Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

Yet more irrelevant insanity from Sol88

...

Yet more irrelevant insanity from Sol88.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma continued in the electric universe theories thread.

Plasma and gravity have "mechanisms" - the forces between the particles in plasma, the forces between the objects in gravity .
Utter insanity of "rubber bands" from Sol88.

 

[Reality Check]

Yet more irrelevant insanity from Sol88

Do you have the math that prove this?

Yet more irrelevant insanity from Sol88.
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma continued in the electric universe theories thread.

Sol88 and his demented cult deny that black holes exist but Sol88 insanely asks about black holes and their disks in a thread about the EU from his cult !

The question is insane. Astrophysicists specializing in the dynamics of accretion disks around black holes are very unlikely to be reading this thread. If they were they know that Sol88 is an insanely ignorant and in denial of science supporter of a demented cult. It is a waste to time answering questions that he is incapable of understanding. He does not even know what plasma is!

The question is insane. Google and Wikipedia exist. Astronomy textbooks exist. Scientific literature exists.

The question is utterly insane. Sol88 has cited a recent observation of matter not falling into a black hole !
Going against the flow around a supermassive black hole

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>
Don Scott

We observe this.

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/The_Twin_Jet_Nebula.jpg/300px-The_Twin_Jet_Nebula.jpg[/qimg] ESA/Hubble

My post is for others, though of course Sol88 is more than welcome to respond too.

There’s something deeply troubling about this, something which goes to the heart of electric universe theories (EUt).

It’s no secret than EUt rejects General Relativity (GR); what’s not so well known is that the rejection includes Special Relativity (SR). To be clear, Don Scott rejects GR, but perhaps not SR; however, as far as I know, he has never called out any of his EUt colleagues for their public rejection of SR.

Why does this matter? And what does it have to do with this post by Sol88?

Sure, EUt fans are deeply hypocritical, albeit many are ignorantly hypocritical ... they happily use smartphones, find their way using GPS, etc, never acknowledging that these things work rely on Relatively. But who cares?

Well, here in this section of ISF, we do. If an EUt claim relies, critically, on Relativity, we must demand that this fundamental inconsistency be explained.

It’s not really necessary to spell this out, but how does what Sol88 posted depend, critically, on Relativity? In a word, “HST”.

So, has any EUt proponent ever even tried to show that HST images are valid, if Relativity is rejected? Not that I know of. And that includes Sol88.

What does this mean?

That unless and until this fundamental inconsistency is explained, any evidence in support of any EUt which relies on Hubble images can be ignored.

An interesting corollary: as Ziggurat noted above, EUt fans rely on images etc as every attempt at providing quantitative support has failed; in fact those fans can’t rely on Hubble images (or indeed almost all images from contemporary astronomical telescopes and instruments).

 

[Reality Check]

Yet more insanity from Sol88 relevant to the EU delusions for once

...We observe this.

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/The_Twin_Jet_Nebula.jpg/300px-The_Twin_Jet_Nebula.jpg[/qimg] ESA/Hubble

Yet more insanity from Sol88 relevant to the EU delusions for once ! The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma continued in the electric universe theories thread.

We have Sol88's persistent stupidity of citing no source. We observe an image of the Twin Jet Nebula about which Donald Scott spews ignorant delusions in Fig. 10 in that PDF. He labels a z-pinch, concentric cylinders from the z-pinch and double layers because he imagines he sees them in the images. Z-pinches are not Birkeland currents so we have abysmal ignorance or a blatant lie from Scott ! Birkeland currents are a specific case of z-pinches without a "pinch" to a point. The pinch is to a layer as in the schematic in the Wikipedia page.

Testing the Electric Universe by Brian Koberlein on 25 February 2014 analyses the EU as described in a e-book (A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe by Tom Findlay) recommended by the Thunderbolts authors. The main article has

• "The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos" but we detect them.
• "If instead the Sun were lit by electrically excited plasma, as the EU model predicts, the spectrum should be a discontinuous spectrum of bright lines" but this is not the case.
• "Are special and general relativity wrong? Nope. They’ve been confirmed in the lab."
• "How about the idea that stars “give birth” to other stars and planets? If that were the case, we should see stars form as isolated objects in stellar nurseries, then later form planetary systems. Instead, what we see is protostars form with protoplanetary disks of gas and dust out of which planets form."
• EU predictions for galaxies do not match real galaxies.

Ending with

So never let it be said that an astro-scientist has never considered the electric universe model with an open mind. The Electric Universe model is wrong. Provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.

