New research results from the "Stardust" mission - Page 8

tusenfem · #**211** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

At the risk of repeating myself over and over again, I have provided a major reference, namely the peer-reviewed article on the new Stardust findings which prompted me to start this thread. I offer this as something which I consider to be strong additional observational evidence in support of the EC model. I believe it was a perfectly valid reason for re-opening the debate on the EC model and I repeat that I vigorously contest Nereid's attempt at the end of post #201 to have this sort of observational evidence disbarred from being used to argue the case for the EC model. What sort of "science-based" approach is this, which refuses to even look at new, albeit embarrassing, observational evidence which challenges the existing theory? This would truly be standing science on its head, with overriding priority apparently being given to the defence of the existing theory in the face of contradictory evidence.

True to form, there has so far been deafening silence on this "new Stardust findings" reference on the part of mainstream contributors. By my reckoning there remain something like 28 hours to at last respond, before the thread is closed. Any offers?

So, you use a mainstream paper and want to use it to support the EC model. Then I would expect you to show how this paper supports the EC. As far as I can see you have not given a model or a process or an anything to show hoe the EC fits into the results form stardust.

Come with a model (and forget about the TT poster/paper/whatever, let's agree that that is a dumbed down version for the masses) and we can discuss.

tusenfem · #**212** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 11:36 AM

I just read the main part of the paper by Donald E. Scott, and to me it is clear that he is very stuck in the E-j paradigm of plasma physics, and is heavily kicking against the B-v paradigm. Both paradigms have been shown to be equal (which they must be, as Maxwell's equations combined with equotions of motions, can either be solved for E-j or for B-v.

All, the complaints about magnetic field lines seems so old, when reading the paper. I am not impressed with what Scott is writing.

papageno · #**213** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

I haven't been able to "address the substance of Nereid's critique" because I couldn't find it. My recent posts, here, here , here and here demonstrated that the essence of the critique concerned mainly matters of orthographic convention, semantics, pragmatics and professional ethics.

Apparently you missed the parts where Nereid explains that the ECM paper consists in hand-waving hot air, and that the predictions are utterly worthless in their vagueness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

If by "scientific papers" you mean "peer-reviewed papers", I can't provide any because as you know as well as we all do, the peer-review system is designed to disseminate only those ideas which help to maintain the scientific status quo within acceptable limits.

[SNIP!]

Please spare us the usual conspiracy theory and do the effort of having a look at what the peer-reviewed scientific journals actually publish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

The repeated injunctions in this and other ATM threads to provide "peer-reviewed papers" as evidence is thus utterly disingenuous. (I could have used a stronger term but having re-read the ATM rule #13 quoted yet again by Nereid in this post , I've just been reminded of the need for politeness at all times).

I also note, by the way, that there is nothing in ATM rule #13 to make peer-reviewed papers a compulsory form of evidence.

And nobody said that.
But the direct questions asked here were about scientific papers in support of EU ideas. What we get instead from EU proponents is hand-waving and press-releases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

What I call "substantial" evidence is precisely the sort which prompted me to start this thread in the first place, namely the latest findings on the Stardust Mission and the apparently proven asteroidal nature of Comet Wild 2. As I stated in the OP, these findings are published in a peer-reviewed article.

You also have been asked repeatedly to provide a quantitative model of Electric Comet. But utterly failed in doing so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

After nearly 30 days of posting, there has not as yet been the slightest reaction to the idea that these findings tend to invalidate the "dirty snowball" model while they are totally consistent with the ECM (cf. the Deep Impact predictions).

Where is this ECM? Where can we read a quantitative treatment of it, so that we can check ourselves whether it provides a better explanation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

Can anyone provide a quantative estimate of how long it will take the mainstream to come up with a suitable patch to the "dirty snowball" model which could account for the new findings?

Can you provide a quantitative EC model?

Or will you keep applying a double standard in favor of EU ideas, and ask the scientists to take seriously a non-existent model?

ATKINS · #**214** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

If by "scientific papers" you mean "peer-reviewed papers", I can't provide any because as you know as well as we all do, the peer-review system is designed to disseminate only those ideas which help to maintain the scientific status quo within acceptable limits. Professional jealousy between "peers" already makes it difficult enough to obtain publication of mainstream papers which might possibly threaten the research and academic careers of the people appointed as referees (the "judge and jury" syndrome).

