Electric universe theories here.

[Sol88]

Sol88 is such a great intellect that he does not even have to read the web pages he links to !

Current-free double layers

Somehow that does not surprise me since that would imply that Sol88 is interested in learning anything rather than just parroting the stuff Sol88 found on a book advertisement web site.

Thanks RC!!!!

FYI: The ions that are accelerated by double layers can travel beyond the double layers. The distance that the ions travel is determined by their energy and their interaction with the surrounding medium. Note that the electron beam above stops at the end of the device as expected.

What greater than the DeBye length??? And they were limited to the length of the machine of course which astrophysical plasma are not!

 

[Reality Check]

That's were you are wrong!

try Crab Pulsar

Another random post from someone that cannot read.

 

[Reality Check]

Thanks RC!!!!



What greater than the DeBye length??? And they were limited to the length of the machine of course which astrophysical plasma are not!

What is "What greater than the DeBye length??? ".

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent (hi Sol88 ) who is currently ignoring basic physics: allow the beams to extend further then the separation by a factor of a 10,000 million (10 billion). What scale would this beam extend over? A few thousand thousand million kilometers rounded up is 10000 billion kilometers. This is ~1 light year and just into interstellar scales.

And then some idiot posts a link to the Crab Nebula!

 

[Sol88]

What is "What greater than the DeBye length??? ".

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent (hi Sol88 ) who is currently ignoring basic physics: allow the beams to extend further then the separation by a factor of a 10,000 million (10 billion). What scale would this beam extend over? A few thousand thousand million kilometers rounded up is 10000 billion kilometers. This is ~1 light year and just into interstellar scales.

And then some idiot posts a link to the Crab Nebula!

Open your eyes, Dude!

n visible light, the Crab Nebula consists of a broadly oval-shaped mass of filaments, about 6 arcminutes long and 4 arcminutes wide (by comparison, the full moon is 30 arcminutes across) surrounding a diffuse blue central region. In three dimensions, the nebula is thought to be shaped like a prolate spheroid.[3] The filaments are the remnants of the progenitor star's atmosphere, and consist largely of ionised helium and hydrogen, along with carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, neon and sulfur. The filaments' temperatures are typically between 11,000 and 18,000 K, and their densities are about 1,300 particles per cm³.[9]

In 1953 Iosif Shklovsky proposed that the diffuse blue region is predominantly produced by synchrotron radiation, which is radiation given off by the curving of electrons moving at speeds up to half the speed of light.[10] Three years later the theory was confirmed by observations. In the 1960s it was found that the source of the electron curved paths was the strong magnetic field produced by a neutron star at the center of the nebula.[11]

what A PLASMA! doing you know, plasma stuff? not gas stuff

At the center of the nebula lies the Crab Pulsar, a rotating neutron star, which emits pulses of radiation from gamma rays to radio waves with a spin rate of 30.2 times per second. The nebula was the first astronomical object identified with a historical supernova explosion.

An Exploding double layer! And a Neutron star? hang on I thought the star that exploded (supernovae) was too small? What's going on here? oHhhh... wait I see, standard theoretical models are...lacking!

Theoretical models of supernova explosions suggest that the star that exploded to produce the Crab Nebula must have had a mass of between 9 and 11 M☉.[18][28] Stars with masses lower than 8 solar masses are thought to be too small to produce supernova explosions, and end their lives by producing a planetary nebula instead, while a star heavier than 12 solar masses would have produced a nebula with a different chemical composition to that observed in the Crab.[29]

A significant problem in studies of the Crab Nebula is that the combined mass of the nebula and the pulsar add up to considerably less than the predicted mass of the progenitor star, and the question of where the 'missing mass' is remains unresolved.[17] Estimates of the mass of the nebula are made by measuring the total amount of light emitted, and calculating the mass required, given the measured temperature and density of the nebula. Estimates range from about 1–5 solar masses, with 2–3 solar masses being the generally accepted value.[29] The neutron star mass is estimated to be between 1.4 and 2 solar masses.

The predominant theory to account for the missing mass of the Crab is that a substantial proportion of the mass of the progenitor was carried away before the supernova explosion in a fast stellar wind. However, this would have created a shell around the nebula. Although attempts have been made at several different wavelengths to observe a shell, none has yet been found.[30]

Oh wait they do know about the role ELECTRICITY takes in the ENERGY transfer that is going on in the center!

Tracing back its expansion consistently yields a date for the creation of the nebula several decades after 1054, implying that its outward velocity has accelerated since the supernova explosion.[14] This acceleration is believed to be caused by energy from the pulsar that feeds into the nebula's magnetic field, which expands and forces the nebula's filaments outwards.[15]

BZzzzzzzzzzzz......is that an electric current we can hear coming from the Crab?

The pulsar's extreme energy output creates an unusually dynamic region at the centre of the Crab Nebula. While most astronomical objects evolve so slowly that changes are visible only over timescales of many years, the inner parts of the Crab show changes over timescales of only a few days.[27] The most dynamic feature in the inner part of the nebula is the point where the pulsar's equatorial wind slams into the bulk of the nebula, forming a shock front. The shape and position of this feature shifts rapidly, with the equatorial wind appearing as a series of wisp-like features that steepen, brighten, then fade as they move away from the pulsar to well out into the main body of the nebula.

Ohhh oHhh.....pulsar's equatorial wind slams into the bulk of the nebula, forming a shock front.

can we reword that to

The pulsar's equatorial plasma flow slams into the bulk of the nebula's plasma, forming a double layer (and accelerating charged particles!).

How many light years is that RC?

 

[tusenfem]

Okay, from now on I am going to ignore Sol88, all the blatantly ignorance that he is spreading around, confusing the particle beams that exit a DL with the DL itself, thinking that supernovae are "exploding double layers" (please show us the currents that flow through the start that goes SN, because they are there, according to your interpretation of Fälthammar's text), and basically the total lack of knowledge about plasma physics and astrophysics.

Like Reality Check says: Somehow that does not surprise me since that would imply that Sol88 is interested in learning anything rather than just parroting the stuff Sol88 found on a book advertisement web site.

There is no discussion here in this thread, if I or RC or SI or TT explains something Sol88 comes up with another unrelated quote that might have some of the same words in the text, and he (Sol88) thinks it is the same.

Let's no longer feed the troll.

 

[Reality Check]

Open your eyes, Dude!

My eyes are open, Dude!
What is better is that I have a brain that is not obsessed with pretty pictures.

The rest of your post is your usual spewing of ignorance so I will ignore it.

 

[Reality Check]

Okay, from now on I am going to ignore Sol88, all the blatantly ignorance that he is spreading around, confusing the particle beams that exit a DL with the DL itself, thinking that supernovae are "exploding double layers" (please show us the currents that flow through the start that goes SN, because they are there, according to your interpretation of Fälthammar's text), and basically the total lack of knowledge about plasma physics and astrophysics.

Like Reality Check says: Somehow that does not surprise me since that would imply that Sol88 is interested in learning anything rather than just parroting the stuff Sol88 found on a book advertisement web site.

There is no discussion here in this thread, if I or RC or SI or TT explains something Sol88 comes up with another unrelated quote that might have some of the same words in the text, and he (Sol88) thinks it is the same.

Let's no longer feed the troll.

Ditto

 

[Dancing David]

But he is sooo cute, and his antics are very entertaining.

 

[Reality Check]

So back to the actual topic of this thread: the electric universe hypothesis.
N.B. I call EU a hypothesis rather than a theory since the EU models lack predictive power as they rarely produce actual numbers that can be compared to observations.

Let us start with a link to the web site written by W.T. ("Tom") Bridgman, Ph.D. His main interest is creationism in astronomy but he has also written a review of Donald Scott's Electric Sky: The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited.
His blog also has several articles on EU (this article is a good place to start).
Tom Bridgman also has a list of the main EU sites at Electric Cosmos along with a link to another good (old but still applicable) site listing the problems with EU - Tim Thompson's On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis.

A little something to emphasis the woo nature of EU:
The EU model to power the Sun (and all other stars) seems to be that an enormous electric current flows through the Sun and that something (Z-pinches?) produces fusion on the surface of the Sun and thus the observed solar neutrinos.

There are several problems with this (read the links above) but I may have come up with another one - the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect. There is good evidence for neutrino oscillation which is thought to be caused by the neutrinos having a tiny mass. When neutrinos travel through matter, their effective mass changes and this effects their oscillation. This leads to the prediction that high and low energy electron neutrinos produced in the Sun will have different probabilities of being detected as electron neutrinos at a detector (P_ee). The 2 different probabilities are observed.
This is evidence that the electron neutrinos produced by the Sun are produced deep within it so that they have to pass through a lot of matter before they arrive at the Earth.

 

[Sol88]

RC wrote:

There is no discussion here in this thread, if I or RC or SI or TT explains something Sol88 comes up with another unrelated quote that might have some of the same words in the text, and he (Sol88) thinks it is the same.

Oh sorry RC

How's about this for some random link that has EVERY thing to do with EU

Magnetic Fields Dominate Young Stars of all Sizes?

Quote:

They say that this magnetic energy dominates over the other energies at play — e.g., centrifugal force and turbulence — and suggest that the role of the magnetic field in the early stages of star formation could be very similar for both small and massive stars.

Magnetic Energy? (Warning pretty picture below!!)

That's a pretty good artist impression of a Birkeland current!

Sorry for the delay in replying, been travling to europe to see the rellie's!

 

[Reality Check]

RC wrote:

Oh sorry RC

How's about this for some random link that has EVERY thing to do with EU

Magnetic Fields Dominate Young Stars of all Sizes?


Magnetic Energy? (Warning pretty picture below!!)

http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mag2.jpg

That's a pretty good artist impression of a Birkeland current!

Sorry for the delay in replying, been travling to europe to see the rellie's!

Still cannot read Sol88 ?
Or is it just your pretty picture obsession coupled with general ignorance ?

Looks like exactly what the caption states:

The background shows a false-color Spitzer image of the massive star-forming region G31.41, with the colors indicating various wavelengths of light. The zoom-in region represents the dust emission from the massive hot core (color and contour image) superposed with bars showing the structure of the magnetic field

(emphasis added)

 

[Tim Thompson]

Who Cares?

How's about this for some random link that has EVERY thing to do with EU

It also has EVERY thing to do with common mainstream astrophysics, which actually pre-dates any of the EU ramblings. So, does this mean you now admit that there is absolutely no difference at all between EU and mainstream astrophysics?

Of course not.

Once again the discussion has descended into useless silliness. As I have said before, and repeat now, standard mainstream astrophysics and cosmology involve a great deal of plasma physics and electromagnetism, including electric currents in space. The link Sol88 posted is just plain ordinary long standing mainstream astrophysics, as is the case for nearly everything he posts, falsely implying that there is some strange off beat "theory" at work. It's all too silly.

Now I will tell you what you need to do to make it non-silly, and I have said this before too, although the message continually falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). Whatever EU is or is supposed to be, we can assume there is something which differentiates between EU and mainstream. It means nothing to say that magnetic fields are involved in star formation under the auspices of EU, since the same is true in mainstream. How does one tell the difference between EU & mainstream?

That's the key. That's what I want to see Sol88 do. Describe some phenomenon which cannot be true in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology, but can be true (preferably must be true) in the EU hypothesis. Then show that the phenomenon in question is observed to be true. It's just that simple, and that's the right way to advance any alternative idea in science.

We have yet to see anything except an endless stream of mainstream astrophysics re-packaged to look EU. Who cares about that? Show me the difference, and then we might have something to talk about.

 

[Sol88]

It also has EVERY thing to do with common mainstream astrophysics, which actually pre-dates any of the EU ramblings. So, does this mean you now admit that there is absolutely no difference at all between EU and mainstream astrophysics?

Tim Thompson what a cheap cop out

Mainstream explination is purely dominated by GRAVITY, this "new" finding confirms the EU understanding that they (stars) form in a Bennett pinch and are powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), taking on a classic "hourgalss" shape along with broadband radiation and filamentry structure on the extremites!

As observed!

Not saying the PR makes it true, but makes you think!

 

[Sol88]

Now I will tell you what you need to do to make it non-silly, and I have said this before too, although the message continually falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). Whatever EU is or is supposed to be, we can assume there is something which differentiates between EU and mainstream. It means nothing to say that magnetic fields are involved in star formation under the auspices of EU, since the same is true in mainstream. How does one tell the difference between EU & mainstream?

That's the key. That's what I want to see Sol88 do. Describe some phenomenon which cannot be true in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology, but can be true (preferably must be true) in the EU hypothesis. Then show that the phenomenon in question is observed to be true. It's just that simple, and that's the right way to advance any alternative idea in science.

We have yet to see anything except an endless stream of mainstream astrophysics re-packaged to look EU. Who cares about that? Show me the difference, and then we might have something to talk about.

Ok I'll bite

Lets talk comets shall we specificaly electric comets (under the banner of EU).

Tim Thompson what is your and I presume mainstream majority view of a comet? Lets pick Hale-Bopp for instance.

Tim?

 

[Reality Check]

Ok I'll bite

Lets talk comets shall we specificaly electric comets (under the banner of EU).

Tim Thompson what is your and I presume mainstream majority view of a comet? Lets pick Hale-Bopp for instance.

Tim?

Sql88:
This is an EU (not actual science) thread so you start:

• What is the EU idea of a comet?
• What observational evidence does EU have for their idea?

 

[Reality Check]

Tim Thompson what a cheap cop out

Mainstream explination is purely dominated by GRAVITY, this "new" finding confirms the EU understanding that they (stars) form in a Bennett pinch and are powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), taking on a classic "hourgalss" shape along with broadband radiation and filamentry structure on the extremites!

As observed!

Not saying the PR makes it true, but makes you think!

Sol88 what a cheap cop out

Mianstream astronomy is not "purely dominated by gravity". Mainstream astronomy knows basic physics and that there are situations where gravity dominates and situations when EM forces dominate.
Mainstream astronomy uses the scientific method so that it produces predictions with actual numbers (e.g. if the Sun is powered by fusion in its core then it will produce a certain flux of neutrinos). It then does experiments to test the predictions, e.g. the flux of solar neutrinos matches that predicted (taking in account the neutrino oscillations).

Stars are not "powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), " because FAC's do not produce ANY neutrinos.

 

[Dancing David]

Tim Thompson what a cheap cop out

Mainstream explination is purely dominated by GRAVITY, this "new" finding confirms the EU understanding that they (stars) form in a Bennett pinch and are powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), taking on a classic "hourgalss" shape along with broadband radiation and filamentry structure on the extremites!

As observed!

Not saying the PR makes it true, but makes you think!

And where did anything say that in what you linked to?

I sure don't see the hour glass shape, I see mainly a circle with a blob.

 

[Sol88]

Sol88 what a cheap cop out

Mianstream astronomy is not "purely dominated by gravity". Mainstream astronomy knows basic physics and that there are situations where gravity dominates and situations when EM forces dominate.
Mainstream astronomy uses the scientific method so that it produces predictions with actual numbers (e.g. if the Sun is powered by fusion in its core then it will produce a certain flux of neutrinos). It then does experiments to test the predictions, e.g. the flux of solar neutrinos matches that predicted (taking in account the neutrino oscillations).

Stars are not "powered by Birkeland currents (FAC's), " because FAC's do not produce ANY neutrinos.

To be fair, the neutrino debate is far from settled.

Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report an Analysis

A sentence from the conclusion of the report
In the conclusion of the Sudbury report it states:
"Comparison of the (neutrino) flux deduced from the ES reaction assuming no neutrino oscillations, to that measured by the CC reaction can provide clear evidence of flavor transformation without reference to solar model flux calculations. If neutrinos from the Sun change into other active flavors, then CC flux < ES flux."

But

There simply is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel. The only way such conclusions can be made is when observations have been made at more than one place along the path! Further measurements (MiniBooNE 2007) have found no evidence to support the SNO 2001 announcement.

Simple really.

 

[Tubbythin]

To be fair, the neutrino debate is far from settled.

Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report an Analysis





But



Simple really.

Sorry but this is a a load of rubbish. Not only do we have strong evidence for solar neutrino oscillation we have evidence for atmospheric neutrino oscillation and reactor produced oscillations. In the latter case we know exactly the quantity and type of neutrinos being observed and we know the quantity being observed. This utterly decimates the article you just posted.
FWIW we can also looking at solar neutrinos at day time and night time too.

 

[Sol88]

Sql88:
This is an EU (not actual science) thread so you start:

• What is the EU idea of a comet?
• What observational evidence does EU have for their idea?

No I think it would be more productive to list a few points between standard mainsteam understanding and an electric univere understanding!

Lets start with jets?

Mainstream:

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers

Abstract

Observations of the inner coma of Comet 19P/Borrelly with the camera on the Deep Space 1 spacecraft revealed several highly collimated dust jets emanating from the nucleus. The observed jets can be produced by acceleration of evolved gas from a subsurface cavity through a narrow orifice to the surface. As long as the cavity is larger than the orifice, the pressure in the cavity will be greater than the ambient pressure in the coma and the flow from the geyser will be supersonic. The gas flow becomes collimated as the sound speed is approached and dust entrainment in the gas flow creates the observed jets. Outside the cavity, the expanding gas loses its collimated character, but the density drops rapidly decoupling the dust and gas, allowing the dust to continue in a collimated beam. The hypothesis proposed here can explain the jets seen in the inner coma of Comet 1P/Halley as well, and may be a primary mechanism for cometary activity.

or EU

The Jets of Comet Wild 2

In the electrical hypothesis, a rock moving rapidly through the electric field of the Sun will develop a plasma sheath that stretches into a coma thousands of kilometers across and a filamentary tail that remains coherent over millions of kilometers. Arcing to the surface will generate high temperatures in small areas. The electrical activity will produce X-rays and ultraviolet light. The predictions of the model are testable, and the implications reach far beyond modern comet theory.

Seems pretty simple!