Electric universe theories here.

[Dancing David]

You just go ahead and make your silly arguments Sol88, I do not think you are making an impression.

 

[Reality Check]

on Dl's

http:Falthamar.pdf

AND

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

OK
For the totally ignorant like Sol88:
Quite the contrary- the properties of DL mean that the few tens of Debye lengths between the layers restrict their influence to planetary scales:

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

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

 

[Reality Check]

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

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

Can a DL accelerate charged particles?? Whooda thunk that

eg
Booya

Whooda thunk that ?
Anyone involved in plasma physics whooda thunk that !

Anyone who can read whooda thunk that !

Anyone with 2 brain cells whooda thunk that !

Of course double layers accelerate charged particles.

Particle acceleration:

The potential drop across the double layer will accelerate electrons and positive ions in opposite directions. The magnitude of the potential drop determines the acceleration of the charged particles. In strong double layers, this will result in beams or jets of charged particles.

Continue to demonstrate your total ignorance of science Sol88.

Booya

 

[brantc]

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


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



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

Fingers of God? The God Particle? Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?

No strawman, just trying to make a point.

We will accept your starting point of the Big Bang if you accept our starting point of charge separation.

I'm sure we can come up with reasons for the aforementioned "observations" that do not rely on a universe expanding from a non physical point.

 

[Tubbythin]

Fingers of God?

And I suppose the study of nebulae has been corrupted by equine and crustacean lovers has it?

The God Particle?

Seriously? Is that your argument? The Big Bang singularity assumes Godditit because the editor of some magazine wouldn't let the writer of one of its articles use "that goddamn particle" (which he wanted to use because it was so difficult to find) to describe a fundamental particle in a different branch of physics. Now that is what I call tenuous.

Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?

Nope. Not in the slightest. The first real conception came from Alexander Friedmann when he found non-static solutions to the Einstein field equations assuming an isotropic and homogeneous space-time.

No strawman, just trying to make a point.

I think you completely failed to make any point whatsoever.

We will accept your starting point of the Big Bang if you accept our starting point of charge separation.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

I'm sure we can come up with reasons for the aforementioned "observations" that do not rely on a universe expanding from a non physical point.

I'd love to see you try and come up with a consistent set of reasons. There could well be a Nobel prize in it for you. But considering how horrendously you failed in your justification of "They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang...." I will not be holding my breath.

 

[Reality Check]

Fingers of God? The God Particle? Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?

No strawman, just trying to make a point.

We will accept your starting point of the Big Bang if you accept our starting point of charge separation.

I'm sure we can come up with reasons for the aforementioned "observations" that do not rely on a universe expanding from a non physical point.

Actually the post is full of strawmen since 2/3 of the aforementioned "observations" have anything to do with either the topic or an expanding universe.
Fingers of God are the Doppler effect:

Fingers of God is an effect in observational cosmology that causes clusters of galaxies to be elongated in redshift space, with an axis of elongation pointed toward the observer.[1] It is caused by a Doppler shift associated with the peculiar velocities of galaxies in a cluster. The large velocities that lead to this effect are associated with the gravity of the cluster by means of the virial theorem; they change the observed redshifts of the galaxies in the cluster. The deviation from the Hubble's law relationship between distance and redshift is altered, and this leads to inaccurate distance measurements.

The God Particle does not exist. The Higgs boson may exist and is high energy physics not cosmology. The electric universe woo that is the topic of this tread is not high energy physics

"Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?" is just dumb. The Big Bang theory was born out of science. The earliest scientist to propose something like it was Georges Lemaître (his "hypothesis of the primeval atom") and he happened to also be a Roman Catholic priest.

 

[Tubbythin]

"Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?" is just dumb. The Big Bang theory was born out of science. The earliest scientist to propose something like it was Georges Lemaître (his "hypothesis of the primeval atom") and he happened to also be a Roman Catholic priest.

I'm pretty sure Friedmann predated him by 3 or 4 years. Regardless, Lemaitre actively promoted the complete separation of science and religion and actually told the Pope off (as near as it may be possible for someone to do so) for trying to link the two.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm pretty sure Friedmann predated him by 3 or 4 years. Regardless, Lemaitre actively promoted the complete separation of science and religion and actually told the Pope off (as near as it may be possible for someone to do so) for trying to link the two.

Alexander Friedmann found the solutions to the general relativity field equations that later became the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric in 1924 (before Lemaitre's meeting with Einstein at the 1927 Solvay Conference).
I tend to think of Lemaitre as the start of the Big Bang theory because he made the connection between the theory and what would be observed to support the theory, e.g. Hubble's law.

 

[Tubbythin]

Alexander Friedmann found the solutions to the general relativity field equations that later became the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric in 1924 (before Lemaitre's meeting with Einstein at the 1927 Solvay Conference).
I tend to think of Lemaitre as the start of the Big Bang theory because he made the connection between the theory and what would be observed to support the theory, e.g. Hubble's law.

Fair enough. I guess it matters very little. Unless of course you're completely failing to poke holes in the BB with science and need to turn to strawmen. Then it becomes rather significant.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Ignorance Rides Again

Fingers of God? The God Particle? Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?

Nope. Not in the slightest. The first real conception came from Alexander Friedmann when he found non-static solutions to the Einstein field equations assuming an isotropic and homogeneous space-time.

Alexander Friedmann found the solutions to the general relativity field equations that later became the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric in 1924 (before Lemaitre's meeting with Einstein at the 1927 Solvay Conference).

Why is it that so many "alternative cosmologists", like the electric universe crowd, are so damn ignorant of everything? What, they can't read the occasional book? Think an intelligent thought once in a while? Aside from being totally ignorant of both the facts & history of cosmology, it is evident that the English language (or probably any other language) is a major weak spot as well. You think that just because somebody uses the phrases "God particle" of "fingers of God" that they literally mean to establish a religious connection between cosmology and God? Have you never in your sheltered life encountered hyperbole?

The Reference to Friedmann is Friedmann, 1924. Lemaitre first mentioned the idea in 1927, but it was first published in English in 1931 (Lemaitre, 1931a), followed by Lemaitre, 1931b & Lemaitre, 1931c. In any case, both Friedmann & Lemaitre realized what Einstein had already realized, namely that general relativity in its original form did not allow static solutions. Einstein modified the theory to allow them, while Friedmann & Lemaitre did not so restrict themselves.

No strawman, just trying to make a point.

What point? That you haven't got a clue? All the Friedmann & Lemaitre stuff is well known to anyone who has spent 5 minutes studying the history of general relativity (yes, you can literally learn it all in 5 minutes with google). You can't spend 5 minutes studying cosmology before you declare it to be wrong?

We will accept your starting point of the Big Bang if you accept our starting point of charge separation. I'm sure we can come up with reasons for the aforementioned "observations" that do not rely on a universe expanding from a non physical point.

Big Bang cosmology does not "rely on a universe expanding from a non physical point". You think it does because your knowledge is entirely limited to popular discourse, and that's how the initial singularity of the big bang is interpreted in most cases. But its real meaning is "undefined", which means that the initial state of the universe is not just unknown but literally unknowable under any conditions, so long as one is limited to classical general relativity as a theory of space time. But allow for a quantum theory of gravity and the whole idea of a "point" origin of the universe can go out the window entirely. Both loop quantum gravity and string theory readily admit the possibility of pre big bang cosmology. The ideas are speculative, of course, since neither theory is well developed compared to general relativity, but while speculative, there is a lot of quantitative content and real formalism available (i.e., Gasperini & Veneziano, 2003; Gasperini & Veneziano, 2007; Bojowald, 2007; Khoury, et al., 2001).

 

[Sol88]

Nice history lesson fella's!!

Back onto DL's (Double Layers)

First a little background;

Electrodynamics of cosmical plasmas-some basic aspects of cosmological importance Cosmological??? Oh well...

Falthammar, C.-G.
Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990 Page(s):11 - 17

Summary: A review is presented of basic electrodynamic properties as revealed by laboratory and space plasma experiments, and their consequences. They include the coupling between magnetic fields and the motion of matter, filamentary and cellular structure, anomalous momentum coupling, and new mechanisms of chemical separation. It is concluded that some of these properties, obviously important for the understanding of the present-day universe, must also have been important in the cosmological evolution of which today's Universe is the result. As some of the crucial properties are still poorly understood, but are being investigated by laboratory and space-plasma experiments, the results of such experiments should also be relevant to the development of cosmology

Ok so they are not really well understood phenomena but they are there and should obviously be included in ANY cosmological view! And since Z as split the threads into PC and EU lets keep going on DL's, shall we?

So the EU mob interpret exploding DL's as novae and supernovae as per

Double Layer Detonation

Rather than thermonuclear explosions, supernovae are what Hannes Alfvén called them: exploding double layers.

snip

So-called stellar winds from the giant star generated a "wind-blown bubble," according to a report from the Hubble Space Telescope news release archive

Ummm...that would most probably be a DL, all parameters are met for a DL to be formed.

It has been a long-standing tenet of astrophysical theories that supernova shock waves are responsible for the formation of other stars when they meet clouds of gas in nearby nebulae. The gases are compressed along the expanding wavefront, acquiring the angular momentum and gravitational boost needed to begin condensing. According to the Nebular Hypothesis, once that condensation reaches a critical point, stars are born.

Which is a fantasy, if no mention of plasma physics or even terms are involved. You know the whole gas Vs Plasma argument that went on plasma is plasma and gas is gas!! Or you try and model an exploding DL on gas laws or even your supernovae gas!

snip

The Electric Universe explanation is that we are looking at plasma structures when we look at nebulae or supernovae, and they behave according to the laws of electric discharges and circuits.

Instead of mechanical action and imploding gas, N 63A was created when an influx of electric current exceeded a critical value and was unable to maintain a stable connection with the galactic circuit. The break in the circuit caused the star to short-out and explode, just like an electric circuit here on Earth can suddenly explode when too much current flows through it.

Snip

It is electric currents in plasma that makes up what we observe. Rather than an expanding shock-front, the features shown in the Hubble image are lit by electricity passing through dusty plasma. The x-ray radiation is typical of that given off by ions accelerated by an electric discharge.

Maybe even Gamma rays? Hell why not! A Double layer CAN do that! as per Tusenfems Wiki page

across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. To energies up to the maximum we have been able to detect!

such as

Extragalactic cosmic rays are very-high-energy particles that flow into our solar system from beyond our galaxy. The energies these particles possess are in excess of 10¹⁵ eV.

and even your garden variety GCR's

They are high-energy charged particles composed of protons, electrons, and fully ionized nuclei of light elements and are a strong source for cosmic ray spallation in the atmosphere of the earth.

Lets see the mainstreams explanation;

ORIGIN Some are believed to have been accelerated by the shockwaves of supernovae. In the high-energy tail of the distribution, some galactic cosmic rays have energies so high that no known physical process could have created them.

Ummm...... A large strong double layer might do the trick more efficiently than "shockwaves" from supernovae!!!

As we see

Electric Supernovae

Both conventional and electric supernovae are exploding stars. But what constitutes a star and what constitutes an explosion are quite different in each case.

snip

One characteristic of an exploding DL is that the energy of the entire circuit, not just the energy contained locally in the DL, can flow into the explosion. The energy increase accelerates the expansion of the DL and the particles composing it. This acceleration persists out to many stellar diameters from the visible surface of the star. At the same time, the radiation from the DL climbs into the ultraviolet or x-ray—or even gamma-ray—range, giving off a burst of high-energy “light” that has a time distribution like that of lightning: a sudden onset and exponential decline.

No lets see, we have all the requirements to make ALL of these phenomena happen WITHOUT DM,DE SMBH, Neutron stars et cetera!


And this would be a pretty good visual picture of a DL (exploding) with smaller DL's entrained.

Which would make DL's inside DL's and they WOULD interact electrically!!

​

 

[Reality Check]

I see that Sol88 is still dumb enough to quote a book advertisement site!

The woo is strong in you Sol88 !

For the totally ignorant like Sol88:


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

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

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


ETA:
Just for a laugh I looked at the Thunderbolt book advertisments site pages that you link to Sol88. What a joke! ROFLOL! etc.

Seriously if the site was not so pitiful it would be a good parody site.

You did notice the lack of a few things on the pages, Sol88?

• No attempt to match their assertions (not even theories!) to observations.
• No citations of published scientific papers.

You did notice this blatent lie, Sol88?
Double Layer Detonation

Astronomers have no idea why stars eject clouds of gas and dust that eventually become other stars.

Nova, Supernova, Variable star, etc.

 

[tusenfem]

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

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

Can a DL accelerate charged particles?? Whooda thunk that

Oh for crying out loud! Can I kill myself now, before I need to read more nonsense, please, can I, please!!!!!!!

 

[Tubbythin]

No lets see, we have all the requirements to make ALL of these phenomena happen WITHOUT DM,DE SMBH, Neutron stars et cetera!

Its fantastic to see that you haven't provided us with a single number. And yet you think your theory can explain all these things which are described mathematically. Simply posting pretty pictures doesn't constitute science. At best its art. Now art has a time and a place I'll agree. But this a Science/Technology/Maths forum, not an art forum.

 

[tusenfem]

We will accept your starting point of the Big Bang if you accept our starting point of charge separation.

brantc, as apparently you are a stern supporter of the PC/PU/EU/ES/EC community, please explain clearly what exactly you mean with your starting point of charge separation. Is that supposed to replace the big bang, or does it have to do with something else?

Can ANY EU proponent come up with a real model, and not just quote and misquote abstracts of papers that sound interesting?

 

[tusenfem]

Ok so they are not really well understood phenomena but they are there and should obviously be included in ANY cosmological view! And since Z as split the threads into PC and EU lets keep going on DL's, shall we?

That is a 20 year old paper by Karl-Gunne, we have learned more about DLs since then, to be specific, I started my real research in them AFTER this paper was written.

So, what you seem to ignore is all DL research since 1990. It has been found, in lab and in nature that large scale electric fields split up. So called stair-step double layers. That also happens often when in a small region the potential drop gets too big. Look it up, Torven and Axnes did the lab experiments.

So the EU mob interpret exploding DL's as novae and supernovae as per

As already explained to you, a DL is a load in an electrical circuit, so you will have to drive humongous currents to create a supernova exploding DL (if DL would explode, which they do not, that was an idea of Alfvén that just turned out to be incorrect).

Ummm...that would most probably be a DL, all parameters are met for a DL to be formed.

Really, care to explain in detail? Solar and stellar winds are neutral, how can they then have "all parameters" (which exactly??) for DLs to be formed? Apparently, you know nothing about DLs whad you cannot quickly copy and paste.

Which is a fantasy, if no mention of plasma physics or even terms are involved. You know the whole gas Vs Plasma argument that went on plasma is plasma and gas is gas!! Or you try and model an exploding DL on gas laws or even your supernovae gas!

More staggering plasma physical incompetence of Sol88, this is REALLY mind boggling stupidity.

Maybe even Gamma rays? Hell why not! A Double layer CAN do that! as per Tusenfems Wiki page

across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. To energies up to the maximum we have been able to detect!

Note that the bolded part springs from Sol88's twisted mind and does NOT appear on the wiki page on double layers.

But yeah, I did write a paper where electrons were accelerated to relativistic energys, emitting gamma radiation, which again led to pair creation. Unfortunately, due to a change of venue and projects, that model was never fully developed, however interesting.

A large strong double layer might do the trick more efficiently than "shockwaves" from supernovae!!!

A shock wave and a double layer are so different, with different energizations etc. that I cannot even fathom why one would be able to replace the other.

No lets see, we have all the requirements to make ALL of these phenomena happen WITHOUT DM,DE SMBH, Neutron stars et cetera!


And this would be a pretty good visual picture of a DL (exploding) with smaller DL's entrained.

Which would make DL's inside DL's and they WOULD interact electrically!!

DLs inside of DLs, you are kidding right? Done any electrodynamics lately?
Again, rant rant rant, EU is right, thundercrap tells us so. Poor Alfvén, he does not deserve this idiocy.

Sol88 once more you show you have no grasp of plasma physics, let alone a rather difficult topic as the generation of double layers. You seem to think they are a "characteristic" of plasmas, boy are you wrong. They do not just "pop up" like you claimed in the plasmawoo thread. There are specific conditions needed for them to be created.

And by the way, don't forget that the double layers at the boundary of different plasmas do not accelerate particles like current carrying double layers do.

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Sol88
So the EU mob interpret exploding DL's as novae and supernovae as per

Tusenfem replied:

As already explained to you, a DL is a load in an electrical circuit, so you will have to drive humongous currents to create a supernova exploding DL (if DL would explode, which they do not, that was an idea of Alfvén that just turned out to be incorrect).

To which Carl-Gunne Fälthammar in (Received: March 31, 2002; accepted: August 30, 2002) says

Rapid release of magnetically stored energy

Energy stored in a magnetic field is by necessity associated
with an electric current system with an inductance. If
somewhere in the electric circuit there is established an electric
field with the electric vector in the same direction as the
current, the current will for some time continue to flow, driven
by the inductance, and the dissipation of power in the region
of the potential drop can drain the magnetic energy with great
efficiency. This mechanism has been invoked in astrophysical
applications, and the phenomenon is known from laboratory
experiments with ”exploding” electric double layers .

So now I'm confused! So the humongous electric currents are there already sustaining the DL and when a threshold is reached it can release it's stored magnetic energy inductively and depending on your timescale, explosively! like you know exploding double layers

A shock wave and a double layer are so different, with different energizations etc. that I cannot even fathom why one would be able to replace the other.

Yeah but the mainstream still do.

DLs inside of DLs, you are kidding right? Done any electrodynamics lately?
Again, rant rant rant, EU is right, thundercrap tells us so. Poor Alfvén, he does not deserve this idiocy.

No? Tell us about triple layers, your stair step double layers et cetera

also cos we have not seen RC's DeBye length post for a few post now

Strong electric potential double layers (eϕ / kTe≃14) are produced in a triple plasma device. The upper bound to eϕ / kTe reported in earlier experiments is not found. The electron beam which results from acceleration by the double layer maintains its identity with little heating until it reaches the end of the device. Results of a computer simulation are presented which are in qualitative agreement with the experiment and which indicate that the stability of the double layer depends on the length of the system.

Astrophysical "jets"? DeBye length?

Sol88 once more you show you have no grasp of plasma physics, let alone a rather difficult topic as the generation of double layers. You seem to think they are a "characteristic" of plasmas, boy are you wrong. They do not just "pop up" like you claimed in the plasmawoo thread. There are specific conditions needed for them to be created.

Meahh

And by the way, don't forget that the double layers at the boundary of different plasmas do not accelerate particles like current carrying double layers do.

Tell the lurkers here more Tusenfem great double layer scientist

 

[Reality Check]

also cos we have not seen RC's DeBye length post for a few post now

Strong electric potential double layers (eϕ / kTe≃14) are produced in a triple plasma device. The upper bound to eϕ / kTe reported in earlier experiments is not found. The electron beam which results from acceleration by the double layer maintains its identity with little heating until it reaches the end of the device. Results of a computer simulation are presented which are in qualitative agreement with the experiment and which indicate that the stability of the double layer depends on the length of the system.

Astrophysical "jets"? DeBye length?

It is confirmed! You cannot read Sol88 !
You post a quote from an unknown source about a triple plasma device that produces electron beams in laboratory conditions.
It is not about astrophysics.
It is not about astrophysical jets.
Any one with more than 1 brain cell can see that. All they have to have is the ability to read.
If you can find a triple plasma device floating about in space then you should tell people about it eye-poppi ignorance once again from Sol88)!


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


The separation of double layers is limited to a a few tens of Debye lengths. The length of any beams produced by DLs depends on the conditions. IMHO I cannot see them extending more than a few times the separation.

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

Massive fail once again Sol88.

And because the simpleminded asked:


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

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

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

 

[Reality Check]

And by the way, don't forget that the double layers at the boundary of different plasmas do not accelerate particles like current carrying double layers do.

Tell the lurkers here more Tusenfem great double layer scientist

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

Current-free double layers

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

 

[Sol88]

It is not about astrophysics.
It is not about astrophysical jets.

That's were you are wrong!

Any one with more than 1 brain cell can see that. All they have to have is the ability to read.
If you can find a triple plasma device floating about in space then you should tell people about it ( ignorance once again from Sol88)!

try Crab Pulsar

The outflowing relativistic wind from the neutron star generates synchrotron emission, which produces the bulk of the emission from the nebula, seen from radio waves through to gamma rays. The most dynamic feature in the inner part of the nebula is the point where the pulsar's equatorial wind slams into the surrounding nebula, forming a termination shock. The shape and position of this feature shifts rapidly, with the equatorial wind appearing as a series of wisp-like features that steepen, brighten, then fade as they move away from the pulsar into the main body of the nebula.