Electric universe theories here.

[Siggy_G]

Dude, Peratt published his 'galaxy formation and evolution' computer codes, in the book that EU proponents love to quote (but which I doubt very few have actually read - have you, Siggy_G?).

Perhaps you didn't see the end-part of my comment in the blog then? "As a closing comment, I think it's a pity that there haven't been developed new computer models (since Peratt's of 1986) taking into account all the assembled dynamics in an electric universe. I think however this is being looked into at the moment... " (Admittedly, I'm still guilty of not having wrapped up my on-started posts under the Anthony Peratt galaxy formation thread. Soon to come.)

"Thunderdolts", "obscure IEEE paper", "cult" ... nice one. Tom Bridgman does attempt debunking the Electric Universe theory pretty much on scientific grounds, I'll give him that. A quite respected opponent. But see, even he, can't refrain from depicting misguided images by using words like "high priest", "hero", "magical", an interlinking to "creationism" etc., in his attempts of belittling a different cosmological approach (which weights a different set of scientific papers and history than those of standard cosmology). And then there's yourself and some of your fellows with a certain pick of amusing bully terms. Don't you find it a little contradictive given the slogan of this forum?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Perhaps you didn't see the end-part of my comment in the blog then? "As a closing comment, I think it's a pity that there haven't been developed new computer models (since Peratt's of 1986) taking into account all the assembled dynamics in an electric universe. I think however this is being looked into at the moment... " (Admittedly, I'm still guilty of not having wrapped up my on-started posts under the Anthony Peratt galaxy formation thread. Soon to come.)

Oh, I saw it alright.

Now if you've participated in almost any of the online discussions on the EU, you'll know that the questions I asked have been asked dozens and dozens and dozens of times, over many years.

And you'll know that words to the effect that "I think however this is being looked into at the moment..." have been uttered just as many times.

Further, all attempts to find out who is doing the "looking into", where they're up to, what approach(es) they're using, etc, etc, etc, have been met with ... stony silence.

Now perhaps you'll be the exception - the first EU proponent in years to actually state what research is currently being done, and by whom.

Until then ...

"Thunderdolts", "obscure IEEE paper", "cult" ... nice one. Tom Bridgman does attempt debunking the Electric Universe theory pretty much on scientific grounds, I'll give him that. A quite respected opponent. But see, even he, can't refrain from depicting misguided images by using words like "high priest", "hero", "magical", an interlinking to "creationism" etc., in his attempts of belittling a different cosmological approach (which weights a different set of scientific papers and history than those of standard cosmology). And then there's yourself and some of your fellows with a certain pick of amusing bully terms. Don't you find it a little contradictive given the slogan of this forum?

Not in the least.

All the labels accurately describe behaviour that can be objectively evidenced (and such evidence is independently verifiable).

I presume you have read every single post in the very long Plasma Cosmology thread (here, in this section of JREF)? If not, why not?

How about the Electric Comet one? The many Electric Sun ones?

And so on.

And that's just this forum; would you like links to other fora that have been, um, blessed by being the target of EU proponents' marketing campaigns?

Let's be crystal clear here: every single EU idea that has been proposed, over the past decade or so, on internet discussion fora, has been debunked multiple times. The ideas have no scientific legs to stand on.

Now anyone who thinks there is any scientific basis for the multitude of claims is more than welcome to try - once more - to defend them, as science.

However, when EU proponents respond to having every single one of their ideas debunked by bluster, trolling, diversion, personal attacks on the critics, evasion, mindless repetition of EU dogma, quote mining, doing the Dish gallop, etc, etc, etc, then said proponents richly deserve to be called cultists who employ discussion tactics that would do any creationist proud.

 

[Reality Check]

Perhaps you didn't see the end-part of my comment in the blog then? "As a closing comment, I think it's a pity that there haven't been developed new computer models (since Peratt's of 1986) taking into account all the assembled dynamics in an electric universe. I think however this is being looked into at the moment... " (Admittedly, I'm still guilty of not having wrapped up my on-started posts under the Anthony Peratt galaxy formation thread. Soon to come.)

