Electricity in space

[nevyn]

Why do astronomers and cosmologists ignore electricity in space?<br /><br />We are always hearing about magnetism and yet no mention of the electric currents that are required for that magnetism to exist.<br /><br />They mention plasma and yet only treat it like a 'hot gas' when the very definition of a plasma is a gas that has separated its charges. And this doesn't even come close to the real complexity of plasma.<br /><br />They talk about frozen and reconnecting magentic field lines when the fields lines don't even exist.<br /><br />They use magnetohydrodynamics over 30 years after the inventer of that theory told them to ignore it because it was wrong (which was done in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech).<br /><br />They talk about accelerating particles with 'bow shocks' and other nonsense when we know that the best way to accelerate a particle is with an electric field. When have you ever heard of a particle accelerator using explosions to accelerate particles?<br /><br />I just don't see why astronomers and cosmologists run away from such a powerful force.

 

[yevaud]

They do not ignore such things. This is simple untrue "spin" from Electric Universe types. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

There are frequent and glaring errors in virtually everything you just posted. Rather than indulge in the tedious process of (yet again) debunking what we've all ad-infinitum heard here before, please read this Nevyn.<br /><br />Link <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[nevyn]

It is not spin. Read the theories. They prefer to use gravity for everything because they don't understand anything else (and it can be disputed that they don't even understand gravity).<br /><br />I've never found an explanation why electricity is ignored. It is not even mentioned. It's almost like they think if they don't mention it, noone will notice it. But it is probably more like they don't even think about it because they don't know anything about it. Not at the level required anyway.<br /><br />I think there is enough evidence now that it can not be ignored. I think it is time that astronomers and cosmologists took at least basic electrical concepts into their courses. Although this is no where near enough.<br /><br />Science is often saying that a theories predictive ability is the true measure of a theory. Well, every statement coming out of NASA lately is a suprise to them and their models. And yet most of it has been predicted by electrical models, before the event. Not some explanation dreamed up months later.<br /><br />I have faith that science will find its way back to reality eventually, I just can't understand what is holding them back. Why they persist with out dated theories that are clearly wrong.<br /><br />But I have a feeling it is because of the way the media portrays science these days. It has become the new God, the new religion, the giver of truths. People believe in science like it only ever produces truth. Just listen to your TV for 1/2 hour and note all of the advertising that uses the word science just to make them sound factual or how many times you see someone in a lab coat.<br /><br />So while I think most scientists are good natured people trying to find solutions to whatever problems they are working on. I think they need to take a close look at the public persona that science has taken on. They need to let the general public know that they can be wrong. That science is not their perfect saviour because by the time the people figure that out

 

[yevaud]

This issue has been debated to death here. Please discontinue, or I will be moving this thread immediately to Phenomena - where it would surely belong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bobw]

You say scientists found plasma, named it plasma, but ignore the fact that plasma is ionized? Why didn't they just call it gas then? Sounds fishy to me. To Phenomena with thee! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nevyn]

Interesting article. But I fail to see the relevance since I am talking about something that has evidence and successful predictions. Not some dreamed up idea. Whereas you are defending something that has no evidence. Should I have read that article, or you?<br /><br />And either way I am asking for answers. You say there are holes in my statements, then please point them out and give reasonable explanations, that is what I asked for. I am always willing to listen and I am also willing to be proved wrong.<br /><br />As far as moving this to Phenomena, what does this have to do with phenomena? I am asking about astronomy, is this not the astronomy thread?

 

[nevyn]

"You say scientists found plasma, named it plasma, but ignore the fact that plasma is ionized? Why didn't they just call it gas then? Sounds fishy to me."<br /><br />I am saying astronomers see it as a 'hot gas', not all scientists.

 

[yevaud]

The relevance is that this topic has been flogged to death here, and has not proven itself. The link to the article is demonstrative of the dangers of following uninformed false dichotomies, that state "facts" that are not in fact true at all.<br /><br />I am not condemning you, per se. But this particular "Electric Universe" nonsense uses non-facts, skewed facts, and misrepresentations as it's fuel.<br /><br />Example:<br /><br /><i>when we know that the best way to accelerate a particle is with an electric field.</i><br /><br />That would be thoroughly incorrect.<br /><br />Or:<br /><br /><i>We are always hearing about magnetism and yet no mention of the electric currents that are required for that magnetism to exist.</i><br /><br />We? Anyone with any Physics knowledge understands these are the same force. "No discussion?" That's a complete falsehood.<br /><br /><i>They talk about frozen and reconnecting magentic field lines when the fields lines don't even exist.</i><br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br />So. If you wish to ask the well-informed users who frequent this forum the actual facts and then discuss them, then all well and good. However, if the discussion continues along the lines of the false beliefs that underly "Electric Universe", then this thread is Phenomena bound.<br /><br />Please state a postulate and request feedback and we'll see. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bobw]

<font color="yellow">I am saying astronomers see it as a 'hot gas', not all scientists.</font><br /><br />Which astronomers? Temperature might be the most important thing if the object of the study is to determine the temperature. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nevyn]

