• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Electric universe theories here (2)

I highlighted the problem here: The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE doesn’t deal in in mathemagics - plotting the Rosetta orbit can be done by a simple incantation: PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS. Orbit solved!
:dl:

Orbits?

Grand tack hypothesis


In the grand tack hypothesis Jupiter underwent a two-phase migration after its formation, migrating inward to 1.5 AU before reversing course and migrating outward. Jupiter's formation took place near the ice line, at roughly 3.5 AU.


Gas????

PLASMA! including PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS



.
 
Orbits?

Grand tack hypothesis


In the grand tack hypothesis Jupiter underwent a two-phase migration after its formation, migrating inward to 1.5 AU before reversing course and migrating outward. Jupiter's formation took place near the ice line, at roughly 3.5 AU.


Gas????

PLASMA! including PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS



.
And what has that got to do with EU woo?
 
Orbits?

Grand tack hypothesis


In the grand tack hypothesis Jupiter underwent a two-phase migration after its formation, migrating inward to 1.5 AU before reversing course and migrating outward. Jupiter's formation took place near the ice line, at roughly 3.5 AU.


Gas????

PLASMA! including PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS
Wait... are you under the impression that double layers or birkeland currents had anything to do with the changes in Jupiter's orbit?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
I highlighted the problem here: The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE doesn’t deal in in mathemagics - plotting the Rosetta orbit can be done by a simple incantation: PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS. Orbit solved!
:dl:

steenkh assertion orbits a proof big bangers are correct. They can navigate craft thru space using math!
Planetary migration occurs when a planet or other body in orbit around a star interacts with a disk of gas or planetesimals, resulting in the alteration of its orbital parameters, especially its semi-major axis.

Sounds like made up mathematical BS to explain the complete inadequacy of the GRAVITY dominate big bang theory.

example...

Planetary migration is the most likely explanation for hot Jupiters (exoplanets with Jovian masses but orbits of only a few days). The generally accepted theory of planet formation from a protoplanetary disk predicts that such planets cannot form so close to their stars, as there is insufficient mass at such small radii and the temperature is too high to allow the formation of rocky or icy planetesimals.

likely explanation?? of an obviously incorrect theory. Its a fudge. The big bang is a great example of the ultimate fudge!


Just highlighting the inadequacy of the GRAVITY dominate cosmology. Generally accepted theory of planet formation is incorrect.

Orbits? When even planets can do handbrake turns to "save" an dead theory.

but

if you'd like to see the EU version... Io.


PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS
 
Last edited:

Talking planetary formation...​

Newly discovered 'kiss and capture' mechanism explains the formation of Pluto and its largest moon

A study led by Adeene Denton, a NASA postdoctoral fellow who conducted the research at the U of A Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, has revealed this unexpected "kiss and capture" mechanism, which could help scientists better understand how planetary bodies form and evolve. By considering something planetary scientists had overlooked over decades—the structural strength of cold, icy worlds—researchers have discovered an entirely new type of cosmic collision.

How do planets and moons form?

something gas and dust...
 

Sol88! For shame! Let's not talk about the real world, let's talk about YOUR impossible electric universe instead! According to Thornhill (GR2BR) and thunderbolts scripture, planets are ejected from electric stars! Would you be so kind as to remind us, which planets in our solar system were ejected from which stars? If I recall correctly, Earth was ejected by Saturn? When you think about it, stars puking planets is a really stupid and physically impossible idea! But let's carry on ...

First, what electrostatic mechanism causes a planet to be ejected by a star? What mechanism determines the amount of material ejected to produce planets of different masses and composition? Does a star's age play a roll in YOUR ejection mechanism? If Saturn was a star, then Jupiter must also be a star? If Jupiter, then why not Uranus? Is there an electric universe mechanism to explain the differences between terrestrial planets, gas giant planets, and ice giant planets? Why are there hot Jupiter exoplanets in some systems and not others? Why are all the terrestrial planets in our solar system located inside specific snow and ice lines? Any intelligent thoughts? NO?

Second, assuming an electric universe model of stars begetting planets, how, in Thornhill's name, are these chaotic systems stabilized into the solar system we observe today? To add further complexity to this absurd n-body problem, how does the electric universe explain the asteroid belt; its existence and location within the solar system? And long period comets? Cold classical Kuiper belt objects? Lagrange points? Any vague random thoughts at all? NO?

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

Please enlighten us, Sol88! How does YOUR electric universe math handle CHARGED objects in orbital calculations? It's all up to you, babe! It's time to shine! This is, after all, your electric universe thread! Don't leave us hanging ....

Again, to remind you, CHARGED objects play NO roll in orbital calculations!
 
How do planets and moons form?
Awesome question, Sol88!

How do stars, planets, moons, asteroids, and comets form in YOUR electric universe? Please enlighten us with YOUR science!

And while you're at it, would you also be so kind as to only cite peer reviewed papers! I won't visit the thunderbolts website or watch thunderbolts branded YT videos!

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Apologies, Sol88! I forgot to remind you about a couple things ...
  1. Plasma is a gas!
  2. Plasma is a fluid!
  3. Plasmas are not magical!
  4. The electric universe will always be physically impossible!
I'm really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on how stars, planets, moons, asteroids, and comets form in YOUR electric universe! Something about electrostatic ejections and electrical discharge machining?
 
4. The electric universe will always be physically impossible!

What makes you think that?
 
steenkh assertion orbits a proof big bangers are correct. They can navigate craft thru space using math!
Well, it certainly is a point in favour of math that it can make navigation of orbital craft possible. EU can do no such thing, so even if correct, EU would not have any use, and math would still have to be used.
Sounds like made up mathematical BS to explain the complete inadequacy of the GRAVITY dominate big bang theory.

example...



likely explanation?? of an obviously incorrect theory. Its a fudge. The big bang is a great example of the ultimate fudge!
It is a fudge because you can't wrap your mind about it? OK, Let us hear the EU version, and see if it can unfudge the orbits.
Just highlighting the inadequacy of the GRAVITY dominate cosmology. Generally accepted theory of planet formation is incorrect.

Orbits? When even planets can do handbrake turns to "save" an dead theory.
A dead theory with explanatory power vs. yours with no explanatory power. Great comparison.
but

if you'd like to see the EU version... Io.
Yes, let's have it!
PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS
You probably meant it as humour, but the point still stands: EU can offer no more than words.
 
Sounds like made up mathematical BS to explain the complete inadequacy of the GRAVITY dominate big bang theory.
The fact that you don't understand something isn't evidence that it's wrong. It's evidence that you don't understand it.

Which really doesn't mean much, since you don't understand any physics.
Orbits? When even planets can do handbrake turns to "save" an dead theory.
Do you know what a gravity assist is? It's a gravitational interaction which we can use (and have used) to boost or slow a spacecraft's trajectory by having it fly close to another planet. Such interactions conserve energy because the change in kinetic energy of your spacecraft comes from a corresponding opposite change in kinetic energy of the planet you pass by. Spacecraft are so small compared to planets that the change in orbit for the planet is too small to matter.

But that's not going to be the case when the amount of matter passing close to a planet is on the order of magnitude of the planet itself. In that case, the change in orbit can be quite significant. And in the early solar system, there was a LOT of matter flying around that hadn't yet coalesced into the planets we have today.

The Grand Tack motions were not planets doing handbrake turns. They were quite gradual. But the mechanisms by which they happened are very, very well understood, and get used today to do those spacecraft navigation maneuvers that you don't understand but which are quite real.

tl;dr: you can't use your own ignorance to disprove what you're ignorant about.
if you'd like to see the EU version... Io.


PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS
You say these words as if you're casting a spell. Repeating them does not constitute a theory. It is, at best, a prayer. But your god is dead, and never had any power to begin with.
 
gravity assist?

Sounds very complicated. Must be some very clever people doing very clever calculations to make it all work. Glad it has, the observation from spacecraft is fantastic.

Anyhoo...
But that's not going to be the case when the amount of matter passing close to a planet is on the order of magnitude of the planet itself. In that case, the change in orbit can be quite significant. And in the early solar system, there was a LOT of matter flying around that hadn't yet coalesced into the planets we have today.

Matter, in which state?

I'd posit PLASMA. More specifically for a planet "coalescing", it would be a complex PLASMA. A DUSTY PLASMA.

What say you ziggurat?



PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS
Soooooo, if its matter in the PLASMA state, thennnn....Non Magical PLASMA physics, as per

  1. Plasma is a gas!
  2. Plasma is a fluid!
  3. Plasmas are not magical!
  4. The electric universe will always be physically impossible!


.
 
I'd posit PLASMA. More specifically for a planet "coalescing", it would be a complex PLASMA. A DUSTY PLASMA.
You'd be pretty much wrong. Planets form before the star ignites. Otherwise, the solar wind and radiation pressure would prevent them forming. At that stage most of the gas will be neutral. And molecular.
 
gravity assist?

Sounds very complicated.
It isn't. I mean, it's beyond your comprehension, because you don't understand physics at all, but it's actually pretty simple.
Matter, in which state?
Are you under the impression that Jupiter is made of plasma? Do you think asteroids are made of plasma?
I'd posit PLASMA. More specifically for a planet "coalescing", it would be a complex PLASMA. A DUSTY PLASMA.

What say you ziggurat?
I'd say you still don't have any theory, just your cant.
 
You'd be pretty much wrong. Planets form before the star ignites. Otherwise, the solar wind and radiation pressure would prevent them forming. At that stage most of the gas will be neutral. And molecular.


That's the story I've heard too.
 
That's the story I've heard too.
It ain't no story. It is an observation. On the other hand, if we follow the preachings of the tools Scott and Thornhill, stars are forming from z-pinches (obligatory lol) in molecular clouds with ionisation fractions measured in parts per many millions, at ~ 10-20 K. Good luck getting that to happen. Not that anyone sane thinks it is happening. Do you know why said tools came up with such woo, Sol? Because they are/ were physics-illiterate clowns. Mythologists. No science. Lots of word salad. Never any science. Thornhill is now boring his God with his idiotic woo. And trust me - he was a believer! Oh yes!
 
Meanwhile

PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS

Helical magnetic fields: A universal mechanism for jet collimation?


New observations from the National Science Foundation National Radio Astronomy Observatory's (NSF NRAO) Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (NSF VLA) provide compelling evidence supporting a universal mechanism for the collimation of astrophysical jets, regardless of their origin.

Jets, powerful, highly collimated outflows of matter and energy, are observed across a vast range of scales in the universe. From the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies to the young stars in our own Milky Way, these jets play a crucial role in the evolution of their host systems. However, the precise mechanism that guides these jets and prevents them from dispersing into space has remained a long-standing puzzle.

This new study overcomes these limitations by utilizing the enhanced capabilities of the upgraded NSF VLA. The high sensitivity and broad bandwidth of the NSF VLA allowed astronomers to perform an unprecedentedly detailed Rotation Measure (RM) analysis of the HH 80-81 jet. The RM analysis allows researchers to correct for Faraday rotation—the rotation of the polarization of light as it passes through a magnetized plasma—revealing the true orientation of the magnetic field.

By analyzing both the approaching jet and the receding counterjet—a feature readily observable in protostellar jets, unlike those originating from supermassive black holes—researchers confirmed that the helical magnetic field is intrinsic to the disk-jet system and not a result of interactions with the surrounding medium.

PLASMA, tick.
BIRKELAND CURRENTS (Don Scotts Field Aligned Force Free Model), tick.

Question now is and I postulate , the biggest gripe for the above posters in "The electric universe will always be physically impossible!" camp.

This unifying theory helps unravel the complex physics governing the launch and evolution of these important cosmic structures.

DOUBLE LAYERS (ELECTRIC FIELDS) not that a complex physics "launching" these jets!


'cos

molecular clouds with ionisation fractions measured in parts per many millions, at ~ 10-20 K. Good luck getting that to happen. Not that anyone sane thinks it is happening

jd116 is correct, again!

:yahoo

.
 
Last edited:
No maths or calculations so far ziggurat!

PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS

Are you able to follow along still?

:redface1


.
 
Last edited:
Is there some quick maths you can do jd116, to calculate the ELECTRIC FIELD strength launching these jets?


Reckon, it's a CURRENT DRIVEN PLASMA DOUBLE LAYER specifically.

.
 
Last edited:
Apologies, Sol88! I forgot to remind you about a couple things ...
  1. Plasma is a gas!
  2. Plasma is a fluid!
  3. Plasmas are not magical!
  4. The electric universe will always be physically impossible!
I'm really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on how stars, planets, moons, asteroids, and comets form in YOUR electric universe! Something about electrostatic ejections and electrical discharge machining?

Plasmas are not magical!

:pixie2



Agreed.


.
 
Meanwhile

PLASMA - DOUBLE LAYERS - BIRKELAND CURRENTS

Helical magnetic fields: A universal mechanism for jet collimation?










PLASMA, tick.
BIRKELAND CURRENTS (Don Scotts Field Aligned Force Free Model), tick.

Question now is and I postulate , the biggest gripe for the above posters in "The electric universe will always be physically impossible!" camp.



DOUBLE LAYERS (ELECTRIC FIELDS) not that a complex physics "launching" these jets!


'cos



jd116 is correct, again!

:yahoo

.
Of course I'm correct. Want to show us the signatures of ionised species in those clouds? They are neutral and cold. End of story. And Birkeland currents only exist in planetary magnetospheres. And nobody thinks jets are launched by double layers! Lol. The first papers describing the collimation of these jets were written in the late 60s and early 70s. By actual scientists. See Lovelace and Blandford, for instance.
 
Is there some quick maths you can do jd116, to calculate the ELECTRIC FIELD strength launching these jets?


Reckon, it's a CURRENT DRIVEN PLASMA DOUBLE LAYER specifically.

.
Reckon you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

'A 'twin-exhaust' model for double radio sources'
Blandford, R. D. & Rees, M. J.
MNRAS (1974)


&

'Stability of relativistic jets from rotating, accreting black holes via fullythree-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations'
McKinney, J. C. & Blandford, R. D.
MNRAS (2009)

 
Last edited:
The thing about much of the above is that it is nothing to do with EU woo. They essentially stole a bunch of nonsense from other people and claim that it is part of EU woo.

Eric Lerner suggested that double-radio sources were to do with plasmoids (lol) launching a jet of ions in one direction, and a jet of electrons in the other. Complete nonsense of course. He also claimed, as did Wally Thornhill, that the image of M87* was a plasmoid! Again, this is cringeworthy nonsense.

Much of the nonsense suggested by Halton Arp has also been stolen by EUists.

Some of the claims of Hannes Alfven have been hijacked by EU. Particularly the stuff later in his career when he seems to have......... possibly caught Nobel disease. And his erroneous claims about magnetic reconnection are parroted by Don Scott and a former member of this forum.

They have taken Anthony Peratt's nonsensical galaxy formation 'model' to heart. A 'model' about which he made predictions. Which were not borne out. Surprising precisely nobody. And hasn't written on that subject for > 25 years.

Thing is, none of those people subscribed to EU nonsense, despite coming up with nonsense of their own. Peratt specifically called EU 'anti-science' and a 'cult'. Which was a bit rich, given that he was funded by the same person as EU for some years, to do his plasma rock art woo research (he and his son copped for ~ $300 000 over ~ 10 years from the same Velikovskian charity that paid David Talbott, among others). *
 
Last edited:
* From previous post ^.

I did email the editor of IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science a few years ago, asking if he thought it not a touch strange that, in the period Peratt was being funded by EU sources, that EU 'papers' started to turn up in that journal's invited issues, edited by Peratt. Never received a reply, funnily enough.
 
Let me invoke another spell...

PLASMA TURBULENCE

Then, apparently, PLASMA becomes magical (the maths fed into CPU/GPU they cant "cope")!


Cosmic shock waves: Unraveling the mystery of electron acceleration

Using real-time data from the MMS mission, which measures the interaction of Earth's magnetosphere with the solar wind, and the THEMIS/ARTEMIS mission, which studies the upstream plasma environment near the moon, the research team observed a large scale, time dependent (i.e. transient) phenomenon, upstream of Earth's bow shock, on December 17, 2017.


During this event, electrons in Earth's foreshock region—an area where the solar wind is predisturbed by its interaction with the bow shock—reached unprecedented energy levels, surpassing 500 keV.


This is a striking result given that electrons observed in the foreshock region are typically found at energies ~1 keV.


This research suggests that these high-energy electrons were generated by the complex interplay of multiple acceleration mechanisms, including the interaction of electrons with various plasma waves, transient structures in the foreshock, and Earth's bow shock.

Just like at comet 67P.

We have a pretty good idea, now, of ELECTRON acceleration at comet 67P.

Electron dynamics near diamagnetic regions of comet 67P/Churyumov- Gerasimenko


The cavity boundary in this case was formed by electron currents. As Haerendel et al. (1986) describe, photoelectrons of the expanding barium gas are coupled to ions via a polarization electric field, which further accelerates the ions radially outward. The electron gas initially reaches a pressure balance with the solar wind magnetic field while ions continue to expand, resulting in an inward polarization electric field. Under these conditions, electrons form a current layer as they undergo EB drift, leading to a shielding diamagnetic boundary.

Not the same PLASMA process occurring at COSMIC SHOCK waves?

Instead of Earth's bow shock, would it not be better to use EARTHS AMBIPOLAR ELECTRIC FIELD ?





.
 