This is just silly. If this would be the case then why would papers on "current disruption" in the magnetotail be published by mainstream journals, which goes against the "generally accepted" model for substorms being created by reconnection down the tail?

Where's the problem? This is precisely just one example of the infighting which is endemic to the peer-review process. It concerns minor adjustments to a failing theory. You are presumably aware that the very notion of "magnetic reconduction" is regarded by electrical engineers as an attempt made by non-specialists in electrical engineering to try to account for observations which their insufficient training in the field doesn't enable them to understand or accept. The case is put quite clearly here, in the Thunderbolts article "The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection".

To quote the opening sentences:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderbolts

Electrical engineers and plasma cosmologists will tell you (possibly in bitter tones and impolite language) that magnetic reconnection is one of the stupidest theoretical ideas that astronomers ever derived from the mistaken belief that there are no electric currents in space. But astronomers today are taking pictures of something they call magnetic reconnection on the Sun, and space probes are measuring something else in the Earth's magnetosphere that has also been labeled magnetic reconnection. If you ask a plasma cosmologist about these, he'll tell you that the astronomers don't know what they're talking about. They're looking at well-understood plasma phenomena, exploding double layers and electric discharge, not magnetic reconnection.

Which side will triumph? Here's how it's shaping up. Now that astronomers are looking at real phenomena rather than elegant equations, they realize that their equations aren't as predictive as they had hoped. The magnetic reconnection equations called for a slow discharge of energy lasting for years, but the solar flares discharge in minutes with much more energy than expected. But astronomers have also noticed that whenever magnetic reconnection happens, there seem to be regions of electron-depleted space associated with it [plasma cosmologists call them electric currents.] The electron-depleted atoms are traveling at speeds of up to 1000 km/sec [which plasma cosmologists recognize as one of the "characteristic velocities" of plasma in the lab.] And astronomers find that during the magnetic reconnection process, a two-layer flow of particles is created that speeds the release of energy [plasma cosmologists call them double layers.]

Donald Scott further develops these points here and here, as well as in his book "The Electric Sky".

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Also, like most EU proponents claim, double layers do not exist in mainstream astrophysics. Then, why was it possible for me to publish papers about double layers in various peer reviewed journals like A&A, ApJ and Solar Physics?

Presumably because even mainstream astronomy is starting to be dragged kicking and screaming towards eventual grudging acceptance of the true, overriding role of electricity in the universe. Congratulations for being among the front-runners. I just hope that when the EU case has finally been confirmed and accepted as "something we knew all along", the true pioneers of the whole theory will be given the recognition they deserve. But knowing how "That is the way it works in the real world" (to quote your concluding sentence) I very much doubt it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

It is very clear that you have no idea how mainstream science works. Most of the time the author herself must give a list of potential reviewers of the paper that she submits to the journal. I know this to be the case for: JGR, GRL, Ann Geophys, Science, Nature, etc. etc. You really think that the author will not look for "friends of the model" as referees?

I'm sure sure he or she will, otherwise his or her paper will obviously have no more chance of being published than an ATM paper. But what does this teach us about the ethics of the whole thing in addition to what I've already said?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

If she is very honest, she might also put one of the "adversaries of the model" in the list of referees.

Because the ones who don't are considered "dishonest"? Could you explain why? You seem to be proving my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

That is the way it works in the real world, unlike in the fantasy world of the ATM.

In this connexion, I have an interesting titbit to offer as to what is the "real" world and what is a "fantasy" world. If you click on the link to the online video "Thunderbolts of the Gods", you will see a number of "Related videos", the first of which is entitled "What we still don't know". You can go straight to it here. It features the current Astronomer Royal Martin Rees ("inventor", amongst other things of the "supermassive black holes" which he believes to lie at the heart of most galaxies). The video presents Rees' latest mathematical insight into the theory of what he calls the "Multiverse". The idea, in a few words, is that within the BB theory (which is taken as given, of course), the gravitational and other parameters which managed to create the observable universe display such a vanishingly infinitesimal degree of probability of having ever existed that there must necessarily also exist a multitude of parallel but utterly different universes (the "multiverse"). The concluding hypothesis is that there may be vastly superior forms of intelligence out there ("super-intelligence") who have possibly developed computers of such power as to be able to simulate universes like our own. In other words, we don't actually exist, we are simply the figments of the imagination of a vastly superior civilisation, expressed in some sort of cosmic (as we see it...) video game. It's well worth watching: My favourite lines come after 40 minutes, when the philosopher Nick Bolstrom explains, with a perfectly straight face (and clearly with the total endorsement of Martin Rees):

