well said josh

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

Josh, you're right. The logic fails.
Otoh if the model was completely obvious, we wouldn't have the opportunity to discuss it here.

Still, these proposals do make sense to me. I have this problem with drawings of people with floating apples at their sides. There are just too many of them in different places.

A scientific question:
What percentage of the total of petroglyphs are supportive of Peratt's model?

gerards regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

One has to use details first to point the direction where to look for the complete picture.

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

If Peratt had matched half a dozen basic shapes, then I would agree with you totally.

As we know, that's why drugs companies have to do trials: a single example of Miracle Drug curing Mr Smith could be just a coincidence; but if this is repeated on a 1000 people, then statistics helps support the case.

Peratt's field trials include tens of thousands of petroglyphs.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

I don't believe these are "squatting men" since some have tails, and most have claws, I take them to be killed animals.
I'd say zero.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

And we have to assume that the hundred or so in the paper were the MOST convincing! In that collection we see obvious glyphs of musicians, birds, ferns, etc. claimed to be possible images gauged into stone of plasma phenomena.

I am shocked that you are saying that he went through tens of thousands of petroglyphs, and cherry-picked these hundred, and even then, THIS was the best he could come up with, and you STILL say the numbers overwhelm reason and common sense.

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear what happened 4000 to 40,000 years ago.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I'd be grateful if you could include quotes with your comments. Nowhere have I suggested that Peratt cherry-picked a hundred or so images from tens of thousands, and I can find nowhere in his paper that he says this.

Quote:

Originally posted by biknewb@ Posted on Jan 7 2005, 08:14 AM A scientific question: What percentage of the total of petroglyphs are supportive of Peratt's model?

Peratt says in his paper, and I quote from page 1199:

<!--QuoteBegin-Peratt in Characteristics for the occurrence of a high-current Z-pinch aurora as recorded in antiquity
Eighty-four distinct high-energy-density Z-pinch categories have been identified in petroglyphs, nearly all of which belong to the archaic [50] class. Only a small percentage of these petroglyphs, or parts of petroglyph patterns, do not fall into any of these categories.[/quote]

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

I'd be grateful if you could include quotes with your comments. Nowhere have I suggested that Peratt cherry-picked a hundred or so images from tens of thousands, and I can find nowhere in his paper that he says this. [/b][/quote]
This is what happens when you quote me out of context. This is the first thing I wrote in the post you cited:

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

My apologies, I read this sentence as if you were implying that I had said both clauses.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Apology accepted. Now, what happened 4000 to 40,000 years ago?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Apology accepted. Now, what happened 4000 to 40,000 years ago?[/b][/quote]
I've already answered that one. And I'm not going to speculate on something which might receive a similar unconstructive response, even when it even appears in a peer reviewed journal.

If you were more constructive in your criticism, then sure. But I find little willing in wanting to find out and discover for yourself, only to knock just about everything I bring up. I feel that anyone who was enquiring would want to ask themselves:

• what information would I need to help distinguish petroglyphs from plasma discharges
• what characteristics does a ladder-like petroglyph have, that might make it plasma-like

I accept that many people just see trees and plants, and the onus is on me and others to show otherwise. I've mentioned style on a number of occassions, and know that we can both use it to distiguish Mickey Mouse from Mighty Mouse, and yet there might be those who insist on seeing just a mouse.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

If you are unwilling to continue the debate, we can call a truce and I can close the thread. I believe that I have been as constructive in my criticism as I can be, and far more open-minded about this theory than just about anyone you've ever encountered from the 'other side'. I have not knocked everything you bring up, only the things which I have good reason to believe are wrong.

Concerning the mystery thing that happened 4000 to 40,000 years ago, I would like to know if there is any stronger evidence that it happened than these petroglyphs.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I am happy to continue. Your continued patience and presence indicates that I am yet to be consigned to the box marked Martian Face / UFO / Velikovsky Nonesense.

I am reluctant to discuss non-astronomical matters on an astronomy forum, except where they directly related to astronomy. So as an when such information becomes available, I will post it here.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

OK, I'll let it drop.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

We will not have to wait long for new astronomical findings to discuss. Cassini is doing great and we'll see a comet up close later this year.


gerards regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

You are expecting that Cassini or Deep Impact will provide some kind of validation for the EU model? What information could they possibly collect [based on the instruments on board] that would possibly support EU over the main-stream models?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Maybe they will be hit by lightning. Or, maybe they will become "charged" as suggested by EU enthusists. Of course, no other craft has become "charged" so I wouldn't hold my breath.

QUOTE (iantresman @ Jan 7 2005, 03:44 PM)
Well, frankly if you are honestly hanging your hat on the Peratt paper, then you are hanging over the edge of the box. Considering your background, I would have thought you would be using much stronger arguments than you have put forward to date. That you are not seems to indicate that perhaps your enamoration with the EU model is coming to an end.

In the event I am only displaying wishful thinking, let us move on to a different aspect of the EU model. Let's talk about the flow of electrons that the EU model says powers the sun.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

More grist for the mill...

Space.com's Image of the Day is titled: "Corkscrew Meteor Mystery". Scale up everything, and perhaps you also get cosmic corkscrews.

It is quite a coincidence that electric current, passing through a plasma, will take on the corkscrew (spiral) shape discovered by Birkeland. Plasma folk would expect corkscrew shapes to appear where there are Birkeland currents. Astronomers recognise that electrons spiral along the lines of a magnetic field. Examples are apparent in aurora (see Electric field mapping and auroral Birkeland currents).

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Mystery? I see things like that every Fourth of July [well these are rockets, not rocks]. This is an image of a rapidly spinning hunk of rock flying through the upper atmosphere. Scale that up too much and we have a potential hazard to life as we know it.

Concerning your "cosmic corkscrew" that is explained pretty well ini the article, This is SS433, which is a pretty well studied stellar remnant. It's not huge, so I'd call it a "stellar" corkscrew, not a "cosmic" one, which might imply that it was the size of a cluster of galaxies.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Duane
"Or, maybe they will become "charged" as suggested by EU enthusists. Of course, no other craft has become "charged" so I wouldn't hold my breath."



"So how do you charge a dust grain? The same way it happens in space. Abbas explained that the Dusty Plasma Lab has two mechanisms -- an electron gun and an ultraviolet lamp. The electron gun can bombard the dust grains directly with electrons and build a charge. Or, ultraviolet light can knock electrons off the grain’s surface and thus build a charge. (The same thing happens to satellites exposed to sunlight.)"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astr...ust_000802.html




"Known as Plasma Contactor Units, the devices are designed to neutralize dangerous electrostatic potential that can build up on metal surfaces of the station as it plows through electrically charged plasma in the space environment."

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missi...ock_001209.html

1.) Not the same thing. According to the EU model the craft should build a negative elctrical charge potential as a result of the intergalactic inflowing electrons.

2.) Not the same thing. The station is in the Earth's enviroment, and build up charge as it plows through the Earth's magnetic field.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

The picture of comet Macholz on the same page shows the dust tail and the ion tail pointing in different directions.
The explanation I remember was that the dust was heavier than the ions and resisted the force of the solar wind.
Where are the ions coming from if not from an electrical source?

regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Ultraviolet light from the sun hits the comet nucleus, and what little debris there is near it, and causes atoms in the surface molecules to get blown off the comet and become ions and electron, both of which are swept up by the solar wind [another electrically neutral plasma]. The ions and electrons recombine [not with their original members], and give off the light we see as the ionic tail.

I'm a little confused by your query. Were you thinking that somewhere out there was a giant anode shouting out ions, and absorbing electrons?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Duane
"1.) Not the same thing. According to the EU model the craft should build a negative electrical charge potential as a result of the intergalactic inflowing electrons."

yes...sorry...i'm not conversant with the particular theory expressed by EU.
i'm just showing that craft are known to accumulate a charge...and providing examples achieved through electron and photon methods.

