Electric universe theories here.

[Ziggurat]

I’ve tried to learn mainstream stuff.

But you haven't learned it.

Physics is a quantitative science. You can't do it, you can't even understand it, if you can't do any math. You have never done any math. You don't understand the mainstream stuff that you claim you've tried to learn.

I will refrain from judging whether this is because you have not tried hard enough, or whether it's simply beyond your capabilities no matter how hard you try.

 

[Sol88]

Learned all I could about the weakest force in the Universe, it’s a dead end. It’s Not about the math my friend. You still have trouble with the very basics of astrophysical plasmas, so not really all that surprising.

Perratt

Good read, lots of maths too, ziggurat.

Point me out an error in Peratt’s math, I can’t. Can’t do mathamagiks.

Not an assumption of Peratt’s model, the actual equation that poo poo’s the electric universe (electric fields and electric currents in astrophysical plasma’s).

I’ll then run it past the team see if your any good at adding up.

 

[Sol88]

No



No, no need to mix unrelated things up.
Somebody mightily messed WIKI up.

Can a plasma double layer form in a current carrying plasma, tusenfem?

 

[Sol88]

AGN jets are formed when the black hole spins and the accretion disk is strongly magnetized, perhaps on account of gas accreting at high latitude beyond the black hole sphere of influence. Blandford

I mean this is a real doozy.

I really really want to learn how gas and gravity give you such a large electric field?

How is the strongest gravitational force known’s to science produce such a strong magnetic field? Are they highly charged objects?

At what point does the gas become a plasma and start obeying plasma laws and not gas laws?


Moot point really any way, there is an electric field at the point where the jet originates from ( a BH) After to that it’s all plasma, as far as I can tell.

 

[Sol88]

But you haven't learned it.

Physics is a quantitative science. You can't do it, you can't even understand it, if you can't do any math. You have never done any math. You don't understand the mainstream stuff that you claim you've tried to learn.

I will refrain from judging whether this is because you have not tried hard enough, or whether it's simply beyond your capabilities no matter how hard you try.

Ummm, you have still got your plasma training wheels on their sport.

5.3 Outlook

It is clear that the philosophical strive to improve our knowledge of the physical processes in the plasma at the comet, and more generally natural plasma over a full range of collisionality levels, requires space missions that provide data directly from the source. Goetz et al. (2021) outline open questions and propose mission concepts that would be able to (partially) answer
them.

The Plasma Environment of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Philosophical strive to improve our knowledge, NOT mathematical drive, 'cos "Comet Interceptor is
a promising next step to pave the way of multi-point, larger-class missions for exploring the
exciting, challenging, and enriching plasma environment around comets, which has still so
much to reveal."

 

[Ziggurat]

Learned all I could about the weakest force in the Universe

You have learned so little. And that's all you could do? That's... sad.

Perratt

Peratt was right about a few things, and those things are part of standard astrophysics. He was also wrong about plenty of stuff, like his galaxy formation model. His second piece in this series was on that subject, and has not withstood the test of time. It's badly wrong, and I've already gone through the math. Even Peratt gave up on electrically driven galaxy formation. And he never had a model of electrically driven star formation. You need gravity for that. But you think gravity doesn't matter, because reasons.

 

[Sol88]

You have learned so little. And that's all you could do? That's... sad.



Peratt was right about a few things, and those things are part of standard astrophysics. He was also wrong about plenty of stuff, like his galaxy formation model. His second piece in this series was on that subject, and has not withstood the test of time. It's badly wrong, and I've already gone through the math. Even Peratt gave up on electrically driven galaxy formation. And he never had a model of electrically driven star formation. You need gravity for that. But you think gravity doesn't matter, because reasons.

Well, you right royally ballsed that up, champ! How much force would this field apply to the sun? Well, we need a charge on our sun. Your predictions for the charge have always been absurd. So let's find a real estimate:

Not sure why you are trying to move the Sun

No mention of electric fields that are needed to accelerate particles?

Galaxy and star formation have a common thread, electricity!

Gravity n Gas, at least you can do the adding up on that one. Dark matter n dark energy...

 

[Sol88]

You do know the sun is positivly charged, so says jd116.

Something about the ions being more heavier than the electrons. Leaving more ions than electrons.

Space charge effects!

Your adding up is perfect, your assumption are crap!

 

[Ziggurat]

Not sure why you are trying to move the Sun

Because the sun orbits the Milky Way. If you don't accelerate the sun, then it won't stay in the galaxy. If you can't figure out how that's relevant to galaxy formation, you're even worse at this than I think.

No mention of electric fields that are needed to accelerate particles?

The sun is not being accelerated by an electric field. See if you can figure out why.

Galaxy and star formation have a common thread, electricity!

In the sense that electricity isn't a significant contributor to either, sure.

 

[Ziggurat]

You do know the sun is positivly charged

Of course I do. It's part of my calculation.

Your adding up is perfect, your assumption are crap!

Then do the calculations with what you think are the correct assumptions, and we'll see what happens.

 

[Sol88]

Of course I do. It's part of my calculation.



Then do the calculations with what you think are the correct assumptions, and we'll see what happens.

I already made a link to the ACE Real Time Solar Wind Page, and that page shows plots & data for the main ingredients of the solar wind: electrons, protons, and magnetic field. The solar wind is a flow of protons and electrons, away from the sun, in all directions, both at the same speed. Now, if the first "major property" of the electric sun model were true, we would expect the positively charged sun to repel positively charged protons, and attract negatively charged electrons. That's what the third "major property" says is happening, but we see that reality is somewhat different. The observation of electrons & protons both being "repelled" by the sun immediately negates any consideration of the sun having a net electric charge that can be detected anywhere in the solar wind flow. If the sun had a net charge that was large enough, then it should repel one charge and attract the other, depending on the sign of the sun's excess charge. But we don't see that.

Tim Tomson


Are they the same temperature?
Same speed? Fast and slow solar winds?

Your assumptions are incorrect. Electrostatics...

 

[tusenfem]

Philosophical

"Philosophical" is an internal joke that you would not understand.
Nevertheless PhD is a Doctor of Philosophy, so it is also a correct word.

 

[Ziggurat]

Tim Tomson

Why are you linking to a page which debunks electric sun criticisms of the standard model? Did you just do a google search for some words and throw up a link without understanding what you're linking?

Yes. Of course you did. That's all you ever do.

As for the electric sun model being described, 10 billion volts on the sun? That brings us back to the exploding sun model of Juergens. Which I've also debunked with simple math already.

Your assumptions are incorrect.

You have presented no evidence of that. Instead, you've presented alternative assumptions which are provably wrong.

What's the charge on the sun, Sol88? Give me a number. Order of magnitude will do.

Hell, give me numbers for ANYTHING about the electric universe model that's actually different than the standard model, and we can see if it makes any sense. So far, none of it ever has.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Philosophical" is an internal joke that you would not understand.
Nevertheless PhD is a Doctor of Philosophy, so it is also a correct word.

He's also confusing motive and means. Math is not a motive, it is not a reason to try to better understand the physical universe. But it is absolutely a means to do so.

 

[Sol88]

"Philosophical" is an internal joke that you would not understand.
Nevertheless PhD is a Doctor of Philosophy, so it is also a correct word.

5.3 Outlook
It is clear that the philosophical strive to improve our knowledge of the physical processes in the plasma at the comet, and more generally natural plasma over a full range of collisionality levels, requires space missions that provide data directly from the source.

Not mathematical but philosophical strive to understand plasma (astrophysical)!

Oh...I get it...

 

[Sol88]

5.3 Outlook
After the Giotto and Rosetta missions, Comet Interceptor is a promising next step to pave the way of multi-point, larger-class missions for exploring the exciting, challenging, and enriching plasma environment around comets, which has still so much to reveal.

The Plasma Environment of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Careful, getting pretty close to confirming Thornhills theory of a

comet is a charged body moving in a radial electric field responsible for accelerating the solar-wind plasma'

 

[Sol88]

Switchbacks as signatures of magnetic flux ropes generated by interchange reconnection in the corona wOw, no gravity?

The potential implication of the injection of large numbers of flux ropes in the coronal atmosphere for understanding the generation of the solar wind is discussed.

Fig. 2

(a) Schematic of a flux rope with a magnetic field that wraps a core axial field. The flux rope is propagating outward within a solar wind magnetic field pointing back towards the sun. As indicated, the flux rope generally has axial flow. (b) Schematic of the relaxed state of the flux rope in which the flow within the flux rope is field aligned.

Field aligned currents? From the solar surface?

AGN "jets" force free field aligned currents, flux ropes.

Like Don Scotts force free field aligned paper. (flux ropes)

AGN Jets are nothing but massive electric currents. Same processes on the Sun as at SMBH/AGN's.

Force free field aligned electric currents, electric fields, particle acceleration, plasma instabilities...list goes on and on...

 

[tusenfem]

[

Careful, getting pretty close to confirming Thornhills theory of a

Well, there is no radial electric field, so ....

 

[Ziggurat]

You keep citing all these mainstream papers, full of measurements and calculations, dealing with electromagnetic phenomena. And this is supposed to prove that the mainstream is ignoring electromagnetic phenomena, and that's why the Electric Universe folks, who don't publish any papers, make any measurements, or do any calculations, are correct.

There's got to be a word for that. Might be against the MA.

 

[steenkh]

In Sol’s world calculations and measurements are “mathemajicks” and bad, but words-only contents are good. Words like “electrical”, or “plasma” are good, but “gas” or “fields strength” are bad.