Quote:

Originally Posted by What we still don't know

"The simulation hypothesis, which is that we are currently living in a computer simulation should be understood literally. It's not just in a metaphorical sense, whereby one could view the universe as a simulation but literally we would be living in a simulation created by some advanced civilisation in a computer that they have built in their universe."

The whole thing is both breath-taking and hilarious.

Is this your "real world", tusenfem, where "Math rules", as you once told me in this post in the "Electric Comet" thread? It should be, because it's apparently also a product of the pure maths which dreamt up the Big Bang and all the physical impossibilities which are needed to shore it up.

Personally, I prefer to believe in the real world, where stones are stones to be kicked (to quote Dr. Johnson's famous response to Boswell) and where comets happen to be asteroids on rather peculiar orbits.

parejkoj · #**215** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 04:37 PM

You know, ATKINS, we'd all be much happier if you, or any of the EU/ECM proponents actually showed the math behind this "theory". You could show it in a paper, in a video, on a poster, a talk, written in cake frosting, printed on a t-shirt, or even .... via a post here on BAUT! If "the mainstream" is so good at keeping ATM papers out of publication (it isn't, actually, but that's besides the point), there are plenty of other ways to convince us that there's something behind the words. So far, neither you, nor any other EU/ECM proponent has actually done so.

That's what we're all complaining about. If you cannot do the math yourself, why not ask T&T or some other EU/ECM proponent to write something up? You could then show it here and we'd actually have something to talk about...

Nereid · #**216** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

[snip]

The latest findings on the asteroidal nature of Wild2 are a smoking gun which does constitute evidence in support of the ECM. That is why I began this thread. Did I contravene BAUT rules?

Hmm, yet another mention of "the ECM"; what ECM?

The only instance of anything purporting to be an ECM presented in a scientific form - and remember that BAUT is avowedly science-based - has been shown (by me, though I'm sure almost any other poster to this thread could have done the same, if not better) to be empty of any meaningful (science-based) content.

Oh, and despite many requests for this ECM to be presented, neither you nor VanderL, nor Luxor, nor ... have yet done so.

Quote:

And by dint of which BAUT rule do you feel empowered to tell me to "pay particular attention to presenting it [ECM] in a form other than the conventions/tradition of "vulgarization of complex scientific theory"?

It was a request, which you could, of course, ignore.

However, had you done so, I'd've reported it, because it would (likely) have been a violation of BAUT's rules on posting.

Quote:

I choose rather to refer readers again to the splendid vulgarization of EU theory presented in the "Thunderbolts of the Gods" online video. It lasts 65 minutes. Am I contravening BAUT rules?

Yes, as I understand it, you are ... and I have reported it.

However, it may be that your reply was intended to be read as "I can't answer the direct, pertinent question asked of the ATM idea I presented, as I presented it". In any case, it certainly would seem to be just the kind of baseless promotion that lead Fraser to change the BAUT rules in the first place.

Quote:

One final query, inspired by a "suggestion" you made at the end of post #201:

Quote:

My suggestion: unless and until a BAUT member can present the ECM, in quantitative form, in either a paper published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal or directly, BAUT's ATM section should no longer be used for promotion of this idea.

I'm interested to know what other readers of this post think of my suggestion.

Are you seriously proposing that no further discussion of the Electric Comet Model should be allowed on the BAUT forum, whatever the new observational evidence in suport of it (such as the latest Stardust findings)? It sounds like a desperate, backs-to-the-wall attempt to stifle all further discussion in the face of mounting damning evidence. Will the ban also apply to observations provided by the upcoming Rosetta mission? I too would be very interested to know what other readers of this thread think of the proposal.