Since there is no such thing as an "electric universe", no scientist with any knowledge of basic physics will bother wasting their time creating and running computer simulations that describe a different universe to the one we live on.

You also are unaware that Peratt's invalid models have very little to do with the "electric universe" theories of crank websites such as Thunderbolts.
I suspect that Anthony Peratt would be appalled to be associated with that non-science.
Peratt's invalid models were based on the actual scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology of Alfven. That was invalidated. There is a crank thing called "plasma cosmology" but it is not Plasma Cosmology.

When you get to your "on-started posts under the Anthony Peratt galaxy formation thread", remember that to be on topic they need to address Anthony Peratt's model. So I expect that your posts will give evidence (cite peer-reviewed papers) that

• spiral galaxies have no mass between their arms as required by Anthony Peratt's model.
• double-lobed radio galaxies are actually shaped like double-lobes (i.e. not elliptical as actually observed) as required by Anthony Peratt's model.
• gravity is not ignored in the computer simulations (a fatal mistake since gravity will have some effect).
• his galactic plasma filaments have been detected ( or are made of magical invisible stuff )
• that the fact that galaxies move and collide will not disrupt his filaments which is a problem with the evolution part of his model.
• that for some reason using ex nihilo (out of nothing) arguments in Plasma Cosmology is valid while PC proponents (often being ignorant of Big Bang theory) state that it is based on a ex nihilo argument.
• And why when B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt (Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents ) go onto actually consider gravity, they ignored that when typical numbers are plugged into their equations then the gravitational contribution to is about 7 orders of magnitude greater than that of the plasma contribution.

I hope that you do not do what we so often see from PC/EC proponents and post about other models of galaxy formation, say that they are wrong and so AP's model is right. That is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

 

[Reality Check]

And here goes Dave Smith's extensive reply to Tom Bridgman's blog post. Dave Smith has named it "Refuting Pseudoskeptisism". As I've said before, there are so many misconceptions and eye-rolling attempts of belittling by people trying to "debunk" the Electric Universe.

You seem to be confusing volume (Gish Gallop?) with refuting.

No debunking of the electric universe needs to be done. Simple physics means that it is already dead in the water, e.g. the Debye length.

The big problem with Dave Smith reply is that he thinks that EU is somthing to do with Plasma Cosmology. The fact is that EU is only loosely based on Plasma Cosmology in the sense that EU proponents cite Alfven as if his theory was correct (it is not).
Then there is the usual citing of 20 year old text books and unspecified others ("Physics of a Plasma Universe by Anthony L. Peratt. Cosmical Electrodynamics and Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven, and many more besides"). The Peratt and Alfven books were excellent on the plasma physics of the day. The authors problems came when they went out of their area of expertise into cosmology.

Next problem: His claim that "MHD IS plasma cosmology" - once again refering to Alfven's debunked theory.

After that he goes into the usual EC misconceptions, e.g."All the evidence" in this case, consists of dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, black holes ... none of these invokations has been observed nor replicated in any form in laboratory experiments. There is NO empirical evidence that these things have anything to do with reality, hence nature".
Guess what Dave Smith:

1. Dark matter, dark energy are observations. Dark flow is a still to be confirmed observation. Black holes candidates have been observed. Sagittarius A* is observed to be a mass of ~4 million solar masses packed into a volume that fits inside the orbit of Mercury.
2. Dark matter may be replicated in a lab.
   Only someone truly ignorant would think that dark flow, dark energy or stellar or super-massive black holes can replicated in the lab !

 

[Siggy_G]

Now perhaps you'll be the exception - the first EU proponent in years to actually state what research is currently being done, and by whom.

Well, there is of course Wallace Thornhill and collegues, who has released papers with research on the electric features of comets, possible crater formation due to electric discharges, plasma generated spherules ("Martian blueberries") and on z-pinch morphology and electric stars:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4346306
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&tp=&arnumber=4287076&isnumber=4287017
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/27/4287017/04287093.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4287093&authDecision=-203

Donald Scott's works on the Electric Sun model:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

Research showing that electric processes (although dynamo based) could be sufficient of strong stellar radiation:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0111/0111358v1.pdf

Thornhill recently received an award for his current work on [the electrical nature of] gravity and his formulation on the Electric Universe:
http://www.telesio-galilei.com/tg/index.php/academy-award-2010

As to simulators, I do work with advanced 3d visuals and shaders, but not so much on mathematical models. A link up with a decent render programmer from current generation gaming industry should be sufficient skill input for setting up fairly advanced cosmic scenarios, based on existing formulas. I remember reading of upcoming simulations, but don't have sources at hand.

Not in the least.
All the labels accurately describe behaviour that can be objectively evidenced (and such evidence is independently verifiable).

So a scientific approach to the bullying justifies it?

I presume you have read every single post in the very long Plasma Cosmology thread (here, in this section of JREF)? If not, why not? How about the Electric Comet one? The many Electric Sun ones? And so on. And that's just this forum; would you like links to other fora that have (...)

No, I don't inhabit such autistic skills nor oceans of time as to be involved with every forum debate on the internet.

Now anyone who thinks there is any scientific basis for the multitude of claims is more than welcome to try - once more - to defend them, as science.

The scientific basis lies in that it is the work of several physicsists, astronomers and electrical engineers that have led to the build-up of the EU theory. Historically; Tesla, Birkeland, C.E.R. Bruce, Alfven among others. It is based on a different set of publised papers than the standard models. The photoelectric effect and ionzing radiation are further mechanisms that speaks in favour of build-up of charges and current sheats within plasmas (around planets and comets as well). As mentioned above, further research has been done in just as scientific terms as any other supporting mainstream models.

However, when EU proponents respond to having every single one of their ideas debunked by bluster, trolling, diversion, personal attacks on the critics, evasion, mindless repetition of EU dogma, quote mining, doing the Dish gallop, etc, etc, etc, then said proponents richly deserve to be called cultists who employ discussion tactics that would do any creationist proud.

I'll admit it would be interesting to see what the basis for the anger and frustration expressed in your description is. I can't defend the discussoin tactics of every EU proponent you have encountered, but something tells me the scenarios have been somewhat mutual. When e.g. Donald E Scott rebutts Tom Bridgman's debunk attempt, it is evident that the debunk attempts are largely based on misconceptions and good portion of sarchasm.

 

[Siggy_G]

[double post - discard]

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Now perhaps you'll be the exception - the first EU proponent in years to actually state what research is currently being done, and by whom.

Well, there is of course Wallace Thornhill and collegues, who has released papers with research on the electric features of comets, possible crater formation due to electric discharges, plasma generated spherules ("Martian blueberries") and on z-pinch morphology and electric stars:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4346306
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&tp=&arnumber=4287076&isnumber=4287017
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/27/4287017/04287093.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4287093&authDecision=-203

Donald Scott's works on the Electric Sun model:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

Research showing that electric processes (although dynamo based) could be sufficient of strong stellar radiation:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0111/0111358v1.pdf

Sigh.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

To repeat:
------------------------------------------------------
I presume you have read every single post in the very long Plasma Cosmology thread (here, in this section of JREF)? If not, why not?

How about the Electric Comet one? The many Electric Sun ones?

And so on.

And that's just this forum; would you like links to other fora that have been, um, blessed by being the target of EU proponents' marketing campaigns?

Let's be crystal clear here: every single EU idea that has been proposed, over the past decade or so, on internet discussion fora, has been debunked multiple times. The ideas have no scientific legs to stand on.
------------------------------------------------------
How about we do this: you go read all those threads, and come back when you think you can answer any of the open questions - scientific questions - on any of them (and by answer, I mean quantitatively).

Otherwise, I'm sorry to have to tell you that you are walking down a path very well trodden by many EU proponents before you ... and it's a path that's straight out of the EU marketing plan.

Oh, and to help you along, how about you tell us all what the axis marked "Amps/m^2" is, in *quantitative* terms? (I presume you are as familiar with the relevant IEEE document, having paid to access and download it).

As to simulators, I do work with advanced 3d visuals and shaders, but not so much on mathematical models. A link up with a decent render programmer from current generation gaming industry should be sufficient skill input for setting up fairly advanced cosmic scenarios, based on existing formulas. I remember reading of upcoming simulations, but don't have sources at hand.

Fair enough; how about you get back to us when you do know?

Not in the least.
All the labels accurately describe behaviour that can be objectively evidenced (and such evidence is independently verifiable).

So a scientific approach to the bullying justifies it?

No of course nothing whatsoever justifies the lakes full of vitriol and venom that EU proponents heap upon everyone except fellow cult members, the high priests, etc.

Further, nothing justifies some of these proponents issuing direct, open, personal threats against their critics.

And so on.

(it's good that we agree on this)

I presume you have read every single post in the very long Plasma Cosmology thread (here, in this section of JREF)? If not, why not? How about the Electric Comet one? The many Electric Sun ones? And so on. And that's just this forum; would you like links to other fora that have (...)

No, I don't inhabit such autistic skills nor oceans of time as to be involved with every forum debate on the internet.

Straight out of the EU cult's textbook! Bravo!

I did *NOT* ask you if you had "been involved with every forum debate on the internet"!

I *specifically* asked you about one thread, and then mentioned another, and referenced a set of others.

Further, I asked you if you'd like links.

So, are you prepared to read at least one of these threads? So you can acquaint yourself with just how thoroughly at least one EU pet idea has been debunked, scientifically? If not, why not?

Now anyone who thinks there is any scientific basis for the multitude of claims is more than welcome to try - once more - to defend them, as science.

The scientific basis lies in that it is the work of several physicsists, astronomers and electrical engineers that have led to the build-up of the EU theory. Historically; Tesla, Birkeland, C.E.R. Bruce, Alfven among others. It is based on a different set of publised papers than the standard models. The photoelectric effect and ionzing radiation are further mechanisms that speaks in favour of build-up of charges and current sheats within plasmas (around planets and comets as well). As mentioned above, further research has been done in just as scientific terms as any other supporting mainstream models.

Gish would be so proud of you, and you are surely in line for a medal from the TB marketing committee!

So, once again, are you prepared to defend any one of the EU cult's claims, scientifically?

How about the Sun is powered by a giant interstellar (intergalactic?) Birkeland current?

Or that the CMB is an optically thick mesh of synchrotron radiation emitted by intergalactic Birkeland currents?

Take your pick ... lots of folk here would be delighted if anyone could make a decent scientific case for any of these ...

However, when EU proponents respond to having every single one of their ideas debunked by bluster, trolling, diversion, personal attacks on the critics, evasion, mindless repetition of EU dogma, quote mining, doing the Dish gallop, etc, etc, etc, then said proponents richly deserve to be called cultists who employ discussion tactics that would do any creationist proud.

I'll admit it would be interesting to see what the basis for the anger and frustration expressed in your description is. I can't defend the discussoin tactics of every EU proponent you have encountered, but something tells me the scenarios have been somewhat mutual. When e.g. Donald E Scott rebutts Tom Bridgman's debunk attempt, it is evident that the debunk attempts are largely based on misconceptions and good portion of sarchasm.

Sure, I'm more than happy to point you to several such threads ... but you'd have to be prepared to spend a few hours reading them.

Oh, and if you can support your claim that "the debunk attempts are largely based on misconceptions and good portion of sarchasm", with objective evidence, you'll be the first to do so (at least here in JREF). Fair warning though, an EU fan tried to do that earlier, here in JREF, and his attempts were, um, not very impressive.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, there is of course Wallace Thornhill and collegues, who has released papers with research on the electric features of comets, possible crater formation due to electric discharges, plasma generated spherules ("Martian blueberries") and on z-pinch morphology and electric stars:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4346306
[/quote
The Electrical Nature of Comets
Conference presentation (not a peer-reviewed paper).

Also see how dumb the EU propoenents idea of electric comets is: The Electric Comet theory

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&tp=&arnumber=4287076&isnumber=4287017

Only plasma discharges are mentioned in the abstract of Plasma-Generated Craters and Spherules:

Plasma discharges that produced craters in various materials often created spherules in or around the craters. Both individual spherules and joined spherules were created. This paper describes the experimental arrangement.

As you can see they made craters in experiments using plasma discharges - no mention of astronomical craters in the abstract.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/27/4287017/04287093.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4287093&authDecision=-203

The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars
The small fact that electric stars are physically impossible seems to have escaped the author.

Donald Scott's works on the Electric Sun model:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

A PDF on the web - really good citation, Siggy_G .
But this seems to be a conference presentation (not a peer-reviewed paper): A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
Physically impossible again, e.g. the debye length of the Sun's plasma is much too small - the best you get is 10 metres for the solar wind!

Research showing that electric processes (although dynamo based) could be sufficient of strong stellar radiation:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0111/0111358v1.pdf

Nothing to do with the electric universe non-science.
An electrically powered binary star?

We propose a model for stellar binary systems consisting of a magnetic and a non-magnetic white-dwarf pair which is powered principally by electrical energy. In our model the luminosity is caused by resistive heating of the stellar atmospheres due to induced currents driven within the binary. This process is reminiscent of the Jupiter-Io system, but greatly increased in power because of the larger companion and stronger magnetic field of the primary. Electrical power is an alternative stellar luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion. We find that this source of heating is sufficient to account for the observed X-ray luminosity of the 9.5-min binary RX J1914+24, and provides an explanation for its puzzling characteristics.

This has at least 51 citations because is is a valid model for these stars.

When e.g. Donald E Scott rebutts Tom Bridgman's debunk attempt, it is evident that the debunk attempts are largely based on misconceptions and good portion of sarchasm.

Lets get the history of this

• Tom Bridgman's actual debunk of Donald E Scott's "The Electric Sky", “The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited” Draft 2008-Mar-22. ).
• Donald E Scott's response: “D.E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman”. April 2009. PDF
• Tom Bridgman's responses:
  • Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity
  • Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background
  • Scott Rebuttal. III. The Importance of Quantum Mechanics
  • Scott Rebuttal. IV. 'Open' magnetic field lines
• And another entry by Tom Bridgman on the same topic: More comments on "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited"

I am not aware of any response of Donald E Scott to the last set of Bridgman responses.


What is rather strange about the response from Scott is that he never addrersses the physicall points in “The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited”, e.g.

• the electric current required to power the Sun would create a magnetric field of abut 100 Tesla but the "the observed magnetic fields on the surface of the Sun range from 0.01 Tesla (granulation) to 0.2 Tesla (sunspots)", i.e. at least a factor of 500 out!
• the Ulysses mission should have measured currents and did not. It did measure "currents" but these were outflowing electrons.
  

What is excusable in the book (published in 2003) is his doubts about neutrino oscillations. However the evidence for neutrino oscillations is quite strong now (only one type of neutrino oscillation left to measure I think).

Scott though ignores the many neutrino results since 2003 and relies on an obviously false assertion: "There 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.".
If you can deduce what goes into one end of a channel then you can detect changes by measuring what comes out of the other end. That is simple.
Even Scott states "I do not deny that nuclear fusion can be the energy source for the Sun and other stars". If fusion is the energy source for the Sun then it will produce a given flux of electron neutrinos. This is the input to one end of the channel. Only 1/3 of the flux was detected before 2001. That gave a couple of options - there was only 1/3 of the fusion (and so the Sun had other sources of energy) or that something happened to the neutrinos further up the channel (oscillations or they never get here). Then came the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory results in 2001 that detected all 3 types of neutrinos with a flux compariable to what was expected.
These results have been confirmed both from the Sun and using neutrino beams from reactors. In the latter case the input to the channel is definitely known, the output measured and so changes along the channel detected !

ETA
Tom Bridgman also has:
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. II
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Scott though ignores the many neutrino results since 2003 and relies on an obviously false assertion: "There 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."
[...]

Thanks for reminding me of this, RC.

Siggy_G, if we replace neutrinos with photons, and if we take Scott at his word, how can we say anything about any astronomical object (that we have not yet visited, to take measurements in situ)?

I mean, we *think* photons are emitted by the Sun (say), but since we have not actually been to the Sun, we cannot say what changes have occurred (if any) in the parts of the transmission channel (between Sun and Earth) close to the Sun, can we? Who knows, maybe photons turn into pumpkins then back into photons. Or perhaps the Sun emits pumpkins, but they change into photons before very long. Or ...

Can you explain, please, how Scott is not saying that astronomy tells us nothing (except for things like the Moon, Mars, and so on)?

 

[Tubbythin]

These results have been confirmed both from the Sun and using neutrino beams from reactors.

And from neutrino's produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Oh and there has at least been some comparison between solar neutrinos during the day and at night.

 

[Siggy_G]

I did *NOT* ask you if you had "been involved with every forum debate on the internet"! I *specifically* asked you about one thread, and then mentioned another, and referenced a set of others. Further, I asked you if you'd like links. So, are you prepared to read at least one of these threads? So you can acquaint yourself with just how thoroughly at least one EU pet idea has been debunked, scientifically?

You seemed to express that I would have to have read through every single post and thread on this and other forums, before I could be entitled to have an opinion on the Electric Universe theory. My sources and research are not primary forums, although forums can give interesting input/feedback.

But fair enough, feel free to provide me with a few links. I know there has been many forum debates here and there, but some of those I have previously read (especially old ones; 2004-2008) are just cluttered, diverting and frustrating to get through. And it's not because of the scientific nature of the debate or debunking attempts.

 

[Siggy_G]

The small fact that electric stars are physically impossible seems to have escaped the author.

That depends on approach, doesn't it? As to extensive elaborations, this will take some time / upcoming posts as suggested. I'm sure Tom Bridgman spends quite some time on his blogs and surely you people as well, when assembling arguments and links.

Nothing to do with the electric universe non-science.
An electrically powered binary star?

The paper on an electric powered binary star is interesting in that it shows how electricity can be capable of sustaining strong stellar emissions, a process that only thermonuclear models have been taken to be of sufficient energy (I already pointed out "although dynamo based", so I know it doesn't equal the electrodynamic Electric Sun model of an incoming electron drift)

I am not aware of any response of Donald E Scott to the last set of Bridgman responses.

There's a couple of more papers from Donald E. Scott:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf (reply to Tim Thomason, 2001)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/RebutTB.pdf (reply to Tom Bridgman, revisited 2009)

 

[Siggy_G]

Siggy_G, if we replace neutrinos with photons, and if we take Scott at his word, how can we say anything about any astronomical object (that we have not yet visited, to take measurements in situ)?

I mean, we *think* photons are emitted by the Sun (say), but since we have not actually been to the Sun, we cannot say what changes have occurred (if any) in the parts of the transmission channel (between Sun and Earth) close to the Sun, can we? Who knows, maybe photons turn into pumpkins then back into photons. Or perhaps the Sun emits pumpkins, but they change into photons before very long. Or ...

Can you explain, please, how Scott is not saying that astronomy tells us nothing (except for things like the Moon, Mars, and so on)?

My interpretation of Scott's pronouncement in this regard is that we can't take for granted that a given value of detected electrons (among other particles) should account for the otherwise missing neutrinos from a solar thermonuclear process. In other words, when receiving data from any astronomical source, one ought to assume that what is detected is the extension of the energies delivered at the source, although spherically reduced and filtered through given mediums (scattering, absorption lines etc.). That, rather than assuming that a good portion of the incoming data really was something else before it turned into, say, detected photons or electrons. The latter is more a speculative assumption in physics, while the first isn't.

