http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== skip to main <#main> | skip to sidebar <#sidebar> Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy This site is the blogging component for my main site Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy" . It will provide a more interactive component for discussion of the main site content. I will also use this blog to comment on work in progress for the main site, news events, and other pseudoscience-related issues. Monday, July 13, 2009 More comments on "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited" I had originally hoped to be posted my comparisons of creationism and electric universe claims by now. However, summer has apparently finally started (ending a spring of almost daily rain) and there are other things to do with family and friends. In addition, the comparison piece has grown much longer than I originally expected, as it seems I must spell things out very carefully. I'll probably eventually split it up, posting the remaining parts should another EU advocate whine about the comparison. In the meantime, I was recently notified by e-mail of this link, http://www.mikamar.biz/sc-sk/scientism-b.htm: Scientism The new religion of modern mythology “The Truth Will Set You Free” Part 1: Exposing the soft underbelly of the “True Believers“, the Bridgman fiasco. Part 1 represents about a third of the “debunking“ and rebuttal. WOW! I've been promoted to a “fiasco”!!! Needless to say, while they make repeated references to “The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited”, (link ) hereafter referred to as ESSS, they don't appear to include an actual link to it, so their readers can examine it for themselves. An oversight, or are they afraid of someone challenging their interpretation of what I've said? ESSS has been in draft for over a year now (see note in the page footers of ESSS). Don Scott's first rebuttal (DSFR) (link ) to it appeared almost exactly a year after release and I have posted some followups to this blog which will eventually be rolled into the next draft/final(?) version of ESSS which will be completed in my copious spare time. See: Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background along with clarifications for ESSS based on comments from others: Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I , II , III Electric Cosmos: Predictions I regret that I have not replaced the online copy fixing some of my typos and ambiguous wording which has been brought to my attention, some of which has been exploited in DSFR and in “Scientism”. Many parts of “Scientism” seem to be minor rewordings of DSFR and the bulk of my response will be rolled into ESSS (final), however, I thought I'd make a few preliminary comments that I can hopefully keep short. I've received some suggestions to generalize ESSS to other Electric Universe literature which may be included in ESSS (final). So onward into Scientism... For example, in the third paragraph of “Scientism”, there is this: The funny part is, Bridgman is actually assessing the wrong model--he is relying on his knowledge of electrostatics to 'rebut an issue of electrodynamics in plasma. This has been pointed out to him, both publically and in private. This has arisen largely in my attempts to build an Electric Sun model that is mathematically and physically consistent based on descriptions from the EU community (see ESSS and links above). One serious constraint for any Electric Sun model is that it must reproduce the observed very steady flux of radiation (variation of about 0.1%, from the Sun (Wikipedia: Solar variation ). Such steady flows are approximated by examining the equations with no time variability (set the time-derivatives in the equations to zero). In the case of Maxwell's Equations (Wikipedia: Maxwell's Equations ), this means we set the time derivatives of the electric and magnetic fields to zero. Under this condition, Maxwell's equations become the equations for electrostatics and magnetostatics. If the EU advocates claim there is a steady-power solution for the time-scales observed for the Sun where these time derivatives are NOT zero (hence not equivalent to a static solution), then it is their responsibility to demonstrate it in a reproducible fashion (see Wikipedia: Reproducibility ). If no one else can reproduce or build on your result, then your result is useless.. Beyond conceptual graphics (often called 'cartoons' in the scientific visualization field), I have found nothing with any ES details that meets the standards of mathematical and physical rigor, in spite of repeated attempts via e-mail and other discussion lists. EU advocates' claims that "electrodynamics" solves their problems, without a clear mathematical demonstration, is operationally indistinguishable from the creationist explanation of "God did it". But this is not idle theorizing, for the electric sun model requires high-energy electrons and ions traveling through regions of space routinely patrolled by satellites and occasionally traveled by astronauts. Even simple considerations of conservation of particles and conservation of energy on the electric sun models I have examined require particle fluxes and energies not only far larger than measured in situ by satellites, but fluxes fatal to astronauts with very short exposures of normal solar radiation, not just solar flare events. In the quote from Wal Thornhill there's this: Such is the hubris of this guy that he airily dismisses Arp's work and takes a swipe at Alfvén. One thing that the author of “Scientism” and others in EU fail to recognize, is that scientists are ALWAYS criticizing each other's works: Did you include the effect of X? You used the wrong statistic in computing the significance of Y? Have you compared your model to the data collected by Z? Real scientists doing research much endure a LOT of criticism of their work from other scientists. Usually the errors among professional scientists are not as blatant as in The Electric Sky (TES), so the discourse tends to be more civil. In the case of more severe errors, it is difficult to tell if one is dealing with simple misunderstandings and misconceptions, or willful ignorance, or learning disabilities or cases of outright scientific misconduct . In these cases, the arguments become much more heated. Arp and Alfven had things they got right, and things they got wrong - just like every other professional scientist, from Galileo (who was wrong about the nature of tides) to Newton (who was wrong about the nature of light) to Einstein (who was wrong about the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics). To claim that Alfven or Arp's work is above criticism is an appeal to hero worship, or 'argument from authority'. Either way, to those scientists and wannabes who complain about their theories being criticized, I say IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN. In Scientism, the response to point #6 about 'forbidden' spectral lines and the GPS, they write: Response: As to the spectral lines, claiming the discovery of an anomaly is not the same as claiming the explanation or especially tangible products derived from the explanation. As to the latter point about GPS, I will let the educated reader determine how tenuous the connection to cosmology really is. It was not the discovery of an anomaly, but an important test in the very early days of quantum mechanics that contributed to validating the theory. Perhaps you've heard of quantum mechanics? It provides the physical & mathematical framework for the design of all semiconductor electronics and many other products. General relativity was almost exclusively the domain of mathematicians and cosmologists from 1919 to 1960, when we had the first laboratory demonstration of gravitational frequency shift. Don Scott's claim about the GPS not needed relativity basically puts him in the position of advocating the violation of the design specification, a professionally dangerous position for an engineer. See Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity In Scientism, the response to point #7 says: 7. P. 5. “Dr. Scott conveniently forgets that Newton's theory of Gravity was not tested in situ until the launch of artificial satellites in 1957.“ Response: Just maybe, Dr. Scott did NOT FORGET THIS, but isn't this entirely off the point? Besides, gravity wasn't first discovered by astronomers! Even Newton's inspiration was instigated by an apple. I'm not sure what the author's real point is here. My point is that astronomy has contributed to fundamental science. I don't say gravity was discovered by astronomers, I'm talking about the development of the Theory of Gravity, the subject that turned gravity from some vague force that made things fall to Earth to something which described motions in the heavens. Or perhaps they're implying that Newton was not an astronomer? More correctly, Newton was perhaps the first astrophysicist, though the terms astronomer and astrophysicist are often used interchangeably. Newton did use the motion of the Moon to test his theory (Wikipedia: Newton's Apple ). The actual inverse square law was too weak to be reliably demonstrated in laboratory scales until the 1990s. Based on the definitions of science advocated by EU supporters, we would not be able to launch earth-orbiting satellites in 1957 since there was no laboratory proof of the 1/r^2 force required to form an orbit! In Point #15 about the validity of general relativity: Response: The validation of “relativity“ is NOT a settled question, and it does NOT help that the results of experiments are misrepresented as confirming the theory rather than just not disproving the theory. Dude! Science never PROVES anything, it can only disprove stuff that doesn't work (see Truth and Proof in Science , also Astronomy as an “Unprovable” science ). General relativity gives the best match with experiments and observations everywhere it has been tested. We already know it breaks down at quantum scales, but those may be decades away from experimental testing. Will it be replaced by something more complete in the future? Almost certainly, and the new theory will most likely match the predictions of GR in the current experimental domain, just as Newtonian gravity matched almost everything (but for that pesky Mercury orbital precession) prior to 1919. In Point #24 about the Pioneer anomaly, they write: Response: I hope that even the weakest understanding of the EU model can see through this one. Pioneer is being weakly deflected in an electric field as it is generally outbound in the same direction of the field gradient! The deflection also depends upon the size of the charge on pioneer, which is constantly being adjusted to approach the regional conditions. Excellent! This is progress! Now using your values of the electric and magnetic field from your models, and information on the speed of the spacecraft, available at JPL/Horizons , compute the average magnitude of the acceleration! Make sure you show where you get your values for the electric and magnetic field. Looking forward to a real answer here! If you get numbers even close to realistic values, then you might have something believable! Please let me know the moment you have this result! In Point #26 we see: 26. P.12. ............. Response: On page 12 WTB gives us a lecture on nuclear physics that may or may not be true but has nothing to do with what Dr. Scott has said. So basically they're saying that they don't know about nuclear physics, and they don't have to know about nuclear physics to say that it doesn't apply in stellar interiors? They display their ignorance and express PRIDE in it? When someone is making claims that “the conventional wisdom is wrong”, they should at least demonstrate that they understand what the conventional wisdom IS. In TES, Don Scott did not demonstrate that he understood what astrophysicists use in developing our understanding of stellar structure. I didn't ask you to take my word for it, I provided links to references to support my position. Here's some more: Wikipedia: Stellar Structure , Wikipedia: Stellar nucleosynthesis That's all on this topic for now. Some of the other statements in Scientism sound particularly foolish and reveal that the authors never bothered to examine the references and supporting material I provided. Responses on those topics will be saved for some of my more detailed responses to DSFR. I've emailed the site contact for “Scientism” and invited them to post a link to this response. Posted by W.T."Tom" Bridgman at 7:45 PM 0 comments Links to this post Labels: Electric Cosmos , Electric Sky , Electric Universe , Scott Rebuttal Monday, June 15, 2009 Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background When the Electric Universe crowd wants to haul out real scientific work to lend credence to their claims, they often like to talk about the galaxy formation model proposed by Anthony Peratt at the Los Alamos National Laboratory[1,2,3]. In Peratt's model, galaxies form at the intersection of large-scale (many megaparsecs long) Birkeland currents. This model had the interesting feature that it formed objects that resembled spiral galaxies and they exhibited rotation profiles similar to those observed for spiral galaxies, without the need for dark matter needed in the standard Big Bang cosmology. These characteristics were observed in both plasma experiments and in particle simulations. So why isn't the Peratt model the accepted model for galaxy formation? Because galaxies are not defined by rotation curves alone. Peratt's model made a number of other predictions that failed significantly. The Birkeland currents, by definition, have magnetic fields parallel to their direction of flow. These currents will also will generate their own magnetic field, just like any other current. However, the field along the path of the current needs to be much stronger than the self-generated field or the stream will be unstable. The electrons will trace out circular or helical paths due to the magnetic field as they move along the current stream. But in circular motion, the electrons will accelerate, and therefore radiate. This radiation is called cyclotron (in the non-relativistic case) or more generally, synchrotron radiation. So these Birkeland currents will be expected to emit synchrotron radiation. Dr. Peratt calculated just how much they would be expected to radiate and obtained values of energy output on the same order of magnitude as the measured flux of the cosmic microwave background radiation[4]. But there was a problem. Cyclotron emission for electrons of a fixed energy emits energy in discrete spectral lines corresponding to the cyclotron frequency and harmonics (integer multiples). The cosmic microwave background is a broad smooth blackbody curve, very different from the sharp line spectra of cyclotron radiation. But we don't expect the electrons to be monoenergetic nor the magnetic field their in to be completely uniform. Peratt assumed a 'bithermal' electron velocity distribution, where the mean electron motion would correspond to one temperature along their direction of motion, but another temperature perpendicular to their direction of motion. [Note that the commenter 'Anaconda' in this thread (link ) dismisses the use of 'thermal synchrotron' distribution because I could not demonstrate it had been seen under laboratory conditions. I assume he would condemn Peratt for invoking thermal synchrotron radiation as well. Actually, 'thermal synchrotron radiation' relies on the correctness of two concepts: the Poynting vector definition of electromagnetic energy, and Maxwell's equations. It basically says that the radiation flux from a collection of particles, emitting incoherently, is the sum of the fluxes of radiation from individual particles.] With a distribution of electron energies and magnetic field strengths, the peaks of the synchrotron radiation broaden into 'bumps'. Peratt found that by assuming the CMB was created by the sum of the emission of many of these current streams, the shape of the CMB spectrum could be matched over frequencies up to 100GHz. But he needed many filaments to do this, about 10^31[4]. Peratt's model clearly requires synchrotron emission from the current streams powering the galaxies and his own calculations show that instruments such as COBE and WMAP have sufficient sensitivity to see them. Peratt reports that the mean lengths of these current streams must be on the order of 350 MEGAPARSECS. This means that the currents driving the nearer galaxies, such as M31 & M33 should be clearly visible in the raw WMAP data, before the foreground processing is even performed! So we look up the coordinates of M31 & M33. From the SIMBAD astronomical database , we find M31 RA: 00 42 44.31 dec:+41 16 09.4 ICRS 2000. Galactic: 121.1743 -21.5728 M33 RA: 01 33 51.02 dec:+30 39 36.7 ICRS 2000. Galactic: 133.6107 -31.3306 Here's a snapshot of the M31 and M33 superimposed on the WMAP CMB map using Google Earth in Sky mode. (click to enlarge) We can also check out the nearby Virgo cluster of galaxies. Where are the current streams to power these galaxies!? The streams for these nearer galaxies and clusters should lie over all the other more distant streams. At a distance of 600,000 pc for M31, a 350Mpc long filament should appear to be 2*arctan((350e6 pc/2)/0.6e6 pc) or 180 degrees across. Even if not strictly linear, this structure should show up! Where is it? All we see are random blobs, more consistent with noise (and consistent with the Big Bang interpretation) than current streams. Why should I , or anyone else, believe these galactic-scale currents exist when Peratt's own predictions for them fail? Peratt own calculations demonstrated that the flux from these currents was comparable to the intensity of the cosmic microwave background radiation [4] and he even expected to see a ''”spaghetti” of radiating filaments surrounding the viewer'[5]. I have heard reports that in addition to the current streams not being visible, the Peratt model had serious difficulty reproducing the fluctuations of the CMB at the level detected (10^-5), though I have yet to find where this result may have actually been published. Perhaps the synchrotron radiation is being beamed? This happens in pulsar emission, so it could be happening in the current stream and is not beaming directly towards us? There are several problems with this scenario: 1. Synchrotron radiation is beamed in the direction of motion. In the case of electrons moving in circular orbits, the beam sweeps out a full 360 degrees in the plane of motion, much like the headlight of a motorcycle moving around a circular track. The emission could be confined to a plane, but the plane would be aligned with it's normal (perpendicular) vector along a circle around the current stream. The beaming would still sweep over all directions outbound from the current stream. 2. To explain the galaxy distribution, these currents must be pointed all over the sky in random directions. This means the plane of the electron motion will be randomly distributed as well. The odds that we are out of the coverage of all these emitting electrons becomes slim. 3. Peratt only needs 30keV electrons to generate the galaxies in his models. This makes the electrons non-relativistic, so the beam of light emission is very broad, not narrow as would be the case for relativistic electrons. The emission would be strong in many directions so beaming is not a problem. Why Don't We See the SDSS Filaments in WMAP? In his rebuttal (link , The WMAP Map, page 10) to my previous paper (link ), Dr. Scott tries to deflect this criticism of the Peratt model by asking why don't we see the filaments of galaxies reported in the large-scale galaxy surveys such as 2dFRS or SDSS against the CMB maps (see Large-scale Structure of the Cosmos ). In mainstream cosmology, these filaments are NOT due to electric currents. Computer simulations of structure formation are perfectly capable of forming filamentary structures without the need for them to be powered by currents. You can see for yourself the results of some of these simulations at the website for “Simulating the joint evolution of quasars, galaxies and their large-scale distribution” . This group even makes their simulation code, called Gadget , generally available so others may evaluate it. In dark matter cosmologies, these filaments are NOT expected to be strong sources of emission over a broad range of wavelengths such as synchrotron radiation. In order to be seen by WMAP, these filaments would need to have sufficient emission or absorption in the radio frequencies observed by WMAP. Since these filaments would be largely atomic hydrogen, their major emission and absorption in radio would occur at a frequency of 1.420 GHz (wavelength = 21 cm) . This frequency, as well as others frequencies of emission and absorption expected by atomic hydrogen, are well outside the frequency of WMAP observations (23-94 GHz). Atomic hydrogen is largely transparent in the WMAP frequency range[6]. WMAP CMB is produced by a combination of measurements from FIVE all-sky maps . The raw input data is available as well. Some high-level image products the the input bands (23-94 GHz) are available here . Note that neutral hydrogen, detected in the intergalactic medium due to its absorption in the Lyman alpha line , is transparent in these radio wavelength bands. Other sources of foreground emission can be accounted for as well, as we can see in these foreground datasets . Free electrons, such as needed for Peratt's currents, show up in the synchrotron radiation maps and the free-free (bremsstrahlung radiation) maps. The WMAP frequency bands were chosen to for a region near the minmum of microwave emission by galaxies. The yellow bands in the figure below (K, Ka, Q, V, W) represent the frequency coverage of WMAP. Courtesy of WMAP. Used with permission. http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/foreground/ Other Questions About the Peratt Galaxy Model There are a host of additional problems with the Peratt model which I cannot find addressed anywhere. 1. What powers these cosmic-scale Birkeland currents? What is the origin of the EMF that drives them? Are there any laboratory or theoretical models that such currents of such size and magnitude could be driven by turbulence? 2. With a mean length of ~350 Megaparsecs for Peratt's filaments, the ends of these filaments should be visible in our current galaxy surveys so we should be able to see the source of the EMF and magnetic field which maintain them. Not only do we not see any objects that could fulfill this role, even Don Scott admitted that they did not know the source of these Birkeland current systems. These invisible, physics-defying current sources must be far more complex than single weakly interacting particles proposed as Dark Matter. Because their predicted emission is well within the sensitivity of our present day instruments, these invisible current sources are a far larger problem for EU than Dark Matter is for the standard cosmology. 3. With currents driven by 30 keV electrons in Peratt's simulations, this is more than enough energy to ionize intergalactic neutral hydrogen (ionization potential = 13.6 eV). Recombination (electron and proton reforming the hydrogen atom) will emit photons at these energies, in the ultraviolet. Cosmological redshift could move this emission into the visible range for galaxies at high redshift (z>4) values. More distant and sensitive surveys should see these currents in the range of optical emission! I'd like to thank some members of the WMAP team for their helpful input. July 12 Update: Added labels References 1. A. L. Peratt, W. Peter, and C. M. Snell. 3-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of spiral galaxies . 1990. 2. W. Peter and A. L. Peratt. Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments . IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 18:49–55, February 1990. 3. A. L. Peratt. Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation . Astrophysics & Space Science, 227:97–107, May 1995. 4. W. Peter and A. L. Peratt. Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents . Laser and Particle Beams, 6:493–501, August 1988. 5. A. L. Peratt. Electric space : evolution of the plasma universe. Astrophysics & Space Science, 244:89–103, 1996. 6. J.P. Wild. The Radio-Frequency Line Spectrum of Atomic Hydrogen and its Applications in Astronomy . Astrophysical Journal, vol. 115, p.206. 1952. Posted by W.T."Tom" Bridgman at 7:23 PM 3 comments Links to this post Labels: Electric Cosmos , Electric Sky , Electric Universe , Scott Rebuttal Sunday, June 7, 2009 Some Preliminary Comments on Crothers' Relativity Claims The work of Stephen J. Crothers has been promoted heavily by the Electric Universe advocates, as one of their 'experts' on issues of Special & General Relativity. There is even a section of his papers on the plasmaresources site. Mr. Crothers' main page on this site, The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics ', provides some strange reading. This is a preliminary examination of some of Mr. Crothers' papers. It is by no way complete, but there are enough interesting errors in the works I've examined so far to make a few comments. I've concentrated on the paper “On Certain Conceptual Anomalies in Einstein's Theory of Relativity”[4], with some supplemental reading of references [1,2,3]. Crothers seems to take particular issue with the concept of black holes in general relativity. However, it appears most of his complaints are non-issues if it is impossible for an infalling observer or particle to actually cross the event horizon. I know of no astrophysical processes involving black holes that actually require infalling material to cross the event horizon[6], though I have seen this description used in press releases. If the singularities in the Schwarzschild metric at the center and at the event horizon are not reachable by an observer, then Crothers issues are largely moot. In some older literature, stars collapsing to the Schwarzschild radius were often called 'collapsed stars' which might be a more technically correct way to describe these objects. I have my own favorite 'black hole paradox' which demonstrates that the idea popularized in the media and science fiction of falling through the event horizon probably cannot occur. Each section of "On Certain Conceptual Anomalies in Einstein's Theory of Relativity"[4] states some conclusion backed by claims which are at best weak, and in a number of cases, scientifically wrong. Here's a few I found that can be described with a minimum of mathematics. [4, Section 2]: “Misconception: that Ricci=0 fully describes the gravitational field” I find several problems in this section, as Mr. Crothers attempts to justify this statement. 1) The issues attributed to the statement describing "the perceived source of the field in terms of its center of mass" is a red herring. Newtonian gravity has a similar issue in that the exterior field of a spherical shell of mass is identical to the field of a point mass at the center of the spherical shell, a location where there is no actual mass. So what is Mr. Crothers' point? 2) The statement that one needs two line elements to describe the metric for the interior and exterior of the mass is somewhat strange. The 'two' line elements cover two non-overlapping, but continuous ranges of the independent variable, r, and therefore the elements are considered to be a single function, the function being described as piecewise . This is standard knowledge, in which case, why does Crothers mention it at all. Perhaps he does not understand it? 3) Mr. Crothers makes a fair number of his claims based on the concept of an 'incompressible fluid' in relativity. However, an 'incompressible sphere of fluid' is not a valid concept in relativity. In terms of the equation of state, incompressible means where \rho is the fluid density and P is the fluid pressure. This means it no amount of change in fluid pressure will change the density of the fluid. This could also be inverted to read But this term is directly related to the speed of propagation of disturbances in the matter, AKA the speed of sound. The general expression for the speed of sound in a fluid, c_s (not to be confused with the speed of light), is Therefore, it is trivial to see that a truly incompressible fluid must have an infinite speed of sound. This is in violation of the principle that there is a limiting speed for signal propagation in relativity. The mathematics does not stop one from combining these contradicting concepts, but the results and conclusions from such an analysis cannot be trusted. I found the reference to an early paper where Schwarzschild explored this problem historically interesting, but the paper was largely ignored after the realization of this contradiction. Modern researchers use more realistic equations of state, derived from nuclear experiments or theory, when dealing with compact objects. There have been some examinations of ways to treat incompressibility in GR[5], but Mr. Crothers does not use this. [4, Section 3]: “Misconception: that General Relativity permits point-masses” This section seems to rely on the bizarre claim that things permitted in General Relativity do so in violation of Special Relativity. This is backwards and misses the point of the distinction. 1) Special relativity is 'special' because it is limited to the 'special 'case of observers in uniform relative motion. General Relativity is the more 'general' theory, permitting non-uniform motion (accelerating) observers. Special relativity is a subset of General Relativity. In general relativity, the metric can have the very general form: where x_i represents generalized coordinates. Due to the symmetry of the metric tensor, these 16 functions reduce to 10 independent functions. Special relativity is limited to the much simpler Minkowski metric, which simply means that the g_mn terms are constants limited to values of 0, 1, and -1. All solutions in special relativity are solutions in general relativity. This suggests that Mr. Crothers does not understand relativity at all. Any conclusions based off the notion that SR is a more fundamental theory than GR, is immediately suspect. 2) Point masses are used in Newtonian gravity and point charges are used in electromagnetism. This idealization is convenient for modeling systems where the range of motion is much larger than the dimensions of the objects. This assumption essentially says that tidal effects, due to a finite object size, are negligible. In “A brief history of black holes”[2], Crothers makes a related bizarre claim: Even the electron has spatial extent, according to experiment, and to quantum theory. Crothers gives no reference for this claim and it is simply wrong. I haven't done quantum electrodynamics (QED) since the late 1970s, but QED treats electrons as point particles. An experimental upper limit of about 1e-22 m has been placed on the electron's size from scattering experiments. This is far smaller than the classical electron radius of 2.8e-15 m obtained by equating the total electrostatic energy to the electron rest mass. References to the papers on this work can be found at Wikipedia: Electron-Fundamental Properties But even mathematically, this makes no sense. Infinitesimals, a mathematical entity that is as small as it needs to be, down to a point, are the foundation of calculus which forms the mathematical underpinnings of modern physics & engineering. One technique, Green's Functions , builds the fields of extended objects by integrating (essentially summing) the fields of point sources, represented as a Dirac Delta Function s. Point sources are the foundation of much of mathematical physics. [4, Section 7]: "Misconception: that "Schwarzschild's solution" is Schwarszshild's solution" I found this historically interesting, and I'll probably examine that aspect of it further. However, it is irrelevant to the physics whether Schwarzschild said anything about black holes. It is not clear whether Crothers totally denies the validity of relativity or is promoting an alternative interpretation or another theory entirely. I found nothing in Crothers writing on the experimental implications of his claims beyond his claimed non-existence of black holes. Mr. Crothers needs to explain why we get experimental agreement in spite of his claimed flaws in relativity? There is plenty of experimental evidence of the validity of general relativity (pulsar timing, accretion disk doppler profiles, GPS) [7,8]. References 1. S.J. Crothers. On the vacuum field of a sphere of incompressible fluid. Progress in Physics, 2:76–81, July 2005. 2. S.J. Crothers. A brief history of black holes. Progress in Physics, 2:54–57, April 2006. 3. Stephen J. Crothers. On line-elements and radii: A correction. Progress in Physics, 2:25–26, April 2007. 4. Stephen J. Crothers. On certain conceptual anomalies in einstein’s theory of relativity. Progress in Physics, 1:52–57, January 2008. 5. F. I. Cooperstock and R. S. Sarracino. General relativistic incompressibility. Nature, 264:529–531, December 1976. doi: 10.1038/264529a0 . 6. K. Thorne, R. Price, and D. MacDonald. “Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm”. Yale University Press, 1986. 7. Clifford M. Will. The confrontation between general relativity and experiment . Living Reviews in Relativity, 9, 3 2006. 8. Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity , April 3, 2009 Posted by W.T."Tom" Bridgman at 9:10 PM 3 comments Links to this post Labels: Electric Cosmos , Electric Universe , Relativity Thursday, May 28, 2009 Whines of the Electric Universe... This entry from Dave Smith, originally posted in the comments under this post Donald Scott, of “The Electric Sky“, presents at GSFC , proved to be an interesting resource, so I've decided to make it a full post topic. I think it survived my reformatting. My original comments from the thread are in blue. Dave Smith's responses are in red. My followup is in black. Tom wrote: “Dave, I find it funny that you try to make a big deal of 'problems' in General Relativity that don't seem to impact experimental prediction while cowardly avoiding problems of EU claims that are SIGNIFICANTLY contrary to observation. Considering that your models imply particle fluxes near the Earth that imperil the lives of astronauts, the EU community is somewhat morally obligated to explain these discrepancies.“ Tom, I find it funny that you seem to make a big deal out of 'problems' with EU theory which don't seem to impact on creationism in astronomy, while cowardly avoiding the valid and relevant questions and points those who have contributed to this thread raise. My list of similarities between EU and creationism has grown significantly, largely thanks to this post from Mr. Smith. I have a revised post on the EU/creationism connection and a short analysis of Crothers' relativity claims nearing completion. My original posts were responses to earlier similar queries. It appears that Mr. Smith now wants to avoid my responses by claiming that those issues are no longer important. Now it is these additional topics that I must address. This overloading of topics is also a popular creationist debate tactic, a variant of the “Gish Gallop” . Tom wrote: “If EU models can't be used to reliably predict space weather conditions, then EU models are USELESS and therefore WRONG.“ If the standard model can't be used to reliably predict galaxy rotation curves (without invoking the unobserved, physics-defying, mystical dark matter) then at least that part of it is USELESS and therefore WRONG. EU, on the other hand, finds much confirmation in space weather phenomena. BTW I find it funny that you resort to using UPPERCASE to make your HANDWAVING louder, whilst throwing RED HERRINGS all over the place. Mr. Smith claims that “Dark Matter” is 'physics-defying'? If, as he says below, his is not a scientist, then how is he qualified to make such a claim? The simplest 'Dark Matter' solution is a particle that interacts only gravitationally, immune to the other known interactions (electric, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear). The observationally inferred properties of 'Dark Matter' are no more 'physics-defying' than the properties of the neutrino were in the twenty-five years between is hypothesized existence as a missing particle in some nuclear interactions (1930) and its actual laboratory detection (~1956). Of course, the EU crowd avoids talking about all the electrons in their Electric Sun model that move centimeters-per-second while moving through a billion volt potential drop. We still haven't heard why all these electrons haven't been detected by all the spacecraft we have patrolling through these regions of the Solar System. That is physics-defying. Then again, we could talk about the physics-defying electrons needed to power Peratt's galaxy model. Unlike all other known electron processes, these electrons don't radiate when spiraling in the magnetic field created by their flow. Peratt even did the calculations that demonstrated we should see this radiation! It's difficult to believe these currents can be responsible for the rotation curves of galaxies when they flunk the tests of their actual existence! Perhaps Mr. Smith will try to sidestep these responses by invoking the famous 'flash' from