We’ve put the Electric Universe to the test. Final Grade: F-

M2-9 is brought up by an commentator and Brian Koberlein replies

In Scott’s argument, M2-9 (also known as the Butterfly nebula) is a z-pinch. But such a pinch occurs when current (and the actual plasma) flows through the pinch. This is a pretty easy claim to check by looking at the Doppler shift of the light. If it is a pinch you should observe both lobes moving in the same direction (or in the case of a double layer you’d see inward/outward flow on both sides. We’ve looked at this, and it’s very clear the material is flowing away from the central star. That’s just one reason why Scott’s description is wrong.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the image used in Scott’s talk (something like this) is specifically designed to pull out the faint features of the lobes. That’s where magnetic fields and currents would have the greatest effect, so it looks like a pinch. Here’s another image of the same object focusing on gas and dust [actually of the same type of object - the Butterfly nebula]. Here you can see material hot central region collides with dense pockets on either side, creating flows trailing away from the center.

M2-9 isn’t remotely what Scott says it is. If Scott had submitted his idea to a research journal, the Doppler observations would be one of the things he’d need to address. He’d also need to address observations at different wavelengths that disagree with his idea. He hasn’t done that.

N.B. Papers about the plasma flowing away from the star in M2-9 and other similar nebula have been around since at least 2000. Scott's deluded PDF is from 2015. As well as Scott's M2-9 delusion, Figs 7, 8 and 9 are Scott's delusion that a weather pattern around Saturn's north pole is caused by Birkeland currents. There is actual insanity of Scott calling clouds in Saturn's atmosphere plasma ("counter-rotating (plasma) clouds"). Stupidity of commenting on narration in a 2013 NASA video (that is 1 minute and 36 seconds long!) rather than reading the published science on the clouds.

The stupidity of the Thunderbolt's cult "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic is explained in Quacks Like a Duck. And the Sun is not electric: Hot Topic.

 

[jonesdave116]

Further to the above posts from JT & RC;

The M2-9 (butterfly) nebula has been addressed elsewhere, and possibly on here, also. To cut to the chase, a z-pinch travels in one direction and gets pinched, as in;

>>>>>>>>>*>>>>>>>>> where > is the direction of flow of the current, and * is the pinch.

When we look at M2-9 in Doppler, what we see is;

<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>> where < & > are the directions of flow of the emitted gas, and * is the central star doing the emitting. As per;



Which is from;

M2-9-A planetary nebula with an eruptive nucleus?
Balick, B. (1988!)
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/6553/AJ_97_476_480.pdf?sequence=1

That paper is freely available. Scott fails to reference it, in his attempts at hoodwinking the scientifically illiterate. This is not the first time Scott has played fast and loose with references, in an attempt to back his woo. He is not to be trusted. Nor is anybody else associated with the Velikovskian cult known as Electric Universe. I quote Tim Thompson regarding the previous;

There is no honesty in the electric cosmos, it is dominated by preconception. You can see this clearly in the way they practice "science by exegesis", using literary techniques, and criticizing phrases & passages. But when they try to follow the form of "science", suggesting "scientific" explanations, like the simple circuit model for a solar flare, they can't even make their own model physically consistent with their own explanantion!; When do you finally decide that enough is enough? How many gross, simple factual errors do you think are OK, before you are willing to call something "stupid"? I actually have a pretty decent level of tolerance for error based on ignorance, but errors based on a fundamental dishonesty are intolerable when peddled as "science". At its core, the electric cosmos is based on dishonesty, not science, and you cannot ever tolerate that.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?28596-Electric-Universe-Model&p=477320

 

[Sol88]

10 years, 42 pages, over 2,000 posts. And zero electric universe theories.

Some people here sure have a lot of spare time to spend on nothing much.

Anybody have an actual theory?

Scientists are interested in active galactic nuclei because such astrophysical plasmas could be directly related to the plasmas studied in laboratories.[13] Many of these phenomena seemingly exhibit an array of complex magnetohydrodynamic behaviors, such as turbulence and instabilities.Although these phenomena may occur on astronomical scales as large as the galactic core, many astrophysicists suggest that they do not significantly involve plasma effects but are caused by matter consumed by super massive black holes.

wiki

That’s the problem.

Electricity is there, it just doesn’t do anything.

May occur? Not may, does occur.

 

[Reality Check]

Yet more insanity from Sol88 - nothing relevant to EU

...

Yet more insanity from Sol88 - nothing relevant to EU.

The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma continued in the electric universe theories thread.

Sol88's insanity of highlighting text in an unnamed Wikipedia page. More insane because Sol88 quote mines an easily found article: Astrophysical plasma

Scientists are interested in active galactic nuclei because such astrophysical plasmas could be directly related to the plasmas studied in laboratories.[13] Many of these phenomena seemingly exhibit an array of complex magnetohydrodynamic behaviors, such as turbulence and instabilities.[2] Although these phenomena may occur on astronomical scales as large as the galactic core, many astrophysicists suggest that they do not significantly involve plasma effects but are caused by matter consumed by super massive black holes.[citation needed]

In Big Bang cosmology, the entire universe was in a plasma state prior to recombination.[citation needed] Afterwards, much of the universe reionized after the first quasars formed.[citation needed]

Studying astrophysical plasmas is part of mainstream academic astrophysics. Though plasma processes are part of the standard cosmological model, current theories indicate that they might have only a minor role to play in forming the very largest structures, such as voids, galaxy clusters and superclusters.[citation needed]

Sol88's insane lies about mainstream physics which includes electromagnetism where electricity does things - just not what Sol88's demented Thunderbolts cult wants it to do!

For others: Relativistic jets are an example of astronomers researching how "electricity" acts around supermassive black holes. The basics are fairly simple. We observe disks of plasma around supermassive black holes. Supermassive black holes have magnetic fields and rotate. Physics 101: charges in a moving magnetic field are accelerated. Thus we expect jets from at least some rotating supermassive black holes.

 

[Steve]

wiki

That’s the problem.

Electricity is there, it just doesn’t do anything.

May occur? Not may, does occur.

Understood. You do not have a theory.

Anyone else?

 

[Sol88]

Correct, I do not.

See,

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important, if not dominant, roles in the physics of the universe beyond the Solar System.[2][3] In contrast, the current observations and models of cosmologists and astrophysicists explain the formation, development, and evolution of astronomical bodies and large-scale structures in the universe as influenced by gravity (including its formulation in Einstein's theory of general relativity) and baryonic physics.[4]

See,

Studying astrophysical plasmas is part of mainstream academic astrophysics. Though plasma processes are part of the standard cosmological model, current theories indicate that they might have only a minor role to play in forming the very largest structures, such as voids, galaxy clusters and superclusters.[citation needed]

That’s the crux of the problem.

 

[jonesdave116]

Correct, I do not.

See,

See,


That’s the crux of the problem.

What? The crux of the problem is that you do not have a theory? Yes, we kind of knew that! PC is long dead. EU was stillborn.

 

[tusenfem]

and baryonic physics.[4]

WTF is "baryonic physics"? and do the plasma cosmologists think that plasma is not baryonic? (like H, He, ... plasmas)

 

[Steve001]

My post is for others, though of course Sol88 is more than welcome to respond too.

There’s something deeply troubling about this, something which goes to the heart of electric universe theories (EUt).

It’s no secret than EUt rejects General Relativity (GR); what’s not so well known is that the rejection includes Special Relativity (SR). To be clear, Don Scott rejects GR, but perhaps not SR; however, as far as I know, he has never called out any of his EUt colleagues for their public rejection of SR.

Why does this matter? And what does it have to do with this post by Sol88?

Sure, EUt fans are deeply hypocritical, albeit many are ignorantly hypocritical ... they happily use smartphones, find their way using GPS, etc, never acknowledging that these things work rely on Relatively. But who cares?

Well, here in this section of ISF, we do. If an EUt claim relies, critically, on Relativity, we must demand that this fundamental inconsistency be explained.

It’s not really necessary to spell this out, but how does what Sol88 posted depend, critically, on Relativity? In a word, “HST”.

So, has any EUt proponent ever even tried to show that HST images are valid, if Relativity is rejected? Not that I know of. And that includes Sol88.

What does this mean?

That unless and until this fundamental inconsistency is explained, any evidence in support of any EUt which relies on Hubble images can be ignored.

An interesting corollary: as Ziggurat noted above, EUt fans rely on images etc as every attempt at providing quantitative support has failed; in fact those fans can’t rely on Hubble images (or indeed almost all images from contemporary astronomical telescopes and instruments).

Overall this observation applies to all rejections of what we've learned of nature's workings.

 

[JeanTate]

wiki

That’s the problem.

Electricity is there, it just doesn’t do anything.

May occur? Not may, does occur.

Um, you do realize, don't you, that there are thousands of open questions in astrophysics and cosmology? What is it that you think the thousands of researchers work on?

Also, you do realize, don't you, that central to plasma astrophysics is "electricity"? And that, as RC has pointed out, there are hundreds of papers on the role of "electricity" in physical systems such as galactic nuclei, radio lobes, and jets associated with accretion disks surrounding black holes.

If this topic interests you - and your many posts here suggests that it does - why not take some courses, in plasma physics, astrophysics, etc? Once done, you may be in a position to contribute to this field, by doing original research ...

 

[JeanTate]

Correct, I do not.

See,

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is [...]

See,


That’s the crux of the problem.

Indeed.

Here's the problem: plasma cosmology is science, electric universe theories are not. The topic of this thread is electric universe theories. There is at least one, quite separate, thread here on plasma cosmology. If you're interested in discussing plasma cosmology, why not post to one of those threads?

Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt are two of the most prominent proponents of plasma cosmology (as far as I know). Peratt is quite clear that he and his work has nothing to do with electric universe theories; Lerner makes the same point by omission. One aspect of the dishonesty Tim Thompson notes about EUts and their proponents (thanks jd16) is their frequent attempts to claim that plasma cosmology is consistent with EUts. Yes, Lerner rejects GR ... but not SR, and he has been careful (most of the time anyway, AFAIK) to say why his rejection of GR does not invalidate data from observatories such as the Hubble. For Peratt it's less clear, though if you read his papers carefully, you'll see that he does not reject GR (this is implicit rather than explicit).

 

[Steve001]

Um, you do realize, don't you, that there are thousands of open questions in astrophysics and cosmology? What is it that you think the thousands of researchers work on?

Also, you do realize, don't you, that central to plasma astrophysics is "electricity"? And that, as RC has pointed out, there are hundreds of papers on the role of "electricity" in physical systems such as galactic nuclei, radio lobes, and jets associated with accretion disks surrounding black holes.

If this topic interests you - and your many posts here suggests that it does - why not take some courses, in plasma physics, astrophysics, etc? Once done, you may be in a position to contribute to this field, by doing original research ...

Learning science and conducting it is not the motive. Sol88 for example has his identity entwined with bucking the system; he likely prides himself to be an independent thinker who's not been brainwashed like you and me with scientific dogma. He may also think he's smarter than everyone else which would be enough cause for him to do no such thing. Your good suggestion I'm certain has fallen upon deaf ears.

 

[Reality Check]

Yet more insanity from Sol88 - admits there is no EU theory

Correct, I do not. ...

Yet more insanity from Sol88 - admits there is no EU theory!
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma continued in the electric universe theories thread.

Sol88's actual insanity is quotes about a different invalid mainstream theory - plasma cosmology. Unfortunately Wikipedia redirects here from 'electric universe' when EU is a set of ignorant delusions whose supporters lie about it being related to the invalid mainstream plasma cosmology.
ETA: Even the few supporters of plasma cosmology are careful to state the EU is unrelated pseudoscience.
Anthony L. Peratt: The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti- science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'. (holoscience is the deluded blog of the documented liar Wal Thornhill, a prophet of the Thunderbolts cult which is the major or only EU group).

 

[jonesdave116]

Yet more insanity from Sol88 - admits there is no EU theory!
The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma continued in the electric universe theories thread.

Sol88's actual insanity is quotes about a different invalid mainstream theory - plasma cosmology. Unfortunately Wikipedia redirects here from 'electric universe' when EU is a set of ignorant delusions whose supporters lie about it being related to the invalid mainstream plasma cosmology.

I wonder what Plasma Cosmology actually is. Would Peratt's interpretation, with his failed galaxy model, and gigaparsec electric currents have been approved by Alfven? Falthammar? Lerner? It seems to me that PC is whatever the beholder wishes it to be. Michael Mozina is continually trying to conflate EU & PC. He knows EU is Velikovskian woo, but claims that people like Alfven and Peratt, neither of whom believe/d such garbage, are on the same side as EU woo. Despite Peratt calling it a 'cult'!

 

[Reality Check]

WTF is "baryonic physics"? and do the plasma cosmologists think that plasma is not baryonic? (like H, He, ... plasmas)

It is a mistake by the Wikipedia author. They are writing about the Lambda-CDM model which includes all matter (baryonic and non-baryonic) matter. Their example of "large-scale structures in the universe" needs dark matter.

Plasma cosmologists are either dead (Hannes Alfvén) or stopped publishing papers about plasma cosmology in the 1990's (Anthony Peratt). That is a major reason why mainstream plasma cosmology is dead - no research done on it by anyone in 2 or 3 decades.

 

[jonesdave116]

It is a mistake by the Wikipedia author. They are writing about the Lambda-CDM model which includes all matter (baryonic and non-baryonic) matter. Their example of "large-scale structures in the universe" needs dark matter.

Plasma cosmologists are either dead (Hannes Alfvén) or stopped publishing papers about plasma cosmology in the 1990's (Anthony Peratt). That is a major reason why mainstream plasma cosmology is dead - no research done on it by anyone in 2 or 3 decades.

Are you suggesting that Lerner's 4-part Youtube woo on black holes being plasmoids, is not worthy of being classed as current 'research'?

 

[Sol88]

As long as you keep the magnetic field frozen in and the electrons as a fluid... mainstreams maths stays easy and we can still call plasma a gas.