Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p>After reading Arxiv.org for several years, and after participating on these astronomy oriented websites for the past few years, I've noticed a repeating pattern.&nbsp; Fortunately that pattern is not universal, and it does not apply to this particular message board IMO.&nbsp; I am therefore curious if the moderators (and everyone else for that matter) have noticed a similar problem in astronomy as a whole?</p><p>The only nearly "forbidden" topic of astronomy turns out not to be it's spiritual implications, but rather it seems that the only truly forbidden topic of astronomy is "electricity".&nbsp; That pattern is certainly true in the publishing realm, where ideas like "black holes" (which Einstein did not believe existed) and "magnetic reconnection" (which Alfven blatently claimed was false) are published nearly every week.&nbsp; What is not published often if ever is anything related to electrical interactions between bodies in space.</p><p>&nbsp;Where this glaring issue stick out like a sore thumb is the million degree corona.&nbsp; It's perfectly acceptable to discuss concepts like magnetic reconnection, even though Alfven himself claimed this was an electrical interaction, not a "magnetic' one.&nbsp;&nbsp; The "simplist" way to create million degree plasma is to run current through it.&nbsp; Los Alamos has recorded temperatures reaching into the "billions" (yes billions) of degrees Kelvin using this technique.&nbsp; Why then isn't anyone able to get an EM explanation published in the mainstream publications?</p><p>This pattern actually plays out at many of the astronomy oriented websites.&nbsp; Websites like BAUT actually apply completely different (highly oppressive) rules on anything related to the topic of electricty flow in plasma. &nbsp;</p><p>Why is the mainstream so reluctant to embrace "explanations" that are based on the flow of electrons through plasma, when plasma is known to the most effiencient state of matter for conducting electrical current?&nbsp; &nbsp; I don't get it.&nbsp; I do however see that there is a overwhemling bias against anything that mentions electrical energy as an energy source in astronomy related publications. &nbsp;&nbsp; That much is quite obvious. </p> <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>It's not forbidden, but when the EU supporters suggest there is no fusion in the sun, you are way out on a very long limb....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....The only nearly "forbidden" topic of astronomy turns out not to it's spiritual implications, but rather it seems that the only truly forbidden topic of astronomy is "electricity".&nbsp; ...</p><p>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Actually I think&nbsp;within astronomy that&nbsp;the 'exploded planet hypothesis&nbsp; (EPH)', the 'hollow planet hypothesis', Velikovsky-ism, and astrology&nbsp;are even more highly suppressed - and rightfully so.</p><p>Electrical phenomena does play significant roles in certain aspects of astronomy, such as the behavior of the sun's surface, solar ejection, and the behavior of thin plasmas observed near the moons in the Jovian and Saturnian systems.&nbsp; I think that this has had a lot of papers and press in the last decade.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[glaiven34]

