Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), ringo (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The cosmic conspiracy.
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 105 of 173 (700249)
05-31-2013 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Son Goku
05-31-2013 12:03 PM


Re: What?
The electrical currents and activity that we observe in space is well documented, studied, and published. Tom Bridgman has a useful list of references and links at Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'. You might want to check out Electric fields in the solar atmosphere - A review and Ionization in stellar atmosphere (from 1922: boy, them scientists sure have been ignoring plasma for a long time, from even before the term "plasma" was coined).

You can find gobs and gobs of data at Heliophysics Data Portal.

E.g. "Helios 1 E6 (Kunow) Hourly Particle Fluxes":

quote:
Data set records contain fluxes of protons in 5 energy ranges (4-13, 13-27, 27-37, 37-51, >51 MeV), alpha particles in 6 energy ranges (2-4, 4-13, 13-27, 27-37, 37-48, >48 MeV/n), and electrons in 2 ranges (0.3-0.8, 0.8-2.0 MeV). The fluxes are averaged over intervals of approximately one hour. Each "data record" (having ending CR and/or LF) spans 4-5 hours and has 10 time-overlapping segments. Each segment has averaging start and stop times plus words for 13 fluxes and words for the statistical uncertainties in the 13 fluxes. However, most words in a given segment have fill values, such that good values for a given flux (species and energy range) and its uncertainty appear only in a minority of the segments. No spacecraft position information is included. Data are from the E6 experiment on Helios 1.

Or "IMP 8 GME 30-min energetic particle rates and fluxes":

quote:
This CDAWeb-accessible data set contains 30-minute, spin-averaged count rates and fluxes, and their statistical uncertainties, of energetic particles from the IMP8 GME experiment. Included are fluxes of: protons in 30 energy bins from 0.88-1.15 to 327-485 MeV; alpha particles in 21 energy bins from 1.14-1.36 to 63.3-81.0 MeV/n; and 0.3-18 MeV electrons. Also included are count rates for each of 7 sensors and for 11 multi-sensor coincidence modes. Proton and alpha particle fluxes, for every other energy bin, are given at the FTPBrowser and MSSP interfaces identified below.

So there's just loads of mainstream scientists using many different instruments to investigate charged particles and currens and plasmas in space. The answer to your question, "why is mainstream so terrified to admit to electrical acivity in space?", is that nobody's terrified.

Now here's a question for you to answer: what is the charged particle flux at Earth's orbit in Electric Sun models? Are Tom Bridgman's calculations wrong at Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I and Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. II, in which he shows that the Solar Capacitor model predicts fatal ionizing radiation that would fry any astronaut?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Son Goku, posted 05-31-2013 12:03 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-31-2013 5:20 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 107 of 173 (700281)
05-31-2013 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by justatruthseeker
05-31-2013 5:20 PM


Re: What?
Can't answer the question, hum?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-31-2013 5:20 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-31-2013 9:30 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 114 of 173 (700334)
06-02-2013 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by justatruthseeker
05-31-2013 5:20 PM


Re: What?
Still no answer to a simple question?

Nobody is impressed with your Gish Gallop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-31-2013 5:20 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by justatruthseeker, posted 06-02-2013 9:50 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 123 of 173 (700443)
06-03-2013 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by justatruthseeker
06-02-2013 5:49 PM


Re: What?
it CAN NOT be an aggregates of material, it is ROCK

From dictionary.com:

quote:
Geology .
a. mineral matter of variable composition, consolidated or unconsolidated, assembled in masses or considerable quantities in nature, as by the action of heat or water.
b. a particular kind of such matter: igneous rock.

from Rocks and classifications:

quote:
Making up the majority of the Earth's crust, rock is usually defined as a mixture of common minerals

IOW, the definition of "rock" is an aggregate of different materials (minerals).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by justatruthseeker, posted 06-02-2013 5:49 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by justatruthseeker, posted 06-03-2013 9:19 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 143 of 173 (700627)
06-05-2013 8:13 AM


In Tom Bridgman's most recent two posts on his blog (Discord for Discordant Redshifts. I. and Discord for Discordant Redshifts. II.) he discusses the Arpist's claim that many high-redshift quasars are physically very close to nearby regular galaxies. He lists "A correlation that higher-redshift objects tend to be closer to the foreground galaxy" and "The claimed low-probability of such alignments and associations." as two of three reasons for this claim.

He goes on to show that the low probability calculation is flawed by considering the field of view as a two-dimensional portion of a sphere rather than a slice of three-dimensional space, and demonstrates algebraically and pictorially that the correct calculation shows that such apparent alignments are actually pretty probable.

He even dug up an obscure paper from 1974 (and cited five times) in which the same analysis and more was published.

Not that it'll make any difference to jusstatruthseeker, but interesting to those of us in the reality-based community.


Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by justatruthseeker, posted 06-05-2013 10:33 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 160 of 173 (701251)
06-14-2013 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2013 12:48 PM


Re: Predictive Power
Well, they are quite different. PL "discusses" by repeating his original claims endlessly. Justatruthseeker "discusses" by ignoring everything and starting a new "discussion" in each message.

Perpetual motion at the Earth's core! Sheesh.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2013 12:48 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 162 of 173 (703107)
07-15-2013 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by justatruthseeker
05-31-2013 5:20 PM


Re: What?
Well, it appears that justatruthseeker is no longer here, or banned, or something. But Tom Bridgman found this thread and responded to some of JAT's gibberish at Death by Electric Universe. Radiation Exposure Revisited. Money quote:

quote:
But back to the points claimed by 'JustATruthSeeker':

1) Spacecraft are shielded and so the astronauts are protected.
JustATruthSeeker: "And yet despite all your claims all spacecraft and spacesuits are heavily shielded against radiation so those astronaughts don't get fried, funny how that works huh? And apparently TB isn't aware of tests done."

2) In the event of a particularly energetic event, there are shelters to provide more protection where the astronauts can safely 'ride out the storm'
JustATruthSeeker: "When in space and storms errupt, astronauts head to specially shielded rooms."

There are numerous conceptual and physical errors in these excuses. One wonders if JustATruthSeeker even read the links they provided. As I will illustrate below, they clearly did not bother to check the numbers or the measurements, a common failure with crank science claims.

The major area of misunderstandings about the radiation environment created by an Electric Sun:

1) The high radiation environment of an electric sun is running continuously. This is not a case of heading for the heavy shelter for occasional events. The astronauts would have to be in the heavy shelter all the time.

2) The particle environment needed to power a star electrically is far higher than that created by any measured solar proton event - and again, is running continuously, not in episodes.

3) The shielding needed to protect astronauts in and electric sun environment is far larger than anything we've used before.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-31-2013 5:20 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by justatruthseeker, posted 07-31-2013 2:02 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 164 of 173 (703999)
08-01-2013 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by justatruthseeker
07-31-2013 2:02 PM


Re: What?
Ignoring the Gish Galloping,

1) The high radiation environment of an electric sun is running continuously. This is not a case of heading for the heavy shelter for occasional events. The astronauts would have to be in the heavy shelter all the time.
2) Of course they head to sheltered rooms, it is an electrically active evironment out there, theyt's why they built those shielded rooms.

They don't build any such shielded rooms, nor do astronauts and satellites take cover in these non-existent rooms. This alleged current would be running all the time. Do astronauts and satellites spend all their time in shielded rooms? Guess you've never heard of spacewalks.

Says who? people that think space is electrically neutral? Why should I believe their calculations?

Because Dr. Bridgman's calculations are demonstrably correct. I see nobody, especially you, can find any fault with his calculations

You got 100,000 amps coming down at the poles every second, don't see it frying your ass when you stand at the north pole.

The article to which you refer is not about the Earth, it's about the Moon. The Earth's magnetosphere protects us from any such problem. If it wasn't there, yeah, we'd be fried.

And the article doesn't mention any current.

Do you uinerstand the concept of grounded?

I understand the concept of grounding just fine. Do you understand the concept of encounters with near-light-speed charged particles?

Edited by JonF, : minor spelling error


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by justatruthseeker, posted 07-31-2013 2:02 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by justatruthseeker, posted 08-03-2013 4:56 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 169 of 173 (704125)
08-04-2013 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by justatruthseeker
08-03-2013 4:56 PM


They don't build any such shielded rooms, and astronauts live through spadcewalks.
quote:
They don't build any such shielded rooms, nor do astronauts and satellites take cover in these non-existent rooms. This alleged current would be running all the time. Do astronauts and satellites spend all their time in shielded rooms? Guess you've never heard of spacewalks.

Apparently you don't know much about space.
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/1262

quote:

Upgraded radiation shielding on the International Space Station is not working as well as expected, New Scientist reported Wednesday. According to the report, radiation levels within the station are about one millisievert per day, about the same amount of radiation one would get on the ground from natural sources in one year. Those levels are within a few percent of those measured on Mir despite the use of new shielding on the station designed to lower radiation levels.

Probably why it didn't work as expected, you understand it so little and think it is electrically neutral despite the fact that craft entering space immediately build up charge.

NASA knows it exists, why don't you?

It's always amusing when an Internet nutcase posts a quote from a source that falsifies his claim. Your reference speaks of the shielding of the space station itself. There is no mention of a shielded room in which the astronauts could take cover. There are no such shielded rooms. If there were such shielded rooms and there was as much radiation as your fantasy requires, they wouldn't be able to leave the shielded room. Ever. Not even to transfer to a returning spacecraft.

There is a section built by the Russians that is more heavily built than the rest of the station, and crews take refuge in there when there is a big flare. But you forget that the radiation Dr. Bridgman calculated would be present all the time. Nobody could live on the station in that environment. Nobody could take spacewalks in that environment.

There is radiation in space. There is nowhere near as much radiation in space as would be required to power an electric sun.

Dr Bridgman has demonstrated that the radiation exposure just outside the space station would be more than 9,100,000 mSv/day, most likely much much more. Your quote says the astronauts are being exposed to around 1 mSv/day. Either the space station shielding is already working better than any shielding anywhere else, or the solar capacitor electric sun model is false.

quote:
Space suits offer only limited protection from radiation. Some protection is offered by the reflective coatings of Mylar that are built into the suits, but a space suit would not offer much protection from a solar flare. So, spacewalks are planned during periods of low solar activity.

You seem to be ignoring that 99% of the universe again, as usual

You are ignoring your own fantasy. If your fantasy is correct, at periods of low solar activity the exposure just outside the space station and the astronaut's suit would be more than 9,100,000 mSv/day, most likely much much more.

If an astronaut took a spacewalk into that environment, he/she would be dead almost immediately. Astronauts take spacewalks and do not die almost immediately. Therefore the solar capacitor electric sun model is false.

Your fantasy requires that the radiation in the near-Earth space environment be many orders of magnitude greater than we have measured. Your fantasy is falsified by observations.

(P.S. If you don't like Dr. Bridgman's calculations, I'll be glad to evaluate yours.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by justatruthseeker, posted 08-03-2013 4:56 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019