Sio on October 30, 2009, 11:14:38 am
Sorry, but Delphi was not the name of the oracular person in the Temple of Apollo, but the name of the LOCATION at which the Temple had been placed, and the town nearby.  Her nametag should have read "Pythia", not "Delphi".   A plaque on the wall should have had a map with "Delphi" marked with a big arrow saying "You Are Here!"  The Delphic Oracle was more properly referred to as "The Oracle AT Delphi", or  "The Oracle OF Delphi".  She was not *named* Delphi.

And yes, I do believe that someone as scholarly and pedantic as Reggie would know that.

Scott on October 30, 2009, 12:51:26 pm
The name tag was supposed to say, "Sibyl," who was one of the known Oracles. Lee goofed and I didn't catch the mistake before the page went up. It's been fixed now.
 ;D

Stig Hemmer on November 01, 2009, 08:39:39 pm
It has been conjectured that the Oracles at Delphi were hallucinating because of gases coming from underground.  These hallucinations were then interpreted as prophecies.

I think this is leading to the revelation that there are halluciogenic gases in the air in this base too.  Since the base has a lot higher pressure than outside, there is no way any underground gases will emerge inside the base.

I suspect either a student prank gone wrong, or fungus growing in the air system.

One unresolved problem though is why two students transcribed the same music...

Azure Priest on November 02, 2009, 10:06:27 am
they were transcribing the sounds of the wind reacting with the satellite towers. I also suspect that the gases are being released by some wind triggered/ powered device.

Karadan on November 02, 2009, 10:37:48 am
Time for a triumphant return to the scientific community... sans pants.

I like the 'gas pushed into the station by wind' theory, but is there really enough atmo on mars to have wind?  And even more so, if wind is pushing stuff into the station, then the station should generally be pushing all its air out when the wind is low.

I wonder if it might be a leak of one of the environmental systems, or perhaps a leak that is letting air out so it is oxygen deprivation that is causing all this.

Also, was the guy who went outside without a suit on ever found?  If not that is still a big mystery because he should have died fairly quickly and been found near the station.

Fnord on November 02, 2009, 11:12:46 am
"Sibyl" ... cute name ...

What did she name the other one?

 ;)

SandySandfort on November 02, 2009, 02:56:24 pm
I like the 'gas pushed into the station by wind' theory, but is there really enough atmo on mars to have wind? 

Yes, there is plenty of wind on Mars, up to and including dust devils.

And even more so, if wind is pushing stuff into the station, then the station should generally be pushing all its air out when the wind is low.

Correct.

SandySandfort on November 02, 2009, 02:58:01 pm
"Sibyl" ... cute name ...

What did she name the other one?

 ;)

She is rather symmetrical, so how about Lybis?

Brugle on November 02, 2009, 05:21:45 pm
there is plenty of wind on Mars, up to and including dust devils.

I like the idea that dust devils on Mars (and Earth!) are electrical discharge phenomena, and thus are not indicative of atmospheric density.  (One reference of many is http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=zg70y10m .)

But if you say that Martian winds are enough to make noticeable noise (in a quiet environment), I'll buy it.

SandySandfort on November 02, 2009, 08:37:50 pm
But if you say that Martian winds are enough to make noticeable noise (in a quiet environment), I'll buy it.

Sound does not carry very far on Mars. However, if the wind were causing anything attached to the station habitat to vibrate, then the sound would not have to travel through the air at all to be heard.

Sio on November 03, 2009, 08:00:15 am
Again, the Oracle at Delphi was not the Sibyl -- though there WERE oracular women who were referred to as the Sibyls, they were *distinct* from the Delphic Oracles at the Temple of Apollo.  There WAS a Sibyl at Delphi, but she was NOT the Delphic Oracle. From Wikipedia: The Delphic Sibyl was not involved in the operation of the Delphic Oracle and should be considered distinct from the Pythia, the priestess of Apollo, also known as the "Oracle at Delphi."