Astronomy tells us a lot, it's just the astrophysical interpretations of the data along the lines of "detected photons have in fact once been pumpkins" that probably are empirically invoked to defend the "pumpkin" model, rather than teaching us anything useful about our surroundings. Both ground based and in situ measurements are of high significance, independent of cosmological model. It is the approach and interpretation that is different.

 

[Dancing David]

... [/I]" (Admittedly, I'm still guilty of not having wrapped up my on-started posts under the Anthony Peratt galaxy formation thread. Soon to come.)

Yeah, right sure Siggy G., why the stall post them now. You are the one touting these theories yet they seem amazingly lacking.

I am wondering as to why.

You can post em here or in a PC thread.

Thunderbolts is so full of errors Siggy G, that is why it is called Thuderdolts, that is a fact, most of what they post is hogwash.

 

[Siggy_G]

A PDF on the web - really good citation, Siggy_G. But this seems to be a conference presentation (not a peer-reviewed paper): A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism

My bad - thought it was sufficient as a swift source on a bit of his work/research, which was requested. Thanks for the proper link. There is, as you know, also his books.

Physically impossible again, e.g. the debye length of the Sun's plasma is much too small - the best you get is 10 metres for the solar wind!

I'm wondering how we can have coronal loops, interplanetary flux ropes and red sprites within the ionosphere, all of these being electric currents reaching over millions of Debye lengths within the respective medium. Any explanation as to why current sheets within astrophysical plasmas apparently can be configured to violate Debye length so extensively? Could it be due to such plasmas being far from symmetric or in non-equilibrium?

 

[Siggy_G]

Yeah, right sure Siggy G., why the stall post them now.

Because I started writing them up, but have to complement them with proper sources / explanations. I've also been derived with some other replies, as you may have noticed. But as I said, soon to come.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, there is of course Wallace Thornhill and collegues, who has released papers with research on the electric features of comets, possible crater formation due to electric discharges, plasma generated spherules ("Martian blueberries") and on z-pinch morphology and electric stars:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4346306
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&tp=&arnumber=4287076&isnumber=4287017
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/27/4287017/04287093.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4287093&authDecision=-203

Donald Scott's works on the Electric Sun model:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

Research showing that electric processes (although dynamo based) could be sufficient of strong stellar radiation:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0111/0111358v1.pdf

Thornhill recently received an award for his current work on [the electrical nature of] gravity and his formulation on the Electric Universe:
http://www.telesio-galilei.com/tg/index.php/academy-award-2010

Uh huh and teh fact that those contradict the know observatiods leads us to what Siggy G?

I will come back later and we can examine the flaws in those papers and why they are bogus.

If that is the best you have got, then all I can say is that you did not examine them cititcally.

As to simulators, I do work with advanced 3d visuals and shaders, but not so much on mathematical models. A link up with a decent render programmer from current generation gaming industry should be sufficient skill input for setting up fairly advanced cosmic scenarios, based on existing formulas. I remember reading of upcoming simulations, but don't have sources at hand.

Sure , what ever.

So a scientific approach to the bullying justifies it?

the fact that you post ninsense means it will be called nonsense. If you post material that is contradictory ro know observations and violates well established theories, especially Maxwell's equations, then that is what happens.

No, I don't inhabit such autistic skills nor oceans of time as to be involved with every forum debate on the internet.



The scientific basis lies in that it is the work of several physicsists, astronomers and electrical engineers that have led to the build-up of the EU theory. Historically; Tesla, Birkeland, C.E.R. Bruce, Alfven among others. It is based on a different set of publised papers than the standard models. The photoelectric effect and ionzing radiation are further mechanisms that speaks in favour of build-up of charges and current sheats within plasmas (around planets and comets as well). As mentioned above, further research has been done in just as scientific terms as any other supporting mainstream models.

I bet you just read that somewhere and have no idea what it really means.

I'll admit it would be interesting to see what the basis for the anger and frustration expressed in your description is. I can't defend the discussoin tactics of every EU proponent you have encountered, but something tells me the scenarios have been somewhat mutual. When e.g. Donald E Scott rebutts Tom Bridgman's debunk attempt, it is evident that the debunk attempts are largely based on misconceptions and good portion of sarchasm.

The fact that Donald Scott's sun can not possibly exist doesn't faze you at all?

So what charge would be needed to make the sun shine at the observed luminosity?
What currents?

1. Why does the charge disapate over time?
2. How does the sun violate Coloumb's law and not blow apart?

These are serious questions that Scott's model never addresses Siggy G.

 

[Dancing David]

My sources and research are not primary forums, although forums can give interesting input/feedback.

But fair enough, feel free to provide me with a few links.

Nope Siggy G. here is the deal Scott's sun requires some things that just aren't observed.
0. Current flow sufficient to make the sun shine.
1. Differential charges.
2. Current flows.
3. Mechanism to maintain differential charges.
4. mechanism to overcome Coulomb’s law.

1. So what is the charge on the sun, what is the charge in interstellar space, does either have a difference high enough to produce such a large current?
2. What evidence is there that such large current flows exist, you know like magnetic fields of the associated order?
3. current flows will tend to dissipate differential charges, what keeps the sun at one polarity and the interstellar medium at the other?
4. The charge needed to make the sun shine would blow it apart.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Thornhill recently received an award for his current work on [the electrical nature of] gravity and his formulation on the Electric Universe:
http://www.telesio-galilei.com/tg/index.php/academy-award-2010

[...]

I had not heard of this award before, so before commenting I wanted to check it out.

To misquote one of the Marx brothers, I would not want to be given the 'honour' of being a recipient of this award! Check out the Academy's Missions and Goals, and its Publications and Discussions.

In any case, there's nothing on that website (that I could find) on Thornhill's "current work on [the electrical nature of] gravity". Where is such work published, Siggy_G?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I did *NOT* ask you if you had "been involved with every forum debate on the internet"! I *specifically* asked you about one thread, and then mentioned another, and referenced a set of others. Further, I asked you if you'd like links. So, are you prepared to read at least one of these threads? So you can acquaint yourself with just how thoroughly at least one EU pet idea has been debunked, scientifically?

You seemed to express that I would have to have read through every single post and thread on this and other forums, before I could be entitled to have an opinion on the Electric Universe theory. My sources and research are not primary forums, although forums can give interesting input/feedback.

My apologies then that what I wrote could have been construed that way; it's about as far from what I intended as it is possible to be.

For avoidance of doubt, then:

* you are entitled to whatever opinions you wish

* however, if you express opinions on EU ideas (NOTE: these are only 'theories' in the everyday meaning, i.e. guesses, hunches, wild speculation) here, I - and no doubt many others - expect you to be able to discuss them from the standpoint of familiarity with them

* as a great many EU ideas have been presented, and discussed, at length here, in the past, I hope you would have done your homework and at least skimmed those threads, to see what criticisms (etc) have been made of them in the past

* in any case, if you want to discuss these ideas in anything but the most superficial way, surely you should first acquaint yourself with at least some of the extensive, previous, discussions?

But fair enough, feel free to provide me with a few links. I know there has been many forum debates here and there, but some of those I have previously read (especially old ones; 2004-2008) are just cluttered, diverting and frustrating to get through. And it's not because of the scientific nature of the debate or debunking attempts.

Of course they are; you're seeing EU cultists engaging in discussion tactics that the present day EU high priests have endorsed; namely, trolling, diversion, lies, quote mining, Gish gallops, etc.

Let's start with just one link: Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not; although it was begun in May 2008, it continued right into 2010.

Here are two of my posts that no EU proponent ever addressed; I am quite interested in hearing how you would address these: actual tests of EU ideas, rejection of a critical part of science