Dark matter and Dark energy

[Dancing David]

Don't make yourself a liar, David. Your side hasn't provided any peer reviewed sources that directly challenge the infinitesimal probabilities calculated for high/low redshift alignments in the various peer reviewed scientific papers I've linked.

Uh, huh, whatever. They have been posted and you just don't like them, deny all you wish. I suppose I can link to them tomorrow and you will just ignore them again.

Considering some of your prior statements and lack of critical thinking I don't expect much of a response.

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps the strong nuclear force?

By the way, what keeps a neutron from exploding?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070917151054.htm

Maybe its a model we should apply to the sun?

Are you saying the weak orstrong force counteracts the repulsive factor of the Electric Sun?

And BTW the halflife of an isolated nuetron is what? 13 min. or so?

....

ETA I looked at the link, it won't help you, Gauss's law?

 

[BeAChooser]

And evidently you need a grammar lesson as well as a science lesson. "Inelastic" modifies "collisions", not "neutron". Since "neutron" is itself being used as an adjective to modify "collisions", you would need a hyphen between "inelasitc" and "neutron" if you want to indicate that "inelastic" modifies "neutron" instead of "collision".

Like I needed a lesson in plasma?

So is your *expertise* in grammar why you read my statement that "we were just talking about collections of particles colliding" and responded that "single particles are not elastic or inelastic"?

But I don't need to prove that dark matter has no inelastic collision processes. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The point is, it might not.

The point is that it might.

If it does not, then it's not going to clump up.

If it does, then it's going to clump up?

So the lack of finer structure to dark matter cannot itself be used as an argument against its possible existence.

Did I do that? Seems to me I just asked whether dark matter black holes were possible. You were the ones who insisted it wasn't possible because dark matter can't interact with itself except by gravity. Now it appears you are not too sure about that.

I didn't say they'd always pass through each other, I said they would most of the time.

And I say you are wrong.

Which is also what they do with Helium atoms most of the time.

But Helium atoms are mostly space. I'm was talking about one neutron hitting another neutron when you responded that they mostly pass through each other. Were you having problems with my grammar? Or was the problem in comprehension on your side?

Quote:
Why don't we also assume it interacts with EM

Perhaps it does.

See that doubt suddenly creeping into your certainty?

 

[Ziggurat]

But wait ... turns out the inside of it is all negative. And the outside too. How can it possibly not explode?

Did you not read your own source? It's not negative on the inside, it's positive on the inside. There's no net charge - if it was negative outside and inside, it wouldn't be net charge neutral. But net charge neutrality is what you should have learned about neutrons back in highschool.

With no net charge, it doesn't matter how the charge is distributed: the electrostatic forces will only try to redistribute the charge, they will not try to expell the charge. There's no electrostatic energy to be gained by splitting apart.

But thanks for showing how little you understand any of this.

Does it? Are you absolutely sure?

That's what your own references which claim the sun was powered by electricity have said.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yeah, but you think the sun runs off of electricity, so you can't be trusted.

Now I only said that's a possibility ... not that I'm "sure" about it. Not in the same way that JREF's dark matter proponents have said they are "sure" about dark matter. And just like they've inferred some things from certain observations, EU theorists (who are often electrical engineers or experts in plasma) have inferred some things from observations. And I might add that assuming there is reason for electric current to flow from interstellar space towards stars, then the EU theory is consistent with observations far better than the mainstream's theory. And it ignores far fewer problematic observations. For example, I keep asking the mainstream proponents how stars can have moved from one location on the HR diagram to a completely different location on the diagram in only a matter of weeks or months? And hearing only silence. But EU theorists has answered that question.

 

[Ziggurat]

If it does, then it's going to clump up?

Maybe. But it doesn't look like it clumps up. the processes which lead to clumping up should also flatten out the distribution into roughly a disk, as it does with ordinary matter.

Did I do that? Seems to me I just asked whether dark matter black holes were possible.

If they only interact via gravity or if any other interactions are sufficiently weak (which looks to be the case since it appears dark matter doesn't flatten into a disk), then there's no mechanism by which they can form in the first place. Remove that constraint and sure, it's possible. I never actually said otherwise.

And I say you are wrong.

Based on what? Your cluelessness about neutron scattering?

But Helium atoms are mostly space.

So what? You can shoot neutrons with wavelengths longer than the interatomic spacing at them. In that case, the spacing is essentially irrelevant: the neutron cannot squeeze through the intervening space. And yet, it still passes through most of the atoms without interaction.

I'm was talking about one neutron hitting another neutron when you responded that they mostly pass through each other.

Perhaps you don't get it yet, but neutrons aren't billiard balls. They're quantum objects. And they most definitely can pass through each other.

So are you going to ever admit you were wrong about the sun having a large enough charge to power it? I haven't forgotten, BAC. Let's hear it: either admit you had no clue what you were talking about, or show me why my calculations showing the impossibility of that idea were wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now I only said that's a possibility ... not that I'm "sure" about it.

But it's not even a possibility. It's an impossibility. The numbers don't work out, not even close. We've already been over that, BAC. The fact that you even think it's a possibility shows you to be clueless.

 

[The Man]

Come on, Man. We just got told by one you Big Bang / Dark Matter proponents that you need only a single parameter to explain virtually everything about the Universe's behavior. Do you honestly think the human body and cancer can be explained by a single parameter? (sarcasm)

Whoever that might have been, it certainly was not me. You, certainly, also assert that a single parameter (namely electricity) can explain virtually everything about the Universe's behavior, which as far as I know may or may not include the human body and cancer. Is that why you asserted that cancer is “likely a whole lot more complicated than the universe” since none of your favorite authors has, as yet, linked it to some electrical theory? (no sarcasm).

How can you get a chicken without an egg, Man?

Since magnetic reconnection occurs within an insulating media like our atmosphere as well as a conductive media like a plasma, it is not dependent on a “frozen in” field condition, your strawman continues to lay eggs.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
You assume they are.

No, actually, he doesn't. It's a rigorous theorem by Emmy Noether.

The following is from http://www.pandj.org/node/5

Where does conservation of energy come from?

A physicists/mathematician named Emmy Noether developed a theorem in 1918 that should've made physicists realize exactly where certain laws were coming from, but most physicists don't quite realize the implication. ... snip ... That theorem (Noether's theorem) states that conservation laws are the same thing as saying the Lagrangian of the system obeys a symmetry.

As an example, conservation of energy comes from the fact that the Lagrangian is invariant under a translation in time. Work the math out, and that gives you a conserved quantity, called the Hamiltonian, whose eigenvalues are the energy of the states in the system.

So asking "where does conservation of energy come from" is the same thing as asking "why is the Lagrangian invariant under time translation?" The answer's simple - because physicists like it that way. One of Newton's greatest observations was that if you avoid air resistance, and the local effects of friction and gravity, objects tend to keep doing what they were doing before. In other words, their Lagrangian is time invariant. But note what you had to do! You had to ignore friction, gravity, and air resistance - instead, what you do is just parametrize their effects, and quietly say "well, the energy loss goes elsewhere," you presume it's the atmosphere and local heating of objects, and poof, you're good. Similarly, you say "well, the energy comes from elsewhere" with regards to gravity. Now, it turns out you can write a Lagrangian which is time invariant which includes the atmosphere, local heating, etc., so you don't have to ignore it.

But you see the pattern - whenever physicists come across violation of conservation of energy, they don't call it that. They parametrize it, and quietly shove the time-dependence into another term, and claim "energy is conserved!" I'm not criticizing this, mind you! It makes sense, because if the Lagrangian they're writing down is supposed to describe the Universe as a whole, it should work at all times, because there's no universal "reference time" you can use. One time looks just as much like any other time, right?

Ah ha. Here comes the interesting realization. There is a universal reference time. The Universe is finite. It began. We look up and we see a universal microwave background everywhere. The temperature of that background can actually be used to calculate exactly how much time has passed since the time of recombination. That's a bit of an experimental trick, though - you can also determine the amount of time since the Big Bang by simply reversing the direction of all galaxies and figuring out when they would've come from a point.

There's a problem, then. We're using a Lagrangian which is time-invariant to describe a system which is manifestly not time invariant. If you try to match the Lagrangian to observations of that system, you would expect to find violations of conservation of energy! Unsurprisingly, you do. Once again, though, we have physicists at their best. When they discovered the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (hello! that's a violation of Newton's first law!), they didn't say "violation of conservation of energy discovered at the largest scale." They quickly said "evidence for a cosmological constant found." And now dark energy is often called "the energy of free space."

Or, "the energy comes from nothing." Gee, that sounds like violation of conservation of energy, now doesn't it?

Dark matter actually follows a similar trend. We saw objects in space that showed more potential energy than could be accounted for. "Violation of conservation of energy"? Nope. Some unseen, invisible objects generating a gravitational field. Dark matter.

Said the main without a clue about Gauss's law and why a plasma couldn't shield a net charge on the sun from creating an electric field at its surface.

Said the man who apparently didn't know what a plasma is ...

And who want's to argue Gauss's law with all the electrical engineers and plasma physicists now supporting EU and PC, rather than his big bang universe full of gnomes that violate conservation laws.

 

[Ziggurat]

The following is from http://www.pandj.org/node/5

But you see the pattern - whenever physicists come across violation of conservation of energy, they don't call it that. They parametrize it, and quietly shove the time-dependence into another term, and claim "energy is conserved!"

Not knowing where energy went is not the same thing as having a violation of energy conservation. The only reason to conflate the two is to deliberately deceive. And it evidently worked. Not that fooling you would be hard: you want to believe so badly that you'll overlook anything. That's why you still refuse to acknowlege that the sun cannot be powered by electricity. Belief is more important to you than logic.

And the patern is indeed clear: when energy goes missing, and we work under the assumption that it went somewhere, we have always found that yes, it didn't actually disappear. Frictional energy losses turn into heat. Neutron decay energy losses show up in antineutrinos. It's turned out to be a damned good assumption. So why on earth should we abandon it when it has worked every single time in the past? Why should we abandon what has helped provide some of the key insights into new physics throughout the history of the field?

And who want's to argue Gauss's law

But we're not even arguing it. You simply ignored it completely to try to justify confining absurdly large charges on the sun. And since that didn't work, now you try to ignore the issue entirely so that you don't have to admit that you were wrong, or weasel out of it by saying you're not certain it's the case. Well, that's not good enough: I've given you the proof, and you should be certain that the sun is NOT powered by electricity. Yet you aren't. Because you're clueless. And there's only so hard I can hit you with a cluebat.

 

[BeAChooser]

And BTW the halflife of an isolated nuetron is what? 13 min. or so?

It's neutrons, not nuetrons.

And shall we talk about those neutron stars with 13 minute half-lifes?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070206neutronstar.htm

Plasma cosmologists note (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040920pulsar.htm) that "astronomers expected that the 'rotation' (pulsing) of the neutron star--conceived as an isolated mass in space -- would slow at a consistent rate.* But then they observed a significant 'glitch' in the pulse rate, an event that 'released a burst of energy that was carried outward at near the speed of light by the pulsar wind.' Of course, unpredictable variations in both the pulse rate and intensity of an electrically discharging Pulsar would be expected with any changes in the electrical environment through which it moved. Proponents of the electric model are particularly impressed by the two embedded 'bows' seen along the polar jet ... snip ... . Astronomers initially called these 'windbow shocks', a theorized mechanical effect of high-velocity material encountering the interstellar medium. But electrical theorists recognized a configuration common to intense plasma discharge in laboratory experiments: toruses or rings stacked along the polar axis of the discharge. And subsequent enhanced pictures ... snip ... made clear that the 'bows' were in fact stacked toruses, not easily explained in gravitational terms."

Electrical engineer Donald Scott says the phenomenon that gives pulsars their name ... rapidly pulsed radio signals ... "is produced electrically (much like a radio station)." He says "In the plasma that surrounds a star (or planet) there are conducting paths whose sizes and shapes are controlled by the magnetic field structure of the body. Those conducting paths are giant electrical transmission lines and can be analyzed as such. Depending on the electrical properties of what is connected to the ends of electrical transmission lines, it is possible for pulses of current and voltage (and therefore power) to oscillate back and forth from one end to the other. The ends can both be on the same object (as occurs on Earth) or one end might be on one member of a closely spaced binary pair of stars and the other end on the other member of the pair similar to the "flux tube" connecting Jupiter and its inner moon, Io." Scott goes on to note that in 1995 several super computer simulations were performed on a transmission line system model with properties believed to be those of a pulsar atmosphere and the results matched seventeen different observed emission properties. The 1995 analysis he refers to is "Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment" by Kevin Healy and Anthony Peratt (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf ). It concluded, “Our results support the ‘planetary magnetosphere’ view, where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission. In other words, we do not require a hypothetical super-condensed object to form a pulsar. A normal stellar remnant undergoing periodic discharges will suffice. Plasma cosmology has the virtue of not requiring neutron stars or black holes to explain compact sources of radiation."