the Deep Impact mission that was claimed to be evidence of an electric event. Too bad for EU that that the X-rays detected by the Chandra x-ray telescope were inconsistent with an electric arc event. "Spitzer and Chandra Observations of the Deep Impact Encounter with Comet 9P/Tempel 1 " and "Chandra observations of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 during the Deep Impact campaign" report no prompt X-ray flash due to the impact and the emission was consistent with the release of neutral gas. Perhaps it was yet another (physics-defying) invisible electric event! EU wants us to talk about the currents, but we don't directly detect the currents. We can directly detect magnetic fields or radiation from electrons accelerating in fields, and to a lesser extent, electric fields. With all the electrons needed to power EU that are mysteriously undetectable by methods that have been tested in the laboratory, EU advocates are in no position to call Dark Matter 'physics-defying'! Another fallacy that Mr. Smith makes here is the assumption that any problem in the standard model cosmology automatically favors the EU model. Many creationists use this same argument, also utilizing many of the same 'problems' in mainstream cosmology as evidence in favor of their interpretation of cosmology. 1) So by Mr. Smith's argument, we would still be left to decide between the creationist and EU models. What is the standard for making that decision? Tom wrote: “It's funny how the EU crowd claims they're talking about the science but seem to avoid it. I've not had a response from the EU crowd on ANY of the threads below, and these are the ones with the hard science.“ It's funny that you somehow expect the EU crowd to even be bothered looking at ANY of your other threads, as you still have not displayed a genuine interest in the model, but rather some drive to connect it erroneously with creationism, a subject not related to EU in any manner. As you display the characteristics of a zealot, no-one cares what you write. Said non-responses are a good indication of this. Am I interested in the EU stellar model? Which model would that be? A claimed scientific model composed of nothing but cartoons, hand-waving explanations but nothing that comes close to the physical and mathematical rigor of any scientific model that makes even reasonable predictions. Those predictions are needed to explain a pheonomenon or build a technology. Mr. Smith accuses me of 'hand-waving', but it is EU models' lack detailed predictions that we can test against real measurements which is the definition of 'hand-waving arguments' in science, The procedure for deriving the mass-luminosity relationship of stars from first principles is available in the scientific literature. I can run through it as check or improve on the work of those researchers. 2) What is the luminosity-current relationship for Electric stars predicted from first principles? This simple demonstration would go a long way towards making electric stars even in the running to qualify as science. Yet attempts to get this are met with excuses. Real science makes better predictions than the tabloid-psychic quality 'predictions' I find in EU publications, such as the 'flash' from Deep Impact. I've made several attempts to construct the EU stellar model, based on the descriptions in EU publications and applying Maxwell's Equations. The results of this effort have been published on this blog and other publicly available venues. These models very quickly exhibit characteristics in gross disagreement with observation. Does it matter to me that EU advocates aren't reading my material? Not really, as they are not my target audience. It is professional courtesy among scientists is to notify others when you publish something critical of their material, usually via sending a preprint. I notified the EU email list of my work as a professional courtesy, but as Mr. Smith admits below, the EU advocates are not 'professionals'. I do know that others are reading what I've done here. Those who are reading my material are more likely to show up with increasing frequency at venues where EU advocates are speaking. This increases the chance that EU advocates will be asked about the flaws in the EU model by an audience member. If the EU speaker is collecting a speaking fee, it will prove far more embarrassing for them and will probably hurt their ability to get paid speaking opportunities in the future. Tom wrote: “I plan to ignore you until you present a clear SCIENTIFIC and RELEVANT response to at least one of these topics: “ Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I. Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. II. Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III. Be sure to post to the appropriate topic. I don't care one iota if you plan to ignore me, I am not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be one, nor do I aspire to be one. My concern is that you are prepared to engage those of us who are not scientists, whilst leaving the more valid and scientific points alone. Why is that? Do you find it easier to “talk down“ to non-scientists? You cannot order me to respond to anything. Okay, so I didn't quite ignore him. If I ignore him, he cries 'censorship'. If I respond and blow holes in his claims, I'm 'picking on the amateurs'? EU advocates seem to claim that their electrical engineering background gives them expertise in gravitational physics, atomic & nuclear physics, electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and many other fields. All of these fields were developed by professionals and specialists. In-depth training for astrophysicists consists of training covering many aspects of all these fields, particularly when it comes to accurately applying the major results to explore new ideas. Yet the EU community basically accuses the astrophysics community of everything from incompetence to conspiracy. Do electrical engineers get training in atomic & nuclear physics as well? The EU 'amateurs' apparently want to 'play on the same field as the pros', but then when cornered on the providing the details or confronting the implications of their own claims, they want to hide behind the status of 'amateur'. There have been others in the comments who, after touting whatever nonsense they want to justify their claims, when challenged on the wider implications of their alleged knowledge, try to hide behind the 'amateur' label. Their 'science' seems to be only something they know by rote memory, more like scriptural readings, rather than a tool that has wider implications and applications. After his talk at NASA/GSFC, Don Scott even fell back to this type of claim. After he had presented a copy of one of Crothers' papers to an audience member and the person was asking some more technical questions, Scott claimed he could not answer any questions on it because he was just an 'interested amateur' or 'scientific observer'. Yet Dr. Scott apparently is an EU 'theorist' according to one of his fans (JREF link ). 