EU Theory and Plasma Cosmology

[CalliArcale]

Let's try to keep the hypothetical attacks on the motivations of other people out of the dicussion, okay? It's really getting tiresome to see a perfectly good thread diverting into a bunch of people attacking what they suppose are the motivations of people who question them. I mean, is there really so little to be said on the actual topic? I think MichaelMozina has done a darned good job of demonstrating that there's a lot of actual substance to be said on this topic. You would do well to pay attention. He's not being ignored, but you generally are. That alone demonstrates that you're not being ignored because of your views. It's because you're not saying much of substance about those view, instead being dismissive of what you suppose the opposition thinks. (Ironically, you're typically wrong about the opposition, so you're not even contradicting them. You're just insulting them.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It strongly admits electricity and plasma belong to the topic and study of cosmology but then laments that the old model is too popular to give way any time soon, pity that people are content to know a lot about what isn't so and not too interested in knowing what is so.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, colesakick, but you seem to persistently imply that the "standard model" believes there is no such thing as plasma or electromagnetism in outer space. You then attack the standard model largely for this obvious deficiency. Yet the deficiency does not exist. Mainstream scientists are quite content with there being plasma in outer space. In fact, they study it intensively. It's existence neither proves the EU nor disproves gravitation or anything else for that matter. You are at once greatly misconstruing mainstream science and ascribing far too much significance to the existence of plasma.<br /><br />I also confess to some discomfort with your use of the term "standard model" and MichaelMozina's use of the term "gas model". I am uncomfortable because it's not clear what is meant by the terms. You both speak as if there is a monolithic standard model, and as if this model does not admit to the presence of plasma in the universe. Neither is true, so your use of the term frankly is starting to look like a strawman. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Michael is credible in this field.<br /><br />Papers co-authored by him at ArVix<br /><br />We can disagree and debate the topic with him (I have found this intellectually enjoyable, myself - wish I had more time to do so), but his abilities and credentials appear to be quite solid.<br /><br />(I get around, Michael) <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>

 

[siriusmre]

Atta way to "ignore" me, Calli; reply directly to my post. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />"Methinks he doth protest too much." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[iamjman]

Yup. From the Space.com Double Helix article "The recipe for a DNA nebula is strict but simple. It requires a strong magnetic field, a rotating body, and a nebulous cloud of material positioned just right. "<br /><br />And what generates these magnetic fields? Magic? They're supposed to be left over from the Big Bang? Ridiculous. Astronomers viewing the Universe with their high-powered telescopes are always encountering the effects of magnetic fields, and electric currents sustain them.<br /><br />"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."<br /><br />So are we at still at the first step or have we made it to the second?

 

[CalliArcale]

Or do the magnetic fields sustain electric currents? It can go both ways, remember. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> EDIT: And it often does. This is part of what makes the Sun so interesting.<br /><br />Nobody (at least as far as I know) suggests the magnetic fields are remnants of the Big Bang, or are produced by magic. Most likely, they are generated by conductive materials moving near one another. (I have a hard time believing such large fields could be generated by ferromagnetism; electromagnetism seems more plausible and more in keeping with actual observations by mainstream scientist.)<br /><br />Believe it or not, mainstream scientists do not deny the existence of plasma, or magnetic fields, or the relationship between the two. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[iamjman]

Indeed. And wherever we look in space, we observe the effects of these fields that are most likely generated by electromagnetics. Is it so hard to believe then that these same forces can influence the motions of planets and stars? That the reason why we've observed some stars to be accelerating away from us is because of this energy?

 

[CalliArcale]

The main thing holding most scientists back from that conclusion (that electromagnetic fields are predominantely responsible for the motion of planets and stars) is twofold:<br /><br />1) Gravity and Newton's Laws do such a good job of explaining motion already<br /><br />and<br /><br />2) Nobody's observed an electric current or magnetic field in the act of moving celestial bodies around like this, despite looking for them.<br /><br />Now, absence of proof is not proof of absence. However, if somebody finds an electric current definitely powering the Sun's tremendous energy output, or definitely pushing stars away from Earth, or something like that, that would revolutionize things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

The solar wind contains free electrons and free protons.<br /><br />Any strongly (or weakly for that matter) charged object in space will rapidly have it's charge neutralized (absent a power source to maintain the charge imbalance).<br /><br />Maybe there are extension cords connecting all the celestial objects to God's transformer plugged into a wall outlet somewhere . . .<br /><br /><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>

 

[colesakick]

The role of Aether perhaps, but I won't go there as the topic is most distasteful to most here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[yevaud]

Actually, that's not true. Invading threads so as to postulate theories not related to the thread topic is not permitted. Nor would not actually directly debating a topic, but instead utilizing continual cut-and-pastes as one's responses, unless used as illustrations or referential material. <br /><br />If you wish to <i>debate</i> this, please feel free. <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>

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The main thing holding most scientists back from that conclusion (that electromagnetic fields are predominantely responsible for the motion of planets and stars) is twofold:<br /><br />1) Gravity and Newton's Laws do such a good job of explaining motion already<br /><br />and<br /><br />2) Nobody's observed an electric current or magnetic field in the act of moving celestial bodies around like this, despite looking for them.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />What if gravity itself is shown to be an electromagnetic effect? Of course, by that time, the entire paradigm may have shifted, but if gravity is a low-grade electrical effect, then we already have all the proof we need.<br /><br />Also, to get a sense of the literally astronomical "electric current...powering the Sun's tremendous energy output" we would need to send a probe to the heliopause to measure the voltage gradient between the Sun's "magnetoshpere" and the larger galactic medium. I am confident that if we do that, we will get results that very well might "revolutionize things."<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Maybe there are extension cords connecting all the celestial objects to God's transformer plugged into a wall outlet somewhere . . .<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />In your frivolity, you might be more right than you know. In the EU view, those "extension cords" are called Birkeland currents and clearly, there is something supplying electrical power to the universe via them. What that something is and how it got there is akin to asking what caused the "Big Bang." No one really knows the answer to either question; all we can tell so far is that it just is. I do not think, though, that the idea of "cosmic extension cords" is that far off at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I also confess to some discomfort with your use of the term "standard model" and MichaelMozina's use of the term "gas model". I am uncomfortable because it's not clear what is meant by the terms. You both speak as if there is a monolithic standard model, and as if this model does not admit to the presence of plasma in the universe. Neither is true, so your use of the term frankly is starting to look like a strawman.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think you have made some very good points in this thread Calli. There certainly is at least *some* acceptance of EU theory in "standard cosmology" today. It would be a strawman IMO as well to consider EU theory as separate from "standard cosmology" at this point in time.<br /><br />I guess where I personally believe that "standard cosmology" tends to be missing the boat is in some of the "details" that could be easily explained by EU theory. For instance, this link shows how EU theory can be used to explain the rotation patterns of the plasma in the photosphere, and it explains why the equatorial plasmas can "spin faster" than the polar regions using only external (to this solar system) Birkeland Currents.<br /><br />http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051114currents.htm<br /><br />While standard cosmology is embracing EU concepts, it can at times seem like progress occurs at a snails pace, at least when viewing things from this side of the aisle. I think that is why EU proponents tend to get "antsy" after awhile. As others have already pointed out, gravity itself may simply be an electromagnetic effect in the final analysis.<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm<br /><br />As you point out Calli, EU theory is certainly a "part" of "standard cosmo <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>

 

[michaelmozina]

Michael is credible in this field.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Papers co-authored by him at ArVix<br /><br />We can disagree and debate the topic with him (I have found this intellectually enjoyable, myself - wish I had more time to do so), but his abilities and credentials appear to be quite solid.<br /><br />(I get around, Michael)<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Thanks. <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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Actually, that's not true. Invading threads so as to postulate theories not related to the thread topic is not permitted. Nor would not actually directly debating a topic, but instead utilizing continual cut-and-pastes as one's responses, unless used as illustrations or referential material.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />An electromagnetic "aether" of sorts (current flows) would in fact have to be an integral part of EU theory IMO. I personally don't think that would necessarily be an "invasion" of the thread per se. I suppose it would depend on how it fits into the conversation at the time. <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]

Not quite what I'd meant, actually. We've had people here who are so all-fired up about a particular idea, that they invade all manners of threads, and attempt to hijack the thread to convert it into "theirs." Not permitted here. <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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Not quite what I'd meant, actually. We've had people here who are so all-fired up about a particular idea, that they invade all manners of threads, and attempt to hijack the thread to convert it into "theirs." Not permitted here.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Oh drat! I was just about to hijack the first 9 or 10 threads. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />I was just trying to point out that electromagnetic aether should not be a "taboo" subject as it relates to EU theory. <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]

As you noticed, I told Colesakick, "go ahead." No problem. However - no names - there have been all-too frequent cut-and-paste responses in the past, and that has ended here. It is not truly debating a topic, and will not be allowed. That too is part of our "rules of engagement," if you will. <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>

 

[siriusmre]

Thank you, Michael, for bringing the <i>gravitas</i> (<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) and credibility to these ideas that they so richly deserve. I truly appreciate your contributions. Perhaps the force of your obvious expertise will cause some of the "standard model" adherents here to at least reconsider these concepts.<br /><br />We can hope. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I was just trying to point out that electromagnetic aether should not be a "taboo" subject as it relates to EU theory.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The big sticking point there is probably the Michaelson-Morlay experiment. No one has yet detected the ether, despite very sophisticated attempts to do so. Either it is something completely different from what anybody has yet theorized, or it's not there. Most scientists tend to lean towards the latter thanks to the philosophy of Occam's Razor, but that's not to say they wouldn't reconsider if someone managed to detect the ether somehow.<br /><br />But as it relates to the EU, I agree -- by all means, go ahead and discuss it. I would be interested to hear what you have to say on the subject. I admit I'm not as well educated in physics as many of the other members here, but I am an interested nerd. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[colesakick]

Yevaud,<br />Just to understand your comment and not be a "pain" to anyone, are you saying my cut and pastes from the Journals Nature and Science (my most used sources) are a nuisance, or just the quotes from EU sources? Is it the act of citing sources via cut and paste that bugs you or just citing literature on a tabu topic that is irksome to you? I don’t know how to respond to your objection in this thread until I understand what it is that you find objectionable. Also, you seem to intimate that I am breaking a rule by citing sources via cut and past (with links to source), surely this is not a rule. What do you mean? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[yevaud]

No, and you're more than welcome to debate this topic.<br /><br />Remember, other members here are debating <i>you</i>, not the authors of any particular website.<br /><br />Constantly posting in toto what's stated at a website isn't debating a subject. Repetition is not a debate.<br /><br />That being said, pray continue. <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>

 

[colesakick]

I see.<br /><br />I have no expertise to offer with which to engage in a debate, only the desire to share what I find if it seems worthy (novel, challenging, fascinating, interesting, etc. . .). I am a consumer who reads volumes of science material as a hobby (I hold medical credentials, not science/physics credentials), some of which deliver substantial reason to reassess our assumptions about what forces are most responsible for the specific observations and measurements (anomalies especially) we make of the universe. When it seem appropriate, I enter a pasted (not an article in its entirety, though the length of some posts would suggest otherwise) article caption in order to support or challenge those qualified to engaged in such debates (like the oxygen isotope paper, which lent M.M some very interesting support).<br /><br />I have reason to believe that we have two equally feasible models on our hands with regard to what makes stars, planets and galaxies tick. Those accustomed to the popular model (gravity centered model) see no reason to challenge it since it does such a nice job of explaining what we see. My issue with this model is that we have no specific confirmation that the theory really does play out as suspected (ever see a so called accretion disk generate a planet or measure a single glob and record its growth over time to even suggest that it might grow into a planet? No, because it supposedly takes so long one cannot observe such a thing). <br /><br />On the other hand, an equally plausible model suggests that stars result from suddenly (explosively) pinched off electromagnetic materials from an intense plasma energy flow, which then cools and mass separates into globes of various sizes (to become new electrical nodes on the circuit). If this is so, then it should be rather easy to spot such action, and indeed, such action has been noted many times (sudden, unexplainable (in terms of the standard idea of star behavior) flare ups of stars followed by an o <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am a consumer who reads volumes of science material as a hobby (I hold medical credentials, not science/physics credentials)<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Don't let that worry you too much. Most of us are in the same boat. Me, I'm a software engineer. I'm not even studying physics seriously. Like you, I'm a layperson.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean we can't contribute. What you cut-and-paste clearly had some significance for you or you would not have reposted it. It's perfectly acceptable to put that into your own words. In fact, it's preferred, because that way we don't have to guess at what your opinion of the text was. It's also quicker; many people find it tedious to read very long posts, especially when they're trying to rush and read as many threads as possible in the short time they have available. (I have to constantly remind myself of that when posting; I have a bad habit of verbosity.)<br /><br />It's also generally considered poor form to repost entire articles, although a lot of people do it. It's somewhat rude to the original author, because you're denying them traffic. Probably the best strategy is to post concisely what you think on a subject and provide links to supporting material. Be advised that not everyone will read the supporting material, but at least that way you're making it available to those with the time to read it properly, and not annoying those in a hurry. It's a good compromise, and even benefits the author of the material. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

^ What She said ^<br /><br />Key phrase: <i>supporting material</i>. That is to say, material in <i>support</i> of <i>your</i> debate.<br /><br />Remember, none of us are the authors of those opinions or findings, and those people aren't here to respond to us. So a member here should be defending an idea directly, not saying "this person or persons say it is right, period," as that person or persons aren't here to engage in debate. But we are. So the proposed idea, theory, or fact is referential only. The actual content of the argument is up to us.<br /><br />I suppose in a simple sentence, this would be:<br /><br />I believe this is correct: <link /><br /><br />As opposed to<br /><br />I believe this correct: <link /> <i>because...</i><br /><br />(I think that made sense. Tell me if it didn't, please.) <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>