This is what I am trying to get at. The facts behind it all. Cut through the crap to see what still stands. It is not an easy task. If any of this is covered in another thread then please point me in the right direction. I haven't seen anything more than small references though otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question.<br /><br />Is there a better way to accelerate particles? Please explain. Links are fine.<br /><br />I don't think it is fair to say that magnetism and electricity are the same force therefore one implies the other in this context. Even though this is strictly correct, you can't just say there is a magnetic field and let it be at that. A theory must show why there is a magnetic field, or the electric currents needed to generate that field. And if there are currents, then why. Where do they come from and where do they go. Just saying there is a magnetic field does not cover any of this. That is what I was trying to say.<br /><br />For the next statement, I am not sure which part you are saying is wrong. Is it the part about frozen and reconnecting magnetic field lines or that those field lines don't exist?<br /><br />Now I know the first part is true because I have read about them myself. As for the second part, well, even the term 'field line' is a contradiction of terms. A field is pervasive, it fills a 3D area, where as a 'field line' is something drawn to show that a field exists in a certain space. How can the field line exist in reality? How can it freeze or reconnect?<br /><br />I think it is very contradictory to say that I must present 'actual facts' when most things on this site are not facts, but things that come out of theory. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy, the big bang in general, even the aether. Why are these things ok to discuss but not what I have asked? I accept that you might not agree with these ideas but that does not make it nonsense, it doesn't make it a phenomenon, it doesn't make it the wrong place to write about it.<br /><br></br>

 

[nevyn]

Well if you were looking for temperature in a plasma then you have a problem because a plasma can and will move its constituents so that things become grouped by their properties such as charge, temperature, etc.<br /><br />But what I was getting at is to do with X-rays from galaxies. As soon as astronomers see them, they talk about how hot a gas must be in order to generate them. Not realising that a plasma can generate X-rays quite easily, without the need for extreme temperatures.<br /><br />And by they, I usually mean NASA but not limited to them.

 

[bobw]

No particular astronomer or study then, just "them"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What I would like to see is 2 lists:<br />1) a list of known facts. Actual facts, not interpreted observations or dribble from some theory.<br />2) a list of assumptions that current theories are based on.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />these two 'lists' are what anybody who wants to come up with anything new has to do for himself (at least in the particular area that he is working on) and once he has done that he is halfway to success<br /><br />it follows then that nobody who could complete such lists in any area of science would share them because that would amount giving away the hard work that leads to new discoveries if it was done right<br /><br />second and even more serious objection to your idea is that such lists (supposing they were correct) would be nigh useless to anybody except the one who made them because he would be the only one who could 'know' that they are true, for everybody else who didn't do the required work those lists would be just assertions that he couldn't know if they are true or not - unless he did almost the same work in the first place that the original man did to make those lists<br /><br />you see, you could never have any agreement on such lists in the first place no matter who made them, if the man was famous enough then many would believe those lists are correct only on his authority say so but the knowledge those lists would represent would be totally useless to these people who didn't do the work required to assemble those lists<br /><br />when I was a teenager I was pondering just this issue and I came to the conclusion then that even if there existed by some magic some list of ultimate truths about everything (supplied by some super advanced ET civilization), it would be totally useless to us simply because it would not be something worked out by us but by somebody else and so the knowledge imparted by that list of ultimate truths would be to us just a 'second hand knowledge', i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

You see, Nevyn, the problem is, we've all had repetitious ocurrances of EU here, going back years. While it may be fresh and new to some, it's very old territory for us.<br /><br />We're not even remotely antithetical to questions asked here; that's a primary reason uplink and these forums exist. However, EU (unless some new startling aspect of it has been discovered) has been hashed and re-hashed to death, and never managed to "prove" itself. No one here is going to yet again debunk it.<br /><br />A point to ponder: one must, in science, wonder when a postulate is stated, and it's chock-full of "they didn't understand" and "they ignored" and "they don't know." <br /><br />EU is exactly like that, as I tried to illustrate a few posts ago.<br /><br />So. As long as this discussion is scientific exploration and asking of important questions, it will be allowed to remain active in this forum. But should it descend into nothing more than the "they ignored" category, *Whht!* straight to Phenomena. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Enjoy the discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Explanations of our solar system using only gravity worked so well other forces don't seem to be necessary. Using only gravity we landed men on the moon, even collided with an asteroid by a space probe. All these and many deep space object movements are correctly predicted by only gravity. As long as astrophysicists can explain behaviors of deep space objects by only gravity, they'll stick to it, when it fails, dark matters will come to the rescue. I'm open minded to accept anything reasonable, but so far gravity seems to work well alone.<br /><br />I'll take EU seriously if they can prove extremely high current on the surface of the sun make it glow like a giant light bulb without outside galactic help. <br /><br />Electricity and magnetism are co-dependent, one generates the other, but so far their influences do not seem to affect motions of celestial objects, which surprises me also. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Good points, Yevaud.<br /><br />EU has been beat to literal frelling death here, and, if I may add, a new poster here will immediately squander any credibility they had when they signed up with SDC by traveling down that road again.<br /><br />This is a premier global science board and EU has been a curious topic here. Most theories can resemble chains, break one link and the theory fails. However, EU is somehow still trundled out as credible science despite virtually <i><b>every</b></i> single link in its' "chain" having been repeatedly broken, and usually, in ways that make the adherents look like compulsively credulous gullible fools. <br /><br />I would admonish our mod staff to pre-emptively (mercy) ban new posters coming here to advance EU crapola, in order to save them the embarassment of intellectually defecating in their clothing.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

