 09:47 AM

Conspiracy fact is different from conspiracy theory.

I don't know why you have just brought up (the derogatory term) that's know as conspiracy theory when you haven't even read the paper.

They have got funding from two states for their science. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. I can't help but think that your pro israeli bias (correct me if I am wrong?) posts I have read from you in the past make you see anything to do with Iran as either a conspiracy, or through a partisan lens? That's not an accusation; its an open question (based on the fact I know that things are pretty heated between israel and Iran at the moment, as ever)

Anyway, this is the official story from lawrencevilleplasmaphysics very own website, it might do well to explain the reasoning behind the comercial direction they have gone.
http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysic...news&Itemid=90

Quote:

Theoretical insights and calculations by LPP’s Chief Scientist Eric Lerner and our new summer graduate student, Ahmad Talaei of Utah State University, as well as work by an independent group of physicists at Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran, have provided a long-sought explanation on how FF-1 has managed to achieve record breaking ion energies, four times hotter than LPP’s earlier theory had predicted. The new theoretical improvement will help us to understand and more efficiently guide further experiments. This work and the independent confirmation of our theoretical calculations by the Iranian group reinforce our confidence that our high temperatures will indeed be able to ignite the ideal fusion fuel, hydrogen-boron.

Since we first observed the 160 keV energies of the ions (equivalent to 1.8 billion C) over a year ago, we had been puzzled as to why they were so much higher than the 40 keV we had predicted. We knew that the earlier predictions, based on theories developed by Australian physicist Heinrich Hora, were only approximate and needed a better physical foundation. But we had not, until now, come up with an improvement.

The first big step to the solution came May 15, with the publication online in the Journal of Fusion Energy of a paper by the Iranian team, S. Abolhasani, M. Habibi, and R. Amrollahi, “Analytical Study of Quantum Magnetic and Ion Viscous Effects on p11B Fusion in Plasma Focus Devices.” The paper studied in greater detail the quantum magnetic field effect originally applied to the DPF by Lerner, for the first time independently confirming our calculations showing that ignition and net energy gain can be achieved with pB11 (hydrogen-boron) fuel, the key to obtaining aneutronic fusion energy. Above: Eric and visiting grad student Ahmad Talaei during a visit to Princeton’s physics library

[snip ....]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fus...20319-706.html

Quote:

Fusion for Peace -- A proposal from US and Iranian Physicists for Ending the Confrontation with Iran

By Eric J. Lerner, Dr. Hamid Yousefi and Dr. Morteza Habibi

We are hearing it again: we need to attack a Mid-Eastern nation to prevent it from getting weapons of mass destruction. The war, we are told again, will be quick and easy -- a surgical strike. Perhaps U.S. troops don't even need to get involved -- Israel will do the job. This time the target is Iran.

It may seem strange for the U.S., Israel, France, the UK, Russia or China, who have nuclear weapons in abundance, to be deciding that Iran must not have them. Setting that aside, we can all agree that it is desirable to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more nations. But is yet another "pre-emptive" war the only way to achieve the goal? Does the path to peace really lie in using force to prevent a nation from going beyond dependence on oil and gas?

As physicists in Iran and the U.S., we are proposing an alternative: starting a scientific and engineering collaboration between the two countries that could, if successful, make uranium enrichment obsolete, block proliferation everywhere, liberate the world from oil, and open up a new source of cheap, clean unlimited energy. In the past three years, Iran has become a major player in the small, but growing, global effort to achieve aneutronic fusion power -- controlled nuclear fusion using fuels that produce no neutrons. Controlled fusion harnesses the power that heats the sun -- nuclear fusion -- as a source of energy for peaceful purposes. Fuels that don't produce neutrons are important because neutrons can be extremely destructive, damaging the structure of a fusion generator and inducing radioactivity.

Ziggurat · 28th July 2012, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Conspiracy fact is different from conspiracy theory.

I don't know why you have just brought up (the derogatory term) that's know as conspiracy theory when you haven't even read the paper.

I brought up conspiracy theories because it was part of your Russian Television link. They claim that this research was being suppressed because of conspiracies. I merely addressed that claim.

Quote:

They have got funding from two states for their science. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact.

That's not the conspiracy to which I allude.

Quote:

I can't help but think that your pro israeli bias (correct me if I am wrong?) posts I have read from you in the past make you see anything to do with Iran as either a conspiracy, or through a partisan lens?

You are very wrong. If this project fails, Iran is just wasting money, and that's nobody's problem but their own. If it succeeds, then we benefit regardless of Iranian investment. I don't see any conspiracy involved, and I don't know why you thought I was referring to Iran.

The conspiracy theory comes from Russian Television, and their claims about why this research isn't being heavily funded. And RT pushed a conspiracy theory that's because that's what they do: they sell anti-western propaganda. The funny thing is that RT's conspiracy theory is directly contradicted by Iranian investment. Iran benefits from high oil prices while the US is hurt by them, so if this really threatened to make oil obsolete, Iran would have a far stronger incentive to see it fail than the US. But then, conspiracy theories never had to make sense.

Dancing David · 28th July 2012, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

How do you know? Do you want the full paper? Or are you just assuming it's bad science as the prevailing view on jref is that plasma cosmology is just that? They have a very good plan to quickly reach the the Lawson criterion if I recall correctly.

Rather large non sequitur , considering the lack of anything you have brought to the table in the most recent thread you started on the topic it is specious as well.

Acleron · 28th July 2012, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Your thinking too scientifically, try to envisage the corporate dimension to such a fusion and how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding. There is definitely a large business incentive to ridicule such cheap alternative fusion methods when so much money is involved.

Originally Posted by Acleron

And there is an even larger business incentive to make up claims of 'doing it better than those scientists'. The profit ratio is very high when you don't have to study, do the research or make something that works.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Are you alleging academic misconduct?

That's quite a serious allegation, and to just be hand waving it away carefree on a pubic forum without even checking the science first ... just seems bizarre.

I have the journal publication if you want it.

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysic...d=68&Itemid=86

By raising the idea that large amounts of money are involved you can have no other intention than to poison the well. Having stated that their scientific opinions can be modified by the amounts of money involved, I have pointed out that this particular tactic works both ways.

Yours is the handwaving because you have no evidence that money has anything to do with the lack of acceptance of the ideas of these people.

Zeuzzz · 28th July 2012, 11:50 AM

I'm talking about lack of political acceptance and economical acceptance, scientific acceptance tends to come first, and business later. Record breaking scientific discoveries nearly always preclude business and politics. Do you want to read the full paper or not? Pm me.

Acleron · 28th July 2012, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I'm talking about lack of political acceptance and economical acceptance, scientific acceptance tends to come first, and business later. Record breaking scientific discoveries nearly always preclude business and politics. Do you want to read the full paper or not? Pm me.

How can you be talking about anyone, other than the scientists, when you say:-

Quote:

how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding.

Who are these people who would lose funding other than the scientists involved?

Perhaps the reason some scientists do not get their work generally accepted is simply because they are wrong.

Zeuzzz · 28th July 2012, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Acleron

How can you be talking about anyone, other than the scientists, when you say:-

Who are these people who would lose funding other than the scientists involved?

Perhaps the reason some scientists do not get their work generally accepted is simply because they are wrong.

Renewable energies of this sort create a near vertical profit for a few years, and from then on its downhill. It's not a long term business plan. Simple economics. Meanwhile, oil prices continue to rise, and other non renewable energy sources continue to run our economies.

Zeuzzz · 28th July 2012, 03:45 PM

I'm no economist, admittedly. But disprove that statement if you will, and I will learn

Ziggurat · 28th July 2012, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Renewable energies of this sort create a near vertical profit for a few years, and from then on its downhill.

You have it exactly backwards. The capital investment means that you lose money at the start. It's only over time that you can make that money back, and you keep making money for as long as your renewable source provides it.

And that's not forever without continued investment, because even solar panels need service and don't last forever.

Quote:

It's not a long term business plan. Simple economics.

No. It's a business plan that only works long term, if it works at all.

WhatRoughBeast · 28th July 2012, 09:18 PM

Furthermore, you seem to be implying that American corporations are willing to forgo massive short-term profits in order to maintain the status quo over the long term.

This is, as far as I know, a novel interpretaion of corporate behavior.

Acleron · 29th July 2012, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Renewable energies of this sort create a near vertical profit for a few years, and from then on its downhill. It's not a long term business plan. Simple economics. Meanwhile, oil prices continue to rise, and other non renewable energy sources continue to run our economies.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I'm no economist, admittedly. But disprove that statement if you will, and I will learn

You were clearly trying to implicate scientists in suppressing cheap fusion. You have tried to misdirect by referencing a totally irrelevant paper, by pretending that you were talking about a completely different group and now presumably by rambling about oil prices you think that that your original implication can be buried.

Try learning how science actually works and how new ideas are readily accepted when they have evidence. It will stop you having to flounder about.

I suggest you start with the discovery by Barry Marshall that H. pylori causes gastric ulcers.

I won't be following any more of this thread.

Zeuzzz · 13th August 2012, 07:02 PM

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-extreme...ories.html#jCp

Quote:

The new analysis gives insight into the sorts of plasmas scientists need to create in some experimental approaches to fusion, the process that powers stars, in which the cores of super-condensed atoms combine and release massive amounts of energy. The research may lead to improved modeling for certain aspects of fusion, as it gives detailed information about the process where tightly packed atoms begin to lose their autonomy as the orbits of their associated electrons overlap. Scientists use complicated algorithms that may include millions of lines of code to simulate the behavior of superheated matter and build better models of how fusion works. "Even very sophisticated computer codes used to simulate dense plasmas usually employ an old model from 1966 to simulate the effects of the plasma environment," Ciricosta said. "Our work at the LCLS has shown that this widely used model does not fit the data. In an extraordinary twist of fate, it turns out that an even earlier approach from 1963 does a far better job."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-08-extreme...ories.html#jCp

Weird that, after a lot of posters here kept saying we know exactly what plasma does as we have all these ace models and theories to prove it.

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i6/e065002

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/88

Zeuzzz · 13th August 2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast

Furthermore, you seem to be implying that American corporations are willing to forgo massive short-term profits in order to maintain the status quo over the long term.

This is, as far as I know, a novel interpretaion of corporate behavior.

Thats just standard economics

Who'd want say a one off billion in a year return on a revolutionary energy source that you could guarantee, or would you rather just keep making your half a billion yearly indefinitely and give the people that made this technology a million or so?

I'm not saying that's happened. Thats just capitalism and economics.

WhatRoughBeast · 13th August 2012, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Thats just standard economics

Not in this part of the space-time continuum.

American corporations are notorious for taking the short view. A classic would be Dell's outsourcing of their computer manufacturing, which progressed until they were unable to compete with the contracted companies and lost their manufacturing capability, just beconing distributors.

Quote:

Who'd want say a one off billion in a year return on a revolutionary energy source that you could guarantee, or would you rather just keep making your half a billion yearly indefinitely and give the people that made this technology a million or so?

I'm not saying that's happened. Thats just capitalism and economics.

It's "just capitalism and economics" if the organization takes the long view. In a case like this, this would only be possible if the organization can conspire with all the other players in the industry to suppress the technology. This has two problems, trust and liability. Any such conspiracy will work only as long as ALL the players continue to take the long view - if any one of them finds itself in short-term difficulty it will be tempted to go for the short-term jackpot and thereby screw over the others. And, of course, such a conspiracy has a number of rather ungracious labels, including "conspiracy in restraint of trade" and "racketeering". They are both federal crimes. So, from the point of view of your proposed conspirators, they are simultaneously forgoing a major profit and exposing themselves to criminal prosecution. This is not the usual carrot and stick. And it's not just capitalism and economics, either.

And finally, in case you don't realise it (and clearly you don't), any corporation which could be proved to have rejected the opportunity to guarantee a doubling of profits would be liable to a major shareholder lawsuit.

Reality Check · 13th August 2012, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Weird that, after a lot of posters here kept saying we know exactly what plasma does as we have all these ace models and theories to prove it.

Weird that you do not cite any poster who states this (actually not so weird

).

I have never seen any poster say that we know exactly what plasma does and it has little to do with this thread - unless you are going for a "god of the gaps" argument for pc!

If we are going to continue with derail of this thread into fusion, maybe we should ask for it to be split starting with your "Heh this was a pleasant surprise last night when I was watching Russia Today." post.

Zeuzzz · 14th August 2012, 07:14 AM

The new Chandra X-Ray Telescope has recorded detailed pictures of the heart of the Crab Nebula, first seen on Earth in the year 1054. Here are pictures of the Crab at x- ray (Chandra), optical (Palomar), infrared (Keck), and radio (VLA) wavelengths.

Looks like a bunny? No.
Looks like a diffuse and slightly filamentary optical nebula? Yes.
Looks more homogenous at radio and infrared frequencies? Yes.
Looks like the x-ray spectrum indicates a distinct structure and mechanism underlying the nebula unapparent before by studying the other frequencies of the EM spectrum? Yes.
Looks like the xray spectrum shows the morphology of a huge Unipolar inductor? Yes.
Is it a bunny? No
Is it more likely a Unipolar inductor than a bunny? Yes.

15th June 2012, 04:47 AM	#3521
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,681	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Sigh. Reality check. I said I don't care about your views on plasma cosmology. Or to make a bullet point list. And what do you do? I didn't even say it was a science in that post, so straw-man. Wait, forget the above sentence, else your going to start arguing with that. I'll try again: Is the epistemic approach to cosmology that Afven started, which was subsequently followed up by a fair few models in support of this by Lerner and Peratt et al, laregly ignored today by the cosmological community at large, who now invest all their interest in BBT derived theories, based on their interpretation of multitudes of astrophysical data they have assigned cosmological significance to? (I understand you will disagree with the italicized part, so please answer the non italicized as a separate question, if you feel the need. The answer to the first should be a very very simple answer, even a yes or no will suffice) Zuezzz, What specifically do you think should be paid attention to that is not? Such broad statements are hard to parse and understand. So if you wish to discuss this then please discuss the specific theories of Perrat, Lerner and Alven you think are getting short shrift. For example, which of Perrat's work is not getting attention you feel that it should? The study he did with plasma and the appearance of galaxy shaped structures does not scale to reality, he used a 10 cm vessel and very strong magnetic fields to produce the wholes that sort of look like galaxies but have no bearing on the actual galaxies, size and magnetic fields. Lerner has spent a lot of time just talking about why he doesn't agree with the big bang, which aspects of his work in regards to plasma cosmology would you like to get more attention. He is totally wrong about black holes, for example.
	__________________ 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

15th June 2012, 04:48 AM	#3522
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,681	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...17018721_n.jpg I suggest you present the facts you wish us to consider then Zuezzz
	__________________ 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

15th June 2012, 06:04 AM	#3524
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid I hope this passage isn't showing two stunning pieces of ignorance. Me too Quote: 1. The idea that there is an origin time in the standard cosmological model. There isn't; t₀ refers to the present time. You need to define that more clearly. As t₁₇ refers to the time taken for x number of future based turtles that comprise the past universe; its NOT turtles all the way down in the standard turtle model of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down Quote: 2. The idea that Hoyle proposed an origin time as a joke idea. Hoyle proposed an eternal model and he did not propose it as a joke. He coined the term the Big Bang to mock the idea of such an unscientific ex nihilo derived basis for the universe. He was subsequently amazed that people seemed so accepting of interpreting the data in support of this idea, and continued his amazement as cosmological EM data was sculpted round this spuriously grounded axiomatic framework to the detriment of seeking non-finite derived cosmological explanations for such data, either from more local galactic theories of origin or other means that do not lead to such paradoxical situations as the Big Bang does. Is that clearer? And david, trying to find the paper so I don't misquote, but got to shoot out now so will have to wait.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 15th June 2012 at 06:09 AM.

15th June 2012, 07:34 AM	#3525
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,681	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz He coined the term the Big Bang to mock the idea of such an unscientific ex nihilo derived basis for the universe. It is not ex nihilio, it is 'we don't know'.
	__________________ 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

15th June 2012, 12:33 PM	#3527
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,637	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz S Is the epistemic approach to cosmology that Afven started, which was subsequently followed up by a fair few models in support of this by Lerner and Peratt et al, laregly ignored today by the cosmological community at large, who now invest all their interest in BBT derived theories, based on their interpretation of multitudes of astrophysical data they have assigned cosmological significance to? What a scientist wants to do is to actually describe what's going on in the natural world---to state what's out there, to state what laws it obeys, and to have those statements turn out to be right. They don't want to invent an "epistemic approach", by which I think you mean a thought process by which to generate new hypotheses. And I don't think that's what Alfven actually wanted to do---I think he was trying to generate an actual hypothesis himself. And his hypotheses largely failed to describe the natural world we observe. How did this get twisted into an "epistemic approach"? I think that's a position of retreat, or of spin-doctoring. "New epistemic approach" sounds much better than "failed set of hypotheses"! It absolves you from having to defend anything specific Alfven said. ("Sure, maybe Alfven said that intergalactic voids must contain 0.1 g/cc of electron-positron pairs, any maybe this isn't perfect, but it illustrates his epistemic approach.") Heck, it absolves you from having to find actual science calculations about Alfven's ideas. ("We still can't tell you whether the Milky Way is magnetized, or what would happen if it was, or ways to test it one way or another, but the important thing is to think about it.")
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,637

15th June 2012, 05:43 AM	#3523
Kwalish Kid Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 375	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz You know what I mean. Or do I have to, again, link you to Alfvens original paper where he explains the epistemic differences in approach? ie, Origin in time is not allowed, due to violation of the laws of physics as we currently know it, and that the originator of the idea himself (Hoyle) only proposed it as a joke idea, that seemed to gain what he considered completely irrational support from cosmologists at large ever since, which he saw as nothing more than an idea based on (what was at the time) just a brain thought inferred from one possible way to look at, what was at the time, very limited data. There are more, but being the "expert" you are I expect you know them all, so quote them. I hope this passage isn't showing two stunning pieces of ignorance. 1. The idea that there is an origin time in the standard cosmological model. There isn't; t₀ refers to the present time. 2. The idea that Hoyle proposed an origin time as a joke idea. Hoyle proposed an eternal model and he did not propose it as a joke.

15th June 2012, 09:38 AM	#3526
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,088	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...17018721_n.jpg What has that got to do with the nonsense spouted by PC believers?

17th June 2012, 02:20 PM	#3528
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	Zeuzzz, Cite Alfvén's epistemic approach to cosmology paper Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Ok, you ignore and refuse to answer my question. I did not ignore your question. I noted that it is moot because you presented no evidence for Alfvén's epistemic approach to cosmology. AFAIK Alfven never started any epistemic approach to cosmology. He stated an alternative cosmological model that has been shown to be wrong using the standard scientific approach. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Or do I have to, again, link you to Alfvens original paper where he explains the epistemic differences in approach? ie, Origin in time is not allowed, due to violation of the laws of physics as we currently know it, and that the originator of the idea himself (Hoyle) only proposed it as a joke idea, .... Yes you do have to cite Alfvens original paper where he states a obvious error because the laws of physics as we currently know them say nothing about time having an origin or not. P.S. BB does not not state that time has an origin. thinks that a joke by Hoyle somehow invalidates BB theory? Actually the term "Big Bang" was a joke by Hoyle. He did not "originate the idea" (of BB?) You are the one making the assertion that Alfven had an epistemic approach to cosmology. You need to back it up with evidence. ETA: Maybe you mean his presentation for the Golden Jubilee of the Indian Academy of Sciences, Cosmology: Myth or Science? (PDF), in 1984. This is an opinion piece, nor a peer-reviewed paper. The big problem is that you may be citing a 1984 presentation that has been made redundant by the progress of science. He points out that there were alternative theories for the CMB but these were all falsified by later observations (perfect black body spectrum = universe once in a hot dense state = BB theory = plasma cosmology is falsified!). There are some other debunked theories, e.g. hierarchical cosmologies need a certain fractal dimension to the distribution of galaxies but we now know that this criteria is unlikely to be meet. It contains a couple of rather inane implications, e.g. that theorists should not use mathematical models to speculate about physics, (i.e. the solutions to GR should not be looked at!). But that is what theorists need to do. They have to explore the implications of a new theory so that when experiments are performed they results can be used to falsify the theory.
	__________________ 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; 17th June 2012 at 02:53 PM.

17th June 2012, 03:13 PM	#3529
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	I like fish cake. You should try it.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

18th June 2012, 09:19 AM	#3530
brantc Muse Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 541	Originally Posted by Reality Check But that is what theorists need to do. They have to explore the implications of a new theory so that when experiments are performed they results can be used to falsify the theory. When that happens let me know..... It seems as though standard cosmology has never falsified anything except that which it(the status quo) doesnt agree with...
brantc Muse Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 541

18th June 2012, 10:29 AM	#3531
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,681	Originally Posted by brantc When that happens let me know..... It seems as though standard cosmology has never falsified anything except that which it(the status quo) doesnt agree with... That is quite untrue, many estimates of the age of the universe have changed over time, why is that BrantC ? Why is it that theories of the accretion of planets change so often? Or the origin of the moon? Or the steady state universe? I think you made a political statement of rhetoric, what data does PC match? Show us, please. I don't think you have anything or an example of what should have been falsified in mainstream cosmology. My guess is that you know little of either. Just the politics of Thunderbolts or something like that.
	__________________ 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

18th June 2012, 11:01 AM	#3532
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,637	Originally Posted by brantc When that happens let me know..... It seems as though standard cosmology has never falsified anything except that which it(the status quo) doesnt agree with... No, it's the other way around. The set of things that have been falsified are not put into the standard cosmology any more. It's like saying, "Supposedly the NTSB regulates car safety. I ask you what safety defects it found, and you cite the Ford Pinto! But nobody drives Ford Pintos, they're death traps. Apparently the NTSB only tests things that the 'status quo' didn't want to drive anyway."
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,637

18th June 2012, 05:14 PM	#3533
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,775	plasma cosmology does not exist Originally Posted by brantc When that happens let me know..... It seems as though standard cosmology has never falsified anything except that which it(the status quo) doesnt agree with... Read what I wrote: Quote: Originally Posted by Reality Check But that is what theorists need to do. They have to explore the implications of a new theory so that when experiments are performed they results can be used to falsify the theory. It is the empirical data that falsifies the theory. Thus "standard cosmology has never falsified" is wrong. There is a large body of evidence supporting standard cosmology. There are a couple of bits of evidence that throw doubt on standard cosmology, primarily the Li abundance. So standard cosmology is sort of in the position that Newtonian gravity was at around 1900. There is strong evidence for it but an few observations show that it is not perfect. So what will happen is that a cosmological "GR" will replace standard cosmology. This of course will match all of the existing evidence for standard cosmology and have similar features, e.g. a Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, etc. Contrast this plasma cosmology which is not even cosmology (a scientific model about the cosmos) ! Quote: Originally Posted by Reality Check Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered: The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo). The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation. But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery. The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory. This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. ...list of the many mutally exclusive and mostly debunked theories snipped... I will go as far as stating that plasma cosnology does not exist because no one has given the actual definition of it in this thread and it has not been found elsewhere.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

27th July 2012, 04:05 PM	#3535
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,173	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Plasma Fusion -- hoax or breakthrough reality? From their own video, they don't have the densities required to turn this into a power generator. All of their claims might be accurate, but it might be impossible for them to scale up the densities to the point of working for power generation. So I'm not ready to claim it's a hoax, but I'm not terribly impressed by it either. Oh, and all that stuff about profitable wars and oil companies suppressing fusion? Typical Russian Television paranoia and conspiracy propaganda. Wars are money losers, and government funding for fusion is low because it's been a non-productive field of research in terms of practical payoff. Oil companies aren't suppressing fusion research because no oil company with a lick of sense is going to see fusion research as any sort of threat.
	__________________ "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

28th July 2012, 01:45 AM	#3536
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Ziggurat From their own video, they don't have the densities required to turn this into a power generator. All of their claims might be accurate, but it might be impossible for them to scale up the densities to the point of working for power generation. So I'm not ready to claim it's a hoax, but I'm not terribly impressed by it either. Oh, and all that stuff about profitable wars and oil companies suppressing fusion? Typical Russian Television paranoia and conspiracy propaganda. Wars are money losers, and government funding for fusion is low because it's been a non-productive field of research in terms of practical payoff. Oil companies aren't suppressing fusion research because no oil company with a lick of sense is going to see fusion research as any sort of threat. I sort of agree, Lerner's experiment is still below the Lawson criterion. As others have learned in the past 50+ years of fusione efforts, getting the temperature is the easy part - the density and confinement time are key to real energy production. This criterion is significantly higher for this reaction.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

28th July 2012, 01:49 AM	#3537
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Oh, and all that stuff about profitable wars and oil companies suppressing fusion? Typical Russian Television paranoia and conspiracy propaganda. Wars are money losers, and government funding for fusion is low because it's been a non-productive field of research in terms of practical payoff. Oil companies aren't suppressing fusion research because no oil company with a lick of sense is going to see fusion research as any sort of threat. Your thinking too scientifically, try to envisage the corporate dimension to such a fusion and how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding. There is definitely a large business incentive to ridicule such cheap alternative fusion methods when so much money is involved.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

28th July 2012, 02:01 AM	#3538
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,927	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Your thinking too scientifically, try to envisage the corporate dimension to such a fusion and how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding. There is definitely a large business incentive to ridicule such cheap alternative fusion methods when so much money is involved. And there is an even larger business incentive to make up claims of 'doing it better than those scientists'. The profit ratio is very high when you don't have to study, do the research or make something that works.

28th July 2012, 02:15 AM	#3539
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Acleron And there is an even larger business incentive to make up claims of 'doing it better than those scientists'. The profit ratio is very high when you don't have to study, do the research or make something that works. Are you alleging academic misconduct? That's quite a serious allegation, and to just be hand waving it away carefree on a pubic forum without even checking the science first ... just seems bizarre. I have the journal publication if you want it. http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysic...d=68&Itemid=86 Quote: BOOK The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House/Times Books, 1991 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS Fusion reactions from >150 keV ions in a dense plasma focus plasmoid, E. J. Lerner, S. K. Murali, D. M. Shannon, A. M. Blake, and F. Van Roessel, Phys. Plasmas 19, 032704 (2012) Theory and Experimental Program for p-B11 Fusion with the Dense Plasma Focus. Eric J. Lerner, S. Krupakar Murali and A. Haboub. JOURNAL OF FUSION ENERGY. January 2012, Volume 30, Number 5, 367-376. Tolman Test from z = 0.1 to z = 5.5: Preliminary Results challenge the Expanding Universe Model. Lerner, E. J. 2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-2. ASP Conference Series, Vol. 413, Proceedings of the conference held 7-11 September 2008, at Port Angeles, Washington, USA. Edited by Frank Potter. San Francisco, Astronom1ical Society of the Pacific, 2009., p.12 Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF Authors: Lerner, Eric J. 1st CRISIS IN COSMOLOGY CONFERENCE, CCC-1. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 822, pp. 60-74 (2006).
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 28th July 2012 at 02:17 AM.

28th July 2012, 06:41 AM	#3540
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,173	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Your thinking too scientifically No, I'm thinking economically. The economics of the conspiracy theory make no sense. Quote: try to envisage the corporate dimension to such a fusion and how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding. The people who would lose that money aren't corporations, they're the research scientists. Who don't have a lot of political clout. Quote: There is definitely a large business incentive to ridicule such cheap alternative fusion methods when so much money is involved. No, there really isn't. And I guarantee you that their method won't be cheap to scale up to higher densities. Besides, nobody is ridiculing them.
	__________________ "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

28th July 2012, 07:49 AM	#3541
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Besides, nobody is ridiculing them. Didn't say they were being ridiculed, it's more the point that they are being ignored so have to resort to the media. Ironically, major western companies and governments have refused to invest more money in this technology based on advise from their 'scientific advisors' saying it's woo. They have had to get a contract with Iran apparently, and have received considerable interest from asian scientists and china too.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 28th July 2012 at 08:04 AM.

28th July 2012, 08:26 AM	#3542
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,173	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Ironically, major western companies and governments have refused to invest more money in this technology based on advise from their 'scientific advisors' saying it's woo. They have had to get a contract with Iran apparently, and have received considerable interest from asian scientists and china too. And how do you know that it's not bad science? I mean, aside from the fact that you want it to be true, what makes you think it is? How would you even know? In terms of financial incentives, the incentive for somebody to claim they've got something worth funding when they don't is a lot higher than the incentive for an agency to deny funding for good science. There are few high-level conspiracies in the world, but scams are a dime a dozen.
	__________________ "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

28th July 2012, 08:48 AM	#3543
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	How do you know? Do you want the full paper? Or are you just assuming it's bad science as the prevailing view on jref is that plasma cosmology is just that? They have a very good plan to quickly reach the the Lawson criterion if I recall correctly.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 28th July 2012 at 09:12 AM.

28th July 2012, 08:57 AM	#3544
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,173	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz How do you know? I don't. But then, I'm not claiming conspiracies either. Quote: Do you want the full paper? Or are you just assuming assuming it's bad science as the prevailing view on jref is that plasma cosmology is just that? Um... nothing about your link had anything to do with plasma cosmology. So no, it's got absolutely nothing to do with plasma cosmology's complete failure. Quote: They have a very good plan to quickly reach the the Lawson criterion if I recall correctly. Lots of people have good plans to achieve things they can't actually achieve. Nobody makes plans for how to fail. I don't consider you to be qualified to evaluate whether or not their plan is good. I do consider specialists in the field, the kind of people funding agencies rely on to review proposals, to be in a good position to evaluate their funding proposals. The only argument you can make for why to believe you and not them is a conspiracy theory, and I simply don't find that credible.
	__________________ "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

28th July 2012, 09:47 AM	#3545
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Conspiracy fact is different from conspiracy theory. I don't know why you have just brought up (the derogatory term) that's know as conspiracy theory when you haven't even read the paper. They have got funding from two states for their science. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. I can't help but think that your pro israeli bias (correct me if I am wrong?) posts I have read from you in the past make you see anything to do with Iran as either a conspiracy, or through a partisan lens? That's not an accusation; its an open question (based on the fact I know that things are pretty heated between israel and Iran at the moment, as ever) Anyway, this is the official story from lawrencevilleplasmaphysics very own website, it might do well to explain the reasoning behind the comercial direction they have gone. http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysic...news&Itemid=90 Quote: Theoretical insights and calculations by LPP’s Chief Scientist Eric Lerner and our new summer graduate student, Ahmad Talaei of Utah State University, as well as work by an independent group of physicists at Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran, have provided a long-sought explanation on how FF-1 has managed to achieve record breaking ion energies, four times hotter than LPP’s earlier theory had predicted. The new theoretical improvement will help us to understand and more efficiently guide further experiments. This work and the independent confirmation of our theoretical calculations by the Iranian group reinforce our confidence that our high temperatures will indeed be able to ignite the ideal fusion fuel, hydrogen-boron. Since we first observed the 160 keV energies of the ions (equivalent to 1.8 billion C) over a year ago, we had been puzzled as to why they were so much higher than the 40 keV we had predicted. We knew that the earlier predictions, based on theories developed by Australian physicist Heinrich Hora, were only approximate and needed a better physical foundation. But we had not, until now, come up with an improvement. The first big step to the solution came May 15, with the publication online in the Journal of Fusion Energy of a paper by the Iranian team, S. Abolhasani, M. Habibi, and R. Amrollahi, “Analytical Study of Quantum Magnetic and Ion Viscous Effects on p11B Fusion in Plasma Focus Devices.” The paper studied in greater detail the quantum magnetic field effect originally applied to the DPF by Lerner, for the first time independently confirming our calculations showing that ignition and net energy gain can be achieved with pB11 (hydrogen-boron) fuel, the key to obtaining aneutronic fusion energy. Above: Eric and visiting grad student Ahmad Talaei during a visit to Princeton’s physics library [snip ....] http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fus...20319-706.html Quote: Fusion for Peace -- A proposal from US and Iranian Physicists for Ending the Confrontation with Iran By Eric J. Lerner, Dr. Hamid Yousefi and Dr. Morteza Habibi We are hearing it again: we need to attack a Mid-Eastern nation to prevent it from getting weapons of mass destruction. The war, we are told again, will be quick and easy -- a surgical strike. Perhaps U.S. troops don't even need to get involved -- Israel will do the job. This time the target is Iran. It may seem strange for the U.S., Israel, France, the UK, Russia or China, who have nuclear weapons in abundance, to be deciding that Iran must not have them. Setting that aside, we can all agree that it is desirable to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more nations. But is yet another "pre-emptive" war the only way to achieve the goal? Does the path to peace really lie in using force to prevent a nation from going beyond dependence on oil and gas? As physicists in Iran and the U.S., we are proposing an alternative: starting a scientific and engineering collaboration between the two countries that could, if successful, make uranium enrichment obsolete, block proliferation everywhere, liberate the world from oil, and open up a new source of cheap, clean unlimited energy. In the past three years, Iran has become a major player in the small, but growing, global effort to achieve aneutronic fusion power -- controlled nuclear fusion using fuels that produce no neutrons. Controlled fusion harnesses the power that heats the sun -- nuclear fusion -- as a source of energy for peaceful purposes. Fuels that don't produce neutrons are important because neutrons can be extremely destructive, damaging the structure of a fusion generator and inducing radioactivity.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 28th July 2012 at 09:48 AM.

28th July 2012, 10:28 AM	#3546
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,173	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Conspiracy fact is different from conspiracy theory. I don't know why you have just brought up (the derogatory term) that's know as conspiracy theory when you haven't even read the paper. I brought up conspiracy theories because it was part of your Russian Television link. They claim that this research was being suppressed because of conspiracies. I merely addressed that claim. Quote: They have got funding from two states for their science. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. That's not the conspiracy to which I allude. Quote: I can't help but think that your pro israeli bias (correct me if I am wrong?) posts I have read from you in the past make you see anything to do with Iran as either a conspiracy, or through a partisan lens? You are very wrong. If this project fails, Iran is just wasting money, and that's nobody's problem but their own. If it succeeds, then we benefit regardless of Iranian investment. I don't see any conspiracy involved, and I don't know why you thought I was referring to Iran. The conspiracy theory comes from Russian Television, and their claims about why this research isn't being heavily funded. And RT pushed a conspiracy theory that's because that's what they do: they sell anti-western propaganda. The funny thing is that RT's conspiracy theory is directly contradicted by Iranian investment. Iran benefits from high oil prices while the US is hurt by them, so if this really threatened to make oil obsolete, Iran would have a far stronger incentive to see it fail than the US. But then, conspiracy theories never had to make sense.
	__________________ "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

28th July 2012, 10:53 AM	#3547
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,681	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz How do you know? Do you want the full paper? Or are you just assuming it's bad science as the prevailing view on jref is that plasma cosmology is just that? They have a very good plan to quickly reach the the Lawson criterion if I recall correctly. Rather large non sequitur , considering the lack of anything you have brought to the table in the most recent thread you started on the topic it is specious as well.
	__________________ 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

28th July 2012, 11:19 AM	#3548
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,927	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Your thinking too scientifically, try to envisage the corporate dimension to such a fusion and how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding. There is definitely a large business incentive to ridicule such cheap alternative fusion methods when so much money is involved. Originally Posted by Acleron And there is an even larger business incentive to make up claims of 'doing it better than those scientists'. The profit ratio is very high when you don't have to study, do the research or make something that works. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Are you alleging academic misconduct? That's quite a serious allegation, and to just be hand waving it away carefree on a pubic forum without even checking the science first ... just seems bizarre. I have the journal publication if you want it. http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysic...d=68&Itemid=86 By raising the idea that large amounts of money are involved you can have no other intention than to poison the well. Having stated that their scientific opinions can be modified by the amounts of money involved, I have pointed out that this particular tactic works both ways. Yours is the handwaving because you have no evidence that money has anything to do with the lack of acceptance of the ideas of these people.

28th July 2012, 11:50 AM	#3549
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	I'm talking about lack of political acceptance and economical acceptance, scientific acceptance tends to come first, and business later. Record breaking scientific discoveries nearly always preclude business and politics. Do you want to read the full paper or not? Pm me.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

28th July 2012, 03:32 PM	#3550
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,927	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I'm talking about lack of political acceptance and economical acceptance, scientific acceptance tends to come first, and business later. Record breaking scientific discoveries nearly always preclude business and politics. Do you want to read the full paper or not? Pm me. How can you be talking about anyone, other than the scientists, when you say:- Quote: how many people would loose a hell of a lot of government based traditional-fusion based funding. Who are these people who would lose funding other than the scientists involved? Perhaps the reason some scientists do not get their work generally accepted is simply because they are wrong.

28th July 2012, 03:44 PM	#3551
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by Acleron How can you be talking about anyone, other than the scientists, when you say:- Who are these people who would lose funding other than the scientists involved? Perhaps the reason some scientists do not get their work generally accepted is simply because they are wrong. Renewable energies of this sort create a near vertical profit for a few years, and from then on its downhill. It's not a long term business plan. Simple economics. Meanwhile, oil prices continue to rise, and other non renewable energy sources continue to run our economies.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

28th July 2012, 03:45 PM	#3552
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	I'm no economist, admittedly. But disprove that statement if you will, and I will learn
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

28th July 2012, 04:39 PM	#3553
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,173	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Renewable energies of this sort create a near vertical profit for a few years, and from then on its downhill. You have it exactly backwards. The capital investment means that you lose money at the start. It's only over time that you can make that money back, and you keep making money for as long as your renewable source provides it. And that's not forever without continued investment, because even solar panels need service and don't last forever. Quote: It's not a long term business plan. Simple economics. No. It's a business plan that only works long term, if it works at all.
	__________________ "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

28th July 2012, 09:18 PM	#3554
WhatRoughBeast Muse Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 817	Furthermore, you seem to be implying that American corporations are willing to forgo massive short-term profits in order to maintain the status quo over the long term. This is, as far as I know, a novel interpretaion of corporate behavior.
WhatRoughBeast Muse Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 817

29th July 2012, 04:38 AM	#3555
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,927	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Renewable energies of this sort create a near vertical profit for a few years, and from then on its downhill. It's not a long term business plan. Simple economics. Meanwhile, oil prices continue to rise, and other non renewable energy sources continue to run our economies. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz I'm no economist, admittedly. But disprove that statement if you will, and I will learn You were clearly trying to implicate scientists in suppressing cheap fusion. You have tried to misdirect by referencing a totally irrelevant paper, by pretending that you were talking about a completely different group and now presumably by rambling about oil prices you think that that your original implication can be buried. Try learning how science actually works and how new ideas are readily accepted when they have evidence. It will stop you having to flounder about. I suggest you start with the discovery by Barry Marshall that H. pylori causes gastric ulcers. I won't be following any more of this thread.

13th August 2012, 07:02 PM	#3556
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	http://phys.org/news/2012-08-extreme...ories.html#jCp Quote: The new analysis gives insight into the sorts of plasmas scientists need to create in some experimental approaches to fusion, the process that powers stars, in which the cores of super-condensed atoms combine and release massive amounts of energy. The research may lead to improved modeling for certain aspects of fusion, as it gives detailed information about the process where tightly packed atoms begin to lose their autonomy as the orbits of their associated electrons overlap. Scientists use complicated algorithms that may include millions of lines of code to simulate the behavior of superheated matter and build better models of how fusion works. "Even very sophisticated computer codes used to simulate dense plasmas usually employ an old model from 1966 to simulate the effects of the plasma environment," Ciricosta said. "Our work at the LCLS has shown that this widely used model does not fit the data. In an extraordinary twist of fate, it turns out that an even earlier approach from 1963 does a far better job." Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-08-extreme...ories.html#jCp Weird that, after a lot of posters here kept saying we know exactly what plasma does as we have all these ace models and theories to prove it. http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i6/e065002 http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/88
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241