[Continuation] Electric universe theories here (2)

[Sol88]

EU magic suffices, you think?

Very funny. The real physics that can predicts orbits, ensure that probes can pick the right path through extremely complicated manoeuvres to arrive at the right places in the Solar system is poo-pooed on the basis of a magic fantasy that can do exactly nothing?

Orbital maths...easy stuff.

Falls over if you scale up to the size of a galaxy, any dramas arise? Do you need some more GRAVITY to make it work?

Strawman...

 

[Sol88]

As physicists continue their struggle to find and explain the origin of dark matter, the approximately 80% of the matter in the universe that we can't see and so far haven't been able to detect, researchers have now proposed a model where it is produced before the Big Bang.

Cosmological model proposes dark matter production during pre-Big Bang inflation

Although inflation is mostly accepted by cosmologists as part of the Big Bang picture based on some evidence (though there is meaningful dissent), the driver of inflation is still unknown.


Cosmologists refer to it generically as the inflaton, a hypothetical field that spans all of spacetime of some scalar (spin zero) particle, perhaps the Higgs field. (Perhaps not.) Inflation occurs so rapidly that the universe is in a supercooled expansion, where the temperature drops by a factor of roughly 100,000.

Keeps people in a job a spose!



.

 

[Sol88]

Here's a revelation for you, perhaps the Universe has always been in the PLASMA state.

Simple.

This is what we observe.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wal envisioned it.

Wal is an idiot. And he's wrong too.

Where would one introduce your three body problem into the maths for a FIELD ALIGNED FORCE FREE CURRENT?

Anywhere you have three or more particles. Do plasmas have three or more particles in your field aligned force free current?

You are up to speed on how the EU gets planetary orbits to become stable?

Yes. They don't. Because that requires math, and EUtards don't do math.

 

[steenkh]

Orbital maths...easy stuff.

Falls over if you scale up to the size of a galaxy, any dramas arise? Do you need some more GRAVITY to make it work?

Strawman...

Funny how EU can’t do the easy stuff, but can apparently solve the hard stuff.

 

[Ziggurat]

Funny how EU can’t do the easy stuff, but can apparently solve the hard stuff.

They believe in solutions. They don’t actually solve them, though. It’s a religion, only faith is necessary, no point in proof.

 

[Sol88]

Funny how EU can’t do the easy stuff, but can apparently solve the hard stuff.

Hard stuff?

What's hard about PLASMA physics in a PLASMA universe? I don't understand what you think is "hard"?

There are an absolute shed load of PLASMA INSTABILITIES.

My favorites of course, with application to astrophysical plasma and in no particular order are

1. 
   
2. Buneman instability,[3]
3. Cyclotron instabilities,
4. Diocotron instability,[12]
5. Double plasma resonance instability,[17]
6. Drift instability[18] (a.k.a. drift-wave instability,[19] or universal instability[20])
7. Firehose instability (a.k.a. hose instability), not to be confused with the similarly named Firehose instability in galactic dynamics
8. Peratt instability (stacked toroids)
9. Pinch instability (a.k.a. Bennett pinch instability),[28][29]
10. Two-stream instability (a.k.a. beam-plasma instability, counter-streaming instability)
11. Weibel instability

And some of the PLASMA structure they can form:

1. Double layers
2. Plasmoids
3. Plasma cells
4. Plasma filamentation
5. Plasma sheets
6. Electric fields

Is that too hard for you steenkh

Still not sure how the EU calculates orbits using the above though.



.

 

[Sol88]

You're bad at reading comprehension. What part of "This is possible if the hole's rotational energy is being extracted in the process" did you not understand? They aren't stumped, they already have the answer.

Black holes have a lot of angular momentum. That angular momentum produces something called frame dragging, a general relativistic effect that we have measured experimentally. And frame dragging can transfer angular momentum (and thus energy) from the black hole to material in the accretion disk. This hasn't stumped anyone but you. Because it involves math, and you're allergic.

Talking about application of PLASMA physics to the Universe's PLASMA...

Frame Dragging...

Qualitatively, frame-dragging can be viewed as the gravitational analog of electromagnetic induction.

Then why just not use Electromagnetic induction in PLASMA? Why invent "Frame Dragging"?

We have done an experiments
EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

Also, for the first time ever, the high voltage plasma sheath and wake of a high-voltage satellite moving rapidly in the ionosphere was measured. "This is virtually impossible to study in a laboratory and is difficult to model mathematically," Stone said.

PLASMA and MATHS again!

Math does not like PLASMA, apparently. Plasma does not care about your math.

 

[Sol88]

They believe in solutions. They don’t actually solve them, though. It’s a religion, only faith is necessary, no point in proof.

Like MATH to PROVE it?

Ya gunna need a bigger computer, sport!

Exascale Astrophysics: Simulating a More Detailed Universe With Frontier Supercomputer​

“Being able to mock those surveys requires a tremendous amount of volume to simulate and a lot of physics to compute. And none of these things are achievable with the previous generation of supercomputers,” Frontiere said. “It’s only at the exascale regime that you can really start simulating the volumes that are required for these types of surveys.”

“The next horizon for us is including more and more detailed astrophysics in our simulations so that even with the same volumes and simulations, you can get better resolution,” Frontiere said. “So, most of our research is really adding more physics, which is something we would never have been able to consider without running at the scales we are now.”

 

[Ziggurat]

And still not a single calculation from the EUtards.

 

[tusenfem]

And still not a single calculation from the EUtards.

But Sol (and apparently the EU) have the WORDS, and that is self-explanatory.

The sun had a firehose instability, creating a diocotron which kept the Earth in orbit through a double layer.
Plasma is THAT simple, u no it.

 

[steenkh]

Hard stuff?

What's hard about PLASMA physics in a PLASMA universe? I don't understand what you think is "hard"?

Actually, I was talking about the easy stuff that you can’t do. Then you can show that you can handle the hard stuff afterwards.

 

[Sol88]

But Sol (and apparently the EU) have the WORDS, and that is self-explanatory.

The sun had a firehose instability, creating a diocotron which kept the Earth in orbit through a double layer.
Plasma is THAT simple, u no it.

or

We could try

The Sun has an electric field and is connected to the Earths electric field by electric currents.

PLASMA PLASMA PLASMA everywhere!

Not that hard.

 

[steenkh]

or

We could try

The Sun has an electric field and is connected to the Earths electric field by electric currents.

PLASMA PLASMA PLASMA everywhere!

Not that hard.

Plasma everywhere does not mean that EU is right. Science has known about plasma for a long time, and has no need of magic.

Why not simply admit that you simply can’t do the ‘easy’ stuff? And more importantly, that you can’t point to any adherent of EU who can do it?

Can you show how EU can accurately model the ‘hard’ stuff that you are so proud of? Not just with words, but with calculations that fit wit observations? Or is EU really just repeating some words over and over again, and has no predictive, or even descriptive power?

 

[Ziggurat]

or

We could try

The Sun has an electric field and is connected to the Earths electric field by electric currents.

PLASMA PLASMA PLASMA everywhere!

Not that hard.

If it’s not that hard, then do the calculations.

Why do EUtards never do calculations?

 

[Sol88]

If it’s not that hard, then do the calculations.

Why do EUtards never do calculations?

Strange because the mainstream have already done it.

Dungey Cycle or somesuch​

 

[Ziggurat]

Strange because the mainstream have already done it.

Dungey Cycle or somesuch​

If the mainstream already did the calculations and they are correct, then what do we need the EUtards for? And if not, then what use are the EUtards if they can’t do any calculations?

You’re useless. You contribute nothing.

 

[Sol88]

If the mainstream already did the calculations and they are correct, then what do we need the EUtards for? And if not, then what use are the EUtards if they can’t do any calculations?

You’re useless. You contribute nothing.

Just to remind you, it is an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.

It's your math that cant keep up!

case in point

2.1. Numerical model​

The three-dimensional numerical simulations are performed using the Adaptively Refined Magnetohydrodynamic Solver (ARMS, DeVore 1991; DeVore & Antiochos 2008) to solve time-dependent, isothermal, compressible, ideal MHD equations within a spherical coordinate framework, akin to the approach presented in K17 (cf. Sect. 2 and the model therein).


Moreover, the gas follows a ideal gas law for fully ionised hydrogen:


P=2kBmpρT(1)


with thermal pressure P, mass density ρ, proton mass mp, and the Boltzmann constant k<em>B</em>. ARMS also evolves the magnetic field, B, and the velocity field, v. We impose a constant and uniform temperature of the plasma, T, and do not solve any temperature equation.

Ideal MHD? Ideal GAS laws?

Adaptively Refined Magnetohydrodynamic Solver?


Looks like the MATH is the problem.

 

[steenkh]

Just to remind you, it is an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.

It's your math that cant keep up!

That is your claim: you try to defend a system relying on magic that has no predictive power, and can’t even explain what physics could explain hundreds of years ago. Nope, an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE does not seem very likely.

case in point



Ideale MHD? Ideal GAS laws?

Adaptively Refined Magnetohydrodynamic Solver?


Looks like the MATH is the problem.

Looks more likely that you poo-poo something you don’t understand.

 

[Ziggurat]

Looks like the MATH is the problem.

You say that because you can't understand math and it produces answers you don't like, not because it's wrong. Without math, you aren't doing science. But then, we know what you're doing is religion, so no surprise.

 

[tusenfem]

It's your math that cant keep up!

Looks like the MATH is the problem.

Simulation ~= Math
The math is not the problem, that is perfect.
The problem is, that if you want to simulate a plasma, i.e. use a (super)computer to calculate what each particle is doing for a realistic plasma, then you run into problems of number of calculations you have to do, which leads to problems of 1) memory shortage and 2) incredible long calculation times. With each development of new super computers you see that further steps are made in numerical calculations of plasma dynamics.

% Not for Sol88
Of course knowledgeble simplifications (e.g. reducing the mass ratio of protons and electrons) help with both problems, but you have to know where the limits are of your simulation. Or you combine MHD with PIC in small scales where the single particle dynamics is important. etc. etc.

 

[Sol88]

Simulation ~= Math
The math is not the problem, that is perfect.
The problem is, that if you want to simulate a plasma, i.e. use a (super)computer to calculate what each particle is doing for a realistic plasma, then you run into problems of number of calculations you have to do, which leads to problems of 1) memory shortage and 2) incredible long calculation times. With each development of new super computers you see that further steps are made in numerical calculations of plasma dynamics.

% Not for Sol88
Of course knowledgeble simplifications (e.g. reducing the mass ratio of protons and electrons) help with both problems, but you have to know where the limits are of your simulation. Or you combine MHD with PIC in small scales where the single particle dynamics is important. etc. etc.

Right, so the "math" is perfect , it's the simulations that are the problem!

Today's phys org...

Cosmic rays' vast energy traced to magnetic turbulence​

Where does all that energy come from? For many years, scientists believed it came from shocks that occur in extreme astrophysical environments—when, for example, a star explodes before forming a black hole, causing a huge explosion that kicks up particles.

The big bangers!

BUT WAIT

Whats this...

That theory was plausible, but, according to new research published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, the observations are better explained by a different mechanism. The source of the cosmic rays' energy, the researchers found, is more likely magnetic turbulence. The paper's authors found that magnetic fields in these environments tangle and turn, rapidly accelerating particles and sharply increasing their energy up to an abrupt cutoff.

Magnetic turbulence?

"It's interesting that these two extremely different environments share something in common: their magnetic fields are highly tangled and this tangled nature is crucial for energizing particles," Comisso said.

Tangled magnetic fields?

Digs further...

One promising mechanism of UHECR acceleration is magnetized turbulence. We demonstrate from first principles, using fully kinetic particle-in-cell simulations, that magnetically dominated turbulence accelerates particles on a short timescale, producing a power-law energy distribution with a rigidity-dependent, sharply defined cutoff well approximated by the form

Does math to run a simulation and finds...

5. Conclusions​

We have demonstrated, using fully kinetic PIC simulations, that particle acceleration by magnetically dominated turbulence possesses the properties needed to explain the acceleration of UHECRs. After a low-energy injection phase driven by magnetic-field-aligned electric fields, ions are accelerated by scattering off turbulent fluctuations, gaining energy through the motional electric field, up to the cutoff energy
, with κ ≃ 0.65.

Right so ELECTRIC FIELDS.

'Cos Maths, ay!

Highly magnetized turbulence, as considered in this study, is expected in a range of astrophysical environments, such as jets from AGNs (R. Blandford et al. 2019), outflows from neutron star mergers (K. Kiuchi et al. 2024), jets from collapsars (C. Thompson 1994), jetted tidal disruption events (B. Curd & R. Narayan 2019), and coronae of Seyfert galaxies (K. Murase et al. 2020). Determining which of these systems can meet the specific conditions required for the particle acceleration mechanism discussed here will be an essential next step in identifying the sources of UHECRs.

Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays Accelerated by Magnetically Dominated Turbulence​

Simulation says THE UNIVERSE is ELECTRIC...maths and all!

Electric fields are not PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS but plasma double layers are ELECTRIC FIELDS.

What are your thoughts on these electric fields, jets from AGNs?

 

[Sol88]

Talking about ELECTRIC FIELDS in a astrophysical PLASMA

Black hole jets on the scale of the cosmic web​

Those are quite powerful electric fields!

Large electric fields are hard to form in astrophysical plasma's. Some people that know "maths" well think they may even be a non thing. Apparently the maths does not allow for such large and powerful electric fields!

Not impossible, obviously!

 

[Ziggurat]

Simulation says THE UNIVERSE is ELECTRIC...maths and all!

No. The simulations indicate that electric fields can form under some conditions. That doesn’t make the universe electric in any meaningful way. Where does the energy to create these fields actually come from? Not from a battery. Not from double layers. Not from electrostatic potentials.

You won’t like the answer. But you can’t appeal to one result of the simulation and ignore everything else about it. That would be stupid.

Oh. Never mind. Of course that’s what you’re doing.

Electric fields are not PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS but plasma double layers are ELECTRIC FIELDS.

Nope. That’s like saying cars are gasoline, or gasoline is a car. There’s a relationship between double layers and electric fields, but neither is the other. They are in fact different things.

 

[Sol88]

The simulations indicate that electric fields can form under some conditions.

and are responsible for...

Highly magnetized turbulence, as considered in this study, is expected in a range of astrophysical environments, such as jets from AGNs (R. Blandford et al. 2019), outflows from neutron star mergers (K. Kiuchi et al. 2024), jets from collapsars (C. Thompson 1994), jetted tidal disruption events (B. Curd & R. Narayan 2019), and coronae of Seyfert galaxies (K. Murase et al. 2020). Determining which of these systems can meet the specific conditions required for the particle acceleration mechanism discussed here will be an essential next step in identifying the sources of UHECRs.

The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!

I mean that's what the simulation (maths) says! Do you agree ziggurat?

 

[Ziggurat]

and are responsible for...



The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!

I mean that's what the simulation (maths) says! Do you agree ziggurat?

No. why would I agree with such stupidity? The fact that electric fields are sometimes important doesn’t mean they are always dominant. None of that follows. None of that is what the simulations you appeal to show. And don’t think I didn’t notice that you failed to answer the question of where the energy comes from.

 

[Sol88]

No. why would I agree with such stupidity? The fact that electric fields are sometimes important doesn’t mean they are always dominant. None of that follows. None of that is what the simulations you appeal to show. And don’t think I didn’t notice that you failed to answer the question of where the energy comes from.

Sometimes the electric fields are very important. On the scale of the UNIVERSE, electric fields are the important'est!

You can call it magnetic majic if it makes you comfortable. Electric currents on the scale of astrophysical jets obviously make you uncomfortable.

Your maths gets all wonky.





Where does, all this energy come from? Great question ziggurat!


.

 

[Sol88]

Simulation ~= Math
The math is not the problem, that is perfect.
The problem is, that if you want to simulate a plasma, i.e. use a (super)computer to calculate what each particle is doing for a realistic plasma, then you run into problems of number of calculations you have to do, which leads to problems of 1) memory shortage and 2) incredible long calculation times. With each development of new super computers you see that further steps are made in numerical calculations of plasma dynamics.

% Not for Sol88
Of course knowledgeble simplifications (e.g. reducing the mass ratio of protons and electrons) help with both problems, but you have to know where the limits are of your simulation. Or you combine MHD with PIC in small scales where the single particle dynamics is important. etc. etc.

Is that why...

We performed the simulations in a triply periodic cubic domain of size L3. The plasma consisted of electrons and ions, with combined particle density n<em>e</em>0 + n<em>i</em>0 = n0. We conducted the PIC simulations with a single ion species of charge number Z = 1 and mass m<em>i</em> = 1836 m<em>e</em>, i.e., protons. Computational particles were initialized according to a Maxwell–Jüttner distribution with temperature T<em>e</em>0 = T<em>i</em>0 = T0, where T<em>e</em>0 and T<em>i</em>0 are the electron and ion temperatures, respectively.

Poor electrons...

They always get treated like they don't matter. Protons are just sooooo heavy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sometimes the electric fields are very important. On the scale of the UNIVERSE, electric fields are the important'est!

No, they are not.

You can call it magnetic majic if it makes you comfortable. Electric currents on the scale of astrophysical jets obviously make you uncomfortable.

How big are these currents? You don’t know, do you?

Where does, all this energy come from? Great question ziggurat!

I note that you don’t have an answer.

 

[steenkh]

How is it going with the easy stuff, Sol? Any progress?

 

[Sol88]

No, they are not.

How big are these currents? You don’t know, do you?

I note that you don’t have an answer.

Well mainstream have come up with an idea…

Dust Battery: A Novel Mechanism for Seed Magnetic Field Generation inthe EarlyUniverse




.

 

[Sol88]

EU magic suffices, you think?

Very funny. The real physics that can predicts orbits, ensure that probes can pick the right path through extremely complicated manoeuvres to arrive at the right places in the Solar system is poo-pooed on the basis of a magic fantasy that can do exactly nothing?

What is a nongravitational acceleration?​

The outgassing material from the surface of a comet produces a cometary tail and a rocketlike recoil. The fast moving gas pushes on the surface of the comet, and this causes it to accelerate. This process drives comets' motion through space on top of the motion set by the gravitational pull of the sun.

So, when comets outgas, they have what planetary scientists call nongravitational acceleration—motion that isn't caused by the gravity of objects in the solar system. Planetary scientists typically measure the nongravitational accelerations of comets after detecting their cometary tails.

How does your math handle CHARGED objects in orbital calculations? Is it taken into account?

'Oumuamua displayed this same mysterious combination of no dust tail but a cometlike nongravitational acceleration, which led to many theories trying to explain what the object could have been. One option is that it was outgassing like a comet but not producing a dusty tail.

 

[Ziggurat]

How does your math handle CHARGED objects in orbital calculations? Is it taken into account?

Calculating the acceleration of a charged object is really, really easy. All you need is the charge, the velocity, and the electric and magnetic fields. Surely the EUtards can figure out four numbers to within an order of magnitude, right? Why don't you try it?

 

[steenkh]

How does your math handle CHARGED objects in orbital calculations? Is it taken into account?

Calculating the acceleration of a charged object is really, really easy.

Sol88, now you know that it is easy with science. Why do you still insist on using magic?

 

[Ziggurat]

Sol88, now you know that it is easy with science. Why do you still insist on using magic?

He doesn't know the difference.

 

[Indagator]

While this may be old news to all y'all at the ISF, I just discovered something that brings a smile to my face! The chief architect and scam artist of the electric universe, Wal Thornhill, is dead! Nearly two years now it appears! Good riddance to bad rubbish!

Just goes to show how important Thornhill and his electric universe is in the real world! NOT!

As a result of learning of Thornhill's death, I thought I would take a few minutes to see what's happening in the old ISF electric universe threads.

NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

After a quick scan of several pages (well over 600 posts), I am not at all surprised to find that there has been no progress or advancement made by the electric universe and its proponents in the last several years! Absolutely no progress at all!

When I have more time in the coming days I'll publish a couple detailed posts addressing some of Sol88's "confusion" about the real world! In the short term here are a few points gleaned from my quick scan that I think are worth sharing ...

1. Plasma is a gas!
2. Plasma is a fluid!
3. Plasma, under certain conditions, can carry "frozen-in" magnetic fields!
4. Magnetic reconnection is a real physical process observed in laboratory plasmas!
5. Magnetic reconnection is a real physical process observed in astrophysical plasmas!
6. Neutron stars are real "gravitationally" compact objects!
7. Black holes are real "gravitationally" compact objects!
8. Sagittarius A* is the super massive black hole at the centre of our galaxy!
9. General Relativity 'accurately' models the precession of S-stars orbiting Sagittarius A*!
10. General Relativity 'accurately' models the precession of Mercury orbiting our own star!
11. General Relativity 'accurately' models the behaviour of photons when they encounter 'large' gravitational fields!
12. General Relativity makes predictions that have subsequently been confirmed through observation! Oh my!

Sol88, please, feel free to share your thoughts regarding any of the above points. They're individually numbered to aid in discussion.

It's your math that cant keep up!

... Irrelevant ramblings snipped ...

Looks like the MATH is the problem.

There is nothing wrong with the PHYSICS and MATH used to model real astrophysical plasmas! We'll come back to this later!

Remember, Sol88, there are NO proponents of the electric universe that can provide a self-consistent qualitative and/or quantitative eu model of real astrophysical systems! Magic spells, religious incantations, and throwing #### at the wall to see what sticks do not constitute valid science!

To refresh your memory, here are some paraphrased statements I made years ago in these very threads ...

There is no internally consistent electric comet model! Result? NO electric comet!
There is no internally consistent electric star model! Conclusion? NO electric star!
There is no internally consistent model of an electric universe! You guessed it! NO electric universe!

The electric universe is physically impossible to model as it violates fundamental/foundational laws of physics!

Sol88! Ask yourself a simple question. With respect to the above, why do I, and others, make such statements? Remember, plasma is a gas!

Between you and me, Sol88, who do you think has the greater understanding of plasmas and plasma physics?

It should come as no surprise that it's not you!

 

[Indagator]

Sol88!

It's sad to see you make almost no effort anymore. You don't even bother to include links to the random ramblings you dredge up!

Well mainstream have come up with an idea ...

From "The early universe may have had giant batteries of dust"

Which links to, Dust Battery: A Novel Mechanism for Seed Magnetic Field Generation in the Early Universe

Now, here's where we go off the rails! I make note that the paper (submitted to the APJ) is based on the assumption of an EARLY UNIVERSE! From this I gather YOUR electric universe now embraces the Big Bang Theory? Yes? Awesome progress!

I would also love to hear your thoughts on why you didn't bother to read the paper! For example, magnetohydrodynamics is now an important part of YOUR electric universe? By 'linking' to this "Dust Battery" paper you're saying exactly that! Again, awesome progress!

Did you miss me, Sol88? Apologies for being away so long. I've been rather busy!

 

[Indagator]

Again, I see no serious effort! Sol88, are you losing interest in supporting Thornhill's failed eu scam religion now that he's dead?

From PO, "Two populations of dark comets in the solar system could tell researchers where the Earth got its oceans"

Which links to, Two Distinct Populations of Dark Comets Delineated by Orbits and Sizes

How does your math handle CHARGED objects in orbital calculations? Is it taken into account?

First of all, what charged objects are you speaking of? Certainly not comets! You've cited a PO 'press release' that talks about comets outgassing! And what is it that comets outgas? Remember, Sol88, comets are made of volatile ices that sublimate (i.e., outgas) when insolated! Are you now admitting that YOUR electric comets are made of volatile ices? That's what you just said! Again, truly awesome progress! This is getting better all the time!

So, is charge taken into account in orbital mechanics and flight dynamics? NO! Three cases out of many ...

The Parker Solar Probe just broke its own speed and altitude records on December 24th during orbit #22! To accomplish this, PSP employed seven gravity assists from Venus to lower its orbit to achieve this milestone! No charged objects were observed or harmed in the shaping of PSP's orbit! As an aside, PSP has performed all these gravity assists starting with the last solar minimum and proceeding towards solar max.

The Rosetta Flight Dynamics team did not include electrical charge in their orbital calculations! Just gravity and an occasional thruster burn if science teams had specific needs! Remember, gravity pulls the spacecraft towards the comet resulting in an orbit of some description, outgassing can only push it away. During the mission, the impact of the solar wind was 'inconsequential' to flight dynamics.

The Flight Dynamics team on the JWST operate around L2! This is a 'point' in space where the gravitational field between the Sun and Earth is essentially 'balanced' allowing the spacecraft to orbit the Sun approximately 1.5 million kilometres from Earth! There are no charged objects in the vicinity to be concerned with. 'Parking' a spacecraft at a Lagrange point completely negates your whinging about charged objects having an impact on orbital mechanics!

I ask again for all the peeps, what mechanism(s) can charge two objects such that electrostatics need to be taken into account when calculating orbits? Hmm?

 

[steenkh]

The Flight Dynamics team on the JWST operate around L2! This is a 'point' in space where the gravitational field between the Sun and Earth is essentially 'balanced' allowing the spacecraft to orbit the Sun approximately 1.5 million kilometres from Earth! There are no charged objects in the vicinity to be concerned with. 'Parking' a spacecraft at a Lagrange point completely negates your whinging about charged objects having an impact on orbital mechanics!

I hadn’t thought of that! If EM forces had so much impact as Sol88 thinks, there would be no Lagrange points where objects could be held in a stable orbit. Or would the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE adherents please show that EM forces also have Lagrange points that happen to be at the same spots as the gravitational Lagrange points?

 

[jonesdave116]

The Rosetta Flight Dynamics team did not include electrical charge in their orbital calculations! Just gravity and an occasional thruster burn if science teams had specific needs! Remember, gravity pulls the spacecraft towards the comet resulting in an orbit of some description, outgassing can only push it away. During the mission, the impact of the solar wind was 'inconsequential' to flight dynamics.

To add to that, we have a comet that will be a few volts positive on the sunlit side, and with a somewhat higher negative charge on the dark side (at least, when the solar wind is still reaching the comet). And then the spacecraft itself is usually negatively charged, but was occasionally a few volts positive. I'd love to see the EU maths that deals with plotting the bound orbits Rosetta was often on using EM 'effects'!