Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol88 said:
How do you make gravity repel?
Click to expand...

You don't. And that's precisely why it dominates large scale structures of the universe: it always adds, it never cancels.

Very easy for the electric fields, charged particles and electric currents.
Click to expand...

Quite so. Which is why at large scales it's much weaker than gravity: it mostly cancels.
 
Sol88 said:
Force free field aligned currents.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "force free field aligned currents"
There can be a magnetic configuration that is force free, which may or may not include field aligned currents.
 
Sol88 said:
Splitting hairs

Facts stand. Counter rotation observed accounted for by the Electric Universe.
Click to expand...

It is not splitting hairs, because there is such a thing as Birkeland currents, which are magnetic field aligned currents in the (Earth's) magnetosphere, which power the aurora (heck there can even be double layers involved).
Now the EU gang has startet to call all field aligned currents Birkeland currents, for some reason or other.
But mainstream will not call Flux Transfer Events (FTEs) Birkeland currents.
It is fine if the EU gang wants to have their own nomenclature for observed phenomena, but then they should not be surprised if the real space physicist do not go along with their alternative mumbojumbo.
And I have not got the foggiest, what this "counter rotation" is supposed to be.
 
Would anyone of you gents clarify for me the part I noted on regarding photon decay? I'd be most grateful.
 
Sol88 said:
So the Universe is full of electric fields and electric currents, the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!

Whoda thunkit!
Click to expand...
Seriously?

So the universe is full of mass and gravitational fields, the MASSIVE UNIVERSE!

So the universe is full of photons, the PHOTON UNIVERSE!

So the universe is full of neutrinos, the NEUTRINO UNIVERSE!

Whoda thunkit!
 
Sol88 said:
Ohhh, so you are able to enlighten the most brilliant minds on this unresolved mystery in astrophysics?

I’m all ears. :D
Click to expand...

Well, one thing is certainly clear ... that there is no “electric universe theory”.

Time to close this thread then?
 
Sol88 said:
No, not really.

This is about the right application of standard plasma physics.

See the papers above.

But

If the electric force is the dominant organising force on the universe, then why all the mathamagical constructs to save a Cleary outdated theory, the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Curiously, I missed the papers which explain, quantitatively, how a giant inter-galactic current produces ~3.8 x 1026 W as it interacts with the Sun.

Can you cite a handful please?
 
Sol88 said:
Well, we have all the electric current and electric fields required for an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!
Click to expand...

Really?

Where are the ones which power the Sun?

No giant lightning bolts mentioned.
Click to expand...

Go wash your mouth out with soap, you whippersnapper!

High Priest Thornhill has declared that giant lightning bolts are a vital part of the cult’s dogma! You don’t want to be called a heretic, do you?
 
Jono said:
I came across a person the other day, critical of the bbt/finite universe as well as the current application of redshift. Basically, his argument was the following:


To which he linked to a short summary by someone who is named Michael Lewis: The Hubble Red Shift by Photon Decay: a sensible explanation

I've never heard of this photon-decay alternative thingy.
Click to expand...
Wrong thread; this idea has nothing to do with the Velikovsky-based Electric Universe nonsense.

In any case, the photon decay idea, as presented, is inconsistent with relevant observations such as the redshift of a cosmologically distant object being independent of wavelength, and non-redshift-based distances being consistent with those estimated from their redshifts.
 
Sol88 said:
Don Scott was correct.

:D

Build yourself a bridge,... get over it.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Did you just confirm that even Chief Acolyte Scott cannot explain, quantitatively how the Sun is powered by a giant inter-galactic current?

Brave, wouldn’t you say, to contradict a High Priest?
 
Jono said:
I came across a person the other day, critical of the bbt/finite universe as well as the current application of redshift. Basically, his argument was the following:


To which he linked to a short summary by someone who is named Michael Lewis: The Hubble Red Shift by Photon Decay: a sensible explanation

I've never heard of this photon-decay alternative thingy.
Click to expand...

Because it’s nonsense. Photon decay would require images of distant objects to blur. And they don’t.
 
Sol88 said:
Don Scott was correct.

:D

Build yourself a bridge,... get over it.
Click to expand...

Scott? Correct? When did that happen, because it would be a first! This is the clown who put fusion in the chromosphere to explain neutrino observations! Little realising that such fusion would fry the planet with gamma rays! I don't think we need to pay any attention to such a person.
 
JeanTate said:
Huh?

Did you just confirm that even Chief Acolyte Scott cannot explain, quantitatively how the Sun is powered by a giant inter-galactic current?

Brave, wouldn’t you say, to contradict a High Priest?
Click to expand...

Strawman.

Show me the passage where Don Scott says the Sun is powered by a giant inter-galactic current.

:D
 
jonesdave116 said:
Scott? Correct? When did that happen, because it would be a first! This is the clown who put fusion in the chromosphere to explain neutrino observations! Little realising that such fusion would fry the planet with gamma rays! I don't think we need to pay any attention to such a person.
Click to expand...


He called it. Counter rotation. :D

How do feel?

For any one who like to use their own intelligence and not rely on jonesdave116’s Hubris.

Don Scott counter rotation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom