Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Blue State Bandit

(2,122 posts)
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:29 PM Nov 2013

The Science of Denying Science. First in a series.

In light of recent discussions I've had on the subject of Astro/Heliophysics, I have decided to start posting stories in which the leaders of the field admit to how wrong they have been... which is usually followed by a "fix" with the term "dark" in it's name.

We can not proclaim to hold the scientific method up as a beacon of sanity in a time when basic scientific facts such as evolution, and biology, are under attack by religious zealots, while "dirty snowballs" careens through a 1,000,000° Kelvin corona without completely sublimating directly from solid thru liquid and gas to plasma.

Allowing this to continue leaves the scientific method open to bastardization by those who want to teach religion in science class, or deny the effects of pollution because somebody thought "global warming" was a brilliant marketing idea.

It is not my intention to propose new theories, but simply to point out the glaring hole in modern astrophysics that has the effect of denying the existence of a major force that touches and animates everything in the universe. I will, however post, on occasion, laboratory experiments that supports this point of view.

I will pose these 2 fundamental question for those open minded enough to ask:

1) If space is electrically neutral, as mainstream astronomy experts claim, and everything we see in the heavens are the results of friction, shock-waves, and gravity alone, then why do these same scientists measure these energetic events in Electron Volts and Amperes?

2) If a comet is a "dirty snowball", then why do they give off X-Rays?

And for our first in this series...

Massive GRB sends theories ’down the drain’.


“Some of our theories are just going down the drain,” said Charles Dermer, an astrophysicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a member of one of the teams reporting on their observations of the burst, known as GRB 130427A.




30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Science of Denying Science. First in a series. (Original Post) Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 OP
Well, that's science for you. You think everything has been settled Warpy Nov 2013 #1
Well put. Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #2
Sounds a bit kooky to me. longship Nov 2013 #3
I said "Electron Volts... AND Amperes." Ain't that some "shit" Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #6
The guy does not understand unit analysis. longship Nov 2013 #7
...the combination of which is called a watt. Which is a measurement of of electrical or thermal Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #9
So did you mean "and" to imply multiplication? caraher Nov 2013 #10
And as in "As well as" Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #16
There are mysteries out there, but I don't think either of these are unexplained caraher Nov 2013 #4
For example. The prolific use of terms such as solar wind... Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #8
I'm missing the part where NASA is hiding something caraher Nov 2013 #11
Misinterpreting. Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #15
A volt is a joule per coulomb muriel_volestrangler Nov 2013 #5
I mean large scale flows of charge from anode to cathode. Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #13
'anode' and 'cathode' in space? muriel_volestrangler Nov 2013 #17
Then explain the physics of why particles... Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #18
Quick guess: Rutherford-scattering DetlefK Nov 2013 #19
It's called coulomb scattering and denotes the (alpha) particle's momentum changes to 180°... Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #20
You are unnecessarily complicating it. DetlefK Nov 2013 #21
“There no longer exists any guidance on what constitutes getting out of the Solar System" Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #22
PS Same formula, different name. Blue State Bandit Nov 2013 #24
Oh boy, it's electric universe time again. (nt) Posteritatis Nov 2013 #12
If space is electrically neutral......... dimbear Nov 2013 #14
How Philosophy Corrupted Physics cantbeserious Nov 2013 #23
You can't be serious caraher Nov 2013 #25
One Of The Common Fallacies - Ad Hominen Attacks - Listen To What The Man Says Before Attacking cantbeserious Nov 2013 #26
The world is full of BS caraher Nov 2013 #27
If You Had Bothered - You Would Learn That He Holds Master's Degrees In Both Philosophy And Physics cantbeserious Nov 2013 #28
I actually tried in vain to find his CV online, though sure he does hold those degrees caraher Nov 2013 #29
Well The Same Could Be Said For Economists Like Steve Keen That Are Outside The Economic Mainstream cantbeserious Nov 2013 #30

Warpy

(110,908 posts)
1. Well, that's science for you. You think everything has been settled
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:01 PM
Nov 2013

and you've given your Nobel speech and then a bunch of whippersnappers with a better instrument observe something you never saw before and cast a lot of what you won that Nobel prize for into doubt or contradict it all outright. And the wildest thing is that science accepts the fact that ongoing observation can and will change everything, sooner or later.

Authoritarian religion, however, is ossified, especially when it has it all written down. Any deviation from orthodoxy is heresy and obvious contradictions between text and observation are simply ignored.

Science is excited about questions, authoritarian religion thinks it has the answer to everything.

I think geeks like myself are just wired very differently from authoritarian religious types. And yes, geeks can be believers. However, they see religious texts as allegory, not literal fact.

longship

(40,416 posts)
3. Sounds a bit kooky to me.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 07:12 PM
Nov 2013

Because it's a bit straw mannish and shows an exceptional ignorance of physics.

The following is meant to be snarky:

1) Physicists measure energetic events in electron-volts for both mass and energy because by relativity they are equivalent (!!! Thanks, Albert!) and an electron-volt is not a fucking electrical unit, it is a unit of energy. If the guy who wrote this article had paid attention in freshman physics he would know that. In Quantum 101 one learns to measure almost everything in electron-volts; it simplifies all the equations. Of course, any good sophomore physics major already knows that.

2) Duh!!!! They give off X-rays because they are bombarded with all sorts of shit from the Sun. You'd emit X-rays, too. But of course, you'd be long dead by then so you'd probably not remember freshman physics and E&M week (electricity and magnetism, you'd better be up on your calculus). Best to take an astronomy course before deciding to perform a personal test of your theory of why comets give off X-rays. Maybe it's better to just measure a comet.

Or maybe the person who wrote this tripe should get a brain wash by sticking his head into the LHC main beam.

Yup! That would do it.

longship

(40,416 posts)
7. The guy does not understand unit analysis.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:40 PM
Nov 2013

Shit! I learned that in high school physics! In 1965!
Time for one of these...


Or maybe a couple of these...

Blue State Bandit

(2,122 posts)
9. ...the combination of which is called a watt. Which is a measurement of of electrical or thermal
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:15 PM
Nov 2013

energy denoted by subscript.

Thanks for the spirited de... aw fuck off.

caraher

(6,276 posts)
10. So did you mean "and" to imply multiplication?
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:00 PM
Nov 2013

In which case an electron volt times an ampere is not a watt at all. A volt times an ampere is a watt. But an eV times an amp is... well, an energy times a current. I'm not sure there's a simple interpretation for that!

Blue State Bandit

(2,122 posts)
16. And as in "As well as"
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 12:32 AM
Nov 2013

but that energy is not expressed as watts until it has entered our magnetic envelope. The higher the hemispheric wattage, higher the KP index, the greater chance for the excess current to enter the electrical grid and overload circuits.

But if that was not the flow of charged particles originating from the sun flowing to earth, and into my electronics; acting like a direct electrical current traveling over a circuit, meeting resistance, dissipating radiation in IR (heat) during times of lower resistance, or UV to x-ray (cometary, or terrestrial arc discharges) or even gamma (atmospheric GRBs from lightning, sprites and jets), then it must truly be a mighty wind.

caraher

(6,276 posts)
4. There are mysteries out there, but I don't think either of these are unexplained
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 07:39 PM
Nov 2013

1) This is a mix of a straw-man argument (no reputable astrophysicist would argue that "everything we see in the heavens are the results of friction, shock-waves, and gravity alone&quot and a confusion between the names and definitions of units and what they stand for.

First, anything naturally measured in Amperes is going to be a current of some kind; could you give an example of its use by an astrophysicist in a context that implies there's no electrical phenomenon involved?

Second, the electron-volt is simply a unit of energy that's extremely handy when talking about the energy of individual atoms and subatomic particles. Its definition is in terms of an electrical thought experiment, but its use is by no means limited to systems with electromagnetic interactions. And its value has no electrical units "under the hood;" a volt is a joule per coulomb, and an electron volt is the product of a volt with the electron charge, so it's simply equivalent to some number of joules (kg m^2/s^2).

The name comes from the thought experiment I alluded to: an electron at a potential of 1V has an electrostatic potential energy of 1 eV. Perhaps the best way to think about this is to imagine releasing an electron (absent other interactions) from rest and looking at its kinetic energy (= 0.5 m v^2) after it accelerates across a potential difference of 1 V; that kinetic energy equals 1 eV, but it is energy associated with the moving mass of the electron. And if you plug in the numbers, you find out that the kinetic energy is 1.6 x 10^-19 joules. eV and joules are just different units for exactly the same thing! Astrophysicists use eV rather than joules for many reasons, but mainly because joules are units that give easy-to-use numbers when talking about energies of macroscopic objects moving at low speeds, while eV give manageable numbers when talking about molecules, atoms and smaller particles.

It's also customary to make use of Einstein's E=mc^2 to make a handier mass unit than kg. For instance, an electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10^-31 kg. That's an obnoxiously tiny number! But if we recognize that m=E/c^2 we can take the rest energy of the electron as another way of denoting the mass, and if we put that energy in eV and just carry through the c^2 we end up with much "nicer" numbers to work with. So that same electron has a rest energy of 511,000 eV (511 keV or 0.511 MeV); we can thus say its mass is 511 keV/c^2.

2) From your link: "the emission comes from the "charge exchange" between neutral atoms and molecules in the comet's coma and highly ionized O, C, N, Ne, Si, and Mg ions in the solar wind that is streaming by the comet." In other words, you have highly-energetic charged particles slamming into the comet... which is pretty much a recipe for making X-rays, right?

As for the gamma ray burst thing - yup, we don't understand everything. Isn't that great? There's a lot to be discovered out there. But it's not because astrophysicists are making profession-wide amateur mistakes about the nature of electromagnetism.

Blue State Bandit

(2,122 posts)
8. For example. The prolific use of terms such as solar wind...
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:09 PM
Nov 2013

to denote the movement of charged particles from one body to another.

The equalization of charge is a hallmark of electromagnetic activity. But when collimated vortices are seen connecting the Earth directly to the Sun, NASA leaves out what is travaling across these "Magnetic Portals". No mention of the flood of charged particles that are eventually measured in the range of 5 to 150 Giga-Watts when it interacts and enters our poles. You can track this @ NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center.

It's called a current, it's measured in Amperes, and expresses in Watts, but only after it enters the Ionosphere. expresses as a summer breeze that bends to the will of our magnetosphere with little more than a pink floyd laser show (sorry Northern Light's, still luv ya), but can make a "snowball" blaze in x-ray glory.

X-rays are also a form of synchrotron radiation directly linked to the catastrophic breakdown of charge separation ie. an electrical arc.

caraher

(6,276 posts)
11. I'm missing the part where NASA is hiding something
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:16 PM
Nov 2013

They mention "particles" streaming from the sun many times, and anyone with a passing acquaintance with electricity and magnetism would infer they must be charged.

Amperes would be a perfectly appropriate unit for measuring the rate at which charged particles flow (a current I). The power delivered by this stream will be the energy per particle times the rate of particle flow, which can be re-expressed in terms of currents and voltages (though to get a true energy per particle you need to know the distribution of charge states).

Blue State Bandit

(2,122 posts)
15. Misinterpreting.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 12:04 AM
Nov 2013

Current sheets accumulate on the surface of an object. it's specific charge differs pending the charge states of other objects in proximity. Equalization of that charge is the natural state which charged particles will always try to achieve.

But modern astrophysics disqualify macro-scale charge body interactions by Debye radius, which basically says that gravity does not allow for enough charge separation between 2 bodies to justify the production of x-rays via electron cascade i.e. current flow. The sun could barely hold 100 coulombs.

But time after time, we see long period comets cross the equatorial axis of the sun and watch outbreaks of sunspots and comet-directed M to X class flares.

And time after time, the tail produced is attributed to sublimation of water ice caused by radiant heating and friction caused by solar wind.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,153 posts)
5. A volt is a joule per coulomb
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:01 PM
Nov 2013

and that's why you measure energy in electron-volts. An electron has a fixed charge, which you can measure in coulombs, and to move it through a potential difference of one volt, you need one electron-volt of energy. We could, if we want, measure energy in 'proton-g-metres', defined as the energy needed to raise the mass of a proton in a gravitational filed of strength 'g' by one metre.

"If space is electrically neutral, as mainstream astronomy experts claim"

Do you mean 'space', or do you mean matter in space?

"If...everything we see in the heavens are the results of friction, shock-waves, and gravity alone"

They don't claim that, either. Friction is a pretty rare thing to hear astronomers talking about.

"why do these same scientists measure these energetic events in ... Amperes"

They don't. If you don't understand my explanation of an electron-volt, try Wikipedia or something.

The answer to (2) is in that link.

Blue State Bandit

(2,122 posts)
13. I mean large scale flows of charge from anode to cathode.
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 10:58 PM
Nov 2013

"Friction is a pretty rare thing to hear astronomers talking about."

How about the thermodynamic explanation of heating nebula gas into ionized plasma?

To be heated by the bombardment of particles or pressure waves is to claim heating by friction. Friction alone does not cut it.

Or the collimated jets of matter that not only escape Blackholes, but do so at relativistic speeds, many times exhibiting cyclical properties as the jet curves back to re-enter equatorially.



muriel_volestrangler

(101,153 posts)
17. 'anode' and 'cathode' in space?
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 07:22 AM
Nov 2013

You're using electrical terms in a meaningless word salad. Which is par for the course for someone taken in by the 'electric universe' nonsense. 'Anode' and 'cathode' only make sense in terms of a constructed circuit. This thread is a waste of time; I will presume all your other threads starting 'TSODS' will be too.

Blue State Bandit

(2,122 posts)
18. Then explain the physics of why particles...
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:32 AM
Nov 2013

from the "solar wind" comes to a dead stop at the heliopause as shown by the Voyager mission instead of the expected right angle turn predicted by NASA due to the "buffeting of interstellar wind"? This lack of conformation of their theory left scientists confused as to when Voyager actually crossed the heliopause for nearly a year.

Construct many circuits do you? Your use of that phrase leads me to believe that you lack understanding of what a circuit is. One does not need to construct a circuit. Natural circuits are the rule, not the exception. You are a circuit. You become an element of larger circuits as you move about your life.

The interaction between Earth's surface and the Ionosphere is exactly an anode/cathode situation. So you must be denying the ability of the universe to scale up?

Circuits do not require manufacturing, or wires and silicon PCB's to exist. Plasma is a mush better conductor. And it glows when acting as part of a circuit.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
19. Quick guess: Rutherford-scattering
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:07 AM
Nov 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_scattering

The particle is deflected after scattering into an angle theta, with the probability (1/sin(theta/2))⁴. That means, most particles are reflected head-on, instead of 90°-angles.

Blue State Bandit

(2,122 posts)
20. It's called coulomb scattering and denotes the (alpha) particle's momentum changes to 180°...
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:29 AM
Nov 2013

from a head on collision with a stationary charge, not come to a screeching halt which is what the data from Voyager shows.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
21. You are unnecessarily complicating it.
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:12 AM
Nov 2013

Why would we need a different formula when describing how the solar-wind hits the stationary gas of the interstellar medium?

And could you please provide a link for the Voyager-data? I would like to know, what kinds of instruments they used.

Blue State Bandit

(2,122 posts)
22. “There no longer exists any guidance on what constitutes getting out of the Solar System"
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:29 AM
Nov 2013

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

From Nature September 2012

In the latest twist in the story, the craft seems to be traversing an unexpected ‘dead zone’. This week, Robert Decker, a space scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, and his colleagues report1 in Nature that at Voyager 1’s current location, some 121.6 astronomical units (18.2 billion kilometres) from the Sun, the average velocity of solar particles has dropped to nearly zero. (Voyager 2, which is about 3 billion kilometres closer to the Sun and moving in a different direction, has yet to detect the same reduction in velocity.)

Decker’s team first reported2 the change last year, when it had measurements of the particles’ velocity only in the radial direction, outwards from the Sun. At the time, the team thought that the change was a sign that the craft was nearing the heliopause, where solar particles are expected to collide with powerful winds generated by supernovae that exploded some 5 million to 10 million years ago. The collision would force the solar particles to stop moving outwards and push them sideways, like a stream of water hitting a solid surface.



On edit:

Ars Technica September 2013

The plasma situation changed radically beginning on April 9, 2013, when Voyager's Plasma Wave Sensor picked up oscillations in the electron density. The rate of oscillation is correlated with the plasma density; prior to April, there had been no measurable oscillations. However, between April and May, the researchers found a gradual increase in the plasma density until it reached about 80,000 electrons per cubic meter—a number very close to what is measured in the ISM. (The theoretical density within the heliopause is around 2,000 electrons per cubic meter.)

So, has Voyager 1 left the Solar System? The only anomalous measurement remaining is the magnetic field direction, which doesn't correspond to the standard theories of the heliopause. With the new plasma density numbers, the case for Voyager's departure is stronger than before, leaving the magnetic problem in the hands of the theoreticians.

caraher

(6,276 posts)
25. You can't be serious
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 12:23 PM
Nov 2013

I didn't go to the interviews but checked out his book. Harriman is part of the Ayn Rand zombie empire of "objectivist" philosophy (the Leonard Peikoff intro on the book jacket was my tipoff) and seems to have convinced the gullible that he has somehow personally blown the lid off the issue of inductive reasoning in philosophy of science.

As one Amazon 1-star review writer observes,

..the author makes sweeping claims about philosophy of science by citing exactly one philosopher, Feyerabend. If the author, either of the review or the book, were serious, they would engage with the field as a whole. They would also know that philosophy of science, as practiced in analytic departments, has taken a strong stand against post-modern relativism and has able, articulate and competent writers with scientific backgrounds: Bas van Fraasen, Hilary Putnam, Nelson Goodman, Philip Kitcher, Harvey Brown, Eliot Sober, Nancy Cartwright, Patrick Suppes... I could go on.

The author would know, as well, that Putnam made the very same argument against Feyerabend over 40 years ago: namely, that if scientific methodology does not track truth, then we have no way of explaining technological applications. This ignorance betrays a fundamental ignorance of the literature in philosophy of science.

There are real issues in philosophy: questions about deductive and inductive logic, Bayesian confirmation, biomedical ethics, clinical trial structure, physical interpretation, but of course our authors prefer to dwell the disputed (and here, unsurprisingly, mischaracterized) claims of a single figure. A contrarian figure that, if anything, stands opposed to the mainstream consensus in philosophy of science, positivistic (e.g., the Vienna Circle, Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, Moritz Schlick, and so on) and post-positivistic: that science works, works best, and likely describes real, knowable entities.

It's plenty clear both authors don't have a clue what they are talking about. That Ayn Rand is brought up only underscores this. I suggest no one wastes their time on this obvious trash. If you want good, relevant, interesting philosophy of science, any of the above-mentioned authors would do fine.

caraher

(6,276 posts)
27. The world is full of BS
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 02:05 PM
Nov 2013

I'm not saying he's wrong because he's a Rand acolyte. I'm saying the odds that he has anything to say that's worth listening to are dramatically diminished given his intellectual pedigree and apparent lack of deep engagement with the field he purports to be an expert in.

The problem of induction is very well-studied in philosophy of science; I learned quite a bit about it from a longtime practitioner of philosophy of physics, when I was an undergraduate almost 30 years ago. This guy seems to think he's the first to notice what everyone learns in their first philosophy of science class. He *may* have a new wrinkle on it, but I'm not going to wade through the muck of "Objectivist" epistemology in hopes of extracting a nugget of diamond.

YMMV, of course. Just not worth my time, and it is worth noting the school of "philosophy" whence the author hails...

cantbeserious

(13,039 posts)
28. If You Had Bothered - You Would Learn That He Holds Master's Degrees In Both Philosophy And Physics
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 05:05 PM
Nov 2013

BTW - he is not an acolyte of Rand's politics - he has studied her philosophic texts as one would expect.

caraher

(6,276 posts)
29. I actually tried in vain to find his CV online, though sure he does hold those degrees
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 05:07 PM
Nov 2013

What that tells me is that he works in the hermetic circles of Objectivist "thought" rather than engaging the actual wider philosophy community

cantbeserious

(13,039 posts)
30. Well The Same Could Be Said For Economists Like Steve Keen That Are Outside The Economic Mainstream
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 05:18 PM
Nov 2013

Many inside the economic mainstream did not see the Wall Street crash coming. Steve Keen did.

Just because someone is outside the orthodoxy of their field does not automatically mean that they have nothing to contribute.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»The Science of Denying Sc...