"2.) Not the same thing. The station is in the Earth's environment, and builds up charge as it plows through the Earth's magnetic field."

other craft in interplanetary space will be moving in the magnetic field of the sun....so irrespective of a charged or neutral plasma/solar wind...the same result will occur (a moving conductor in a magnetic field accumulates a charge).

you can remove motion, plasma and magnetic field...and the craft will still accumulate a charge from ionising light.

****************************************

i'm not really a proponent of EU....i have an interest in electromagnetic properties in space...i'll drop out of this thread because i'm not really arguing their specific case.

All sounds fine. I'd be interested to know where the Sun is in relation to the comet, and the direction the two tails appear to be going.

As far as I recall, the Solar Wind does not extend outwards from the Sun radially, but spirals outwards (see artist's conception).

Tails can do quite unusual things; see "hairy tails", and Comet Kopff which apparented ejected a ring .

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

I hope you won't drop... I don't think anyone will judge you on your opinion of the Electric Universe either way, but I'm sure your interest in electromagnetic properties in space could be valuable.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

thanks Ian

i would like to check something about the "neutral solar wind"



http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/unive...rth_matter.html

"A plasma must have sufficient numbers of charged particles so that the gas, as a whole, exhibits a collective response to electric and magnetic fields. Plasma density, therefore, refers to the density of the charged particles.

Although plasma includes electrons and ions and conducts electricity, it is macroscopically neutral: in measurable quantities, the number of electrons and ions are equal. The charged particles are affected by electric and magnetic fields applied to the plasma, and the motions of the particles in the plasma generate fields and electric currents from within. This complex set of interactions makes plasma a unique, fascinating, and complex state of matter."



this reference seems to imply that "neutrality" is just a "sum of the parts"...which would be expected...since neutral atoms have been split apart into ions...so if they (and their charges) are added up...the result is a gross neutral charge?
but the components must remain as "charged"...otherwise the plasma cannot "exhibit a collective response to electric and magnetic fields"...which is supposedly a requirement for it to be a plasma?

That's my understanding; plasmas are often called quasi-neutral. Additionally, the Interplanetary Medium (a plasma) [ref] has the following characteristics:

• --a. It is highly conductive (approaching that of aluminium metal) [ref]
• --b. It is electrically neutral overall. [ref]
• --c. Electric currents flow through the Interplanetary Medium, vis-à-vis, the Heliospheric Current Sheet. [ref]
• --d. When currents flow through a plasma, the plasma can "self-organise" into filaments called Birkeland currents (or plasma cables), and form double layers that can electrically insulate one area from another. [ref]
• --e. Wherever there are magnetic fields, there is an electric current (and vice versa)
• --e. Electric currents flow throughout the Interplanetary Medium [ref]
• --f. The weak electric currents in the Interplanetary Medium can manifest themselves in the Earth's Magnetosphere [ref] as stronger auroral currents [ref]

And finally, plasmas and their characteristics are scaleable through at least 12 orders of magnitude (confirmed in the laboratory), and are probably scaleable by at least another 12 orders of magnitude; this implies that if we see something in a laboratory plasma, there is no reason why we can't see something very similar in a space plasma; ALL of the above characteristics of space plasmas can be duplicated in the laboratory.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

You are expecting that Cassini or Deep Impact will provide some kind of validation for the EU model? What information could they possibly collect [based on the instruments on board] that would possibly support EU over the main-stream models?[/b][/quote]
Deep Impacts high resolution images may show details of the dust production mechanism. Shoemaker Levy showed dust production with no visible gas.

Ref

The instruments record IR but not UV. (Or I missed that info). That would have been a nice addition from an EU viewpoint.

Deep Impact will very likely show the validity of the dirty snowball theory.

gerards regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

QUOTE (madman @ Jan 8 2005, 12:27 AM)Whoa madman, I wasn't meaning to scare you off. Your input is valuble and wanted, whether or not you support this specific case. I really hope you continue to add to the conversation.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~