Hence my original suggestion that the nametag should have read "Pythia".  (Nor was I was not making a reference to Battlestar Galactica.)

Azure Priest on November 03, 2009, 08:26:59 am
there is plenty of wind on Mars, up to and including dust devils.

I like the idea that dust devils on Mars (and Earth!) are electrical discharge phenomena, and thus are not indicative of atmospheric density.  (One reference of many is http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=zg70y10m .)

But if you say that Martian winds are enough to make noticeable noise (in a quiet environment), I'll buy it.


Mars is basically a planet wide Sahara Desert. NASA's probes have documented sand dunes, underground ice "aquafers" and even sandstorms so massive that they're planet wide and last for weeks. Needless to say, this is very rough on the equipment. And I'm not saying that the wind "pushes" things into the station, but rather that it either activates or powers some device that releases the hallucinogenic agent. Such a device is relatively easy to build. Just have a pressurized tank attached to a valve, when the wind blows, the valve opens. When the wind stops blowing, the valve shuts. Such a device attached to an inconvenient or inconspicuous part of the ventilation system could be VERY hard to track down, let alone remove. The device could even be far more complex and camouflaged, sending relay signals through the electrical wiring of the station between the surface wind sensor and the actual "source" of the agent, having the device release the agent only upon a very particular series of sounds, "the music," or any number of methods far too lengthy to mention.

gdp on November 06, 2009, 09:20:31 am
there is plenty of wind on Mars, up to and including dust devils.

I like the idea that dust devils on Mars (and Earth!) are electrical discharge phenomena, and thus are not indicative of atmospheric density.  (One reference of many is http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=zg70y10m .)

But if you say that Martian winds are enough to make noticeable noise (in a quiet environment), I'll buy it.


Martian surface air-density is about two orders of magnitude less than terrestrial, but typical martian wind-speeds average over an order of magnitude higher due to the thin atmosphere and the large temperature contrasts between dayside and nightside, and between equator and poles. Since dynamic wind pressure scales as the density times the square of the wind-speed, martian dynamic wind-pressures are therefore comparable to terrestrial dynamic wind-pressures, the thinner air notwithstanding.

Furthermore, wind-power scales as the density times the cube of the wind speed. So on Mars, the higher average wind-speed more than compensates for the thinner air.

Also, the sound emitted when wind blows past something is closely related to the von Karman vortex shedding rate, which depends only on the Reynolds Number of the flow. Reynolds Number depends on the wind-speed, the diameter of the object, and the kinematic viscosity of the air, but not directly on the air density. (Kinematic viscosity depends primarily on air temperature, not density, and the wind speed and object size are obviously independent of density.) Sound will not propagate nearly as effectively through the thinner air, of course, but the vortex shedding will set guywires and structures vibrating in reaction, and those vibrations will be transmitted through the guywires and structures to the interior air of any lifesupport habitat they are physically attached to.

As for "holoscience.com," the most charitable thing I can say about them is that most of their nonsense contains so little physics or science of any type and so much wild-eyed arm-waving speculation and conspiracy theory as to be "Not even wrong." While dust-devils do develop static charges distributions due to triboelectric (friction) charge separation (similar to scuffing your feet across a carpet), these static charge densities are a side-effect of dust-devils, not their cause. While the mutual static repulsion of like-charged near-surface dust particles do appear to make it somewhat easier to lift them into the main body of the vortex (see e.g. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026284.shtml), the electrical forces within a dust-devil vortex are self-limiting and much weaker than the aerodynamic forces (see e.g.  http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JE002618.shtml).
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 02:02:18 pm by gdp »

Brugle on November 06, 2009, 05:30:44 pm
As for "holoscience.com," the most charitable thing I can say about them is that most of their nonsense contains so little physics or science of any type and so much wild-eyed arm-waving speculation and conspiracy theory as to be "Not even wrong."

Keeping to the current EFT theme, I could be charitable and assume that you wrote that after a long period of complete sensory deprivation.  But I won't.

Are you serious?  I recognize that you disagree with Wallace Thornhill's conclusions, but did you find anything to justify those accusations?  (Other than "speculation", of course.  The discussion of a theory will contain everything from core principles through obvious applications to speculations, and electric universe theory is no different.)

I've been aware of electric universe theory for quite a few years, and have seen theorists make quite a few specific predictions about what would be observed when spacecraft approached planets, moons, and comets.  Some were firm: EU (before): X will be seen; NASA (after): We saw X and were completely surprised!  Some not so firm: EU (before): A might be seen, B might be seen, C might be seen; NASA (after) We saw A and were completely surprised, we saw B, we did not see C.  One was particularly clear-cut: after a hot spot was observed at Saturn's south pole (at the time sunlit), mainstream scientists suggested that there would be a cold spot at Saturn's north pole (at the time not sunlit) while EU scientists predicted that there would be a hot spot there; when the north pole was observed, there was a hot spot.

these static charge densities are a side-effect of dust-devils, not their cause

As far as I know, nobody suggests that static charges cause dust devils.  In most cases of interest to plasma scientists, neither electrostatic (no current) nor magnetohydrodynamic (no charge separation) assumptions are valid.  There are other complications: for example, a small amount of dust can significantly change the behavior of a slightly ionized gas.  Therefore, experiments are crucial to understanding plasma.  Fortunately, plasma effects scale over many orders of magnitude.

The question of whether electric currents through the atmosphere are required to form dust devils, tornadoes, and waterspouts may eventually be settled by observation.  Until then, some people may take your assertion as evidence, but scientists wouldn't.

gdp on November 07, 2009, 08:04:07 pm
Unfortunately for partisans of Thornhill's "Electric Universe Theory," the so-called "Electric Universe" is not in fact a "theory" as Physicists use that term, since it does not provide a quantitative mathematical framework that explains the full body of empirical data while not predicting anything that is already empirically falsified. (Thornhill's "theory" is completely non-mathematical, and has been falsified on a plethora of its alleged "predictions.") Nor is Thornhill's "Electric Universe" even "scientific," since Thornhill does not make use of the Scientific Method, but instead uses the methods of Historical and Literary Criticism and polemic rhetoric.

Let us examine a fairly typical paper by Thornhill, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Aug. 2007, Volume: 35, Issue: 4, Part 1, Page(s): 832-844; the paper's content is notable for a number of points:

1.) A complete and total lack of any mathematics.

2.) All claims in the paper are qualitative, not quantitative. In the rare cases where numbers do appear, they are asserted or quoted, not calculated.

3.) The paper is a rambling collection of anecdotal instances, ad hoc claims, and special pleadings, with no central organizing principle or hypothesis.

4.) All "explanations" are at best phenomenological analogies of the logically fallacious form "A visually resembles B, therefore A is B," or  ad hoc additional hypotheses, or (and at worst), false-dichotomy assertions that "conventional theory cannot explain phenomenon X, so therefore the author's unconventional theory must instead be correct."

5.) Citation preference is given to older papers in which the empirical and theoretical results were less well established, rather than more recent papers in which results are more firmly established, creating a false impression that "the establishment's" body of theory is less well supported than it actually is.

6.) Claims supporting the author's thesis are cherry-picked --- frequently by quoting them out of context --- as are claims alleging "problems" with "the establishment's" body of theory --- again, frequently by quoting them out of context.

7.) Empirical evidences clearly falsifying the author's thesis and claims are ignored --- regardless of how many times these fatal flaws that have falsified the author's thesis have been previously pointed out to him.

The above are not characteristics of a solid, empirically well-supported paper in the Physical Sciences; they are instead characteristics of pseudoscientific crankery.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 10:58:27 pm by gdp »

 

anything