3) If all the EU advocates I've communicated with via blog and email, including Don Scott, are 'amateurs', then where are the real EU scientific professionals? When I ask about this on email lists, if I'm lucky, I get told they're busy with other things. What? Selling 'amateur science' books? Collecting speaker fees? I'm reminded of the sitcom scenario where a character wants to be a writer so he dresses up in a sweater and starts smoking a pipe to fit his image of a writer. The character does everything except actually write. That's what I see in the EU community. The EU advocates want to write books and give talks. They don't want to be scientists, which would involve doing real work and backing up their models and observations against other professionals. They want to be their image of a scientist, or more correctly, they want to be their image of a Celebrity Scientist. I suspect there are no EU advocates who are real scientists beyond Tony Peratt, and he seems to be stepping back from many of his earlier claims. So now EU advocates claim to be 'amateurs', yet also want to judge what is and isn't science. If their definition of science is different from the mainstream scientific community, then they are trying to change the definition of science, much like the advocates of Intelligent Design (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design - Defining Science ). 4) Mr. Smith should present a concise definition of what he means by 'science'. Tom wrote: “And while you're at it, answer this question: I toss a rock from a cliff of height h. It leaves my hand with a speed v, and angle theta from the horizontal. The rock hits the ground, h=0, at some time t, yet the quadratic equation that explains the motion has *two* solutions! According to the math, the rock must hit the ground twice? Is even Newtonian gravity mathematically inconsistent? Explain.“ And while you're at it, answer this question: I fart in the forest with a force f, and it leaves my butt with a speed v, and angle theta from the horizontal, and no-one is nearby to hear it, does it make a sound s? Does it even smell phew? Explain. This has about as much relevance... I await your insults. (Dave Smith) 4/27/09 I presented a perfectly legitimate physics question for a Physics 101 class. I assume Dave Smith would flunk such a physics class. Responses to questions 1 - 4 in boldface are encouraged. Since, according to Mr. Smith, I am 'talking down' to the 'amateurs' pretending they know science who've posted to the comments section, I will be exercising more stringent requirements in my moderation of comments. Posts on these topics (in no particular order) are almost complete: * The Electric Universe & Creationism * Some Preliminary Comments on Crothers' General Relativity Claims * Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background Posted by W.T."Tom" Bridgman at 9:30 PM 3 comments Links to this post Labels: Electric Sky , Electric Universe Older Posts Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) About Me W.T."Tom" Bridgman Maryland, United States I obtained my doctorate in physics and astronomy in 1994. I currently work in scientific data visualization for the media and public outreach. For more information on how I became involved in the creationism issue, visit my main page View my complete profile Pro-Science Links * Alliance for Science * National Capital Area Skeptics * National Center for Science Education * Talk Origins Blog Archive * ▼ 2009 (14) o ▼ July (1) + More comments on "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuite... o ► June (2) + Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. th... + Some Preliminary Comments on Crothers' Relativity ... o ► May (1) + Whines of the Electric Universe... o ► April (4) + Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III + Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity + Behind the Scenes...or, Why is it so quiet here? + Setterfield Again... o ► March (4) + More Electric Cosmos stuff. Enabling Comment Mode... + Theory Vs. Experiment: I + No Virginia, You Have Not Seen an Electron.. + Donald Scott, of "The Electric Sky", presents at G... o ► February (1) + My 2008 Reading list o ► January (1) + Astronomy as an 'unprovable' science * ► 2008 (17) o ► December (2) + Electric Cosmos: Predictions + Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. II o ► November (4) + Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I + Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model + Another failed creationist prediction? + An "Electric Sky" response? o ► October (6) + My November/Winter 2008 or 2009 'To Do' list + Setterfield G + Barry Setterfield joins the Electric Cosmos? + Creationist Astronomy debunking videos! + Creationist Junk Debunked + John Hartnett's Cosmos. 2. Methodologies o ► September (2) + John Hartnett's Cosmos. 1. Introduction + Radioactive decay rates depend on Earth-Sun distan... o ► August (3) + Moving libraries + "Is Faith the Enemy of Science?" + Open for business My Blog List * Bad Astronomy 12 hours ago * Physics and Physicists 16 hours ago * Answers in Genesis BUSTED! 1 day ago * Exposing PseudoAstronomy 1 week ago * Debunking Creationism 3 weeks ago Podcasts I Follow * Science at NASA * Scientific American Podcast * Astronomy Cast * Balticon Podcast * The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe * Skepticality * Point of Inquiry Subscribe To Posts Atom Posts All Comments Atom All Comments