Thank you for asking; that is not at all what I am suggesting.

What I am suggesting is that no further promotion of any "ECM" be permitted, here in the ATM section of BAUT, unless and until such an ECM is presented, in quantitative form, either by reference to a paper, or by direct presentation in a thread.

To paraphrase Fraser, the days of allowing BAUT to be a free vehicle for promoting ATM ideas that cannot be shown to have legs are over.

Before this thread closes though, I would like to thank you ATKINS; in a series of posts in the last part of this thread you have made it starkly clear that whatever the electric comet idea is, and whatever the EU foundation it rests on is, it is not astronomy or space science.

korjik · #**217** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

Where's the problem? This is precisely just one example of the infighting which is endemic to the peer-review process. It concerns minor adjustments to a failing theory. You are presumably aware that the very notion of "magnetic reconduction" is regarded by electrical engineers as an attempt made by non-specialists in electrical engineering to try to account for observations which their insufficient training in the field doesn't enable them to understand or accept. The case is put quite clearly here, in the Thunderbolts article "The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection".

Plasma physics is not electrical engineering. The electrical engineers are the non-specialists in this case. The specialists are the plasma physicists that actually derive the effects from first principles. That is hardly insufficient training.

Nereid · #**218** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

At the risk of repeating myself over and over again, I have provided a major reference, namely the peer-reviewed article on the new Stardust findings which prompted me to start this thread. I offer this as something which I consider to be strong additional observational evidence in support of the EC model. I believe it was a perfectly valid reason for re-opening the debate on the EC model and I repeat that I vigorously contest Nereid's attempt at the end of post #201 to have this sort of observational evidence disbarred from being used to argue the case for the EC model. What sort of "science-based" approach is this, which refuses to even look at new, albeit embarrassing, observational evidence which challenges the existing theory? This would truly be standing science on its head, with overriding priority apparently being given to the defence of the existing theory in the face of contradictory evidence.

True to form, there has so far been deafening silence on this "new Stardust findings" reference on the part of mainstream contributors. By my reckoning there remain something like 28 hours to at last respond, before the thread is closed. Any offers?

(emphasis added).

What "EC model"?

Please provide either a reference to a quantitative presentation of one, or provide the quantitative presentation yourself.

Nereid · #**219** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

Where's the problem? This is precisely just one example of the infighting which is endemic to the peer-review process. It concerns minor adjustments to a failing theory. You are presumably aware that the very notion of "magnetic reconduction" is regarded by electrical engineers as an attempt made by non-specialists in electrical engineering to try to account for observations which their insufficient training in the field doesn't enable them to understand or accept. The case is put quite clearly here, in the Thunderbolts article "The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection".

To quote the opening sentences:

Donald Scott further develops these points here and here, as well as in his book "The Electric Sky".

[snip]

As tusenfem already said, Scott's material is bad physics, and relatively easy to show is bad physics too.

Under BAUT rules, why not start a new ATM thread on the topic, entitled "The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection", perhaps?

I recommend that you come armed with a good understanding of at least Maxwell's equations, because despite Scott's own (apparent) high opinion of his grasp of physics, you would have the unenviable task of having to answer direct, pertinent questions on the ATM idea (which, if presented as Scott did, will involve trying to explain the equivalent of why 2+2=6).

A bit strong? Perhaps, but as I said earlier, the time for EU proponents to actually make the ATM case supporters such as you are so vehement about has long passed ... and if you can't make such cases, then I am of the opinion that BAUT should be closed to you as a marketing channel.

tusenfem · #**220** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

Plasma physics is not electrical engineering. The electrical engineers are the non-specialists in this case. The specialists are the plasma physicists that actually derive the effects from first principles. That is hardly insufficient training.

Hear hear! In plasmas currents flow through the medium and decide themselves where they want to go, in electrical engineering only the electrons are allowed to move along specifically laid out wires of the circuit.

