10-November-2004, 03:55 PM
|
 |
Established Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,376
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Josh+Nov 10 2004, 05:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Josh @ Nov 10 2004, 05:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I've been reaidng along with this thread since it began and find it at once interesting and annoying. I have some questions. It's been mentioned (and rightly so) that a lot of what the EU expounds goes against fundamental physics as we know it.[/b]
|
I think we have to be careful about claiming certain things "go against fundamental physics", when perhaps (but not always), they just might not be "well understood".
A good example of what I mean is the recent "anomalous" Pioneer 10 acceleration. A recent paper on the subject mentions several possible causes of the anonamous acceleration, and rules them ALL out.
I could argue that since all possible causes have been examined and excluded, then the inference is that the Pioneer craft exhibit behavior that "goes against fundamental physics". And indeed, some articles suggest that this "leaves open staggering possibilities that would force wholesale reprinting of all physics books".
I think there is a slight double standard here. When mainstream science has an "anomaly", it is treated as such. When new theories have "anomalies", they are thrown out of the bath-water (to mix a few metaphores).
Quote:
Originally posted by Josh@Nov 10 2004, 05:29 AM
Can you electric sun/universe advocates please set out either: how it doesn't go against fundamental physics...
|
So I would argue that the Electric Unverse does not go "against fundamental physics", but I would be the first to admit that it hasn't detailed it's case; but what is important, is whether there is a case to answer.
<!--QuoteBegin-Josh@Nov 10 2004, 05:29 AM
Quote:
|
Tim Thompson: The EU hypothesis is far worse than you give it credit for being. [..] Just look at the mess they make of explain ing solar flares, by claiming that the arcs as seen, for instance, in TRACE images are electric fields insted of magnetic fields. But you can tell one from the other by spectroscopy quite readily (the magnetic Zeeman effect and the electric Stark effect). The results are that they are magnetic fields, which has been known for a long time.
|
Could one of you EU folk kindly rebut this if there is one to be made?[/quote]
I believe that the Stark effect may have been detected, albeit weakly, in some solar flares. See the papers: - Large Scale Electric Fields in Solar Flare Regions [PDF] (1998) by Pudovkin, M. I.; Zaitseva, S. A.; Shumilov, N. O.; Meister, C.-V..
- Particle Acceleration and Fragmented Deposition for an Electric Field Solar Flare Model (20020 by Kainer, S.; Roberts, D. A.; Goldstein, M. L.
- A Study of the Thermal/Nonthermal Electric Field Model in Solar Flares Using Spectral and Spatial X-Ray Data from Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and YOHKOH (1996) by Kucera, T. A.; Love, P. J.; Dennis, B. R.; Holman, G. D.; Schwartz, R. A.; Zarro, D. M..
- And more papers at the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
The Electric Universe does not exclude the magnetic field from solar flares, but suggests that the contribution from electric fields will depend on the electric environment of a star, and hence the electrical stress the star is under. For example, B-type stars have a spectral line at 4471.6Å tat is is accompanied by a “forbidden” partner at 4469.9Å, which apparently occurs when an electric field is present. See the section Spectral Lines in Various Types of Stars.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
|