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/elec_magnetars.html

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=36024&arnumber=1707326&count=477&index=452 discusses "The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants ... snip ... The Hubble images of the rings of SN 1987A are spectacular and unexpected. Conventional theory did not predict the presence of the three rings nor the pattern of bright "beads" in the equatorial ring of SN 1987A. The pattern of brightening is not explained by an expanding shock front into an earlier stellar "wind". The axial shape of SN 1987A is that of a planetary nebula. It seems that new concepts are required to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae. The new discipline of plasma cosmology provides a precise analog in the form of a Z-pinch plasma discharge. The phenomena match so accurately that the number of bright beads can be accounted for and their behavior predicted. If supernovae are a plasma discharge phenomenon, the theoretical conditions for forming neutron stars and other "super-condensed" objects is not fulfilled and plasma concepts must be introduced to explain pulsar remnants of supernovae"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_matter_020410.html announced a discovery "suggesting the existence" of "strange quark stars." Object 3C-58 was a supernova observed in 1181. It turns out the star's temperature is "far below what was expected" according to neutron star theory. Therefore, the researchers are claiming the stars core is made of "a new kind of exotic material" (as if a star made of pure neutrons wouldn't be exotic enough).

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
But wait ... turns out the inside of it is all negative. And the outside too. How can it possibly not explode?

Did you not read your own source? It's not negative on the inside, it's positive on the inside.

Yes, Ziggurat, I actually did read my source. Did you?

Let me quote from it: "Using precise data recently gathered at three different laboratories and some new theoretical tools, Gerald A. Miller, a UW physics professor, has found that the neutron has a negative charge both in its inner core and its outer edge, with a positive charge sandwiched in between to make the particle electrically neutral."

you should have learned about neutrons back in highschool.

Maybe you should have learned to read.

With no net charge, it doesn't matter how the charge is distributed

Are you as sure about that as you were about what my source said?

Quote:
Does it? Are you absolutely sure?

That's what your own references which claim the sun was powered by electricity have said.

Are you sure?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/the_electric_sun.html

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you sure?

Yes. And your first link rather confirms it.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

"The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts."

That requires a net positive charge on the sun. Gauss's law. No other possibility. And I already calculated the charge required to produce such a voltage, and it's absurdly and impossibly large. We went over this before. So do you not know what your own sources say, or do you still not understand, even after having it explained, why a large positive voltage requires a large positive net charge? That they didn't explicitly say "it has a large positive charge" is rather beside the point: that's the only way to produce what they claim the sun has.

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/the_electric_sun.html

The English on this site is really awful, and the writing in general is so incoherent that it's not even clear what exactly they think is going on. But this claim is clear enough, and clearly wrong:
"Would the electrons of the solar wind attracted by this positive charge which is in the centre of the Sun? The probable answer is: no, a positive charge in the depth of the Sun could not be detected at Earth. The solar plasma is not transparent for photons which are the carriers of the positive electric field."
In other words, they misunderstand the nature of shielding, and therefore believe in circumstances which violate Gauss's law. We've been over this too.

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html

I'm afraid there's essentially no details to work with there. I can't tell if he thinks there's a net charge on the sun because I can't really tell any of the details of what the author believes in.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm

This page doesn't say what they think powers the sun. So it's irrelevant to the current discussion. Got a page from Thunderbolts which does state what they think powers the sun? Because you've only provided one such link so far, the first one of this post. And that link makes quite clear that their model relies upon an absurdly large charge.

Indeed.

 

[Dancing David]

Like I needed a lesson in plasma?

No like you need a lesson in the difference bewteen a p-R-oton and a p-H-oton, and what the mass and charge of each is.

So is your *expertise* in grammar why you read my statement that "we were just talking about collections of particles colliding" and responded that "single particles are not elastic or inelastic"?



The point is that it might.



If it does, then it's going to clump up?



Did I do that? Seems to me I just asked whether dark matter black holes were possible. You were the ones who insisted it wasn't possible because dark matter can't interact with itself except by gravity. Now it appears you are not too sure about that.



And I say you are wrong.



But Helium atoms are mostly space. I'm was talking about one neutron hitting another neutron when you responded that they mostly pass through each other. Were you having problems with my grammar? Or was the problem in comprehension on your side?

Hoisted yourself on your own petard again!

The reason helium atoms rebound is? EM force. There is no 'space' that is a classical notion extended to QM, you could talk about the wave distribution or something like that.

Neutrons partake of the EM force, therefore when they collide withe ach other they will interact through EM, unless thier waveform come close enough for the weak or strong force to interact.

The comprhension problem is yours.

See that doubt suddenly creeping into your certainty?

 

[Dancing David]

Now I only said that's a possibility ... not that I'm "sure" about it. Not in the same way that JREF's dark matter proponents have said they are "sure" about dark matter. And just like they've inferred some things from certain observations, EU theorists (who are often electrical engineers or experts in plasma) have inferred some things from observations. And I might add that assuming there is reason for electric current to flow from interstellar space towards stars, then the EU theory is consistent with observations far better than the mainstream's theory. And it ignores far fewer problematic observations. For example, I keep asking the mainstream proponents how stars can have moved from one location on the HR diagram to a completely different location on the diagram in only a matter of weeks or months? And hearing only silence. But EU theorists has answered that question.

And i asked you:

What size would the magnetic field of the galaxy have to be for Perrat's model to be applied to the sun?

How are you doing with that?

Does the mass of the inner magneto have to equal the outer field's mass of moving stuff or not?

The HR diagram would be just more stuff that you choose not to understand.

What causes a red giant in your model BAC, I could tell you the mainstream model if you like. The HR diagram is a plot, not a constraint.

 

[Dancing David]

The following is from http://www.pandj.org/node/5







Said the man who apparently didn't know what a plasma is ...

And who want's to argue Gauss's law

You don't want to argue it, you want to violate it.

with all the electrical engineers and plasma physicists now supporting EU and PC, rather than his big bang universe full of gnomes that violate conservation laws.

 

[Dancing David]

It's neutrons, not nuetrons.

And shall we talk about those neutron stars with 13 minute half-lifes?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070206neutronstar.htm

Plasma cosmologists note (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040920pulsar.htm) that "astronomers expected that the 'rotation' (pulsing) of the neutron star--conceived as an isolated mass in space -- would slow at a consistent rate.* But then they observed a significant 'glitch' in the pulse rate, an event that 'released a burst of energy that was carried outward at near the speed of light by the pulsar wind.' Of course, unpredictable variations in both the pulse rate and intensity of an electrically discharging Pulsar would be expected with any changes in the electrical environment through which it moved. Proponents of the electric model are particularly impressed by the two embedded 'bows' seen along the polar jet ... snip ... . Astronomers initially called these 'windbow shocks', a theorized mechanical effect of high-velocity material encountering the interstellar medium. But electrical theorists recognized a configuration common to intense plasma discharge in laboratory experiments: toruses or rings stacked along the polar axis of the discharge. And subsequent enhanced pictures ... snip ... made clear that the 'bows' were in fact stacked toruses, not easily explained in gravitational terms."

Electrical engineer Donald Scott says the phenomenon that gives pulsars their name ... rapidly pulsed radio signals ... "is produced electrically (much like a radio station)." He says "In the plasma that surrounds a star (or planet) there are conducting paths whose sizes and shapes are controlled by the magnetic field structure of the body. Those conducting paths are giant electrical transmission lines and can be analyzed as such. Depending on the electrical properties of what is connected to the ends of electrical transmission lines, it is possible for pulses of current and voltage (and therefore power) to oscillate back and forth from one end to the other. The ends can both be on the same object (as occurs on Earth) or one end might be on one member of a closely spaced binary pair of stars and the other end on the other member of the pair similar to the "flux tube" connecting Jupiter and its inner moon, Io." Scott goes on to note that in 1995 several super computer simulations were performed on a transmission line system model with properties believed to be those of a pulsar atmosphere and the results matched seventeen different observed emission properties. The 1995 analysis he refers to is "Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment" by Kevin Healy and Anthony Peratt (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf ). It concluded, “Our results support the ‘planetary magnetosphere’ view, where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission. In other words, we do not require a hypothetical super-condensed object to form a pulsar. A normal stellar remnant undergoing periodic discharges will suffice. Plasma cosmology has the virtue of not requiring neutron stars or black holes to explain compact sources of radiation."

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/elec_magnetars.html

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=36024&arnumber=1707326&count=477&index=452 discusses "The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants ... snip ... The Hubble images of the rings of SN 1987A are spectacular and unexpected. Conventional theory did not predict the presence of the three rings nor the pattern of bright "beads" in the equatorial ring of SN 1987A. The pattern of brightening is not explained by an expanding shock front into an earlier stellar "wind". The axial shape of SN 1987A is that of a planetary nebula. It seems that new concepts are required to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae. The new discipline of plasma cosmology provides a precise analog in the form of a Z-pinch plasma discharge. The phenomena match so accurately that the number of bright beads can be accounted for and their behavior predicted. If supernovae are a plasma discharge phenomenon, the theoretical conditions for forming neutron stars and other "super-condensed" objects is not fulfilled and plasma concepts must be introduced to explain pulsar remnants of supernovae"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_matter_020410.html announced a discovery "suggesting the existence" of "strange quark stars." Object 3C-58 was a supernova observed in 1181. It turns out the star's temperature is "far below what was expected" according to neutron star theory. Therefore, the researchers are claiming the stars core is made of "a new kind of exotic material" (as if a star made of pure neutrons wouldn't be exotic enough).

Oh gosh, more fluff from Thunderbolts?

So you don't like particle physics either, is that a suprise? Your understanding of QM is abysmal.

What is the size of the galactic magnetic field to have Perrat's model move the sun?

How does plasma cosmology account for the ratio of hydrogen, helium and lithium?
How does a z-pinch produve elements higher than iron on the periodic table?

 

[Belz...]

single particles are not elastic or inelastic. Processes are.

Perhaps you should tell that to these folks:

"MEASUREMENT OF THE CROSS SECTIONS OF INELASTIC NEUTRON COLLISIONS..."

Chooser, a collision IS a process, not a particle...

 

[Belz...]

Oh you poor thing. Do they block www.msnbc.msn.com on your network? Does whoever owns the network not trust you? Looks like there's a complete lack of trust here.

Ah! Now you see other possibilities. It's entirely possible that it was blocked. The security arrangements here are... excessive.

That electromagnetic forces exist and affect plasma. That most of the universe (that we can actually see) appears to be made of plasma. That we have detected electromagnetic forces in space and see phenomena that certainly seem similar to those Birkeland Currents, plasmoids, double layers and z-pinches produced in plasmas here on earth by electromagnetism.

And, by your own logic, how are those not assumptions ?

That mainstream astrophysicists have been ignoring these phenomena for far too long.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

That Big Bang sure needs a lot of gnomes to prop it up.

You seem to have an axe to grind, Chooser. Is there any theory in modern science you DO accept ?

Yes, you've had about the same amount of time. But whereas cancer researchers have succeeded in effectively treating and preventing a number of different cancers, mainstream astrophysics still can't even define what dark matter and dark energy are, much less how they work

And yet we can detect it. Funny that.

... or came to be. And seems to me, you just replaced the origin of the visible universe problem with an origin of a dark universe problem.

I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to get everything on the same footing so as to give the impression that your pet theory is better. Unfortunately for you, even if you succeeded, it doesn't work that way.

 

[The Man]

"The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts."

"Would the electrons of the solar wind attracted by this positive charge which is in the centre of the Sun? The probable answer is: no, a positive charge in the depth of the Sun could not be detected at Earth. The solar plasma is not transparent for photons which are the carriers of the positive electric field."

It would seem, Zig, these EU theorists just want to clam that Sun is electrically powered without bothering to develop even a self consistent theory of how it works. They can not claim that electrons in the solar wind are attracted by the Sun or that the required charge on the Sun could be detected “at Earth”. So they must claim that the charge is somehow shielded from the solar wind and the Earth yet not from the Birkeland currents they claim supply the Sun’s power.

Let’s do some more calculations

The total luminosity of the sun is about 3.846 X 10²⁶ watts
At a solar potential difference of 1 X 10¹⁰ Volts (or Watts / Ampere)
Gives a current of 3.846 X 10¹⁶ Amperes

This current (or charge per second), must both be entering and leaving the Sun in order to maintain the luminal power output and the proposed solar potential difference.

Can EU theorists locate these currents in relation to our Sun or are they just EU gnomes like the solar charge?

Electrons in the solar wind can not account for the charge leaving the Sun since it is comprised of equal numbers of electrons and protons.