Thunderbolts Forum
For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology
Skip to content <#start_here>
* Board index <./index.php> *‹* The Future of Science
<./viewforum.php?f=8>
* Change font size <#>
* FAQ <./faq.php>
* Register <./ucp.php?mode=register>
* Login <./ucp.php?mode=login>
Reciprocal System Theory <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=15>
Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed?
Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and
forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The
perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus
good science.
Forum rules
Post a reply <./posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=1784>
First unread post <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&view=unread#unread> • 36
posts • Page *2* of *3* <#> • 1 <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784>, *2*, 3
<./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=30>
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20850>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20850#p20850>by *Osmosis
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=117>* » Fri May 08, 2009 8:32 pm
Well said, Dave. :D
Osmosis <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=117>
*Posts:* 277
*Joined:* Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
*Location:* San Jose, California
* E-mail Osmosis <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=117>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20854>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20854#p20854>by *sathearn
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>* » Fri May 08, 2009 10:03 pm
Electric Universe forum intro wrote:Plasma and electricity in space.
Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark
matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other
mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions
and confirmations of the electric comet.
I understand the need for the subject matter rules for the forum, but
assume that includes room for discussion pro and con, and for response
to specific claims.
For the record, Larson wrote extensively about electrical theory. About
plasma and electricity in space, EU no doubt has had more to say, but
Larson also explicitly characterized plasma as important: "Although
gaseous ions are more important in the universe as a whole - most of the
gaseous matter in the stars and much of that of interstellar space is
ionized - liquid ionization is a familiar feature of our local
environment...." He disagreed with standard ideas as to the nature of
ionization - as a deficiency of electrons that would otherwise be in
orbit around a positively charge "nucleus" - and denied that charges are
present at all in non-ionized matter. He also would have disagreed with
the talk about "electric currents in space." I think he would have
described the phenomenon in question as a movement of charges,
categorically distinct from current electricity (confined to a
conductor). I think he had some well-informed insights into such
questions, very worth considering carefully. And if he was right, that
need not entail rejection of EU insights; perhaps only a change in the
language with which they are expressed.
Larson was also explicit about the failure of gravity-only cosmology,
pointing out that another force was needed to explain the abnormally
large distances between stars, for example.
About the list of "myths," he would have agreed with that
characterization of every one of them, except for the rejection of "dark
energy." Fundamentally, he did not "seek to explain 'dark energy'
instead of refuting it." In the beginning (after a couple of decades of
work), what he sought to explain was an expression which he had derived
for the interatomic distance in the solid state. That distance (as
reflected in the compressibility data compiled by Bridgman and others)
could only be explained on the basis of an equilibrium between
attractive and repulsive forces, whereas current theory (then and now)
has only attractive forces (electrical and gravitational) to work with.
He realized that his expression was in integral of a reciprocal
relation, which ultimately led to his postulate of a general reciprocal
relation between space and time. If that is the case, then space must
increase at the same rate as time ("some reason to think..."). The
upshot is that he unequivocally predicted that individual objects
(galaxy clusters) that are receding from one another will do so at
accelerating rates. On the basis of his principles, the universal
expectation of the researchers ("gravity-only cosmologists") that
gravity would be slowing down the expansion could only have been based
on a kind of double-counting of the gravitational force.
Larson presumably would have disagreed with the electric model of stars,
at least in part. But he belonged to a small club of dissenters from the
fusion star hypothesis. His criticisms of the latter, particularly in
his telling review of the astronomical evidence on the direction of
stellar evolution, add to the list of anomalies presented by Scott,
Thornhill, etc. Surely these should be of interest to EU people as well.
e.g. for starters, in his classic 1961 essay "Just How Much Do We Really
Know?" http://library.rstheory.org/articles/La ... wMuch.html
As for the electric comet predictions, the theory proper belongs to
Thornhill and Scott. Before them, (as hinted in the above article),
Larson predicted that the background ionization level differs at
different regions of space. It seems to me that the EU explanation of
comet tails as being a function of changes in the ionization environment
from a comet's "home" norm is generally quite compatible with Larson's
ideas.
In light of my comments above with respect to "dark energy" and the
origins of Larson's theory, I close with a quotation from a letter he
wrote to his former classmate Linus Pauling on July 19, 1952:
"Unfortunately … my basic conclusions are in conflict not merely with
one but with a number of generally accepted ideas and this complicates
my situation to a very considerable degree…. In my opinion it is
desirable that I should confine my initial explanations to individual
items which can be readily separated from the main body of the work and
described without introducing too many of these controversial subjects….
In line with this thought I am not presenting my compressibility
equation in ‘full form’ with its underlying theoretical justification at
this time, but instead am submitting it as an accurate and useful
semi-empirical relationship, in which status it has considerable
practical value independent of the legitimacy of its theoretical
ancestry…. Such reference as I may make to the theoretical development
in the meantime is purely for background information, and I am including
it because I believe it is rather significant that this equation which
fits the experimental data so well is not the result of a mathematical
cut and try operation but of a theoretical relationship derived from
consideration of totally different physical phenomena…. The significant
fact which emerged from the theoretical analysis is that only one of the
forces entering into the equilibrium, the one in the outward direction,
has any resemblance to our usual concept of inter-atomic forces. The
inward force is a force of constant magnitude." [Emphasis in original]
sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>
*Posts:* 16
*Joined:* Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am
* E-mail sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=544>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20855>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20855#p20855>by *sathearn
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>* » Fri May 08, 2009 10:29 pm
earls:
On the contrary, SM has never been subjected to such well-conceived
challenges, on so many fronts:
see e.g
"Just How Much Do We Really Know?" (1961)
http://library.rstheory.org/articles/La ... wMuch.html
"The Non-existent Universe" (1984)
http://library.rstheory.org/books/uom/29.html
"The Retreat From Reality" (1988)
http://library.rstheory.org/books/bpom/18.html
sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>
*Posts:* 16
*Joined:* Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am
* E-mail sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=544>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20857>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20857#p20857>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Sat May 09, 2009 1:26 am
Lloyd wrote:* Here's a new thread suggesting a nearby source of
cosmic rays.
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=3&t=1755
Cosmic rays are not X-rays, but material particles(mostly protons) at
speeds close to lightspeed.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20864>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20864#p20864>by *junglelord
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=80>* » Sat May 09, 2009 8:42 am
all charges originate in exactly the same manner that the charge on
the electron originates: by addition of a rotational vibration to an
existing rotational motion of the opposite space-time direction.
I took a look at the link sathearn.
It says the same thing as APM.
Angular Momentum is not charged.
It gains charge via the opposite spin Aether.
Same thing.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have
a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot
Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=80>
junglelord <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=80>
*Posts:* 3693
*Joined:* Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
*Location:* Canada
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20874>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20874#p20874>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Sat May 09, 2009 2:09 pm
davesmith_au wrote:Steven O.
You can talk about Dewey Larson and his RST as much as you like,
down on the NIAMI board. This part of the forum is to discuss
Electric Universe, not a place for promoting your most favorite theory.
Electric Universe forum intro wrote:Plasma and electricity in
space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of
dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other
mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars.
Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.
I think the insights from Larson's RST fit pretty well with the second
and third sentence. But it is up to the moderators to determine the
limits and I will adhere to that. Only then I think we should move the
whole thread to the NIAMI board since others are putting their favorite
theories forward too.
davesmith_au wrote:Essentially RST is another gravity-centric
theory, seeking to explain "dark energy" (for example) instead of
refuting it. There is no reason to think that the universe is
expanding. Nor is there any evidence of "dark matter", "black holes"
etc etc. Any theory which treats space and time as some sort of
entity which can be warped, bent, expanded, twisted, sucked in, spat
out and stomped on, is essentially based on thought experiments.
That the whole universe consists of motion, and that space and time
are reciprocals of that motion, whatever all that is supposed to
mean, is just as much a thought experiment as other mainstream
explanations.
I think RST is the only theory providing an explanation for the physical
mechanism of gravity. BTW. RST does not pose the universe is expanding
but that space and time are progressing at a ratio of lightspeed. And
what else is this forum than one big thought experiment ;) ?
davesmith_au wrote:ANY theory which discounts the role of
electricity in space is bound to failure, treating gravity like it's
some sort of uber-powerful force and the only force which "matters"
in the cosmos is VERY short-sighted. That electricity plays a
significant role in life and existance here on Earth, yet somehow it
doesn't have any significance in space, is absurd in the extreme, IMO.
Replacing a gravity only dogma with an electricy only dogma is not going
to provide the answers.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20877>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20877#p20877>by *arc-us
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=54>* » Sat May 09, 2009 3:08 pm
Posts above split from here, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1697
, and
retitled to a new topic.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our
mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's
subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=54>
arc-us <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=54>
*Posts:* 2410
*Joined:* Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
*Location:* El Paso, Texas, USA
* Website
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20881>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20881#p20881>by *Solar
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=75>* » Sat May 09, 2009 4:12 pm
junglelord wrote:
The basic idea in RST is that the universe is build of scalar
motion and that space and time are aspects of that scalar
motion. "Unit" scalar motion is an expansion of both space and
time at a ratio that is now labeled as "lightspeed". Physics
phenomena like radiation, gravity or particles then follow from
compound motion. It can be shown that all physical constants can
be expressed in dimensions of space and time as Larson and also
other people have done.
Indeed the rotating magnetic field of the aether is a scalar. The
entire idea of a unit that moves at light speed is covered via the
compton wavelength and plancks constant.
I'm on theory overload. Too many to keep track of LOL!!
Nonetheless, having given this an overview I have to agree that the
above "basic idea in RST" is meaningful. There is an obvious
nomenclature problem because I see no difference between 'bimodal
aether(s)' producing discrete fine structure resonant scalar
phase-states via "compound motion" and what you've stated above.
You've also qualitatively demonstrated that the correct interpretation
of the Michelson-Morley experiment should have simply been that the
Aether, RST's 'compound scalar motions', is not stationary. This, as
opposed to the over-reaching Einsteinium assumption that it "killed the
aether concept". You're absolutely correct with what then follows
regarding the Aetheric-like "active vacuum" by necessity "making it's
way back into the background of major physics". The major blow to
physics was actually accepting Einstein's erroneous assumption which
used the assumptive conclusion derived from the Michelson-Morley
experiment as empirical evidence that said Aether(s) do not exist.
That has been the major error of physics.
The above from RST also says so but seems to want to posit 'motion'
without causation. Nothing undergoing ZITTERBEWEGUNG to start the
compounding (broken symmetry) upon reaching some critical value. Thats a
problem. It's as if speaking of an Aether, without having an Aether,
because someone misinterpreted the results of an experiment, but
everything else regarding it works fine, so we'll use that part - which
leaves 'motion'; with no existent, to actually 'move'.
"“Once physicist grabbed hold of electricity all knowledge of it ceased.
Electrons have nothing to do with the flow of electricity. Electrons are
the rate at which electricity is destroyed. Electrons are the
resistance." - Eric Dollard
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=75>
Solar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=75>
*Posts:* 574
*Joined:* Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p20900>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20900#p20900>by *StefanR
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=64>* » Sun May 10, 2009 6:17 am
Solar wrote:
I'm on theory overload. Too many to keep track of LOL!!
Nonetheless, having given this an overview I have to agree that the
above "basic idea in RST" is meaningful. There is an obvious
nomenclature problem because I see no difference between 'bimodal
aether(s)' producing discrete fine structure resonant scalar
phase-states via "compound motion" and what you've stated above.
You've also qualitatively demonstrated that the correct
interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment should have simply
been that the Aether, RST's 'compound scalar motions', is not
stationary. This, as opposed to the over-reaching Einsteinium
assumption that it "killed the aether concept". You're absolutely
correct with what then follows regarding the Aetheric-like "active
vacuum" by necessity "making it's way back into the background of
major physics". The major blow to physics was actually accepting
Einstein's erroneous assumption which used the assumptive conclusion
derived from the Michelson-Morley experiment as empirical evidence
that said Aether(s) do not exist.
That has been the major error of physics.
I think, maybe, there is a common ground from which these theories arise
I will try to give it in another thread as this thread is of course for
the RST-theory
Perhaps it might give a shared point of departure, for it shows the root
of the problem, I hope
Give a moment :)
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not
that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes
from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision.
-L.H.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=64>
StefanR <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=64>
*Posts:* 1195
*Joined:* Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
*Location:* Amsterdam
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Little known theory solves long standing physics paradoxes
<#p20918>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=20918#p20918>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Sun May 10, 2009 3:12 pm
Solar wrote:The above from RST also says so but seems to want to
posit 'motion' without causation. Nothing undergoing ZITTERBEWEGUNG
to start the compounding (broken symmetry) upon reaching some
critical value. Thats a problem. It's as if speaking of an Aether,
without having an Aether, because someone misinterpreted the results
of an experiment, but everything else regarding it works fine, so
we'll use that part - which leaves 'motion'; with no existent, to
actually 'move'.
The word "causation" has to be used with care here. The RST universe is
build from motion only. Space and time are merely two (reciprocal)
aspects of motion. A 3D 'static' space reference frame with progressing
time as we experience it (the material part of the universe) will arise
from compound motions, but the reciprocal emerges as well by
conservation of motion(a 3D 'static' time reference frame with
progressing space that Larson calls the 'cosmic' part of the universe).
The link between the material and cosmic part is only through scalar
motions, which are without direction, so acausal. This shows that the
quirky features of quantum mechanics really emerge as basic features of
the universe.
