Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 08:17 pm
Interesting discussion

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090714stars.htm

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 4,536 • Replies: 58
No top replies

 
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:43 am

Pretty old, I'd say.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:46 am
@McTag,
I've seen some pretty but young recently. (No, not Amy ...)
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 02:46 am
@gungasnake,
Electric stars is a fringe theory of a fringe theory call plasma cosmologic produced by a civil engineer where the suns are not power by fusion but by electric currents of all things!

Another weak attack on our current understanding of the universe driven by a wish to see the universe as somehow fitting better into a fundamental Christian universe.

The same nuts who gave us ID theory to attack evolution.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 03:01 am
@gungasnake,
The link below will take you to where there is a detail attack on almost every aspect of this silly theory.

Once more it is an attempt to have a small little universe so the small little christian god will fit in better.



http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/pseudoscience.html


The physical aspects of neo-Velikovskianism and the Electric Universe are perhaps their greatest weakness, and are one of the many things focused on by their critics. Like Velikovsky's own "theories" before them, they fly in the face of everything known about cosmology, astrophysics, and geology and are outright contradicted by observation and often violate basic physics. I will briefly outline problems associated with several concepts peculiar to the Electric Universe here. The Electric Star hypothesis ignores everything known about such things as atomic & nuclear physics, electromagnetism, neutrino physics, the solar wind, convection, and the behavior of neutral gasses (see below for a full critique of this concept).

Furthermore, neo-Velikovskianism has many of the same underlying currents of thought possessed by other pseudosciences. Not only do its proponents claim that much if not most of "mainstream" science is completely wrong despite clear and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but they also claim that the mainstream is deliberately supressing their views for personal reasons. Ted Holden in particular has claimed that scientists have "... doctored and falsified [evidence] at every turn because it does not fit with scientists' pre-conceived ideas...". Others have claimed that Halton Arp (and other fringe scientists) is a "modern-day Galileo" subjected to a scientific inquisition of sorts. Such claims are wholly unsubstantiated paranoid conspiracy theories, and are considered one of the hallmarks of a crank. It is also important to point out that neo-Velikovskianism is remarkably similar to creationism in its methodology in that it starts with ancient myths, assumes them to be actual and accurate descriptions of nature, and then attempts to construct a theory on that basis. It also requires that scientific laws that conflict with ancient myths must be revised to fit those myths. As Velikovsky said in Worlds in Collision "[L]aws must conform with historical facts, not facts with laws." Robert Carroll, author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, has stated that "Because of his uncritical and selective acceptance of ancient myths, [Velikovsky] cannot be said to be doing history, either." For these reasons, Velikovskianism is considered to be not only pseudoscience, but pseudohistory as well. Finally, few neo-Velikovskians could be considered qualified to speak on matters on astrophysics, cosmology, geology, etc. Few of them have advanced degrees in science or have actually worked as scientists. Many are engineers by profession (e.g. Thornhill, Juergens, and Don Scott), some are comparative mythologists (e.g. Talbott, Dwardu Cordona, and Ev Cochrane), and others still belong to professions that have little to nothing to do with the physical or life sciences (Velikovsky himself was a psychoanalyst). While this is not by itself sufficient to argue against their claims, it does give one reason to be skeptical of them given their fringe nature as it can be safely assumed that they misunderstand and are ignorant of basic physics and/or simply don't know what they're talking about (which certainly seems to be the case here), plus the fact remains that the conclusions of non-experts are generally quite unreliable.

Neo-Velikovskianism, including the Electric Universe, because of its pseudohistorical usage of ancient myths as a guide to scientific truth, its use of electricity to explain all or nearly astrophysical phenomena (despite not needing to do so, since gravity, mechanics, and relativity are more than sufficient to explain most astrophycial processes), its use of spurious analogies to laboratory experiments, its often outlandish theories unsubstantiated by any physical evidence, and its outright violation of basic physical principles and rejection of practically all standard physics, it is regarded as complete and utter pseudoscience by the scientific community.




gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 06:37 am
This is the kind of idea which has consequences. The standard theory as to how stars operate would not lead anybody to think our sun should heat up and cool off periodically; the EU theory does; the standard theory offers no clue as to why Pluto might have been warming over the last 20 years or so, this one does. The list of such is long.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 06:43 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
This is the kind of idea which has consequences. The standard theory as to how stars operate would not lead anybody to think our sun should heat up and cool off periodically; the EU theory does; the standard theory offers no clue as to why Pluto might have been warming over the last 20 years or so, this one does. The list of such is long.

