Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS
[snip]
I'm not sure, though, that we should speak of the 'electric comet case' (my bold). If EU proponents seem to be focusing particular attention on comets, it's only because they are easier to observe hands-on than many other types of (much) more distant object (e.g. galaxies, "galaxy clusters", "black holes", quasars, etc.) which, they argue, display similarly electrical characteristics. The argument goes, as you well know, that if observed cometary behaviour can indeed only be explained in terms of electric discharge phenomena being produced by the movement of an electrically charged body through the electromagnetic field of the sun, then this proves that we do not live in an electrically neutral universe. (That was what I meant in my earlier post when I wrote that "the implications for the whole of cosmology are literally shattering" to which you responded by the comment "Comets to the whole of cosmology eh? That's quite a bold assertion." Maybe so, but it simply follows on logically.)
|
Returning to this, in either with "only only then" or without, form ...
To what extent does the fact that
some "
observed cometary behaviour" can be explained in ways
other than "
being produced by the movement of an electrically charged body through the electromagnetic field of the sun" prove that we DO "
live in an electrically neutral universe"? For example, the observed orbits of comets can be (predominently) explained by plain old Newtonian gravity; another example, the reflection of sunlight from a comet nucleus can be explained by {insert non-plasma physics explanation here}.
Further, assuming that you can support the conclusion ("
proves that we do not live in an electrically neutral universe"), how does it follow - simply, logically - that "
the implications for the whole of cosmology are literally shattering"? In answering this, please be sure to take into account the fact that the universe having a net charge of e is, logically, one that is not electrically neutral (i.e. 1 particle out of ~10
80, in the observable universe).
Quote:
As regards the importance being assigned to comets within the framework of the overall EU case (here we can use the term "case"), they should be considered as simple indicators of a much broader phenomenon, a bit like the fisherman's float, which is a visible and almost totally reliable indicator of an invisible fish biting: when the float bobs or goes under, there are generally not many alternative interpretations as to the cause. In my experience, it's never because the the float suddenly got water-logged, for example. Floats don't, just as the four comets we have to date gathered detailed information about just don't show any obvious signs of containing ice.
[snip]
|
This is, of course, perfectly reasonable, as a logical argument (as, I think,
korjik pointed out much earlier).
However, it's also extremely weak, as it stands, in terms of science.
Start with the logic: if one thinks something (some set of observations about comets, for example) is an indicator of something much broader (a theory, let's say), then you should be able to show two things:
* that the theory is internally consistent, and
* that the theory is consistent with
all (potentially) observable phenomena ... including showing what classes of phenemona are beyond the scope of the theory.
Now for the science: if the theory is not quantified - or, worse, not quantifiable - then how could the second test be passed, in any meaningful way?
Further, if the theory is not public, how can any independent, objective outsider conduct either test?
Back to comets.
As I have shown, the only material which comes even close to being a description of the "indications" in terms of the underlying theory (the purported ICOPS 2006 poster, by Thornhill and Talbott) is not quantified, and, if only because of its lack of definitions and references, is also not public.
But no doubt you have a different view. If so, please share it, paying particular attention to the points about quantification and openness.
Oh, and please also restrict yourself to comets.