What caused the broken symmetry in uniform motion is another discussion,
but only at that event space and time started to emerge. From any
practical perspective this can be considered eternal.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p21040>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=21040#p21040>by *Lloyd
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>* » Tue May 12, 2009 4:17 pm
* You wrote:
Lloyd wrote:* Here's a new thread suggesting a nearby source of
cosmic rays.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1755
Cosmic rays are not X-rays, but material particles(mostly protons)
at speeds close to lightspeed.
* If you'd looked at the link, you should have seen that it was not
saying x-rays are cosmic rays.
* Here's what Thornhill said at http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt :
The glow discharge model predicts that at the boundary of the Sun's
influence (termed the heliopause and considered conventionally to be a
purely mechanical shock phenomenon) the ion (proton) current from the
Sun will be accelerated through almost the full potential difference
between the Sun and the surrounding plasma - estimated by Juergens at
around 10 billion volts. Here is a possible answer to the puzzle of the
origin of cosmic rays. As Juergens pointed out, most are likely the
"spent" ions from other stars. Their range of energies gives a measure
of the driving potentials suffered by other stars. It also provides a
check on the reasonableness of Juergens' estimate for the Sun.
Interestingly, there is a gap in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays. The
most highly energetic are probably released from the plasma focus
activities at the centre of active galaxies.
Last edited by Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184> on Tue
May 12, 2009 4:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>
*Posts:* 1181
*Joined:* Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
* E-mail Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=184>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p21041>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=21041#p21041>by *Lloyd
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>* » Tue May 12, 2009 4:25 pm
* You said:
He disagreed with standard ideas as to the nature of ionization - as
a deficiency of electrons that would otherwise be in orbit around a
positively charge "nucleus" - and denied that charges are present at
all in non-ionized matter. He also would have disagreed with the
talk about "electric currents in space." I think he would have
described the phenomenon in question as a movement of charges,
categorically distinct from current electricity (confined to a
conductor).
* I don't see how Larson's theory is very compatible with EU. What do
you call lightning? Where's its conductor? And what about interplanetary
lightning that was seen by the ancients and which obviously formed the
surface features of the planets?
Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=184>
*Posts:* 1181
*Joined:* Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
* E-mail Lloyd <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=184>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p21080>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=21080#p21080>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Wed May 13, 2009 12:32 pm
Lloyd wrote:* You wrote:
Lloyd wrote:* Here's a new thread suggesting a nearby source of
cosmic rays.
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=3&t=1755
Cosmic rays are not X-rays, but material particles(mostly
protons) at speeds close to lightspeed.
* If you'd looked at the link, you should have seen that it was not
saying x-rays are cosmic rays.
That's what I did, you referred to it as a "thread suggesting a nearby
source of cosmic rays".
Lloyd wrote:* Here's what Thornhill said at
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt :
The glow discharge model predicts that at the boundary of the Sun's
influence (termed the heliopause and considered conventionally to be
a purely mechanical shock phenomenon) the ion (proton) current from
the Sun will be accelerated through almost the full potential
difference between the Sun and the surrounding plasma - estimated by
Juergens at around 10 billion volts. Here is a possible answer to
the puzzle of the origin of cosmic rays. As Juergens pointed out,
most are likely the "spent" ions from other stars. Their range of
energies gives a measure of the driving potentials suffered by other
stars. It also provides a check on the reasonableness of Juergens'
estimate for the Sun. Interestingly, there is a gap in the energy
spectrum of cosmic rays. The most highly energetic are probably
released from the plasma focus activities at the centre of active
galaxies.
That would mean we should see many more cosmic rays coming from the
direction of the sun at a particular energy. But what we see is cosmics
rays coming from all directions with a range of energies.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p21098>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=21098#p21098>by *nick c
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=62>* » Wed May 13, 2009 8:45 pm
hi StevenO,
StevenO wrote:
Lloyd wrote:* Here's what Thornhill said at
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt :
The glow discharge model predicts that at the boundary of the
Sun's influence (termed the heliopause and considered
conventionally to be a purely mechanical shock phenomenon) the
ion (proton) current from the Sun will be accelerated through
almost the full potential difference between the Sun and the
surrounding plasma - estimated by Juergens at around 10 billion
volts. Here is a possible answer to the puzzle of the origin of
cosmic rays. As Juergens pointed out, most are likely the
"spent" ions from other stars. Their range of energies gives a
measure of the driving potentials suffered by other stars. It
also provides a check on the reasonableness of Juergens'
estimate for the Sun. Interestingly, there is a gap in the
energy spectrum of cosmic rays. The most highly energetic are
probably released from the plasma focus activities at the centre
of active galaxies.
That would mean we should see many more cosmic rays coming from the
direction of the sun at a particular energy. But what we see is
cosmics rays coming from all directions with a range of energies.
No, I don't see how you could come to that conclusion? According to what
Thornhill wrote, we should see cosmic rays coming from all directions
with a range of energies, which as you point out is what is observed.
The idea is that ions originating from our Sun would accelerate and
become cosmic rays after leaving the heliopause, we would not be able to
detect cosmic rays that originated from our Sun from the Earth, because
they would not be cosmic rays at that point. The cosmic rays we detect
on Earth "are the spent ions from other stars", that is, they are coming
from other stars and sources within our galaxy. That the cosmic rays we
detect on Earth don't originate from the Sun is evident by the
statement: "Their range of energies gives a measure of the driving
potentials suffered by other stars." The ions (protons) from our Sun
have to leave the heliopause, beyond the orbit of Pluto, where they
would leave our solar system and become cosmic rays. An earthbound
observer would not detect cosmic rays from our Sun.
This is put forth as a hypothetical surmise, or a logical conclusion
from the model: "Here is a possible answer to the puzzle of the origin
of cosmic rays."
At least that is the way I read that particular Thornhill quote.
nick c
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=62>
nick c <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=62>
Moderator
*Posts:* 839
*Joined:* Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
*Location:* connecticut
* E-mail nick c <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=62>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reciprocal System Theory <#p21099>
Post <./viewtopic.php?p=21099#p21099>by *sathearn
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>* » Wed May 13, 2009 10:53 pm
sathearn wrote:
He disagreed with standard ideas as to the nature of ionization - as
a deficiency of electrons that would otherwise be in orbit around a
positively charge "nucleus" - and denied that charges are present at
all in non-ionized matter. He also would have disagreed with the
talk about "electric currents in space." I think he would have
described the phenomenon in question as a movement of charges,
categorically distinct from current electricity (confined to a
conductor).
Lloyd wrote:
I don't see how Larson's theory is very compatible with EU. What do
you call lightning? Where's its conductor? And what about
interplanetary lightning that was seen by the ancients and which
obviously formed the surface features of the planets?
Thanks for the opportunity for an attempt at clarification.
The point I was trying to make with the quoted words was that these are
areas where EU adopts some standard ideas which RS disagrees with. So I
agree these are prima facie incompatibilities between the two theories.
However, it is possible that they don't have quite as much significance
as they would seem to on first sight. I really don't know enough to say
for sure. The kind of thing I had in mind is something like what Larson
described at one point in his essay, "Just How Much Do We Really Know?":
The experimenters who are busily engaged in measuring 'nuclear cross
sections', for example, will probably be horrified at the suggestion
that there is no such thing as a nucleus. But these investigators
are measuring cross-sections, not nuclear cross-sections. The
identification with the nucleus is theoretical, not experimental,
and if the theory has to be changed this does not affect the
experimental results - it simply changes the language in which they
are expressed. We just substitute 'atomic' for 'nuclear' and
everything else just goes on the same.
The difference in terminology in the above quotation is not merely
verbal - it expresses an important difference in theoretical concepts.
But the genuine empirical results that are expressible in terms of the
nuclear theory are, in this example, equally expressible in terms of the
new theory in which atoms are integral units that occupy the space of
what is now thought of as the 'nucleus.'
Now it stands to reason that the most distinctive claims of EU are not
the elements that it shares with all standard EM theory. A proposed
revision of some of the conceptual foundations of the latter need not
necessarily affect those distinctive claims - nor the well-established
mathematical relations developed in EM over recent centuries, for that
matter.
As for your specific questions, what Larson is in effect proposing is a
return to a "two substance" view of electricity. What he calls "current
electricity" is the kind that is confined to a conductor, and consists,
according to him, of uncharged electrons moving through matter itself
(not through the space between the atoms, as in the current conception),
which is why it is so confined. On the other hand, the plasma phenomena
(including lightning) consist of movements of charged particles, NOT
confined to a conductor.
I don't know about the ancient evidence you refer to, so can't comment,
except I don't think it's obvious that interplanetary lightning formed
the surface features of the planets.
sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>
*Posts:* 16
*Joined:* Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am
* E-mail sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=544>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=0>Next
<./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=30> Display posts from previous: Sort by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply <./posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=1784>
36 posts • Page *2* of *3* <#> • 1 <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784>, *2*, 3
<./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1784&start=30>
Return to The Future of Science <./viewforum.php?f=8>
Jump to:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
* Board index <./index.php>
* The team <./memberlist.php?mode=leaders> • Delete all board
cookies <./ucp.php?mode=delete_cookies> • All times are UTC - 8
hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB
Group