Good point<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I think it is very contradictory to say that I must present 'actual facts' when most things on this site are not facts, but things that come out of theory. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy, the big bang in general, even the aether. Why are these things ok to discuss but not what I have asked? I accept that you might not agree with these ideas but that does not make it nonsense, it doesn't make it a phenomenon, it doesn't make it the wrong place to write about it. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Much about magnetism is misunderstood. We now that magnetic waves are put off by the movement of electron. Like a boat traveling through the surf. We don't know why these field lines occur the way they do. There's spin, but that is just an interpretaton and not a real answer. I have been happening to be looking for an explanation of magnetism for a while now, but every time I talk to somebody the conversation ends with I don't know. <br /><br />Can anyone explain how a magnetic field can travel through space without effecting anything or even what aether transports it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<font color="orange">Much about magnetism is misunderstood. We now that magnetic waves are put off by the movement of electron. Like a boat traveling through the surf. We don't know why these field lines occur the way they do. There's spin, but that is just an interpretaton and not a real answer. </font><br /><br />good point, if the proponents of that EU started solving such basic things about electromagnetism, maybe there wouldn't be any talk about EU then because they would realize that they don't know the first thing, to talk about big things like all encompasing theories one has to first know the basics (but they are not the kind to bother with basics)<br /><br /><font color="orange">I have been ... looking for an explanation of magnetism for a while now, but every time I talk to somebody the conversation ends with I don't know.<br /><br />Can anyone explain how a magnetic field can travel through space without effecting anything or even what aether transports it?</font><br /><br />stop pestering people <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> and figure it out, if you can't do that, wait till someody comes up with explanation (although you may die waiting as happened to many before you)<br /><br />serious replies that try to explain something typically end up with no serious or even no response at all while sci-fi like discussion carries on past the serious response in full blast so I will resist discussing magnetism<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

aether miconception .It does not exist.Michaelson Morley experiment killed it.

 

[alokmohan]

Electricty is problem.

 

[alkalin]

Alternate ideas cannot be discussed with the pretence that we need to know everything in order to discuss something? Otherwise it is fiction?<br /><br />To me it is weird that institutions accept the most outlandish notions just because some person worked out some outlandish math theory on it, but what do institutions do with other solid data information they cannot explain? They deny it exists.<br />

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why do astronomers and cosmologists ignore electricity in space?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IMO, that is not exactly a fair or accurate question. They (whoever "they" are) don't necessarily ignore Birkeland currents for instance, and some types of electrical activity are recognized by the mainstream community.<br /><br />IMO by and and large *most* (not all) fans of GR centric theories fail to recognize the electrical currents that flow *through* the universe and the role these currents play in the movements and formations we find in the universe. These currents generate all of the magnetic fields in the threads of matter that makeup the universe. <br /><br />That current flow also provides energy to every solar system. IMO it is that part of the equation is not often accepted or recognized by the mainstream community. Astronomers like Birkeland and Alfven and Bruce however did accept and acknowledge the role of electrical activity in cosmology *and* they all recognized that external (to the solar system) currents had a large effect on what occurs inside of our solar system. It is therefore not fair of you pigeonhole every single astronomer into the same category.<br /><br />I believe that it is the current flow *through* the universe and *through* the solar system, that is often overlooked by most mainstream astronomers today. <br /><br />I think you will find it is counterproductive in the long run to setup a "we vs. them" scenario. You might find it more productive to consider Birkeland Currents and other things that are already an accepted part of mainstream thinking and try working from a place of where we agree, and think in terms of what else we might agree upon next.<br /><br />FYI, in my experiences over the past couple of years, I would say that this astronomy oriented board in particular is far more "enlightened" and far more "open" to real scientific presentations of EM theory than most boards. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[yevaud]

This is neither of the above, Alkalin. This topic has been flagged to death, and this promised to be a rehash. However, Mr. Mozina, who returns after a long absence, can succintly and scientifically debate this subject well. It's an exception to the rule, so to speak. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I glanced through a few EU papers. When you say, 'currents flow through the universe', do you mean 'electrical currents' as we know it? Flow of charges? If that is the case, what is the strength of this currents in Ampere (A), mA, nA, or pA? Or even if measured as current density?<br /><br />Are they saying the origin of this currents are the charged cosmic particles traveling through space? Are there other origins? Then why do we have virtually no effects of these currents on anything on earth? Just curious. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>