Electric universe theories here.

[lauwenmark]

Umm...read the paper. It’s all there for you.

Not sure I’m really able to help you unfortunately. Plasma is a subset of gas....and charge seperation can not occur and electric fields exist in space but don’t do anything, kinda thinking.

It may surprize you, but I actually read (or at least browse) the papers you keep linking.

But none of those you linked answer the four questions (I may start writing The Four Questions(tm) ). And besides, I'm not interested on what papers are claiming (especially mainstream science papers, as you'd call them). What I and others want are Sol88's vision and thoughts; what I and others want are answers that do not solely consist of the all-too predictable "mainstream is wrong", but instead looks like "EU is right, and here is how I can prove it".

That's the aim of those Hans Four Questions(tm) : to get what EU is, not using a negative definition of mainstream science, but using a positive definition based on a clean-sheet line of thoughts.

Let's repeat the - still unanswered - Four Questions(tm) :

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

I think Hans is totally right above: if you cannot answer those, what's left to discuss? Keep pointing at what current "mainstream science" fails to predict accurately? That just proves that science keeps evolving, and is far from being able to explain everything. But it won't demonstrate what you so deeply want: show that EU is the right proposal.

So, will you now seriously start exposing what your EU Theory is, and provide sound arguments for it, by answering those Four Questions(tm)?

 

[Steve]

Electric universe theories? None presented here in the 13 1/2 year life of this thread. It has become quite apparent that such things do not exist. And every poster in this thread knows this. Pathetic trolling of the topic with inane and (willfully?) ignorant comments that have convinced absolutely no one, on the other hand, is alive and well with no signs of ever diminishing.

Such threads do have the educational benefit of providing lots of real science that is so, so easy to separate from the bs and learn from. So thanks to the actual scientists in this thread who persist in providing actual evidence to fight and correct the ignorance.

 

[tusenfem]

Nonsensical gishgallop...

Well, if you already back out at normal dynamo theory which happens in turbulent plasmas, I guess we can just stop any discussion about jets.

 

[tusenfem]

What was the electric field strength did you say?

what electric field???????

 

[tusenfem]

Umm...read the paper. It’s all there for you.

Not sure I’m really able to help you unfortunately. Plasma is a subset of gas....and charge seperation can not occur and electric fields exist in space but don’t do anything, kinda thinking.

And again you are projecting your own insufficiencies on mainstream plasma physics. sad

 

[tusenfem]

Shocks are particle accelerators though, same as electric fields.

Yes, but shocks are not electric fields *sigh*

As we all know all double layers are electric fields but not all electric fields are double layers...

Well, all plasma physicists know this, only you will not accept it for some mysterious reason.

Still, an electric filed you say? Electric currents of quite some power (electrical energy), you say?

Not that I recall, I guess you cannot really read what I say.

Well that would require a curcuit and as Blandford states; Understanding the content, power, electrical current and duty cycles of AGN jets will help quantify their role in galaxy formation and evolution.

You can put it in the terms that Blandford et al. use, yes, but apparently you are unable to take the next step, which is that you move away from the analogy and get into the nitty-gritty of plasma physics.

 

[Sol88]

what electric field???????

You said somedrivel about turbulence in a hot gas near a rotating gravity source making magnetic fields.

Better said as “Once upon a time...”

For a start, where are the electric field in this fantasy of yours?

 

[Sol88]

Got some hot gas here (in a container, funnily enough) I’m turbulently mixing and agitating, still no magnetic field generation?

Plasmas of different properties and relative motions, I could see generating EM fields that would most probably do exactly what you’ve described above.

This would mean, of course, things like electric currents, double layers, charge seperation...


It would even appear to Blandford et al, that it is very important in the Big Bang theory.

Mainstream gravity centric doctrine.

Any electric fields generated in your description of the DYNAMO THEORY?

 

[lauwenmark]

For a start, where are the electric field in this fantasy of yours?

Pretty easy to answer: he found them in one of your own posts just above:

What was the electric field strength did you say?

Now, I guess we can ask you the same: where did you find that electric field in that fantasy of yours?

In any case, the title of this topic isn't Tusenfem's Fantasies, but Electric Universe theories here. For which, an answer to The Four Questions(tm) is still pending...

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

 

[lauwenmark]

Got (...)

Mainstream gravity centric doctrine.

This thread is not about the mainstream theories, it is about EU theories.

Any electric fields generated in your description of the DYNAMO THEORY?

This thread is not about DYNAMO THEORY (You seem to entertain all-caps words, is it supposed to make them stunning?). It is about EU theories. But maybe DYNAMO THEORY is part of it?

It is hard to say, because you never made clear what your EU theories were made of. A good starting point would be to answer Hans's Four Questions(tm), for example:

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

 

[Sol88]

Yes, but shocks are not electric fields *sigh*



Well, all plasma physicists know this, only you will not accept it for some mysterious reason.



Not that I recall, I guess you cannot really read what I say.



You can put it in the terms that Blandford et al. use, yes, but apparently you are unable to take the next step, which is that you move away from the analogy and get into the nitty-gritty of plasma physics.

Nitty gritty? We are still using hot turbulent gas in your world making magnetic fields?

Would the plasma doing the same make an electric field?

That’s pretty nitty gritty...

 

[Ziggurat]

Still no actual description of what Electric Universe theory even is.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Got some hot gas here (in a container, funnily enough) I’m turbulently mixing and agitating, still no magnetic field generation?

How do you know? How do you measure that?

What's that obsession with containers?

Hans

 

[Steve]

How do you know? How do you measure that?

What's that obsession with containers?

Hans

Just another in a long list of obfuscations and red herrings. You know, what a person does when they have no coherent narrative, but still desperately want to appear intelligent.

 

[Ziggurat]

What's that obsession with containers?

He somehow thinks they can prove that plasmas are not gases, which will magically invalidate standard physics. That's what you get when you can read the words but don't actually understand the concepts.

 

[steenkh]

He also refuses to understand that gravity and electrical forces can contain plasma in free space.

 

[tusenfem]

You said somedrivel about turbulence in a hot gas near a rotating gravity source making magnetic fields.

No, I said: The accretion disk is hot and turbulent and contains plasma, and through the turbulent motion magnetic fields are generated

Better said as “Once upon a time...”

I am not here for your bedtime stories, ask your mum to read you to sleep.

For a start, where are the electric field in this fantasy of yours?

Why would I need an electric field?

 

[tusenfem]

This would mean, of course, things like electric currents, double layers, charge seperation...

No

 

[tusenfem]

Nitty gritty? We are still using hot turbulent gas in your world making magnetic fields?

Would the plasma doing the same make an electric field?

That’s pretty nitty gritty...

Hopeless trolling

 

[lauwenmark]

Still no actual description of what Electric Universe theory even is.

The reader will notice how Sol88 carefully avoided answering my post... He's the first to complain when we aren't kind enough to engage, though.

I guess that Sol88 just cannot admit typing "I don't know". But let's remind him of The Four Questions(tm) (just in case he forgot !) :

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans