Electric universe theories here.

[catsmate]

Oh dear, a "paper" that uses Peratt's totally refuted numerical calculations about galaxy formation.
Tom Bridgeman ...

Hardly surprising given Ho's background.

 

[catsmate]

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

Evolution denying crank geneticists are the latest fad.....
Dead ones preferred.

 

[Sol88]

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...

What makes you think that plasma physics is crank, catsmate?

Savart attraction. Notably, the incoming plasma looks very much like two giant cymbals closing in the simulations, often the case for ‘peculiar’ galaxies such as NGC 5128 and CygA located between the giant radio lobes that possess ‘dust lanes’ at their midsection.

Ho

Mainstream nutters use the same language. One is using plasma and EM the other gas and gravity...

One is scalable, funny little quirky properties of plasma. The other, not so much.

These same filamentary structures are observed in energetic plasmas in the laboratory, where fine‐detail resolution of current filaments shows similar vortex patterns at least over 14 orders of magnitude, from microampere to mega amperes electron beams [4]. The basic properties of plasmas are self‐ similar and scalable, from microns to cosmic distances (1028 cm), i.e., fractal, although Peratt himself did not use the term.

NASA's Webb catches fiery hourglass as new star forms

The protostar itself is hidden from view within the "neck" of this hourglass shape. An edge-on protoplanetary disk is seen as a dark line across the middle of the neck. Light from the protostar leaks above and below this disk, illuminating cavities within the surrounding gas and dust.

Webb also reveals filaments of molecular hydrogen that have been shocked as the protostar ejects material away from it. Shocks and turbulence inhibit the formation of new stars, which would otherwise form all throughout the cloud. As a result, the protostar dominates the space, taking much of the material for itself.

So the “proto star is using the weakest force to both attract matter, to form the star and at the same time ejecting matter.

Sounds like plasma to me...as described by Ho.

Why invoke mathematical majic instead of just using plasma physics?

 

[Sol88]

Gazing into Magnetized Interstellar Clouds to Understand How Stars Are Born

Mainstream “surprise” “discovery” of the puzzle of star formation (hint: Stars are a plasma)

To make a star, the universe needs three major ingredients: gravity, turbulence, and a magnetic field. Along with a mixture of gas and dust, the interplay of these three forces manages to achieve the conditions necessary to create the twinkling, bright balls of light we’re all so familiar with gazing at in the night sky. Astronomers have been probing the galaxy for years in order to understand how each factor plays a role when a star is born. Now, one piece of the puzzle just became a bit clearer.

Right, yes heard this fairytale before.

But

How’s this!

These charged particles flow along the field, almost like a conveyor belt, into the cluster of stars. It’s believed that many stars form at the intersection of filaments, vast patterns of cold cosmic gas threaded through every molecular cloud in the interstellar medium—the region of space beyond the bubble of heat and charged particles that emanate from our sun, called the heliosphere.

Holy electric currents Batman!

Very very very crank ELECTRIC UNIVERSE stuff that. Shirley knot!!

‘Cos

Those cranks that think plasma and electric currents control the game reckon this pseudo scientific crank rubbish...

However, in an Electric Universe, stars are created within helical electric currents that form a great circuit through space. The Bennett pinch effect squeezes plasma inside these cosmic “transmission lines”, compressing vast clouds of ionized plasmas within electromagnetic fields, igniting the stars, while forming toroidal currents around their equators.

Since stars are part of a filamentary circuit that flows through the cosmos, they most likely spin because of electricity flowing through them. Stars exist within an inconceivably large filamentary circuit of electricity. There is no way to know where this charge flow rises, or to what electrode it is attracted, but we see the effects of its electromagnetic fields in the magnetism and synchrotron radiation that permeate space.

[URL="https://www.everythingselectric.com/wp-content/uploads/An-Electric-Universe-View-of-Stellar-and-Galactic-Formation.pdf”]Turtles all the way down[/URL]

According to one theory for the formation of planetary nebulae, the hourglass shape is produced by the expansion of a fast stellar wind within a slowly expanding cloud which is more dense near its equator than near its poles. What appears as a bright elliptical ring in the center, and at first sight might be mistaken for an equatorially dense region, is seen on closer inspection to be a potato shaped structure with a symmetry axis dramatically different from that of the larger hourglass. The hot star which has been thought to eject and illuminate the nebula, and therefore expected to lie at its center of sym- metry, is clearly off center. Hence MyCn18, as revealed by Hubble, does not fulfill some crucial theoretical expectations.
It is suggested that the reader compare this explanation with the one presented in this paper.

Why the hourglass shape, one wonders...

 

[Sol88]

Having a gander to see if the magnetic fields mentioned to be integral to mainstream star formation theory, are HELICAL in structure.

Mmmmmm.....winds of gas and dust?

Electric current thru a dusty plasma?

 

[steenkh]

What makes you think that plasma physics is crank, catsmate?

As you well know, plasma physics is mainstream physics, whereas the EU version of plasma physics does not even exist.

So the “proto star is using the weakest force to both attract matter, to form the star and at the same time ejecting matter.

Sounds like plasma to me...as described by Ho.

Why invoke mathematical majic instead of just using plasma physics?

Because your “plasma physics” has no predictive power, and is contradicted by observations because it does not exist.

That reminds me:

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?

 

[Sol88]

As you well know, plasma physics is mainstream physics, whereas the EU version of plasma physics does not even exist.

Mainstream plasma physics is a subset of fluid physics. gas and pressure stuff, throw in some magnetic stuff to make it sound like you've included EM.

from real plasma physics...

The ability of plasmas to produce electric fields, either by instabilities brought about by plasma motion or the movement of magnetic fields, has popularized the term ‘Electric Space’ in recognition of the electric fields systematically discovered and measured in the solar system.

Link


This will lead us back to the starting point, again.

Can there be charge separation and electric currents in astrophysical plasma's?

 

[catsmate]

What makes you think that plasma physics is crank, catsmate?

Oh look, a crank distorting my comment...........

 

[Steve]

Oh look, a crank distorting my comment...........

It is how our EU proponent fools himself, and himself only, into thinking he is "winning". Sure can't do it with science. Certainly cannot answer the questions originally posted by MRC Hans:

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?

 

[Ziggurat]

Can there be charge separation and electric currents in astrophysical plasma's?

Can there be charge separation? Of course there can be. But not a lot. Why? Because plasmas are conducting, and because electrical forces are strong. Large charge separation would drive currents in conductors which then eliminate those large charge separations. If you want large charge separation, you need insulation, and astrophysical plasmas aren’t insulators. The very properties which you think are so important are precisely what prevent what you think happens.

Which is another reason you never put numbers on anything, and never do any math.

 

[Steve]

Can there be charge separation? Of course there can be. But not a lot. Why? Because plasmas are conducting, and because electrical forces are strong. Large charge separation would drive currents in conductors which then eliminate those large charge separations. If you want large charge separation, you need insulation, and astrophysical plasmas aren’t insulators. The very properties which you think are so important are precisely what prevent what you think happens.

Which is another reason you never put numbers on anything, and never do any math.

Numbers, bah! They are for scientists, not for ignorant tro laypersons.

 

[jonesdave116]

As you well know, plasma physics is mainstream physics, whereas the EU version of plasma physics does not even exist.

Mainstream plasma physics is a subset of fluid physics. gas and pressure stuff, throw in some magnetic stuff to make it sound like you've included EM.

from real plasma physics...

Link


This will lead us back to the starting point, again.

Can there be charge separation and electric currents in astrophysical plasma's?

Peratt! Care to tell us what his contribution to astrophysical plasma research is? Try Parker, or Birn, or Vasylunias, or Bellan, or Priest, or...........

 

[jonesdave116]

So the “proto star is using the weakest force to both attract matter, to form the star and at the same time ejecting matter.

Sounds like plasma to me...as described by Ho.

Why invoke mathematical majic instead of just using plasma physics?

Ho was a crackpot, and had no physics qualifications. Just like Don Scott.

And we observe stars to form from molecular clouds, not plasma. What is their ionisation fraction? From what I've read, it is somewhere between 1 in 1 million, to 1 in one billion. Care to explain what force, other than gravity, can cause a cloud of neutral gas to collapse? Want to explain the mechanism, and show the maths?
How is neutral gas attracted to the Earth? Why is it denser nearer the surface? Why does the Earth not need a charge to keep its atmosphere? Here's a clue, Sol - gravity attracts all particles, be they neutral, positive or negative.

 

[jonesdave116]

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

Cheers, got it now! Hopefully I live long enough to finish it!

 

[Sol88]

Can there be charge separation? Of course there can be. But not a lot. Why? Because plasmas are conducting, and because electrical forces are strong. Large charge separation would drive currents in conductors which then eliminate those large charge separations. If you want large charge separation, you need insulation, and astrophysical plasmas aren’t insulators. The very properties which you think are so important are precisely what prevent what you think happens.

Which is another reason you never put numbers on anything, and never do any math.

Ummmm....wow!

You’ve just described a electrically conducting gas being modeled as a fluid. Sorta kinda worked when we knew no different.

Now we do. We “see” more of the electromagnetic spectrum.


The “great attractor” AND “great particle accelerators”, AGN’s seem to be a massive issue, if you think it is how it actually works.

Can there be charge seperation? Your answer, sure but not a lot.

How big are just the magnetic fields you look at when you look at the whole structure fed by an AGN?

Observation and experimentation now says you’ve cocked it up. Don’t double down.

The predictive power of the EU, using your garden variety plasma physics at that is quite impressive... Gravity only, not so much.

 

[Sol88]

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

Should we fire the Electric Comet thread up again, tusenfem?

It all ELECTRIC (Plasma doing plasma stuff) anyway, so moot point.

 

[jonesdave116]

Ummmm....wow!

You’ve just described a electrically conducting gas being modeled as a fluid. Sorta kinda worked when we knew no different.

We know far better now than Alfven ever did back in the day. What in-situ measurements did he have?

Now we do. We “see” more of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Wut? We've been looking at stuff in gamma, x-ray, UV etc for bloody decades.

The “great attractor” AND “great particle accelerators”, AGN’s seem to be a massive issue, if you think it is how it actually works.

Want to try that in English? What the hell are you on about?

Can there be charge seperation? Your answer, sure but not a lot.

What is the Debye length, and why does it matter? What is the magnetic Reynolds number, and why does it matter?

How big are just the magnetic fields you look at when you look at the whole structure fed by an AGN?

Big? You mean their strength? And.....?

Observation and experimentation now says you’ve cocked it up. Don’t double down.

Is a lie. Where did that happen?

The predictive power of the EU, using your garden variety plasma physics at that is quite impressive... Gravity only, not so much.

EU has never predicted anything correctly. It is an anti-science cult, with no science and no scientists. It is flat earth level drivel.

 

[jonesdave116]

Should we fire the Electric Comet thread up again, tusenfem?

It all ELECTRIC (Plasma doing plasma stuff) anyway, so moot point.

Nope, nothing to do with the idiocy proposed by your unqualified mythologists. Where was your EDM? Lol.

 

[Sol88]

Can there be charge separation? Of course there can be. But not a lot. Why? Because plasmas are conducting, and because electrical forces are strong. Large charge separation would drive currents in conductors which then eliminate those large charge separations. If you want large charge separation, you need insulation, and astrophysical plasmas aren’t insulators. The very properties which you think are so important are precisely what prevent what you think happens.

Which is another reason you never put numbers on anything, and never do any math.

Not a lot? Why? ‘Cos plasma’s conduct...

However, while the radially directed ambipolar field is caused by the electrons having a higher temperature than the ions, the polarisation field is a secondary field caused by electrons and ions moving in different directions as a result of the solar wind convective electric field. Figure 35 illus- trates the directions of the three different contributions to the electric field and the different scales of electron and ion gyroradii, which causes the charge separation behind the polar- isation electric field

Link


So even a temperature difference can cause an electric field in a plasma, not sure how your electric fields caused by gravity acting on ions and electrons differentialy.

But

Ions have a different MASS (what is mass again,mainstream? Get back to me when you can on that one) and a different temperature an ELECTRIC field will form.

And as we all know not all electric fields are double layers but ALL double layers are electric fields.

Double layers, bloody amazing.

 

[jonesdave116]

Not a lot? Why? ‘Cos plasma’s conduct...

Link


So even a temperature difference can cause an electric field in a plasma, not sure how your electric fields caused by gravity acting on ions and electrons differentialy.

But

Ions have a different MASS (what is mass again,mainstream? Get back to me when you can on that one) and a different temperature an ELECTRIC field will form.

And as we all know not all electric fields are double layers but ALL double layers are electric fields.

Double layers, bloody amazing.

Christ, talk about shooting yourself in the foot! It is the electric field that arises that ensures quasi-neutrality! Why did the electric field arise? Because opposite charges started to separate!
This is like teaching quantum to chimps. Apologies to any chimps who might be reading.