Electric universe theories here.

[Steve]

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.

(Pssst - don't give him anymore loony ideas)

 

[jonesdave116]

(Pssst - don't give him anymore loony ideas)

Actually, one of the more recent videos on their woo channel is promoting creationism. The presenter calls it 'intelligent design', but we all know that is just creationism by another name!

 

[jonesdave116]

Ziggurat, do you think galactic‐scale field‐aligned Birkeland currents are possible?

Any role for an electric current in galaxy formation and evolution according to the mainstream paper by Blandford et al?

That is a misinterpretation of what Blandford et al are saying. You think these currents are heading ever outward? Not according to Blandford. From the paper linked by Sol;

Ultimately, at large enough cylindrical radius, r_out there will be a return current and the outward magnetic stress must be balanced by gas pressure.

And here is a screenshot from a previous paper involving Blandford;



Click to enlarge.

Theory of extragalactic radio sources
Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D. & Rees, M. J.
https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255 (1984)
(Paywalled)

 

[jonesdave116]

And, from the Begelman et al paper I referenced above, we have;

Jets are also believed to be basically charge-neutral, the electrons and the ions (or positrons) which neutralize them flowing outward with similar densities and speeds. This contrasts with the situation in most laboratory or terrestrial beams (e.g., Bekefi et al., 1980). When large-scale magnetic stresses become dynamically important, MHD rather than gas dynamics is the relevant theoretical tool.

My bolding.

 

[tusenfem]

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

I am sure Blandford et al. are clever enough and don't need my help.

Something electric current on a GRAND SCALE
I’m also looking at scales big enough and long enough.

You are looking how to cherry pick on a GRAND SCALE

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

And what does that even mean? Are you ever going to explain it to us how they work? (answer: no)

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)

You could assume that, but you will have to find evidence that it is like that. Just because something happens e.g. in the acceleration region of the Earth's aurora region, does not mean this happens on a great scale in a jet.
And what is a "double"?

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.

No, they are not "very hard", maybe for you, but then all plasma physics, when it does not deal with quote mining and press releases is very hard for you.

And how do you think you can "observe" these "very beautiful" double layers?

Ah let's make this discussion even more incomprehensible and add Joe Borovsky's "phase bunching" paper in the Astrophysical Journal. Then, at least, you have your beloved double layers in a jet.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

You can "phore" what ever you want and call them chickens.

Now, please explain in full detail this model.

 

[tusenfem]

And, from the Begelman et al paper I referenced above, we have;



My bolding.

but but but, now he is simplifying gas dynamics by fake MHD, just because he cannot do the maths!

 

[tusenfem]

Theory of extragalactic radio sources
Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D. & Rees, M. J.
https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255 (1984)
(Paywalled)

Ay Caramba! 105 pages!
Glad that we could top that with our 120 page cometary plasma physics review

 

[jonesdave116]

Ay Caramba! 105 pages!
Glad that we could top that with our 120 page cometary plasma physics review

Yes, more of a novella, really. And 263 references!

Also worth noting that Rees is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, no less!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Your metaphor is not valid. Jets are not cables, coaxial or otherwise. A cable consists of at least two conductors, through which a current can flow if it is connected into a circuit. The currents will flow on opposite directions in the two conductors. In a coaxial cable, the centres of the conductors coincide, making it neutral EM-wise.

A jet is a concentrated stream of matter, moving in one direction. There is no cable, and there is no circuit.

Hans

 

[lauwenmark]

Blah blah blah... Notice how Sol88's "answers" during the past few days match exactly my predictions?

And, of course, no answer for the Four Questions(tm), that were:

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

We maybe got an answer for question 1, with Peratt - but as was already said, his ideas didn't work.
So, will you finally answer those simple questions?

 

[jonesdave116]

Glad that we could top that with our 120 page cometary plasma physics review

Which paper was that, BTW? Not sure if I have it.

 

[jonesdave116]

Blah blah blah... Notice how Sol88's "answers" during the past few days match exactly my predictions?

And, of course, no answer for the Four Questions(tm), that were:



We maybe got an answer for question 1, with Peratt - but as was already said, his ideas didn't work.
So, will you finally answer those simple questions?

Well, by definition, EU ideas are not mainstream. Even Peratt has called them 'anti-science', and a 'cult'. IMHO he is being somewhat hypocritical.
The interaction between EU and Peratt is a very murky place to go.
However, I love murky places. I was born in Manchester!

Peratt, and his son, were in receipt of a shed load of money from the same Velikovskian charity that pays the likes of David Talbott, co-founder of the EU cult. They also fronted up the cash for the 'SAFIRE' scam.

Peratt's plasma rock art woo was partially funded by said Velikovskian charity. Peratt and the EU obviously fell out at some point. He used the preface of his 2015 reprint of his book 'Physics of the Plasma Universe' (PotPU) to call out the EUists as a cult.

However, when Peratt was in receipt of that funding, and was still a big wheel at IEEE, EU 'papers' were getting 'published' in IEEE rags.

Tusenfem seems to think most of the plasma physics in the aforementioned PotPU is legitimate, and some even interesting. Other than the woo stuff about plasma cosmology, of course. In the 2nd edition he added his plasma rock art woo. Which is utter bollocks.

Whatever went on between Peratt and EU obviously didn't end well. Was Peratt naive? Stupid? Greedy? Did he get sick of clowns like Thornhill using him for 'false endorsement' of their woo? Who knows?

So, EU using Peratt as an endorsement for their woo is not a goer. At least according to Peratt.

 

[tusenfem]

Which paper was that, BTW? Not sure if I have it.

The Plasma Environment of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Goetz et al. (Open Access)

 

[Sol88]

Oh Dear...

Team analyzes interactions between black hole-dominated galactic nucleus and surrounding star-forming regions

They have conducted the most detailed analysis yet of the interactions between an active galactic nucleus dominated by a supermassive black hole and the star-forming galaxy regions surrounding it.

"Viewing this galaxy face-on, we are able to see not only winds from the supermassive black hole blowing in our direction but also 'shock heating' of the gas induced by said winds very close to the central active galactic nucleus, which is something we had not expected to be able to discern so clearly."

Winds n Gas

Oh deary me.

43 matches for gas 0 for plasma.

 

[Sol88]

You could assume that, but you will have to find evidence that it is like that. Just because something happens e.g. in the acceleration region of the Earth's aurora region, does not mean this happens on a great scale in a jet.

We see shocks everywhere...and GAS!

I assume plasma and plasma double layers. You are still using gas and shocks.

Molecular and ionized gas distributions and kinematics at a resolution of ∼100 pc over the 4.9 − 7.6μm region are examined to study gas dynamics influenced by the central AGN.

Jets too big for MHD?

 

[tusenfem]

Oh Dear...

Team analyzes interactions between black hole-dominated galactic nucleus and surrounding star-forming regions





Winds n Gas

Oh deary me.

43 matches for gas 0 for plasma.

Ah well, you can also try to (learn to) READ:

Molecular and ionized gas distributions and kinematics at a resolution of ∼100 pc over the 4.9 − 7.6µm region are examined to study gas dynamics influenced by the central AGN.

 

[tusenfem]

We see shocks everywhere...and GAS!

I assume plasma and plasma double layers. You are still using gas and shocks.

so now shocks and double layers are the same?
strange universe the electric one is.

Jets too big for MHD?

Whatever are you babbling about? Did you actually read the paper? Do you actually understand what they are modeling? Did you notice that most of the lines they use in Table 1 are neutral? (except for FeII)

Answer: no

 

[Ziggurat]

Sol88 also seems to think double layers are magical, and that they can be the drivers of all sorts of phenomena. But that's backwards. The creation of double layers is driven by something OTHER than electric fields. Something else is driving the electrons and ions differently. Double layers form as a result, and what they primarily do is limit further movement of electrons and ions. So for example, gravity separates electrons and ions since ions are heavier, and double layers form and halt further charge separation.

 

[catsmate]

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

Electric Universe Link

Oh look, more crankery from a dead crank with no training in, or knowledge of, physics who promulgated crank nonsense for a group of cranks.
How utterly typical of EUers...