The Electric Comet theory

[phunk]

Nevermind...

 

[JeanTate]

Good afternoon, Sol88.

Sorry 'ol mate, the threads moving too fast too keep up with everyone.

No worries mate; it sure can get 'hot 'n heavy' here at times, eh?

I'll have a look over the last few pages and re-post/quote/whatever the ones I'd particularly appreciate having you respond to, OK?

I know we (EU-ES-EC mob) get hounded too death for the maths and I'm all ways at a loss to the reasoning?? Like Belz... said MATHS is the CART and the HORSE

I'm bloody hopeless at maths but there are a lot a cluey people here and they know how to do their sums good'n prop'a

So as a favour, would you help me make a start on learning this new language? maths I mean.

Happy to help!

Don't overlook physics though; the numbers, equations, etc by themselves are not enough.

So here's the question, in just your garden variety English, well Aussie anyway.

I have a conductor moving thru a magnetic field, the power generated is say 5 million amps, how do I work out the Voltage?

I see several other members have already helped you understand this, so I'll add a couple of 'meta' comments:

* as important as the numbers are the units (which are sometimes called - rather confusingly - 'dimensions'). In everyday life you rarely get these mixed up; you don't pay 25.50 degrees C for your petrol, for example, or say that you'll be a meter late to meet a mate at the pub, but in physics these aren't always obvious (as you've already discovered)

* the calculation you just did is sometimes called a 'back of the envelope' (BOTE) calculation; scientists do these all the time. They are rarely accurate enough for writing a paper, but are often - almost always - helpful; sometimes they are called 'sanity checks', or 'sensibility checks'. They are usually (but not always!) fairly easy to do. Ziggurat has posted several recently.

* before I signed up, I'd read a fair bit of this thread, and it seems you've been a bit, um, rough with some other members here at times. So no surprise that they may still post in a less than sweetness and light style, when responding to you, for a while yet.

* if you don't understand something, ask questions! A lot of members here are only too happy to help ("putting the 'E' in 'JREF'", as I read in several posts, even though we're no longer JREF).

Good luck!

 

[Haig]

No, you misinterprete that. After Alfvén (not Alfvèn) presented his MHD (which is a wonderful tool to work with) people grabbed this tool and used it for ANYTHING without actually checking if the requirements of MHD were fulfilled or not. Thus at the beginning of the MHD era a lot of wrong stuff was done. Nowadays, any first year student of plasma(astro)physics gets it hammered into head that one has to check the validity of the approximation (MHD is an approximation of full plasma physics), e.g. do not look at scales smaller than the largest ion gyro radius, etc.

ETA: I would like to see an actual quote from Alfvén in which he makes claims about the EU/PC crowd. And he never said that MHD was wrong.

Frozen in magnetic fields work very well. Indeed, a "renegate" mainstream magnetospheric physicist (he likes to look differently at some things, which is why I like him) actually looked at the breakdown of the frozen-in condition in the Earth's magnetotail. But searching for these breakdowns is not easy.

when I said this ...

Alfvèn said after his Nobel Prize he was wrong about frozen in magnetic fields and MHD but mainstream couldn't admit the EU / PC crowd have been right all along!

This is what I was referring too ... So the magnetic field frozen in and MHD in the First approach are wrong according to ALFVÉN and the Second approach is the way we should be going but aren't. BTW these are the reasons ziggurat's Electric Sun calculation are wrong and an oversimplification strawman he didn't even know he was making. Same applies to the Electric Comet theory the second approach is the way forward.

HANNES ALFVÉN Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970 ... PDF HERE

I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure. It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back.

The reason for this is that several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded, are not applicable to the condition prevailing in cosmos. They are « generally accepted » by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not « understand », how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. It is now obvious that we have to start a second approach from widely different starting points.

The two different approaches can be summarized in Table 1. If you ask where the border goes between the first approach and the second approach today, an approximate answer is that it is given by the reach of spacecrafts. This means that in every region where it is possible to explore the state of the plasma by magnetometers, electric field probes and particle analyzers, we find that in spite of all their elegance, the first approach theories have very little to do with reality. It seems that the change from the first approach to the second approach is the astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis.

Table 1
CosmicaI electrodynamics

First approach

Homogeneous models
Conductivity o = co
Electric fieldE,, = o
Magnetic field lines are « frozen in » and
« move » with the plasma.
Electromagnetic conditions illustrated by
magnetic field line picture.
Electrostatic double layers neglected.
Filamentary structures and current sheets Currents produce filaments or flow in thin neglected or treated inadequately
Theories mathematically elegant and very Theories still not very well developed and well developed.

Second approach

Space plasmas have often a complicated
inhomogeneous structure
u depends on current and often suddenly
becomes o, E,, often # o
Frozen-in picture often completely misleading.
It is equally important to draw the current
lines and discuss the electric circuit
Electrostatic double layers are of decisive
importance in low density plasmas
Currents produce filaments or flow in thin sheets.
Theories still not very well developed and
partly phenomenological.

.
THE FIRST AND SECOND APPROACH TO COSMIC PLASMA PHYSICS

 

[JeanTate]

Hello Haig,

when I said this ...

This is what I was referring too ... So the magnetic field frozen in and MHD in the First approach are wrong according to ALFVÉN and the Second approach is the way we should be going but aren't. BTW these are the reasons ziggurat's Electric Sun calculation are wrong and an oversimplification strawman he didn't even know he was making. Same applies to the Electric Comet theory the second approach is the way forward.

HANNES ALFVÉN Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970 ... PDF HERE




.
THE FIRST AND SECOND APPROACH TO COSMIC PLASMA PHYSICS

At one level, I admire your tenacity, and the obvious fervor with which you seem to hold to your beliefs. However, at another level, I cringed when I read this post of yours.

Until I started to really read the materials you provided links to (thank you, once again, for those), on the electric comet (and key parts of the electric Sun) idea, I really didn't know much about them. However, having studied them, and asked you questions about them (thank you, again, for trying to answer my questions), I have learned that the electric Sun idea (the key parts of relevance to the electric comet one) do not even attempt to show consistency with Alfvén's work.

Yeah, rather shocking, but there it is.

I'm still quite puzzled that you, who has apparently studied this for quite a long time, do not seem to understand very much of what you write. Like the above.

But of course, I could be wrong (I often am).

So, please, in detail show - with cites and quotes from published electric Sun material - how "ziggurat's Electric Sun calculation are wrong and an oversimplification strawman". In particular, please show where - and in detail - the published electric Sun ideas (the ones of direct relevance to the electric comet ideas) are consistent with the "second approach".

Thank you in advance.

 

[tusenfem]

interestingly my research is almost completely in the second approach, as is that of a lot of my fellow researchers.

the first approach gives you the basics, like getting the plasma frequency, basic instabilities in the plasma, and if you take ideal mhd, then the conductivity is infinite and the magnetic field is frozen in.
if you go to the second approach, you get into the more interesting but also more difficult plasma theory. in alfven's child, the mhd, you will not find for example the highly interesting other children of alfven, the double layers (my phd topic). also the singing comet cannot be "solved" with the first approach, that is why i have no complete solution (yet).

indeed like i said before, you have to know when an approximation, mhd or approach one, is applicable. if you look at scales smaller than the gyro radius of the ions or on timescales shorter than the gyro period, you will not use mhd

if you find that the diffusion time of the magnetic field through the plasma, because of finite conductivity, is much much larger than the timescale of the phenomenon that you are looking at, then frozen in is a good approximation to work with.

one can go on like that. youbwill not use general relativity to calculate how long it takes for the apple to fall onto your head, you use newton. this is exactly the same as knowing when to use, as you quote, approach one or two.

calculating the current in the io flux tube uses simple voltage calculation vxb. however tracing the currents further to the ionosphere you get into trouble along thevway and the simple approach is not okay, you need extra acceleration because the current carriers are too few and you get the creation of double layers, i.e. you go from one to two.

it is fine to quote stuff, but it is better to actually understand what you quote too.

approach one papers:
cyclotron waves in europa's wake or during rosetta approach
kelvin helmholtz waves in the earth's magnetotail (debatable)
fitting of magnetic multipoles and induced fields at ganymede

approach two papers:
strong double layers at the sun
various complicated instabilities in the magnetotail
mirror mode waves near venus

it is all about knowing was is and is not applicable

 

[Ziggurat]

This is what I was referring too ... So the magnetic field frozen in and MHD in the First approach are wrong according to ALFVÉN and the Second approach is the way we should be going but aren't. BTW these are the reasons ziggurat's Electric Sun calculation are wrong and an oversimplification strawman he didn't even know he was making.

No, Haig. This reveals (as if we didn't already know) that you are simply flailing in desperation, and you have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about. Let's go through your list one by one, shall we?

1. Conductivity o = infinity
2. Electric field E = 0
3. Magnetic field lines are « frozen in » and « move » with the plasma.
4. Electromagnetic conditions illustrated by magnetic field line picture.
5. Electrostatic double layers neglected.
6. Filamentary structures and current sheets neglected or treated inadequately
7. Theories mathematically elegant and very well developed.

Now, how does this apply to what I did?

1. I suppose you could argue that I made this assumption. What happens if you remove this assumption? Well, the explosion will slow down a little. That's it, that's the full extent of the consequence of abandoning this assumption.
2. Obviously I didn't assume that the electric fields were zero. I explicitly calculated that they would not be. Large electric fields are in fact what make the model explode.
3. I made no assumptions about magnetic field lines being frozen in. I basically ignored them, because they can't confine the explosion. They don't have the right geometry, or sufficient strength even if they did.
4. The issue of "magnetic field line picture" is irrelevant to my calculations, just as the E=0 assumption is irrelevant. My calculation is focused on the large E scenario, NOT the E ~ 0 scenario.
5. Yes, I neglected double layers. Why? Well, two reasons: first, it is indeed easier to calculate. But second, and most relevant for current discussions, the assumption that there are no double layers involved actually reduces the electric fields involved, reduces the charge concentrations, and thus lowers the propensity for explosion to occur. Yet it still does.
6. Same with filamentary structures: anything other than spherical symmetry further concentrates charges, increases electric fields, and makes it more explosive. As for current sheets, well, the exact form the explosion takes is rather irrelevant, don't you think?
7. And lastly, the elegance and well-developed status of the first approach is not a strike against it. It's just an observation.

So, where did I go wrong, Haig? You still can't actually say. You start with the assumption that I must be wrong because I contradict your dogma, you go looking for reasons I might be wrong and stumble upon Alfven talking about why other people get calculations wrong even though Alfven never believed anything even remotely similar to Juergens' model, and in desperation you throw it up, not even attempting to show how it applies here because you really don't know. And not surprisingly, your attempted refutation fails, predictably, as all such attempts of yours do. Because you won't bother to spend the time actually trying to understand anything.

ETA: I'll add one additional note, a nice little gem from your own link which occurs on the very next page from the part you quote:

From this follows that a particular field of astrophysics is not ripe for a scientific approach before experimental physics has reached a certain state of development. As a well-known historic example, before the advance of nuclear physics the attempts to understand how the stars generated their energy could not possibly be more than speculations without very much permanent value.

Right there: Alfven just said that the Juergens model was nonsense, that the standard explanation for the most obvious and notable feature of the sun, its power output, was the correct explanation.

But go on: keep pretending that mainstream physics is ignoring Alfven, and that the EU folks are the only ones enlightened by his gospel.

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah Yeah Yeah, can hear you already... that's Io, a moon not a comet!!!

So whats the difference??

I mean sorta simlar on the Moon..

Electrically charged lunar dust near shadowed craters can get lofted above the surface and jump over the shadowed region, bouncing back and forth between sunlit areas on opposite sides, according to new calculations by NASA scientists.

Seems you mob got one foot on the edge but just wont make the leap!

Uh huh ans static will make you hair rise if you go to Niagara falls, you still have no evidence to show that Electric Comets are real.

Niagara Falls=Electric Comets 11-11 11-11 Oh Noes.

You have a conspiracy theory not a scientific theory Sol88

 

[Dancing David]

So the buggers over on that crank web site The Thunderbolts Project

got me hook, line and sinker...

Not happy Jan

You got that right, they don't have evidence either, they are cranks for sure.

 

[Haig]

Hello Haig,

At one level, I admire your tenacity, and the obvious fervor with which you seem to hold to your beliefs. However, at another level, I cringed when I read this post of yours.

Until I started to really read the materials you provided links to (thank you, once again, for those), on the electric comet (and key parts of the electric Sun) idea, I really didn't know much about them. However, having studied them, and asked you questions about them (thank you, again, for trying to answer my questions), I have learned that the electric Sun idea (the key parts of relevance to the electric comet one) do not even attempt to show consistency with Alfvén's work.

Yeah, rather shocking, but there it is.

I'm still quite puzzled that you, who has apparently studied this for quite a long time, do not seem to understand very much of what you write. Like the above.

But of course, I could be wrong (I often am).

So, please, in detail show - with cites and quotes from published electric Sun material - how "ziggurat's Electric Sun calculation are wrong and an oversimplification strawman". In particular, please show where - and in detail - the published electric Sun ideas (the ones of direct relevance to the electric comet ideas) are consistent with the "second approach".

Thank you in advance.

interestingly my research is almost completely in the second approach, as is that of a lot of my fellow researchers.

the first approach gives you the basics, like getting the plasma frequency, basic instabilities in the plasma, and if you take ideal mhd, then the conductivity is infinite and the magnetic field is frozen in.
if you go to the second approach, you get into the more interesting but also more difficult plasma theory. in alfven's child, the mhd, you will not find for example the highly interesting other children of alfven, the double layers (my phd topic). also the singing comet cannot be "solved" with the first approach, that is why i have no complete solution (yet).

indeed like i said before, you have to know when an approximation, mhd or approach one, is applicable. if you look at scales smaller than the gyro radius of the ions or on timescales shorter than the gyro period, you will not use mhd

if you find that the diffusion time of the magnetic field through the plasma, because of finite conductivity, is much much larger than the timescale of the phenomenon that you are looking at, then frozen in is a good approximation to work with.

one can go on like that. youbwill not use general relativity to calculate how long it takes for the apple to fall onto your head, you use newton. this is exactly the same as knowing when to use, as you quote, approach one or two.

calculating the current in the io flux tube uses simple voltage calculation vxb. however tracing the currents further to the ionosphere you get into trouble along thevway and the simple approach is not okay, you need extra acceleration because the current carriers are too few and you get the creation of double layers, i.e. you go from one to two.

it is fine to quote stuff, but it is better to actually understand what you quote too.

approach one papers:
cyclotron waves in europa's wake or during rosetta approach
kelvin helmholtz waves in the earth's magnetotail (debatable)
fitting of magnetic multipoles and induced fields at ganymede

approach two papers:
strong double layers at the sun
various complicated instabilities in the magnetotail
mirror mode waves near venus

it is all about knowing was is and is not applicable

No, Haig. This reveals (as if we didn't already know) that you are simply flailing in desperation, and you have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about. Let's go through your list one by one, shall we?

1. Conductivity o = infinity
2. Electric field E = 0
3. Magnetic field lines are « frozen in » and « move » with the plasma.
4. Electromagnetic conditions illustrated by magnetic field line picture.
5. Electrostatic double layers neglected.
6. Filamentary structures and current sheets neglected or treated inadequately
7. Theories mathematically elegant and very well developed.

Now, how does this apply to what I did?

1. I suppose you could argue that I made this assumption. What happens if you remove this assumption? Well, the explosion will slow down a little. That's it, that's the full extent of the consequence of abandoning this assumption.
2. Obviously I didn't assume that the electric fields were zero. I explicitly calculated that they would not be. Large electric fields are in fact what make the model explode.
3. I made no assumptions about magnetic field lines being frozen in. I basically ignored them, because they can't confine the explosion. They don't have the right geometry, or sufficient strength even if they did.
4. The issue of "magnetic field line picture" is irrelevant to my calculations, just as the E=0 assumption is irrelevant. My calculation is focused on the large E scenario, NOT the E ~ 0 scenario.
5. Yes, I neglected double layers. Why? Well, two reasons: first, it is indeed easier to calculate. But second, and most relevant for current discussions, the assumption that there are no double layers involved actually reduces the electric fields involved, reduces the charge concentrations, and thus lowers the propensity for explosion to occur. Yet it still does.
6. Same with filamentary structures: anything other than spherical symmetry further concentrates charges, increases electric fields, and makes it more explosive. As for current sheets, well, the exact form the explosion takes is rather irrelevant, don't you think?
7. And lastly, the elegance and well-developed status of the first approach is not a strike against it. It's just an observation.

So, where did I go wrong, Haig? You still can't actually say. You start with the assumption that I must be wrong because I contradict your dogma, you go looking for reasons I might be wrong and stumble upon Alfven talking about why other people get calculations wrong even though Alfven never believed anything even remotely similar to Juergens' model, and in desperation you throw it up, not even attempting to show how it applies here because you really don't know. And not surprisingly, your attempted refutation fails, predictably, as all such attempts of yours do. Because you won't bother to spend the time actually trying to understand anything.

ETA: I'll add one additional note, a nice little gem from your own link which occurs on the very next page from the part you quote:



Right there: Alfven just said that the Juergens model was nonsense, that the standard explanation for the most obvious and notable feature of the sun, its power output, was the correct explanation.

But go on: keep pretending that mainstream physics is ignoring Alfven, and that the EU folks are the only ones enlightened by his gospel.

So I take it were ALL agreed mainstream are playing catch up to the Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology crowd but just don't like to admit it?

My dogma indeed

Lets look at the latest surprise and see if you guys can solve it?

VLT telescope reveals mysterious alignment of quasars with the Universe’s large-scale structure
http://www.gizmag.com/eso-vlt-quasar-alignment-large-scale-structure/34879/

Scientists Observe Cluster of Quasars Aligned Perfectly Together
http://perfscience.com/content/214667-scientists-observe-cluster-quasars-aligned-perfectly-together

Alignment of quasar polarizations with large-scale structures⋆ PDF
http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1438/eso1438a.pdf


More confirmation we live in an Electric Universe with a galactic wide example of Electromagnetism's Right Hand Rule. http://www.google.co.uk/#newwindow=1&q=right+hand+rule+in+electromagnetism

but I guess you will claim you knew that already

 

[Dancing David]

So it's all crapola?

Now I really confused...who do I believe?

Yeah that'd be sweet, just easy on the numbers eh...any in just plain, layman, basicaly this is how it goes type papers would be more betterer.

Hi when Ziggurat says that he did the math that shows an electric sun would blow apart at relativistic velocities, he means it, we can go over the math slowly if you like:

- would you like us to do that?

 

[Haig]

Then there this that fits in very well with the ELECTRIC COMET theory

It appears that mainstream science is leaning more and more towards an Electric Universe model …

Galactic-Scale Electric Fields Could Solve Dark Matter Mystery, Says Physicist

Nobody has found convincing evidence of dark matter. Perhaps they should search for electric fields instead, suggests one researcher

http://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv...rk-matter-mystery-says-physicist-117a6488ba0e

Laniakea: Our home supercluster

Superclusters – regions of space that are densely packed with galaxies – are the biggest structures in the Universe. But scientists have struggled to define exactly where one supercluster ends and another begins. Now, a team based in Hawaii has come up with a new technique that maps the Universe according to the flow of galaxies across space. Redrawing the boundaries of the cosmic map, they redefine our home supercluster and name it Laniakea, which means ‘immeasurable heaven’ in Hawaiian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo

 

[Haig]

Most Undeniable Evidence of the Electric Universe to Date

NASA Probe Zapped by Saturn Moon's Static

A spacecraft exploring the Saturn system was zapped by static electricity sent out by one of the ringed wonder's many moons in 2005, a new study suggests.

In fact, scientists have found that the Cassini spacecraft was "briefly bathed in a beam of electrons" coming from the moon Hyperion's surface, NASA officials said. No, this isn't proof of alien life: The particle beam was likely generated by the odd, porous moon's exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun and Saturn's magnetic field, researchers said.

"It was rather like Cassini receiving a 200-volt electric shock from Hyperion, even though they were over 2,000 kilometers [1,200 miles] apart at the time," Tom Nordheim, a doctoral candidate at Mullard Space Science Laboratory (MSSL), University College London, said of the new finding in a statement.

http://www.space.com/27466-cassini-spacecraft-static-saturn-moon-hyperion.html

Cassini caught in Hyperion's electron beam
http://sci.esa.int/cassini-huygens/54777-cassini-caught-in-hyperions-electron-beam/


NASA admits moon-satelite discharge occurred
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15345

 

[Dancing David]

Dude the comet as a whole is not glowing, i know it looks like it from earth but its the dust and fluorescing H

There are however discrtete bright patches that sorta glow depending on how the've jiggered the exposure.

Now show that is part of EC, the EC theory does not say that arcs blow dust off comets and that glows, now does it?

Like I said you don't know the EC theory it would appear. The EC theory says that the whole coma of a comet is an electrical discharge effect....

 

[Haig]

Your mainstream dogma struggles with this but NOT EU / PC theory

Martian Geology Continues to Baffle Scientists | Space News
Posted on September 1, 2014 by B Talbott

The official geological history of the planet Mars is a confused and murky tale filled with contradictions and shifting narratives. Astonishing scientific data obtained in the last decade has only deepened the storyteller's confusion. At the recent 8th International Conference on Mars, leading scientists discussed the possible solutions to the puzzles. The recent journal Nature outlined some of the problems facing Mars investigators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc7irUHPIvA&list=UUvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA

 

[Haig]

Mainstream still playing catch up

Astronomy: Planets in chaos

The discovery of thousands of star systems wildly different from our own has demolished ideas about how planets form. Astronomers are searching for a whole new theory.

http://www.nature.com/news/astronomy-planets-in-chaos-1.15480

the Electric Universe view …

Astronomers Have No Idea How Planets Form | Space News .

According to a paper in the journal Nature, astronomers are now looking for a whole new theory to explain how planets form. The standard model of planet formation says that planets and stars form gravitationally in a contracting disk of gas and dust called the core accretion theory. Since astronomers believe that this model explains our solar system, they expected that exo-planet systems would play by the same rules. However, they have now observed countless baffling systems that cannot be explained by conventional reasoning. Wal Thornhill explains the Electric Universe thoughts on planetary formation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YypyHEgEYzw

 

[Haig]

Confirmed: Magnetic Waves Cannot Accelerate Solar Wind | Space News

A new scientific study has further deepened one of the longstanding mysteries of solar physics. For decades scientists have struggled to explain why the solar wind accelerates as it moves away from the Sun in defiance of gravity. In more recent years, theorists have suggested that so-called transverse magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves could explain both the problems of solar wind acceleration and anomalous coronal heating. However, for the first time researchers using the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) have directly measured the transverse wave motions in solar-polar plumes. They have found that the energies of the so-called magnetic waves fall four to ten times below the minimum requirement to explain the acceleration of the solar wind. Dr. Michael Clarage weighs in on this discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qcVlEGc6n4

 

[Haig]

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Sun on Trial | EU2014

Published on 30 May 2014
For nearly 150 years despite the lack of observational evidence, the Sun has been considered to be a ball of gaseous material. Such a postulate rests on mathematical arguments. Nonetheless, observations, not mathematics, properly determine the phases of matter. In this light, a systematic review of 40 solar findings provides ample proof that the Sun is comprised of condensed matter In this presentation, the phase of the Sun will be discussed by contrasting the gas-based Standard Solar Model (SSM) with the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM). Unlike the SSM, the LMHSM does not permit the Sun to radiate internally. This is the third of three talks the Dr. Robitaille presented at EU2014.

Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TOKo7Ik9f8&list=UUvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA

 

[Sol88]

Just saying Belz... I didn't need math to understand the concept.

 

[Haig]

Vast ISM electric currents by gas motions, says NASA ! http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15089

A new NASA video states Planck team member Katia Ferrier, says: "The motions of interstellar gas, which is an electrical conductor, generates electric currents, which in turn, generate magnetic fields."
"Similar currents move through the molten core of earth, and in the sun's interior, except this is on a vastly larger scale."

This is all good, and shows that the Electric Universe is exactly on course

In the video, Ferriere is quoted as saying, "the main motion of interstellar gas in the milky way is rotation about the galactic center. This rotation not only generates the magnetic field, but also stretches it into a circular direction《Birkeland current》 wrapping magnetic field lines around the galactic core."

http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/interstellar-gas-motions-generates.html

http://m.space.com/26036-milky-way-s-magnetic-fingerprint-mapped-by-probe-video.html

 

[Haig]

Earth’s Lightning Ramps Up With The Solar Wind: Study

As the northern hemisphere enters the hazy days of summer, thunderstorms will freckle many of our nights and days. What causes these sudden bursts of light that flash through the sky? Previous research showed that one cause is cosmic rays from space, generated by supernovas. But a new paper shows that something much closer and powerful is also responsible: solar wind from our own Sun.

http://www.universetoday.com/111886/earths-lightning-ramps-up-with-the-solar-wind-study/

Good news for the EU/PC view as the Thunderbolts video explains …
A Shocker: Solar Wind Provokes Lightning on Earth | Space News

Published on 30 May 2014
Scientists in the United Kingdom have reported findings that could change our understanding of lightning. Researchers have discovered a link between charged particles on the Sun and increased lightning on Earth. Wal Thornhill explains why this is not a surprise to the Electric Universe community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67wOTlKmeoA