Many plasma systems can well be described by electrical circuits, but for reconnection (which happens, is observed both in laboratory and in space) there is no such circuit description.

tusenfem · #**221** (**permalink**) 28-March-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

Where's the problem? This is precisely just one example of the infighting which is endemic to the peer-review process. It concerns minor adjustments to a failing theory. You are presumably aware that the very notion of "magnetic reconduction" is regarded by electrical engineers as an attempt made by non-specialists in electrical engineering to try to account for observations which their insufficient training in the field doesn't enable them to understand or accept. The case is put quite clearly here, in the Thunderbolts article "The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection".

What infighting? I am stating here that theories that are not the general accepted mainstream theory are published! One of the more interesting things is that I am co-author on papers on both sides of the divide.

The new generation of space physicists are much easier than the old generation. I count myself to the "new" generation, because I entered the field not too long ago, even though I am already 44. The younger generation does not hold as much to "either/or" but look in a more including way to things. I will not into too much detail, but basically a lot of the "older" generation is very strict, and fortunately a lot of them are retiring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

Donald Scott further develops these points here and here, as well as in his book "The Electric Sky".

Donald Scott, an older retired physicist is just as narrow viewed as the "mainstreamers" that you are complaining about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

Presumably because even mainstream astronomy is starting to be dragged kicking and screaming towards eventual grudging acceptance of the true, overriding role of electricity in the universe. Congratulations for being among the front-runners. I just hope that when the EU case has finally been confirmed and accepted as "something we knew all along", the true pioneers of the whole theory will be given the recognition they deserve. But knowing how "That is the way it works in the real world" (to quote your concluding sentence) I very much doubt it...

NO, it is because ATMers here do not read real journals, but only look at websites that are "dumbed down for the masses" and naturally don't have any math, because who cares about math, not the masses, they could care less about math.

The "EU case" is just an exaggeration of what plasma physics in the cosmos can do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

I'm sure sure he or she will, otherwise his or her paper will obviously have no more chance of being published than an ATM paper. But what does this teach us about the ethics of the whole thing in addition to what I've already said? Because the ones who don't are considered "dishonest"? Could you explain why? You seem to be proving my point.

No, she will not be dishonest. Actually, it can be very good for a paper to have an "adversary" as a referee, because she can point you to weaknesses in your theory that you are blind to, because you "know too much about the topic." I for one am always very glad when I get strict referees for my papers, because inevetably they improve the paper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATKINS

Is this your "real world", tusenfem, where "Math rules", as you once told me in this post in the "Electric Comet" thread? It should be, because it's apparently also a product of the pure maths which dreamt up the Big Bang and all the physical impossibilities which are needed to shore it up.

I believe in physics, and the language of physics is math, there is just no way around it. I make observations in the laboratory, and I use electrodynamics and plasma physics theory to see what these observations mean. That is one way.
The other way is that I read in e.g. Treumann & Baumjohann about the mirror mode instability in magnetosheaths. They give a very good theoretical description of what should happen at the bow shock. Then I move to the Venus Express data (the project I am working on at the moment) and look for these kind of waves, and what do I find? I find that indeed as predicted from theory, at quasi-perpendicular bow shock conditions these waves occur with a very high rate. Whereas for quasi-parallel conditions the occurrence rate for these waves is much much lower, as expected.

The fact that you feel insecure about math, which you probably did not like at school, shows from the degrading comments you make about it. If it were not for math, the by you so-much adored electrical engineers would not be able to build anything without blowing it up.

korjik · #**222** (**permalink**) 30-March-2008, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

As tusenfem already said, Scott's material is bad physics, and relatively easy to show is bad physics too.

Under BAUT rules, why not start a new ATM thread on the topic, entitled "The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection", perhaps?

I recommend that you come armed with a good understanding of at least Maxwell's equations, because despite Scott's own (apparent) high opinion of his grasp of physics, you would have the unenviable task of having to answer direct, pertinent questions on the ATM idea (which, if presented as Scott did, will involve trying to explain the equivalent of why 2+2=6).

A bit strong? Perhaps, but as I said earlier, the time for EU proponents to actually make the ATM case supporters such as you are so vehement about has long passed ... and if you can't make such cases, then I am of the opinion that BAUT should be closed to you as a marketing channel.

If this post is why Ian started another reconnection thread in Q&A, I will be very annoyed with you. Please do not egg them on

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode