I'm not a physicist. I aced intro to quantum only because it was more math than anything else. I tanked in regular physics.
But this sounded plausable. I was wondering what our resident physicists think about it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm no physicist, but it sounds plausible. I wonder though, why he thinks it's not possible that fusion and electrical activity aren't both going on inside a star simultaneously. It doesn't make sense to me that, with all that hydrogen and heat and gravity, you'd have no fusion at all. I could be wrong, though.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
bump. this concept is interesting. I want to hear a discussion about my post on it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Did you actually bump the thread 15 minutes after you posted?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Ummm....yes?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No, it's okay, really. It's just... the whole bumping thing is usually reserved for things that haven't had a comment for like a day, or a month, or three and a half years, or something like that.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Sorry, Lisa. We were having a big discussion that touched heavily on planet and star formation over on Ornery. However, I see your point.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm not a physicist, but I'm not convinced that electromagnetic forces can account for star and planet formation. Honestly, the piece tried to pick holes in the current scientific consensus but failed to really give a clear explanation of how star and planet formation is supposed to work under the electrical theory.
Also, we've landed probes with rather sensitive instruments on the moon and Mars. I'm not aware of any findings that would indicate that there is a significant charge difference between the moon and the Earth or the Earth and Mars.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hum. The physics is not immediately obvious wrong, though I've only read halfway through. He does make several assertions of 'X has shown Y' without any links; since he does link in a few other places, that makes me wonder if perhaps he's trying to sneak something by. The tone of the piece makes my crackpot alarm go off, though. Still, why worry? If he has anything useful to say, we'll see him in peer review.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, hang on, he's going into my area of expertise now. Sorry, but the neutrino evidence is solid; it doesn't rely on theoretical estimates of the solar neutrino flux, it measures the change between dayside and nightside. That's how we know that neutrinos change underway; ain't nothin' theoretical about it. Also, convection currents don't have to be chaotic just because they're hot, though they can be. So that's two strikes: He doesn't understand neutrinos, and he doesn't understand fluid dynamics. And, let me see... Yep, here we go. "The strong gravitation that still exists would be sufficient to induce a slight offset of the nucleus of each atom from the center, so that each atom becomes a small electric dipole (a body of net neutral charge, but with its positive and negative components displaced to create local "polarization")". Wrong. The potential energy gradient would affect the nucleus and electron equally. Three strikes, yer out.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I can't find any pics through Googling of electric arc machining to compare to the craters of the moon. I suspected that part of his science was full of crap when he posited that Venus was recently struck from the face of Jupiter.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
KOM, I agree with you in this instance that the current model of star and planetary formation is well supported by measurable evidence, but your snarky, arrogant, brash response (as is the vast majority of you comments on Hatrack) in my mind only adds a touch a credence to this alternate theroy. You would be much more convincing if you weren't such an ass.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Regarding the cratering--the bit about the peaks in the middle of craters being proof of arcing rather than impact is wrong. Impacts can most definitely cause central peaks. The peaks are caused when the initial hole caused by the impact collapses inward. It's the sort of thing you sometimes see in strobe photos of liquid drops.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by JLM: KOM, I agree with you in this instance that the current model of star and planetary formation is well supported by measurable evidence, but your snarky, arrogant, brash response (as is the vast majority of you comments on Hatrack) in my mind only adds a touch a credence to this alternate theroy. You would be much more convincing if you weren't such an ass.
More convincing maybe, but not nearly as entertaining.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Actually, I took a look at what King of Men said in this thread, and it's really not particularly snarky or arrogant. His comments in other threads often are, but he's positively restrained in this one.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Actually, I took a look at what King of Men said in this thread, and it's really not particularly snarky or arrogant. His comments in other threads often are, but he's positively restrained in this one.