Just looked through that stuff, it's all pretty pictures and lots of text and
nothing quantitative. The only equations show up in the appendix, and that only to give "vector algebra" and "the electomagnetic field equations" (and in the latter they don't seem to know the difference between [latex]\partial[/latex] and [latex]\delta[/latex]. So I stand by my case, there is NOTHING QUANTITATIVE about the electric universe.
Which should be surprising, though, because the EU/ES/EC god Hannes Alfvén was a great mathematician, and actually calculated stuff, but then the acolytes are always a weak infusion of the original. Now there is Don Scott's paper, of course in which he actually does math and stuff (Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos) but then he makes up all kinds of strawman arguments to discredit mainstream plasma(astro)physics, e.g. from the introduction: "
Many helioastronomers claim that magnetic fields can be open ended. Astrophysicists have claimed that galactic magnetic fields begin and end on molecular clouds. Most electrical engineers, physicists, and pioneers in the electromagnetic field theory disagree, i.e., magnetic fields have no beginning or end." which only shows that Don does not (want to) understand the nomenclature of mainstream plasma(astro)physics.
Or another example in the introduction: "
Many astrophysicists still claim that magnetic fields are “frozen into” electric plasma." Indeed they do, because in a lot of cases the
frozen in approximation is a very good tool to work with, BUT we are well aware that frozen in is not always valid which is clearly shown in a paper by my good friend Tony Lui:
Breakdown of the frozen-in condition in the Earth's magnetotail. So Don should have tried to understand what mainstream does, and naturally, publish the paper in a
appropriate journal, not IEEE.
or you could watch and comment on their video, it's published there too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo
I have the transcript of the video, and there is lots of handwaving there and nothing specific. comments like "when the comet is active you cannot determine the mass very well" (or something in that trend) is completely ridiculous.
Or can we please get a real model for this "
Here an arriving comet moves on an elliptical path through the Sun’s electric field. An exceedingly weak field but immensely powerful across the great distances of interplanetary space. As the comet draws closer to the sun the charge imbalance triggers electric discharge creating a coma and long cometary tail." If the field is so weak, and the solar wind is full of ions and electrons, why is there no gradual equilibration, and
if there are discharges, why did we not measure them with our instruments at comet Halley as seen in the
Laakso (1991) paper? Again, Alfvén would have no problems giving detailed calculations and even use observations, e.g. observations
shown in this Grard et al. (1989) paper.
Put some butter to the fish, as the Dutch say, otherwise you have butter on your head.
