Electric universe theories here.

[Zeuzzz]

This is the place for all theories considered part of the 'electric universe' part of the spectrum.

This is not a place for:

A) Plasma Cosmology (ie, things only relevant on cosmoloigical scales)
B) Ad homs or personal jibes
C) Anything to do with any cosmology

It is a place for:

A) "thunderbolts" material,
B) "elecric universe material",
C) Whatever published papers there are to back up the former theories
D) Whatever science articles may back up the former theories
E) Terrestrial (plasma) physics,
F) Stellar (plasma) Physics,
G) In general all (plasma) physics from nanoscales up to the maximum of galaxtic scales.

This is try to reduce the length of the plasma cosmology - woo or not thread. And to enable it to stay more on the topic of cosmological models in future discussion, which attempts up until now have been futile, which is no-ones fault in particular (Infact I kinda started some of the irrelivant material myself a while back)

Go.

And a random post to start it off:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4782859#post4782859

If Thunderbolts website is so disliked here, then why does thier articels so closely follow "mainstream" plasma physics?

let's put this into context with my post above on DL's

From TPOD

The behavior of active plasma at every point is influenced—or driven—by conditions in the rest of the circuit. Fluctuations are often driven to form double layers (DLs)—thin regions of opposite charge build-up with large voltage drops between them. DLs are electrical phenomena that do not appear in observations of magnetic fields. The electric forces in DLs can be very much stronger than gravitational and mechanical forces. Gas theory modified to encompass “magnetism” will overlook them.

DLs separate plasma into cells and filaments that have different qualities—different temperatures or densities or compositions. These cellular and filamentary structures show up especially in planetary nebulas, but they can be invisible in optical wavelengths and appear in x-ray or radio observations.

DLs are “noisy,” emitting radio waves over a broad band of frequencies. They can sort matter into regions of like composition and condense or rarify it. DLs can accelerate charged particles to cosmic ray energies.

And DLs can explode. Energy from the rest of the circuit flows into the break, and the explosion can release much more energy than is present locally. This effect is seen in flares on the sun and is likely responsible for the outbursts of novas, the so-called “exploding” stars.

The electromagnetic forces in currents squeeze the conducting channels into thin thread-like filaments. These filaments attract each other in pairs, but when they get close, instead of merging, they spiral around each other. Pairs of pairs, and more, may entwine into plasma “cables” that can transmit electrical power over enormous distances. We see these cables as the “jets” that connect Herbig-Haro stars and active galactic nuclei with DLs that may lie many light-years away.

But the “cables” can be invisible, too. These make up the galactic circuits that power the stars, analogs of the power lines , invisible at night, that carry electricity from generating stations to city lights. The “flux tube” that connects Jupiter’s moon Io to the bright spots in Jupiter’s auroras is an invisible plasma cable, undetected until a space probe flew through it.

The new vision of the cosmos connects components at one scale into circuits that are coupled to and driven by circuits at larger scales. This new cosmos is laced with hierarchies of interacting circuits.

You, Tusenfem, have a papers printed on this **** and you still wallow in mainstreams refusal to accept a universe dominated by plasmas and electric currents???

 

[Ziggurat]

And DLs can explode. Energy from the rest of the circuit flows into the break, and the explosion can release much more energy than is present locally. This effect is seen in flares on the sun and is likely responsible for the outbursts of novas, the so-called “exploding” stars.

This is nonsensical. In order to create a double layer (ie, separate charges), you need to pour in energy. If the energy in this double layer is sufficient to explode an entire star, where did this energy come from? Not the double layer itself: that's only a way to temporarily store the energy. Given the enormous energies involved, if you ever had a double layer with that much potential, you would indeed expect it to collapse explosively. But how on earth could you get it to separate in the first place? A double layer will continually bleed off energy as it tries to collapse, and it will collapse unless it's continually driven by some power source to stay separated. If this double layer exists at such huge potentials for an extended period, the energy source problem becomes far worse. Unless you form it suddenly, I don't see how it could possibly work. But in that case, we're now looking for some source of energy which can pump (literally) astronomical amounts of energy into this double layer, and do so incredibly quickly. What possible energy sources are there, and why wouldn't this sources just cause an explosion directly, since it's got the requisite energy and can release it suddenly?

The idea that supernovas are exploding double layers just doesn't make sense.

 

[tusenfem]

Dear Zeuzzz you could also have copied my reply to the rediculous post by Sol88, which can be read here.

Thundercrap has absolutely nothing of value to offer.

Let's close this thread, before you embarress yourself too much.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Let's close this thread, before you embarress yourself too much.

Dear, Tusenfem.

Just creating to this thread to avoid the derailing of others.

I'm not parcipting in this thread.

...for a while anyway.

Yours Sincerely,

Zeuzz

 

[Dancing David]

Hmmm, post and run.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Hmmm, post and run.

Well done, your catching on

Its more like post and wait however.

 

[edd]

Out of curiosity - how do you have a theory called the 'Electric Universe' that does not involve cosmology?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Out of curiosity - how do you have a theory called the 'Electric Universe' that does not involve cosmology?

I dont have a clue what the electric universe theory is. Its a vague but interesting collection of alternative models for things in space by people who percieve that mainstream science ignores the electrically dynamic properties of space and plasma, and thus they propose alternative electric and plasma based theories to explain various previously considered mechanical and newtonian phenomena.

Some may overlap and be consistant with plasma cosmology, but most are on much smaller scales than cosmology or the universe at large so aren't really relevant to cosmology at all. So I'm trying to separate them from the cosmologically relevant material. Such as the electric model of comets, pulsars, solar wind acceleration, Z-pinch model of stars, alternative HR diagram, heliospheric current circuits, exploding double layer model of supernovae, etc, etc.

I'm not posting any myself until I see some worthy for scrutiny. Plus I'm busy atm with other things. But others can add what they want, or continue fueds from the plasma cosmology thread about things that weren't really cosmology. Be my guest.

 

[brantc]

They way I see it you guys are going "know" where until there is a basic agreement.

The agreement revolves around the power source for whatever model you use.
The Standard Cosmology model uses the Big Bang and gravity.

They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang....


The Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology uses a Big Charge Separation instead of a bang.

So who really gives a crap about the starting pace for charge separation!!!
Maybe we live between the plates of a universe sized battery!!!

It is the equivalent argument.

There is plenty of evidence for CS. You cant say that filaments are gravity created because we cant produce a mathematical model of the beginning of CS based on a Big Bang universe.

Once you people come to some sort of agreement on this one issue you might actually get somewhere.

Otherwise Happy "Festival Of Popular Delusions Day". To both sides....

Yes, it certainly is.

 

[edd]

They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang....

Zeuzz asked that this not be discussed here but one can't leave a statement like that unchallenged. What you says is not talked about is - there's just no answer yet. There's no unwritten assumptions and no written assumption involves god.

 

[Tubbythin]

They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang....

Could you have made a more ridiculous strawman? Thats an unwritten assumption that I've never a single competent cosmologist ever making.

The Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology uses a Big Charge Separation instead of a bang.

So who really gives a crap about the starting pace for charge separation!!!
Maybe we live between the plates of a universe sized battery!!!

It is the equivalent argument.

There is plenty of evidence for CS. You cant say that filaments are gravity created because we cant produce a mathematical model of the beginning of CS based on a Big Bang universe.

Once you people come to some sort of agreement on this one issue you might actually get somewhere.

Huh? How is charge separation meant to explain:
the abundance of the elements
Hubbles' law
Olbers' paradox
the CMBR
the Alpha-Lyman forrest.
etc etc.

Otherwise Happy "Festival Of Popular Delusions Day". To both sides....

The person who's just said "They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang...." is calling others delusional??? Wow.

 

[Tubbythin]

Or even the Lyman-alpha forest.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I see the delusion continues...

 

[Sol88]

This is nonsensical. In order to create a double layer (ie, separate charges), you need to pour in energy. If the energy in this double layer is sufficient to explode an entire star, where did this energy come from? Not the double layer itself: that's only a way to temporarily store the energy. Given the enormous energies involved, if you ever had a double layer with that much potential, you would indeed expect it to collapse explosively. But how on earth could you get it to separate in the first place? A double layer will continually bleed off energy as it tries to collapse, and it will collapse unless it's continually driven by some power source to stay separated. If this double layer exists at such huge potentials for an extended period, the energy source problem becomes far worse. Unless you form it suddenly, I don't see how it could possibly work. But in that case, we're now looking for some source of energy which can pump (literally) astronomical amounts of energy into this double layer, and do so incredibly quickly. What possible energy sources are there, and why wouldn't this sources just cause an explosion directly, since it's got the requisite energy and can release it suddenly?

The idea that supernovas are exploding double layers just doesn't make sense.

To parse

For example, it has made possible the inference that high-energy particles exist in many types of astronomical objects, it has given additional evidence for the existence of extensive magnetic fields, and it has indicated that enormous amounts of energy may indeed be converted, stored, and released in cosmic plasma.

SYNCHROTRON RADIATION

Synchrotron radiation is named after the particle accelerators developed in the 1930's and 1940's to produce high-energy electrons. In 1950 Hannes Alfven, Nicolai Herlofson, and Karl Keipenheuer brought this form of plasma radiation to astronomers' attention. Alfven, who later won a Nobel prize in physics for his solar studies, proposed that streams of electrons move at nearly the speed of light along magnetic-field lines not only in Earth's magnetosphere and above the Sun, but also throughout the cosmos.

Wherever plasma exist, they produce prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. In particular, X- and gamma rays from beyond the solar system are likely produced by free electrons with energies corresponding to temperatures of more than 1 million degrees—the realm of hot, magnetized plasmas. We call the overall picture obtained from these energetic emissions the plasma universe.

So the very fact DL's do exist should be more than enough evidence for the Electric Universe!

 

[Sol88]

Out of curiosity - how do you have a theory called the 'Electric Universe' that does not involve cosmology?

You tell me, Edd?

After all the carry on about my EDM cratering on Mercury was not cosmology but was electric UNIVERSE??

And that's why it does the proverbial all over the BB!

 

[Reality Check]

To parse

SYNCHROTRON RADIATION

So the very fact DL's do exist should be more than enough evidence for the Electric Universe!

Hi Sol88
DL existence is no evidence at all for the Electric Universe!
(unless the definition of EU is "standard mainstream space physics")

Quite the contrary- the properties of DL mean that the few tens of Debye lengths between the layers restrict their influence to planetary scales:

1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.

 

[Reality Check]

You tell me, Edd?

After all the carry on about my EDM cratering on Mercury was not cosmology but was electric UNIVERSE??

And that's why it does the proverbial all over the BB!

There was no "carry on" about your EDM cratering on Mercury. There was an easy debunking of it by showing that there is not enough energy in any electrical discharge (by several orders of magnitude) to create the Spider Crater that you were obsessed about.

As for "does the proverbial all over the BB" - that is merely the result of your absmal ignorance of the match between the BB and actual reality.

 

[tusenfem]

SYNCHROTRON RADIATION

So the very fact DL's do exist should be more than enough evidence for the Electric Universe!

Ah, once more the "discussion technique" of Sol88 just take one piece of text, drop an interesting sounding term, in this case synchrotron radiation, and "link" it to the previous text, although there is no connection whatsoever with the question in text 1 and the explanation in text 2 and then claim the the EU is correct with evidence.

Sol88 you astound me, with every post you show less and less knowledge of plasma physics.

 

[Sol88]

on Dl's

ABSTRACT
Magnetic-field aligned electric fields play an important role in the dynamics of magnetized plasmas. They allow decoupling
of plasma elements by violation of the frozen field condition, breakdown of equipotential mapping, efficient acceleration of
charged particles and rapid release of magnetic energy. In the collisionless plasmas that occupy most of the universe they used to
be assumed nonexistent. A major consequence of the in situ measurements of the space age was the recognition that such electric
fields do exist in the collisionless space plasma in spite of the absence of collisional friction. Indications of their existence came
even from ground observations, but the final proof rests on the overwhelming evidence accumulated by in situ observations. These
include observations of a number of characteristic features of particle distribution functions, various active experiments and direct
measurements of electric fields. A number of mechanisms that can support magnetic field aligned electric fields have been identified.
They include wave turbulence, solitary structures, magnetic mirrors, electric double layers and dynamic trapping. Some of
them have been observationally confirmed to be important in the auroral process, but their relative roles are still not well known.

Electric double layers in astrophysics
Electric double layers have also been invoked in astrophysical
applications. Alfvén (1978) suggested that electric
double layers are responsible for the enormous energy release
observed in extragalactic radio sources. In this case the
central galaxy was assumed to act as a unipolar generator
driving a gigantic current system, in which the double layers
were formed. This idea was elaborated by Borovsky (1986),
whose model combines anomalous resistivity and electric
double layers ”in symbiosis”. Beam driven waves on both
sides of the double layer reduce the mobility of charge carriers
(anomalous resistivity) and hold open a density cavity in
which the double layer resides. In the double layer ”electrical
energy is dissipated with 100 % efficiency into high energy
particles, creating conditions optimal for the collective
emission of polarized radio waves.” A comprehensive review
of the physics of the electric double layer and its astrophysical
applications was given by Raadu (1989).
Carlqvist (1995) analysed electric double layers in multicomponent
plasmas and included relativistic effects. One
of his results was that the relativistic electric double layer is
a selective accelerator. This means that the particles accelerated
by the double layer in general have different abundance
ratios than the source plasma. Carlqvist suggested that this
Fig. 7. Contours of constant plasma potential in a steady state
electric double layer observed in the laboratory (Sato 1982).
Magnetic-field aligned electric fields
233
may provide a means of detecting the presence of electric
double layers in cosmical plasmas.

http:Falthamar.pdf

AND

On theoretical grounds, magnetic-field aligned electric
fields used to be considered impossible, and space plasma
was believed to obey the idealized magnetohydrodynamics
that assumes their absence. Only when in situ measurements
in the space plasma became possible, was this serious error
exposed. We now know that essential parts of space plasma
dynamics, and in particular auroral acceleration, depend on
magnetic-field aligned electric fields. This illustrates the importance
of theory and experiment going hand in hand. Because
of the complexity of magnetized plasma, theoretical
models can too easily go astray if not checked against empirical
data.

let's bang on about the DeBye length again shall we RC, Tusenfem?

 

[Sol88]

Ah, once more the "discussion technique" of Sol88 just take one piece of text, drop an interesting sounding term, in this case synchrotron radiation, and "link" it to the previous text, although there is no connection whatsoever with the question in text 1 and the explanation in text 2 and then claim the the EU is correct with evidence.

Sol88 you astound me, with every post you show less and less knowledge of plasma physics.

Case you are not aware, Tusenfem, on just what synchrotron radiation is.

Synchrotron radiation is named after the particle accelerators developed in the 1930's and 1940's to produce high-energy electrons.

Can a DL accelerate charged particles?? Whooda thunk that

eg

Synchrotron radiation in astronomy
M87's Energetic Jet., HST image. The blue light from the jet emerging from the bright AGN core, towards the lower right, is due to synchrotron radiation.

Synchrotron radiation is also generated by astronomical objects, typically where relativistic electrons spiral (and hence change velocity) through magnetic fields. Two of its characteristics include (1) Non-thermal power-law spectrum, and (2) Polarization.[3]

It was first detected in a jet emitted by M87 in 1956 by Geoffrey R. Burbidge [4], who saw it as confirmation of a prediction by Iosif S. Shklovskii in 1953, but it had been predicted several years earlier by Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson [5] in 1950.

T. K. Breus noted that questions of priority on the history of astrophysical synchrotron radiation is quite complicated, writing:

"In particular, the Russian physicist V.L. Ginsburg broke his relationships with I.S. Shklovsky and did not speak with him for 18 years. In the West, Thomas Gold and Sir Fred Hoyle were in dispute with H. Alfven and N. Herlofson, while K.O. Kiepenheuer and G. Hutchinson were ignored by them."[6]

Booya