Bad Astronomy is a superb Web site, but I must disagree with Phil Plait that "without math, your claims are useless", and that little progress is made.

I suspect that many people here have learnt a tremendous amount about space plasmas, and the prevalence of electricity in astronomy. And conversely, us renegade posters learn a lot about the requirements of mainstream astronomy.

I am NOT saying that maths does not have its place, and that it is unimportant. But if maths was so important, then most of the other threads on Bad Astronomy, popular books on science, etc, would also be "useless".

I would mention that hard data sometimes takes many years to acquire. For example, Kristian Birkeland first theorised that electric currents powered the aurora in 1903. It took over 60 years before they were measured by satellite, and a paper publisher. [More background information].

I also note that in the previous thread on electric fields and comets, many of the references provided are also peer reviewed, and are packed full of sums. For example:

• Currents in the cometary atmosphere (1979) by W.-H. Ip.
• VEGA observations of electric fields and plasma in the Comet Halley environment (1986) by Grard, R.

I would think that if a thread was not progressing sufficiently, then the number of posters would fall, and thread would naturally fall off the current list of topics.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Hand-waving and inappropriate analogies do not equal theoretical speculation.
And so far, the main proponents of Plasma Cosmology on this board never went beyond hand-waving.

Why?
Popular books can show whether theories match observation quantitatively, which where the math is needed.
It can be explained, or even shown, what the quantitative predictions are and if they match the experimental results.

From your link:(bolding mine)
So, a theory was developed, which is way more than we have seen on this board.

Not if some poster insists on repeating the same claims over and over, ignoring criticisms or objections to their ideas (Lyndon Ashmore comes to my mind).

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

But Kristian Birkeland came to his aurora theory because of his research and experiments in polar magnetic fields. He just didn't wake up one day and claim that electrical currents powered the aurora's. He had quite a bit of evidence to back him up. Of course, like alot of theories, they're tough to prove without a more advanced way to messure them.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

You are neglecting the electric field instruments on the ICE and Giotto spacecraft, and the extensive measurement sets available.

Just how do these measurements support an ATM position? How do you believe the papers you referenced support your position? I know Grard, do you think he would be posting in favor of your position?

The ICE numbers are available for anyone to look at.

ISEE-3/ICE Data at NSSDC

I have a problem with the above poster, he doesn't post often enough

I'll second that one, Gra....Kilo...Mil....Ag... oh yeah.. hhEb09'1

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Life's been busy.

It is important to make the context clear Ian.

First, it is a (now closed) thread in ATM, where the 'ground rules' are clear - some folk propose an idea, others question it.

Second, the non-quantitative aspects had all been explored, thoroughly.

Third, the work required of supporters to produce at least OOM estimates was - and still is - quite modest.

Fourth, the number of 'electric comet' proponents who acknowledged that 'math' work was underway by at least one of the 'gang of 12' was precisely zero.Perhaps they did.

However, the thread hadn't really progressed for some time; just about all the background had been mentioned in one post or other, and every salient point of the 'electric comet' idea thoroughly questioned (and found wanting).Again, the context is very important (see above).

With vast amounts of high quality data on the IPM, comets, etc available free - and much of it now decades old - the apparent reluctance of proponents to even admit that doing even OOM estimates from this cornucopia was something they would get cracking on was pretty telling, n'est pas?This is indeed the case.

However, in the 'electric comet' thread, none of the proponents seemed to be willing to roll up their sleeves and start working the the GB (TB?) of high quality data that is already available!This is also the case.

However, as far as I could tell, no 'electric comet' proponent sought to make use of any of this excellent material to support their case.

This is particularly puzzling if any of the authors of the references cited were 'electric comet' proponents - at the very least I would have expected at least one of 'the gang of 12' to have recruited them to 'the cause'. At a minimum, given how easy it is to do OOM calculations, don't you find it surprising that, even on the main protagonists' websites, there is no 'connecting of the dots' (beyond "here's a paper that mentions Alfvén" and "here's another paper which uses the words 'plasma' and 'current' more than once each")?Would you mind taking another look at that thread?

For the last several pages (at least), the 'progress' seems to have been increasingly exasperated requests for at least some OOM work (easy to do, probably would take less time than some folk spend writing posts), and increasingly desperate attempts at diversion ('but the mainstream theories on galaxies - yes galaxies! - have holes in them!')

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

look, I can't do the math. even the OOM calculations--every time I see the phrase, I have to pause to remember what an "OOM calculation" is--but because I can't, I don't think I can overturn the work of people who know enough to be able to.

the BA is writing for people like me. I'm quite sure he can do the math. I know that, if for some reason I asked him to, he would provide it to me. however, since I can't understand it anyway, there's no point for him to include it. however, if someone who did understand it asked for the math, he could both provide and defend it.

you lot were asked for the math an awful lot. even by me, in fact, because I know that speculation without numbers does not a theory make. not in cosmology, anyway. yes, I would've had to rely on the people here to understand the math for me, but you lot didn't even have to do it yourself. if serious research is being put into this--if serious scientific work is being put into this, someone else should have already done the numbers. since you could not provide them, I was left to assume that no one had ever done them, which made your "theory" a hypothesis at best. more likely, it's wild speculation. I can do that, but I wouldn't expect to change the way the world was viewed with it.

this is the context thing. in a "popular" science book, the math isn't necessary, because most of those reading it don't understand it. heck, if a popular science book has a lot of numbers, it doesn't tend to be very popular. however, those writing the book and expressing the viewpoint should know enough so that math can be provided on request.

and as for Bad Astronomy, how much math does it take to show that you can't see stars if the foreground is brightly lit? all that takes is a picture.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

This is clearly a very sensitive issue for the mainstream just now, especially given the number of 'big surprises' that Deep Impact has provided.

Math highlights the differing approaches between PC and BB/GR theories. PC works backwards from observation, and has made a number of accurate predictions on this basis*, whereas BB/GR related theories start out with perfect theoretical principles and extrapolate mathematically. Observations (Red shift, etc.) are distorted to fit the ideological picture.

Math can also be a weakness, as a famous philosopher and mathemetician pointed out.

"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little." Bertrand Russell

Also

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more." Einstein

"To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality." Einstein

It is no small irony that mainstream reliance on math can be interpreted as both a strength and a weakness. It is certainly no guarantee of truth.

* I can forward a peer-reviewed paper about Alfven's successful predictions to anyone who is interested. PM me

Well, that's an "interesting interpretation" of the BA's reasons for locking that thread...though I don't see how you arrived at your conclusion that there's anything "sensitive" about it...PC is simply not backed up by objective evidence.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I haven't had time to closely follow the numerous EU threads, but it seems we should be able to start with the qualitative and work towards the numbers.

Peratt and Lerner have argued that plasma in laboratories generates spiral galaxy structures and that the small scale of activity in the lab can be scaled up to the large scale of galaxies and superclusters. Now if we accept that the plasma in labs could be scaled up then we can asK:

What strength should the magnetic fields in spiral galaxies have in the EU model? How does that compare with observations of magnetic fields in galaxies?

What is the expected condition of interstellar matter/gases in a full sized spiral in the EU model. What % of the matter should be in what form?

Should there be inward or outward movements of matter? How fast?

How fast should the galaxies be rotating? Is it related to magnetic field strength?

Anybody else - in the case of spiral galaxies - what else should we be asking of EU - in the sense of going from the qualitative claims about lab plasmas to galaxy scales?

Oh please.

Just because I lock a thread, does not mean I am overly sensitive about the issue. That's just like the silly claims of the antiscientists I debunk who say that 1) if I ignore them, it's because I'm afraid, and 2) if I reply to them, they must be onto something.

You can't have it both ways. In this case, I saw that after 15+ pages, you had failed to make a single quantitative claim, yet you seem ready to overthrow all of mainstream physics and astronomy. I do not fear for mainstream physics, and I have nothing to hide. The math behind mainstream physics is quite available to you, if you care to educate yourself in it.

I made it clear then, but obviously I need to make it even clearer: put up or shut up.

Back up your claims with math. It's that simple. I won't give you another chance.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

Why not post them for all to see? After all, we have a perfectly good EU/PC/PU thread which would seem to be quite appropriate for this!

Some time after the PU revolution ...
PA is driving down a road when stopped by a cop.
Cop: You were speeding, here's your ticket.
PA: But I wasn't! I was only doing 35 kpm!
Cop: A 'quant' fanatic eh? (slaps cuffs on PA, and hauls him off to the slammer)

IT visits his doctor.
Doctor: I'm writing you a prescription for {names an extremely powerful medicine, with dangerous side effects}, for your high blood pressure.
IT: But my BP is 120/80!
Doctor: As PU Comrade VdL, among others, has proven, maths and numbers are not necessary to establish the truth of matters physical; I am an accredited PU doctor, so if I say you have a high BP, you have a high BP

PA returns home, to find an anxious desktop PC salesperson awaiting him.
salesperson: I'm here to take back the PC we sold you some time ago, as part of our product recall; we're terribly sorry that your PC doesn't work
PA: But my desktop works just fine! Only last night I was online posting to Thunderbolt Forums! The app said my CPU was giving me 95% performance, against its observed max of 3.8 GHz!
salesperson: Oh dear, I didn't realise you were one of those 'give me the numbers' nuts that IT warned us all against (grabs PC and runs off, in terror)

Yes, this is a parody. Does it sting? No, really, does it?

So, remind me again:
* are there PU/PC/EU proponents who claim to have been working on the 'electric comet' idea for decades?
* do PU/PC/EU proponents have at their disposal such tools as desktop PCs; math packages such as Mathematica; online (free) physics classes; GB or TB of high quality data from hundreds of spaceprobes and ground observations of comets, the IPM, etc; the papers of Alfvén; ...?
* how many papers, with quantitative analyses (even OOM ones), on the predictions of their 'electric comet' idea?
* how many papers, with quantitative analyses (even OOM ones), on their analyses of historical comet/IPM/etc data?
* which thread did the BA close??

AFAIK, no EU/PU/PC proponent has provided any material by Lerner to support their case.

Several sets of material by Peratt has been offered, and discussed.

In particular, there's the published results of a simulation by Peratt on how giant inter-galactic currents can give rise to rotation curves of spirals which match those observed for several NGC galaxies. This is complete with several estimates of just the parameters you enquire about in the rest of your post.

Unfortunately, from the published papers alone, the EU/PU/PC case is pretty weak (for example, the surface brightness profiles are out, even ignoring 'zero points', there's no bulge (at all), and a rather nasty inconsistency wrt why these simulations do not include the jets ('beams' in EU-speak) from galactic nuclei (which figure prominently in other Peratt papers). There's more, but I think that'll be enough for now.

As far as I could see, we had a group that claimed that they had successfully predicted a range of phenomena that they believe was observed during the Deep Impact encounter. When asked what the basis was for the predictions, one response was that it was "obvious" (in respect to the prediction of electrical arcing). When prompted further to explain what OOM excess of charge would be required on the cometary nucleus in order for us to observe arcing (presumably greater than 10^-19 C), no answer was given. This leads us back to the question of why arcing was predicted.

The implication is that the prediction was more of a guess than anything else. It seems akin to predicting that an aircraft will fly just because it has a wing, without doing any OOM calculations to work out what lift it might generate.

So, in the absence of GR, but having plenty of observations of Doppler shifts on earth, what would you suggest the redshifts are sue to?

Recessional velocities, perhaps.

Allow me to repeat this post.

I believe the actual quote is, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." And of course he also said, "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality?"

The mathematic explains reality if you have right and real physics constants. If your physics constants are not real the math will not help.

I have tried to show some numbers about interaction in the galaxy in the thread “Plasma cosmology .net”.
Nobody want to discuss this numbers ?

The theory that mathematics is essential in order to validate any other theory is falsified by the fact that certain theories can be validated without using any maths.

For example, Galileo looked through a crude telescope (by todays standards) at Jupiter and noticed some small dots of light nearby. He observed over time that these dots appeared to move in association with and in relation to Jupiter in a manner that suggested they were in orbit around Jupiter.

He proposed a theory that these dots were in fact orbiting around Jupiter (and was persecuted for proposing it).

As better telescopes became available, observations were made that the shadows of these dots could at times be observed on the face of Jupiter, and that the dots at times were obscured by the shadow of Jupiter prior to disappearing behind it's limb.

These observations verified Galileo's theory without any maths being necessary.

__________________
Carl Smith
The land of Oz

Carl_Smith you actualy proved the point you argued against. If the observations measured time they certainly involved math. It might be simple number manipulation but it is still mathematics. Without mathematics one can not even find the distance of Jupiter from Earth much less prove the existence of moons around it.

__________________
The right to be heard does not automaticaly include the right to be taken seriously.

- Hubert H. Humphrey

He measured their angular distance from Jupiter (using as a unit the apparent semidiameter of Jupiter).
And I emphasize "measured": numbers, mathematics.

Kepler's laws are pretty mathematical and quantitative.
Galileo could have given support to his theory that the Medicean planets form a mini-Solar System with Jupiter, by measuring their orbital parameters and showing that they satisfy Kepler's law.

Also, most of Galileo's earlier work focused on dynamics, where he first found the law of falling graves quantitatively.

Galileo would not have agreed with your point, since we know that he emphasized the importance of doing measurements, and compare quantitatively theory and experiment.
There is a famous quote where he says that the Book of Nature is written in mathematical language.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

You say that "certain" theories can be validated without mathematics. Presumably this means that you believe that not all theories can be validated without mathematics.

Can you or anyone else, without mathematics, explain why we should have expected arcing to be observed during the Deep Impact encounter? (Apologies if you aren't an electric comet proponent, but this was one of the original claims made. )

The mathematic with physicals constants is useful only. You have to find the constant first and than use a math. Newton found G-const and we have gravity. Coulomb found e-const for electrostatic, Einstein found c-const for GR…. Other people mix mathematically this constants and build model of atom, model of the solar system, galaxy…If we know all the constants we will understand the Universe. The mathematic alone can’t do it.

As far as I am aware, Galileo did make drawings of Jupiter including the estmated positions of the dots relative to it from night to night, and he probably also recorded the times of these observations, however these are are not essential to the initial discovery, as the simple observation that the dots appeared to be moving back and forth relative to Jupiter over successive nights is sufficient to make the connection to the idea that they may be orbiting it so are not just stars, and would stimulate the making of drawings to check the accuracy of the initial perception by any astute observer.

Such drawings add weight to the emerging idea, and over a time enable calculations of approximate orbits, giving greater confidence that the initial idea is probably sound.

The actual confirmation had to await observations of the shadows, which also did not require maths.

__________________
Carl Smith
The land of Oz

Without measuring the positions (even in the form of drawings), how would Galileo establish that the dots are objects orbiting Jupiter?

I see: quantitative treatment (calculations of orbits) is used to test the theory that the "dots" are orbiting about Jupiter.

How does the observation of shadows tells us that the "dots" orbit Jupiter, and are not simply objects orbiting about the Sun between Earth and Jupiter?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

There seems to be a bit of confusion over terms here ... 'math' in the BA's post is shorthand for something like 'quantitative analysis, linking the well-established physics* with the observations, so the details of the purported claims can be checked'
Since we are discussing 'the electric universe', it may be helpful to keep in mind that, AFAIK, all EU/PU/PC proponents are dedicated followers of Alfvén (I freely admit that I could be wrong on this, if so, please provide me with some counters).

To the best of my knowledge, Alfvén's work was thoroughly 'mainstream' (consistent with modern physics) - full of math, equations, numbers, physical constants, data, quantitative analyses, ...

But perhaps I missed something?

*in the case of the EU/PU/PC claims, there is 100% agreement that plasma physics is useful and (potentially) relevant in understanding astronomical phenomena. For other ATMs this may not be the case.

If math is a shorthand for quantitative analysis, then OK. Some words are new for me. Every idea look for different possibilities but it should be confirmed by this math at least.