The EU theory also offers many predictions and assumptions which fly in the fact of known facts (thus invalidating it). The list of such is long.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 06:44 am
you'd need some mighty long extension cords to power all them lights
0 Replies
 
laurele
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 01:50 pm
@rosborne979,
Pluto has been warming over the last 20 years because it was at its perihelion, or closest approach to the sun, between 1979 and 1999. Because it has an elliptical orbit, Pluto's distance from the sun changes dramatically depending on whether it is closer to its perihelion or aphelion (furthest point from the sun) during its 248-year orbit. Whenever Pluto gets close to the sun, it naturally warms up and even develops an atmosphere.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 02:01 pm
@laurele,
That's wrong. Our sun would look like just another star from Pluto; the sun is simply too far away to cause noticable warming on Pluto.
0 Replies
 
iantresman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 02:32 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote about the Electric Universe, that:
".. they fly in the face of everything known about cosmology, astrophysics, and geology and are outright contradicted by observation and often violate basic physics. I will briefly outline problems associated with several concepts peculiar to the Electric Universe here. The Electric Star hypothesis ignores everything known about such things as atomic & nuclear physics, electromagnetism, neutrino physics, the solar wind, convection, and the behavior of neutral gasses (see below for a full critique of this concept)."

Why did you not give one example of where the Electric Universe (EU) "flies in the face of everything known about cosmology... [etc]"? I suspect it's because you mention that EU ignores everything know about " the behavior of neutral gasses".

As you do not seem to know, neutral gasses are nearly non-existent in the Universe. FACT: 99.999% of the visible universe is a plasma, which has wildly different properties to neutral gasses. The EU is based on the known properties of plasmas, corroborated by laboratory experience. This is the opposite to, and consequently contradicts your statement.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 08:01 pm
Is it my imagination or did somebody who actually knows what he's talking about just drop in on A2K??
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 09:06 pm
@iantresman,

That's because 99.999% of the visible universe is stars. And stars are mostly plasma due to their temperature (which is also why they are visible). So what.

Just because plasmas are common doesn't mean that someone's theory on plasma cosmology is correct. Plasma cosmology as described by Elfven was discarded back in the 80's because it didn't stand up to the evidence that the newer satellite missions (COBE, WMAP) were showing.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 10:19 pm
As laurele mentioned, Pluto has recently been its closest to the sun, on its very elliptical orbit, so elliptical in fact that from 1979 to 1999 Pluto was closer to the sun than Neptune. Neptune's average temperature is about ten degrees Celsius warmer than Pluto's average temp. When Pluto is closer to the sun than Neptune, one would therefore expect Pluto to warm. Pluto has just been closer than Neptune. Gee, gunga, do you think that might explain why Pluto has been warming the last twenty years, rather than some electric fantasy?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 04:45 am
@iantresman,
Why did you not give one example of where the Electric Universe (EU) "flies in the face of everything known about cosmology... [etc]"? I suspect it's because you mention that EU ignores everything know about " the behavior of neutral gasses".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I gave the link and all you have to do is click on it as I was not going to post the whole long article.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 07:38 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:

That's because 99.999% of the visible universe is stars.


Nowhere remotely close. Plasma is the real world version of something like "dark matter(TM)"; stars and galaxies are little dots of solid matter in oceans of plasma, created apparently by the z-pinch effect of electrical currents moving through the plasmas.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 07:38 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
I gave the link...


That was a sort of a stupid link; do you have any better ones?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 07:45 am
@gungasnake,
When Gunga finishes adapting his z-pinch array to the cosmological mind-control device, we'd better watch out.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:34 am
@DrewDad,
When Gunga finishes adapting his z-pinch array to the cosmological mind-control device, we'd better watch out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not forget when he get his car mounted Dean Drive working we are indeed going to be in trouble<grin>.

Damn shame that magic devices do not indeed work in the real universe is it not?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:41 am
@BillRM,
Well, it works in the Iota dimension. He defeated his nemesis, there, Dr. Sanity.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Saturn as seen by Cassini - Discussion by littlek
New Comet May Be Observers' Dream Come True - Discussion by Zarathustra
Are you ready for the solar eclipse Sunday? - Question by Lustig Andrei
Red dwarf stars and their planets - Discussion by gungasnake
Geology and astronomy combined - Question by Lapetus
Total Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 - Discussion by rosborne979
physics - Discussion by usmankhalid665
A Series of Humbling Pictures - Discussion by edgarblythe
The Early Universe - Question by piratejack5150
Universal Census of the Universe - Discussion by tsarstepan
More new planets in from ESO - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How old are the stars?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 03:17:28