Let me invoke another spell...
No. Your appeals to magic are not justified. You use the same words that scientists use, but you don't mean the same thing, because you don't even know what those words mean. Which is why it always comes out as nonsense.

Do the math.
 
Same words as scientist use?

Like PLASMA DOUBLE LAYER?

Meaning A double layer is a structure in a plasma consisting of two parallel layers of opposite electrical charge. The sheets of charge, which are not necessarily planar, produce localised excursions of electric potential, resulting in a relatively strong electric field between the layers and weaker but more extensive compensating fields outside, which restore the global potential. Ions and electrons within the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or deflected by the electric field, depending on their direction of motion.

Though scientist could use shock to mean the same thing. Same as scientist using GAS when the material is a PLASMA.


Words, ay!
 
Let me invoke another spell...

PLASMA TURBULENCE

Then, apparently, PLASMA becomes magical (the maths fed into CPU/GPU they cant "cope")!


Cosmic shock waves: Unraveling the mystery of electron acceleration



Just like at comet 67P.

We have a pretty good idea, now, of ELECTRON acceleration at comet 67P.

Electron dynamics near diamagnetic regions of comet 67P/Churyumov- Gerasimenko




Not the same PLASMA process occurring at COSMIC SHOCK waves?

Instead of Earth's bow shock, would it not be better to use EARTHS AMBIPOLAR ELECTRIC FIELD ?





.
What has any of that got to do with the mythology-based woo of EU?
 
It seems there are no qualified takers on my question whether a plasma can consist solely of electrons. I have been forced to look it up myself, and I was surprised that it was so easy: yes, electrons alone are a gas! A charged gas, of course, and hence a plasma.
 
It seems there are no qualified takers on my question whether a plasma can consist solely of electrons. I have been forced to look it up myself, and I was surprised that it was so easy: yes, electrons alone are a gas! A charged gas, of course, and hence a plasma.
It seems hard to imagine how that would arise other than in a lab.
 
If you say so.

It seems there are no qualified takers on my question whether a plasma can consist solely of electrons. I have been forced to look it up myself, and I was surprised that it was so easy: yes, electrons alone are a gas! A charged gas, of course, and hence a plasma.

Surprised that it was so easy?

LINK?
 
Conduction electrons in a metal act a lot like a gas/plasma. But yeah, a true electron-only gas isn't likely to arise in nature.

true electron-only gas?

GAS?

Ya mate just said they were "forced to look it up myself, and I was surprised that it was so easy: yes, electrons alone are a gas! A charged gas, of course, and hence a plasma. "

I said.

PLASMA.

You still say GAS. A charged gas, of course, and hence a plasma.

If you'd like to brush up further before we move on to more complex subjects, that jd116 is fully over.

PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS more specifically current driven and field aligned double layers, have a LARGE part in "But yeah, a true electron-only gas isn't likely to arise in nature ."
Do you even know what we are talking about, ziggurat?

Electron gas SEPARATED from Ion GAS via the

Or better put the - is separated from the + by a DOUBLE LAYER.

Too complicated or what?



.
 
PLASMA.

You still say GAS. A charged gas, of course, and hence a plasma.
Sure. But by your own admission here, a plasma is a kind of gas. Plasmas are a subset of gas. And gasses are a subset of fluids, a category that includes liquids as well as gasses and plasmas. But even the distinction between liquid and gas isn't nearly as binary as you think. It's easy to say what's a gas and what's a liquid when there's a phase transition between the two states, but the thing is, there isn't always a phase transition between the two. And there's never a phase transition between non-plasma gas states and plasma states either. Which is why treating plasmas as a subset of gas makes more sense than trying to treat them as completely separate, because they aren't.

Now, young children aren't usually able to understand issues like phase transitions (and frankly, neither are you), which is why when the idea of states of matter is taught to children, it's simplified and treated as if these categories are always rigid and distinct. But that is not actually the case. You want me to go back to grade school definitions because you can't handle more advanced understanding of the topic. But I have no reason to. Your intellectual inadequacies do not place any obligations upon me.

PLASMA DOUBLE LAYERS more specifically current driven and field aligned double layers, have a LARGE part in "But yeah, a true electron-only gas isn't likely to arise in nature ."
Do you even know what we are talking about, ziggurat?

Ah. I see. You are under the impression that the charged layers in a double layer are either completely electrons are completely positive ions.

This is not the case. This is not how double layers actually work. There is a charge imbalance in the outer charged layers, but it is not exclusively electrons or exclusively positive ions. That's not what happens.

You have no idea of any of the things you talk about.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom