Electric universe theories here.

[Sol88]

tusenfem didn't address anything I said or myself, but did address you specifically and repeatedly. Of course it is about the amps, because current density is amps per unit area. Again that such density is low means the jet is general neutral.

Did you miss where tusenfem had pointed out current density before?

.

Still, it’s an ELECTRIC CURRENT spanning Mpc and is implicated by the mainstream in galaxy formation and evolution.

You can hand wave your obviously incorrect assumption on a jet being generally neutral.

Otherwise, mainstream of some ‘splain’n to do.

Within the first ∼ 100 pc the majority of the features observed are superluminal and are accelerating.

This result has been confirmed (Wardle 2018), and provides firm evidence of a torroidal magnetic field component, which requires a current down the jet of 1017–1018 A.

Blandford.

How does any matter do this let alone your neutral matter contained within in a jet?

How does gas pass en electric current?

 

[steenkh]

You still seem to struggle to find a definition of gas that does not include plasma.

And you still have not answered Hans’ questions:

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?

Is it that hard? (Yes, we know it is, but it is amusing to see you squirming by changing the subject or trying to ignore it)

 

[tusenfem]

Let’s drag the toilet paper that is the Bridgman “debunking” of galaxy formation due to Electromagnetic effects.

Blandford et al reckon...

What would me ‘ol mate Tom reckon on Blandford think electric currents have a major influence on galaxies.

Should we give a go, tusenfem.

Run Tom’s bit of fluff past Blandford et al outrageous claims n electric currents n galaxies?

Nobody will deny that these AGN Jets have an effect.
As usual your lack of understanding stands in the way of moving on to an actual discussion.
We can try to explain stuff to you, but you will not accept any explanations that are given to you, because of because

 

[Sol88]

Lack of understanding.

We’ve just gott’n to understand a gas is not a plasma, so.

My understanding is along the lines of Blandford et al and Scott, Thornhill.

Astrophysical Jets are power lines

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Lack of understanding.

We’ve just gott’n to understand a gas is not a plasma, so.

My understanding is along the lines of Blandford et al and Scott, Thornhill.

Astrophysical Jets are power lines

"We've just got'n".... Heh

Too funny....

 

[Ziggurat]

Look sport, I’m not sure you can quite put the right shapes in the right holes. Let me help.

Electric Universe Link

We've been over this before. Peratt's galaxy formation models are bull ****. We can measure the strength of galactic magnetic fields, and they are too small by many orders of magnitude to achieve what he wanted to achieve in regards to galaxy formation. Magnetic forces are a negligible contributor to galaxy rotation. I've crunched the numbers already (again, something EU folks can never do). There is a reason nobody continued his galaxy formation simulation work. Hell, there's a reason he didn't continue it. It's wrong, and I think even he realized that over time.

The best you can do for describing Electric Universe ideas as distinct from mainstream physics is ideas which have already been disproven.

So both mob think electrcurrents have a role to play in cosmology.

That's not cosmology. But yes, mainstream astrophysics includes electromagnetism. So why the need for EU nonsense?

You have to stop thinking plasma is a gas, it’s not sorry and it led you into the middle of the paddock.

You keep saying this, but it without any basis. This is simply a definitional thing. It's possible to define a gas in such a way that plasmas are not gasses. But
1) Why bother? What advantage does a definition of gas which excludes plasmas actually provide?
2) That's not how mainstream physics actually defines a gas.
3) Which definition we choose won't change any actual physics.

 

[The Man]

You got it!


Don Scott

Possible in your physics?

A force free field aligned current... majic stuff for a neutral pressure jet to have.

You ain't got it, nothing there says opposing charges are moving in opposite directions (like in a coaxial cable) thus creating a charge separation.

 

[tusenfem]

Lack of understanding.

We’ve just gott’n to understand a gas is not a plasma, so.

Yes, lots of misunderstanding. For example

/ liquid
fluid
\ gas - neutral
\ ionized

Or something else: electric fields are created by charge separation in space plasmas according to you, whereas in the real world electric fields are mainly induced through motions of the magnetic fields. Charge separation only happens seldomly in space plasmas, under specific conditions, for example if the current gets too high in a low density region, then you can have your beloved double layers, which will accelerate the ions/electrons such that the current is kept constant (div(j) = 0).

Or that gravity does not play a part in space plasma physics. If that would be the case then the Sun would quickly empty out in the low density, low pressure region around it (called interplanetary and interstellar space). Or the Earth's atmosphere would quickly flow away from the Earth into that same low pressure region.

And that is just basic (astro)physics 101 that you fail to grasp.

Furthermore, you obsession with simplified mathemajiks, because the math is too difficult. Yes, the math is not easy, doing full kinetic plasma physics. But if I am only interesting the in the big picture, how the whole large scale of the plasma is behaving, I need not concern myself with the gyration of the ions and the electrons around the magnetic field. So, I can use statistical physics methods, and like Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfvén, use magnetohydrodynamics (where I have to keep notice that I am looking at scales that are big enough and time scales that are long enough).

On the other hand, when I look at the generation of waves, for example, ion cyclotron waves, then I need to look at the behaviour of the individual particles and how they gyrate around the magnetic field. And then you use other equations, because you look at small scales.

This is difficult to grasp for people who do not work in this field, because they usually do not have to concern about these things. Okay, if you bake a cake you use teaspoons, when you build a house you use shovels.

My understanding is along the lines of Blandford et al and Scott, Thornhill.

I hardly doubt that you and Scott understand Blandford, especially when you cannot even understand what a metaphore is.

Astrophysical Jets are power lines

Okay, if you are "along the lines of Blandford", then please explain what this means, exactly.

 

[The Man]

Still, it’s an ELECTRIC CURRENT spanning Mpc and is implicated by the mainstream in galaxy formation and evolution.

You can hand wave your obviously incorrect assumption on a jet being generally neutral.

Otherwise, mainstream of some ‘splain’n to do.

It is not mine nor is it an assumption, it is an observation. Spectral lines of atomic ions have been observed in some jets.

Blandford.

How does any matter do this let alone your neutral matter contained within in a jet?

Well there are some theories but first it should be noted that no one claimed "neutral matter contained within in a jet" just that positive and negative charged particles within the jet tend to balance out making the jet, overall, neutral. Heck, that's how it is with even what one considers neutral matter like say a neutron. Positive and negative charges even out but are not evenly distributed throughout the neutron giving it a magnetic moment. Even the electron has a magnetic moment but that's for quantum mechanical reason and not an internal uneven distribution of charges.

How does gas pass en electric current?

Depends on the gas and happens all the time in lighting and lightning. Heck, just solid conductors like metals are modeled as a positive ion crystal lattice infused with an electron gas.

 

[The Man]

Yes, lots of misunderstanding. For example

/ liquid
fluid
\ gas - neutral
\ ionized

Or something else: electric fields are created by charge separation in space plasmas according to you, whereas in the real world electric fields are mainly induced through motions of the magnetic fields. Charge separation only happens seldomly in space plasmas, under specific conditions, for example if the current gets too high in a low density region, then you can have your beloved double layers, which will accelerate the ions/electrons such that the current is kept constant (div(j) = 0).

Or that gravity does not play a part in space plasma physics. If that would be the case then the Sun would quickly empty out in the low density, low pressure region around it (called interplanetary and interstellar space). Or the Earth's atmosphere would quickly flow away from the Earth into that same low pressure region.

And that is just basic (astro)physics 101 that you fail to grasp.

Furthermore, you obsession with simplified mathemajiks, because the math is too difficult. Yes, the math is not easy, doing full kinetic plasma physics. But if I am only interesting the in the big picture, how the whole large scale of the plasma is behaving, I need not concern myself with the gyration of the ions and the electrons around the magnetic field. So, I can use statistical physics methods, and like Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfvén, use magnetohydrodynamics (where I have to keep notice that I am looking at scales that are big enough and time scales that are long enough).

On the other hand, when I look at the generation of waves, for example, ion cyclotron waves, then I need to look at the behaviour of the individual particles and how they gyrate around the magnetic field. And then you use other equations, because you look at small scales.

This is difficult to grasp for people who do not work in this field, because they usually do not have to concern about these things. Okay, if you bake a cake you use teaspoons, when you build a house you use shovels.



I hardly doubt that you and Scott understand Blandford, especially when you cannot even understand what a metaphore is.



Okay, if you are "along the lines of Blandford", then please explain what this means, exactly.

Seems to be a major factor here and EU in general, ignoring the importance and differences in considering things at different scales. Sure charges tend to be separated at small scales even just in neutral matter let alone a plasma but large scale even in (an undriven) plasma charges tend to balance out. As those small scale charge separations get larger and larger the forces involved tend toward rebalancing. Heck, charge separation at the scales some of this EU stuff appears to require or want, it would rip atoms apart.

 

[Sol88]

Charge separation only happens seldomly in space plasmas, under specific conditions, for example if the current gets too high in a low density region, then you can have your beloved double layers, which will accelerate the ions/electrons such that the current is kept constant (div(j) = 0).

tusenfem

4.1. Particle Acceleration

4.1.1. General Principles. Jets, and the double radio sources that they supply, are observed throughout much of the entire seventy octave electromagnetic spectrum and, perhaps, be- yond. Even if a jet is well-modeled at the level of continuum mechanics, we must still explain where and how the emitting relativistic particles are accelerated and how they are transported before they cool.

Blandford

Sounds like you’ve explained FOR Blandford et al, you should drop them a line.

“Hi Roger, super duper space plasma physicist here, have you considered double layers as shocks and acceleration sources?”

Probably work along side the other mainstream jet problem, KNOTS!

Something electric current on a GRAND SCALE

But if I am only interesting the in the big picture, how the whole large scale of the plasma is behaving, I need not concern myself with the gyration of the ions and the electrons around the magnetic field. So, I can use statistical physics methods, and like Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfvén, use magnetohydrodynamics (where I have to keep notice that I am looking at scales that are big enough and time scales that are long enough).

I’m also looking at scales big enough and long enough.


Jets are “coaxial cables” in both the literal, metaphorical and as an analogy.

As you said total current is not import, density is.

If, in this current the density fluctuates along the Z axis, what would one expect in a astrophysical plasma? As per current gets too high in a low density region a double may form then you can have your beloved double layers, which will accelerate the ions/electrons such that the current is kept constant (div(j) = 0)

Double layers in astrophysical plasma’s are fascinating, very hard mathematically to describe in BIG and LONG enough timescales but very beautiful to observe none the less.

 

[Sol88]

Seems to be a major factor here and EU in general, ignoring the importance and differences in considering things at different scales. Sure charges tend to be separated at small scales even just in neutral matter let alone a plasma but large scale even in (an undriven) plasma charges tend to balance out. As those small scale charge separations get larger and larger the forces involved tend toward rebalancing. Heck, charge separation at the scales some of this EU stuff appears to require or want, it would rip atoms apart.

Scales?

How about the EM’s spectrums 70 octave scale?

4.1. Particle Acceleration
4.1.1. General Principles. Jets, and the double radio sources that they supply, are observed throughout much of the entire seventy octave electromagnetic spectrum and, perhaps, be- yond.

Plasma is very very scaleable. We’ve a good handle on scale.

Mainstream on the other hand seem to baulk at charge seperation, in general. (Very special, small scale stuff.) like at comets.

Not too sure why when observational evidence demands you accept this as fact.

But you won’t/can’t.

Pretty sure I can understand why.

Gravity most definitely plays a back ground role. The electric force is more dominant.

Big bangers and mainstreamers seem to hate it vehemently.

 

[Sol88]

Or that gravity does not play a part in space plasma physics. If that would be the case then the Sun would quickly empty out in the low density, low pressure region around it (called interplanetary and interstellar space). Or the Earth's atmosphere would quickly flow away from the Earth into that same low pressure region.

Sun = Plasma
Earth = Gas

We see certain phenomena on the Sun (plasma physics) that we don’t not see in a neutral atmosphere (fluid and gas physics)

Gravity no doubt plays a role. You have even implicated it in charge seperation wrt the Sun.

Ions are heavier than electrons but the role of gravity in that interaction is minuscule.

 

[Sol88]

It is not mine nor is it an assumption, it is an observation. Spectral lines of atomic ions have been observed in some jets.




Well there are some theories but first it should be noted that no one claimed "neutral matter contained within in a jet" just that positive and negative charged particles within the jet tend to balance out making the jet, overall, neutral. Heck, that's how it is with even what one considers neutral matter like say a neutron. Positive and negative charges even out but are not evenly distributed throughout the neutron giving it a magnetic moment. Even the electron has a magnetic moment but that's for quantum mechanical reason and not an internal uneven distribution of charges.



Depends on the gas and happens all the time in lighting and lightning. Heck, just solid conductors like metals are modeled as a positive ion crystal lattice infused with an electron gas.

just that positive and negative charged particles within the jet tend to balance out making the jet, overall, neutral

Well, there’s your problem, positive and negative charged particles within the jet tend to balance out making the jet, overall, neutra

Same as tusenfem big and long enough problem with plasma.

But if I am only interesting the in the big picture, how the whole large scale of the plasma is behaving, I need not concern myself with the gyration of the ions and the electrons around the magnetic field. So, I can use statistical physics methods, and like Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfvén, use magnetohydrodynamics (where I have to keep notice that I am looking at scales that are big enough and time scales that are long enough).

And if you are using statistics to prove overall neutrality...badabig badaboom, MHD (ideal).

Have another closer look. I’ll use a metaphor, AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings. sorry, Blandford et al and Don Scott beat me too it.

I just called them big space power cables.

 

[The Man]

Scales?

How about the EM’s spectrums 70 octave scale?



Plasma is very very scaleable. We’ve a good handle on scale.

Apparently not, if you don't understand large scale neutrality and why.

Mainstream on the other hand seem to baulk at charge seperation, in general. (Very special, small scale stuff.) like at comets.

Not in the least, that electrons and positive ions are freely disassociated is one of the primary mainstream definitions of a plasma. as well as, as mentioned many times before the reason, large scale charge separation tend not to be maintained. As more and more electrons move away from a collection of positive ions they tend to pull those ions along with them.

Not too sure why when observational evidence demands you accept this as fact.

Again the only fact is that such large scale charge separations simply aren't observed and there are multiple reasons for it. As already noted on this thread before as the charge on a object grows larger and larger the tendency come for it to blow itself apart. Such a large scale charge separation would tend to rip other things apart. Also as noted just incongruent with the free disassociation of positive and negative charges that actually helps maintain large scale neutrality.

But you won’t/can’t.

Pretty sure I can understand why.

Gravity most definitely plays a back ground role. The electric force is more dominant.

Big bangers and mainstreamers seem to hate it vehemently.

Then where is it? How strong is it? What can you calculate or experimentally project with it? In order for anyone to hate it, you'd have to demonstrate it first.

 

[The Man]

just that positive and negative charged particles within the jet tend to balance out making the jet, overall, neutral

Well, there’s your problem.

Have another closer look. I’ll use a metaphor, AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings. sorry, Blandford et al and Don Scott beat me too it.

I just called them big space power cables.

Call them florescent light bulbs, rivers of particles, the downtown train to EU land, whatever you want. It doesn't change the observations or the lack of any evident large scale charge separation.

 

[The Man]

Sun = Plasma
Earth = Gas

We see certain phenomena on the Sun (plasma physics) that we don’t not see in a neutral atmosphere (fluid and gas physics)

Gravity no doubt plays a role. You have even implicated it in charge seperation wrt the Sun.

Ions are heavier than electrons but the role of gravity in that interaction is minuscule.

Heaviness is only a function of gravity, that interaction is gravity. Perhaps you meant 'Ions are more massive than electrons' in that case such a differential need not involve gravity.

 

[jonesdave116]

Mainstream on the other hand seem to baulk at charge seperation, in general. (Very special, small scale stuff.) like at comets.

You mean mainstream plasma physicists. And they are the only kind. Who do you suggest we listen to? Retired EEs? Retired computer salesmen?

Big bangers and mainstreamers seem to hate it vehemently.

You mean plasma physicists. You don't have any. There is a reason for that.

 

[jonesdave116]

The Electric Universe

Give that a quick flick thru, see if you can use that immense brain of your to see if any “issues” that arise in this paper my be better understood if they read the above paper.

For you to recognise plasma is not a gas is a start.

Lol. Mae-Wan Ho! A biochemist! Haven't you people got a single plasma physicist? Or anyone who even understands the basics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

"Ho was a co-founder and director of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS), an interest group which published fringe articles about climate change, GMOs, homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, and water memory. In reviewing the organisation, David Colquhoun accused the ISIS of promoting pseudoscience and specifically criticised Ho's understanding of homeopathy.[7]

The institute is on the Quackwatch list of questionable organizations.[11]"

 

[jonesdave116]

Don Scott

A clueless ex-EE who is so ignorant of plasma in general, and astrophysical plasmas in particular, that the fool thinks electrons can dawdle in, at half-rat power, to power the Sun, against a magnetic field moving in the opposite direction at ~ 400 km/s!
Who also thinks that fusion can occur on the solar surface, in an environment where such fusion is impossible. Which would produce obvious line emission in gamma. The same gamma that would have long since rendered this planet uninhabitable.

Pray tell - why should we listen to anything that clown has to say? You might as well reference flat earthers or creationists.