<p>Yes!&nbsp; You are so very, very correct.&nbsp; Given the evidence and predictive value of considering electricity in space (hereafter referred to as the electric universe theory or EUT), it is AMAZING that mainstream science's response is "if there is electricity in space, it doesn't do anything."</p><p>Birkeland came up with most of plasma theory in the early part of the 20th century, and it striking thing about his research is the scalability.&nbsp; The plasmatic effects that occur in the little globe on my desk (thinkgeek USB plasma ball!) occur in 100% the same manner on a galactic or even universal scale, and provide answers to many of astronomy's "burning questions".</p><p>For example, black holes have never been directly observed, nor is it known what they are composed of why they eject long beams of energy and matter from their axes.&nbsp; According to the EUT, there are no black holes, but rather&nbsp;plasma rings that eject matter in much the same way as a solenoid or particle accelerator.&nbsp; This can be demonstrated in a lab very easily, unlike black holes.</p><p>How about all this "missing mass" in the galaxy?&nbsp; Current astromers explain it away by postulating "dark matter" and "dark energy" that only seem to exist so certain equations work out.&nbsp; If one assumes that there is electric current in space, there is also a magetic field, and that is what holds the galaxy together, not mysterious rings of magical matter.&nbsp; As far as I'm concered, "black holes", "dark matter", "dark energy" and "black magic" are all the same thing.</p><p>To go on- what's the deal with the Mars rovers?&nbsp; Why are they still running?&nbsp; What's powering them?&nbsp; If one sees the sun as being coupled to the galactic circuit, then electricity is flowing out of the sun and to the other planets (creating auroras and lightning on earth).&nbsp; This same electricity is conducted to the surface of Mars through the dusty (ionized) Martian atmosphere, and induces a current in the rovers' voltaic cells.</p><p>Check out the thunderbolts of the gods&nbsp;site for evidence from here&nbsp;to infinity and back regarding the EUT:&nbsp;http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000ff">The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.</font></font></span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:11pt"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000ff">-Terry Pratchett</font></span></strong></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not forbidden, but when the EU supporters suggest there is no fusion in the sun, you are way out on a very long limb.... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Well, I for one have already published a paper related to fusion processes in the solar atmosphere, so that doesn't really apply well to me.&nbsp;&nbsp; I do however believe that there is an obvious amount of current running through the plssma of the upper solar atmosphere, but I never see such things ever reach the light of the mainstream publishing channels. Why not?&nbsp; Why is it "ok" to discuss "magnetic reconnection" as an 'energy source" for million degree coronal loops, when Alfven himself chastized the whole concept of magnetic reconnection?&nbsp; How come that stuff gets published?</p><p>Most of the EU proponents I meet are under the impression that there may be both internal and external sources of energy going on in the solar process.&nbsp; The only thing that seems to be universal is that most of us believe that some of the energy we see flowing in the coronal loops is coming from an external source (heliosphere), whereas most "mainstreamers"&nbsp; seem to insist on trying to "explain" a million degree corona based on only internal energy sources.</p><p>The only thing I would point out here is that an external energy source makes more sense when you consider the fact that the plasma layers around the sun are cooler as you move toward the photosphere, and hotter as you move toward the heliosphere.&nbsp;</p><p>The obvious "give away" IMO that there is an electrical interaction going on is the x-rays we see coming from coronal loops. &nbsp;&nbsp; Never however is that part mentioned in mainstream publications.&nbsp; There is always a purely internal bais in everytihng published in mainstream publications, and there is a biased toward a "magnetic" solution rather than a solution based on an "electrical' solution. </p> <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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Electrical phenomena does play significant roles in certain aspects of astronomy, such as the behavior of the sun's surface, solar ejection, and the behavior of thin plasmas observed near the moons in the Jovian and Saturnian systems.&nbsp; I think that this has had a lot of papers and press in the last decade. <br /> Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>Hmm.&nbsp; I agree with you of course, but I don't recall anything pubished recently that attributed solar behaviors to electrical activity.&nbsp; Could you point me to some papers that I might have missed recently?&nbsp; I'm particularly interersted in anything published in the APJ or similar mainstream publiscations.&nbsp; I will admit that the IEEE is a major acception to this electrical bias I see in the other mainstream publications, but it tends to target a non astrnomy specific audience.&nbsp; </p> <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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes!&nbsp; You are so very, very correct.&nbsp; Given the evidence and predictive value of considering electricity in space (hereafter referred to as the electric universe theory or EUT), it is AMAZING that mainstream science's response is "if there is electricity in space, it doesn't do anything."Birkeland came up with most of plasma theory in the early part of the 20th century, and it striking thing about his research is the scalability.&nbsp; The plasmatic effects that occur in the little globe on my desk (thinkgeek USB plasma ball!) occur in 100% the same manner on a galactic or even universal scale, and provide answers to many of astronomy's "burning questions".</DIV></p><p>I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point, but I was thinking a little closer to home as it relates to an example.&nbsp; Birkeland created very impressive "coronal loops" in lab simulations using electrons.&nbsp; I've yet to seen any mainstreamer simulate a "magnetic reconnection" example that was even in the same league.&nbsp; Mind you, Birkeland did all this over 100 years ago, using parts that a readily accessible to us today.&nbsp; I'm much more intrigued by the fact that Birkeland created aurora and coronal loops in his experiments.&nbsp; IMO Birkeland was at least 100 years ahead of where the mainstream is today.&nbsp; He didn't just simulate his ideas in mathematical computer simulations, he made them work in real life, real conditions.&nbsp; You can program a computer to simpulate anything, from "magnetic reconnection" to "black holes".&nbsp; Building a working model of something however in the real world is a whole different kind of empirical science.&nbsp; I like Birkeland's approach to science.&nbsp; I wish more astronomers were like him. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <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>

 

[glaiven34]

<p>To muse on the title of this post, I instantly recalled Max Planck's quote that I read in Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions":</p><p>"a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." </p><p>Kuhn quote Planck in 1962, so things have changed even more since then.&nbsp; I fear this television and more so the "information age"&nbsp;firmly entrenches extant paradigms.&nbsp; We have all seen the Disney Movie "The Black Hole" or are familiar with Star Trek or Star Wars, and take them to be at least based on science fact with a few specific and known exceptions.&nbsp; If the EU were applied to any of those three works of fiction, it would paint a very different picture of the universe than has been conceived of recently.</p><p>Up until the advent of easy-to-get media, science&nbsp;was a purview for scientists only, and they were "initiated" into the secrets of the universe keeping in mind that it was all just theories.&nbsp; Well-supported theories, but theories nonetheless that could be overturned and required due diligence to uphold.&nbsp; This information age has colored many would-be scientists with current paradigms that they take as fact,&nbsp;not theory, from an early age.&nbsp; </p><p>If you believe something as you grow up, it's that much harder to convince you otherwise.&nbsp; While if you are told of a theory in your 20s, it's not as difficult to show you some contrary evidence that requires re-thinking of the theory.</p><p>I'm just grabbing at straws here, though.&nbsp; Why indeed is electricity the forbidden topic of astronomy?&nbsp; Because so many astromists would have their careers suddenly based on a disproved theory?&nbsp; It can't be that simple.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000ff">The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.</font></font></span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:11pt"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000ff">-Terry Pratchett</font></span></strong></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not forbidden,</DIV></p><p>I wanted to remind everyone here that IMO this particular forum is the rare exception in an othewise electrically hostile rule.&nbsp; It's certainly not a forbidden topic here, but it is a forbidden topic at other forums and certainly it's a forbidden topic in the mainstream publishing world because nothing related to Birkeland's or Alfven's work on EU theory is ever published in the mainstream channels.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's perfectly acceptable to publish a concept about "magnetic reconnection" as a heat source of million degree plasma even though Alfven himself chastized that idea during his lifetime.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is not however acceptable to suggest these million degree lops are electrical discharges inside plasma because I never see such things published by the APJ or any mainstream publication.&nbsp; The only publications where this topic is not "forbidden" are publications related to electrical energy like the IEEE and the Journal of Fusion Energy and publications that are not directly related to astronomy.</p><p>At some forums the entire topic of electron flow inside plasma and between physical objects in space is literally forbidden, to the point of virtual execution. </p><p>There is certainly a bias IMO against an electrical viewpoint of the universe.&nbsp; If that were not so, then Alfen's proponents in the mainstream would be heeding his advice and positing electrical solutions to these "reconnection" events. &nbsp; Instead they continue to peddle a cause that Alfven himself chastized during his lifetime.&nbsp; That is not unlike what they do with "black holes" since Einstein didn't believe they existed either.&nbsp; The pattern seems to be "latch on to the math and then ignore what the teacher just said."</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wanted to remind everyone here that IMO this particular forum is the rare exception in an othewise electrically hostile rule.&nbsp; Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />I'm glad you appreciate that. While I might vehemntly disagree with you (and rarely have the time to offer a proper debate) at least you are allowed to place your views here.</p><p>I enjoy the experience, just wish I had more time to get into the minutae.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Electrical phenomena does play significant roles in certain aspects of astronomy, such as the behavior of the sun's surface, solar ejection, and the behavior of thin plasmas observed near the moons in the Jovian and Saturnian systems.&nbsp; I think that this has had a lot of papers and press in the last decade. <br />Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>Electrical phenomena are also critical to understanding the solar wind, the behaviour of inteplanetary dusts, solar and planetary magnetospheres, the generation and behaviour of radiowaves, processes operating on planetary surfaces, especially airless ones, and in planetary atmospheres..</p><p>There is nothing forbidden about electricity in astronomy.&nbsp; </p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm glad you appreciate that. While I might vehemntly disagree with you (and rarely have the time to offer a proper debate) at least you are allowed to place your views here.I enjoy the experience, just wish I had more time to get into the minutae. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Believe me, I appreciate this place a great deal.&nbsp; You only need to experience a few bad astronomy forums to really appreciate a real science forum like this one.&nbsp; It's like a breath of fresh air around here, and actually I would say it is "typical" of the way of most science forums work.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I like the fact that you and I can disagree, yet we can still discuss the topic professionally, logically and intelligently.&nbsp; That's what science is supposed to be all about IMO.&nbsp; Unfortunately I don't see that same attitude thoughout the astronomy industry as a whole. &nbsp; The mere mention of electrical currents in plasma is grounds for a "heresy trial" at some astronomy forums.&nbsp; I'm not kidding, that' really the way it works at some forums.</p><p>I'm mostly concerned however about the publishing community, particularly the mainstream astronomy publications.&nbsp; I never see articles on the APJ that relate to elecrical currents between objects in space.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Electrical phenomena are also critical to understanding the solar wind, the behaviour of inteplanetary dusts, solar and planetary magnetospheres, the generation and behaviour of radiowaves, processes operating on planetary surfaces, especially airless ones, and in planetary atmospheres..There is nothing forbidden about electricity in astronomy.&nbsp; Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>I absolutely agree with everything you said until you got to the part about there being nothing forbidden in astronomy.&nbsp; When was the list time you saw an article in the APJ attributing the solar wind acceleration to the electrical charge separation between the photosphere and the heliosphere?</p><p>Those kinds of articles never seem to get published by the APJ or other mainstream publications, whereas there seems to be no end to the number of "magnetic reconnection" articles they will publish in spite of the fact that Alfven himself said that particlar idea was false.&nbsp; I tend to agree with you in a general sense Jon, but there does seem to be a publishing problem when it comes to any electrically oriented theory.&nbsp; "Magnetic" concepts seem to get published with almost no significant criticism, even when these ideas go against the teachings and beliefs of the guy that wrote the book on MHD theory. &nbsp; I just don't see a level playing field when it comes to the publishing world as it relates to electrical current. &nbsp; That is particularly odd since current flows and magnetic fields in light plasma go hand in hand. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <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>

 

[neilsox]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Electrical phenomena are also critical to understanding the solar wind, the behaviour of inteplanetary dusts, solar and planetary magnetospheres, the generation and behaviour of radiowaves, processes operating on planetary surfaces, especially airless ones, and in planetary atmospheres..There is nothing forbidden about electricity in astronomy.&nbsp; Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br />At&nbsp; www.www.bautform.com long very technical discussions of woo&nbsp;are allowed on automatic teller machine&nbsp;= ATM = against the mainstream forum. While our sun does send out gigawatts of ions in the solar wind, at earth distance the energy level is about a watt per square kilometer, enough to energize the northern lights and not much else. Some topics related to EU are likely good science, but others have little basis in reality. EU = EUH = electric universe hupothesis&nbsp;is one of hundreds (millions?)&nbsp;of topics that are mostly science fiction.&nbsp;EU is likely to get moved to phenomanon = The Unexplained&nbsp;here at space.com &nbsp; Neil

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Those kinds of articles never seem to get published by the APJ or other mainstream publications, whereas there seems to be no end to the number of "magnetic reconnection" articles they will publish in spite of the fact that Alfven himself said that particlar idea was false.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>It does not matter that 'Alfven himself' thought something.&nbsp; He is not infalable.&nbsp; You mentioned that Einstein did not beleive in black holes, well he was wrong.&nbsp; He was a genius who is one of the greatest minds in physics but he was wrong about that and quantum mechanics - so what.&nbsp; Alfven was wrong on some points, Birkeland was wrong on a lot of his ideas.</p><p>Here is an article about some recent discoveries that I am sure you have seen (and dismissed) about reconnection.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080206-tw-magnetic-reconnection.html</p><p>You have said 2 times already in this thread that Alfven thought reconnection is false - well he was wrong.&nbsp; Time to move on.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does not matter that 'Alfven himself' thought something.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Of course it matters what Alfven though of MHD theory, and aspects of MHD theory because he literally wrote the book on MHD theory, something he was recognized for with a Nobel prize.&nbsp; That makes him the "master" of his field.&nbsp; Any extraordinary claims related to MHD theory that go against his NOBEL Prize winning teachings will require extraordinary empirical support.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He is not infalable.</DIV></p><p>Of course not, but he was the world's leading authority on all topics related to MHD theory.&nbsp; Any sort of error he made should be empirically demonstrated in a lab where he verified the validity of his theories to begin with.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You mentioned that Einstein did not beleive in black holes, well he was wrong.</DIV></p><p>That remains to be seen.&nbsp; All you can do is claim that there is currently (maybe not forever) a consensus that he was wrong on this topic, yet scientists continue to redifine what a "black hole' might do, including "belches", jets, and phenomenon galore that they cannot otherwise explain without resorting to electricity.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He was a genius who is one of the greatest minds in physics but he was wrong about that and quantum mechanics - so what. </DIV></p><p>He just didn't believe that the universe was "random", and QM seemed rather random to him.&nbsp; It's not random however, it's controlled by the flow of energy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven was wrong on some points, Birkeland was wrong on a lot of his ideas.</DIV></p><p>Such as?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is an article about some recent discoveries that I am sure you have seen (and dismissed) about reconnection.&nbsp;&nbsp; http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080206-tw-magnetic-reconnection.html</DIV></p><p>I did not "dismiss" these claims, I simply asked you and everyone else to describe the physical energy release mechanism that is unique to "magnetic reconnenction".&nbsp; I ask this because the "easy" (Occums' razor) way to explain strong magnetic fields in light plasma is with strong Birkeland currents, and electrical currents "reconnect" all the time.&nbsp; I see nothing in this observation that describes what is physical unique about magnetic reconnection that is uniquley different from ordinary "electrical reconnection" in plasma? </p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have said 2 times already in this thread that Alfven thought reconnection is false - well he was wrong.&nbsp; Time to move on. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>It's time for your side of the aisle to show *emprical evidence* at the plasma physics level that "magnetic reconnection" is in any way unique to ordinary electrical interactions in plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; You can't just point to the sky and claim "magnetic reconnection did it".&nbsp; Where' the emprical support that magnetic reconnection is a physically unique form of energy release and is in any way different for ordinary electrical interactions in plasma? </p> <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>

 

[glaiven34]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At&nbsp; www.www.bautform.com long very technical discussions of woo&nbsp;are allowed on automatic teller machine&nbsp;= ATM = against the mainstream forum. While our sun does send out gigawatts of ions in the solar wind, at earth distance the energy level is about a watt per square kilometer, enough to energize the northern lights and not much else. Some topics related to EU are likely good science, but others have little basis in reality. EU = EUH = electric universe hupothesis&nbsp;is one of hundreds (millions?)&nbsp;of topics that are mostly science fiction.&nbsp;EU is likely to get moved to phenomanon = The Unexplained&nbsp;here at space.com &nbsp; Neil <br />Posted by neilsox</DIV><br /><br />I follow that bautform.com link you have above but it didn't seem to follow. Could you repost?</p><p>It is very true that there are only a few million amperes distributed over many kilometers in the upper atmosphere, the EUH postulates a change in that current over time.&nbsp; That current change is dependent on the interstellar medium, which we have only been watching for a hundred years or so.&nbsp; With more ions present, the solar system loses resistance and voltage and gains current and power.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000ff">The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.</font></font></span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:11pt"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000ff">-Terry Pratchett</font></span></strong></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At&nbsp; www.www.bautform.com long very technical discussions of woo&nbsp;are allowed on automatic teller machine&nbsp;= ATM = against the mainstream forum. While our sun does send out gigawatts of ions in the solar wind, at earth distance the energy level is about a watt per square kilometer, enough to energize the northern lights and not much else. Some topics related to EU are likely good science, but others have little basis in reality. EU = EUH = electric universe hupothesis&nbsp;is one of hundreds (millions?)&nbsp;of topics that are mostly science fiction.&nbsp;EU is likely to get moved to phenomanon = The Unexplained&nbsp;here at space.com &nbsp; Neil <br /> Posted by neilsox</DIV></p><p>IMO, BAUT is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with astronomy today.&nbsp; They impose a completely different set of rules to any theory that is not "standard dogma".&nbsp; Any EU theory is automatically treated in a completely different way than any other ordinary (unproven) hypothesis in astronomy.&nbsp; Why is that? </p> <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p>Most of the Electric Universe stuff is pretty far over my head, so I can't comment much on that.&nbsp; But to my relief, I did find something I *can* comment on.&nbsp; ;-)&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To go on- what's the deal with the Mars rovers?&nbsp; Why are they still running?&nbsp; What's powering them?&nbsp; If one sees the sun as being coupled to the galactic circuit, then electricity is flowing out of the sun and to the other planets (creating auroras and lightning on earth).&nbsp; This same electricity is conducted to the surface of Mars through the dusty (ionized) Martian atmosphere, and induces a current in the rovers' voltaic cells.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by glaiven34</DIV></p><p>You would be much better off finding another avenue for expressing confidence in the electric universe concept.&nbsp; What keeps the Mars rovers going is their photovoltaic cells.&nbsp; Sunlight is converted into electrical power.&nbsp; There's nothing at all mysterious about that.&nbsp; They are running much longer than the original mission, but that's actually not unusual -- engineers design their devices to last considerably longer than the original mission requirements so as to ensure that they actually make it through that primary mission and have the chance at an extended mission.&nbsp; It's just good engineering sense, really.&nbsp; Just look at the Voyagers, whose mission was extended, then extended again, and again, and again....</p><p>Now, there is the possibility that static electricity has helped them out.&nbsp; Static electricity is normally the bane of spacecraft engineers, because discharges can be so damaging to sensitive electronics.&nbsp; It also causes dust to adhere to things like solar panels, which reduces their output.&nbsp; Reduce the output enough, and you can't get enough charge to top up the batteries enough to last the night.&nbsp; (The rovers need constant electrical power to keep their heaters going.&nbsp; If the temperature drops long enough, the rovers will freeze to death.)</p><p>Dust deposition on the solar panels is therefore expected, and should be one of the limiting factors in their actual lifespan.&nbsp;&nbsp; Power output has indeed been dropping, and self-portraits from their cameras reveal that they are getting quite dusty.&nbsp; But once, power output actually improved dramatically, and pictures revealed that much of the dust was gone.&nbsp; What happened?</p><p>It seems that a dust devil (common on Mars) actually blew right over the rover.&nbsp; Did the dust devil's winds blow away the dust?&nbsp; Or did it have something to do with the dust devil's static electrical charge lifting away the dust, or at least changing the charge so that it no longer adhered to the rover?&nbsp; Dust devils are known to generate significant static electrical charges, so they're a real concern for future missions not only because of the high winds and the potential sandblasting risk but also because of the risk of static shock. </p><p>So static electricity may be involved, but it's not the sort of thing you were describing.&nbsp; There isn't a mysterious extra charge accumulating in the rovers' battery packs.&nbsp; The charge is consistent with the output of the photovoltaic panels.&nbsp;</p> <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]

<p>I just thought of another comment I could make.</p><p>If there is a dearth of published material about the electric universe idea, this does not mean that the idea is being actively suppressed.&nbsp; Nor does it necessarily mean that it lacks merit.&nbsp; In fact, the only thing that can confidently be said is that there isn't much material getting published on the subject.&nbsp; It is easy to make the erroneous conclusion that the electric universe is bogus (or perceived as such), but this is an instance of publication bias.&nbsp; Scientific opinion is usually best described by what is published, and this means that it will be biased in favor of whatever is most popular (i.e. the stuff more people like to write about).&nbsp; This is a more dangeorus problem in medicine, where negative studies are less likely to get published, potentially giving a false impression of safety and/or efficacy.</p><p>For whatever reason, fewer scientists are interested in publishing material on the electric universe.&nbsp; If you are a proponent of the electric universe, then, the course of action is clear.&nbsp; Become a scientist yourself and get published!&nbsp; ;-)&nbsp; The best solution for a lack of discussion on a topic is to bring the topic up yourself.&nbsp; One drawback is that you will also be limited by what various journals are interested in publishing.&nbsp; They have limited space, so if forced to choose between two equally deserving papers, they will pick the one that their editors find more interesting, which is really just a matter of opinion.&nbsp; And publication bias can itself influence their interests.</p> <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>

 

[glaiven34]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What keeps the Mars rovers going is their photovoltaic cells.&nbsp; Sunlight is converted into electrical power.&nbsp; There's nothing at all mysterious about that.&nbsp; There isn't a mysterious extra charge accumulating in the rovers' battery packs.&nbsp; The charge is consistent with the output of the photovoltaic panels.&nbsp; <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />(I just put the first and last part of your post above)</p><p>Doing some extra research, I found that the output&nbsp;of the rovers' photovoltaic cells never exceeds the charge that should be generated by solar power alone, so I was hasty with that conclusion above.</p><p>The atmospheric density on Mars is&nbsp;less than 1 kPa, compared to earth's 101.3 kPa.&nbsp; And even on earth, wind doesn't remove much accumulated dust from anything in desert regions.&nbsp; Electric fields are associated with dust devils or any rotating system of particles on earth or anywhere else.&nbsp; The dust devils on Mars are 10 times the size of similar terrestrial phenomena, suggesting an exponential increase in electrical activity.</p><p>Electrostatic cleaning is a commonly used in industry, it involves reversing the voltage that deposited the dust in the first place.&nbsp; The tops of the craters the rover has been traveling over are further from the ground and thus have a different voltage, so the passing dust devils lift the dust off of the panels electrically as opposed to mechanically.&nbsp; So I ammend my evidence for the EU here shouldn't be that the galactic circuit is charging the cells, but rather cleaning them.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000ff">The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.</font></font></span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:11pt"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000ff">-Terry Pratchett</font></span></strong></p> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

I don't think electricity is a forbidden topic in astronomy, it's just that it doesn't really play that big of a role in the universe at large. If it was important, people would talk about it alot. The conductivity is high enough in most astrophysical plasmas that any large-scale electric fields will be quickly removed, short-scale fields obviously do build up and they are implicitely accounted for when solving the ideal MHD equations. In some situations, to get more accurate results you do have to consider finite resistivity (indeed in magnetic reconnection the finite resistivity of the plasma and energy dissipating electric currents play a very important role - if the plasma were truly a perfect conductor there would be no reconnection). So I don't think it's true that people don't talk about electricity, they just don't talk about it in situations where it is irrelevant. One such situation is the orbit of two stars about each other. There is no good reason to suppose that this is due to an electrical interaction. These scenarios are very well described by gravitational interactions, the gravitational masses that can be inferred from the orbits and the radii of the stars that can also be observed agree very nicely (to ~1% for FGK dwarfs) with the predicted relation between mass and radius by stellar models that incorporate all the physics that we know about and that is relevant (large scale electric fields are irrelevant for these models since they would be very quickly cancelled out and there is no clearly thought out mechanism to generate them in the first place, short scale fields that are involved in particle interactions are implicitely accounted for in the equation of state, opacities and nuclear reaction rates). To higher order, magnetic fields (and accompanying short-scale electric fields) may play a role in determining the structure of a star, this may well be true especially for rapidly rotating M dwarfs, the error from not including these effects is ~10%.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>Let's look at this article point by point and note the strong bias in favor of a "magnetic" solution rather than an electrical one.</p><p><span><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Drake became interested in the topic when he looked at early fusion studies and realized how many theories at the time were "dead wrong" about magnetic reconnection. To learn more about the phenomenon, he had to look beyond Earth.</DIV></span></p><p><span>IMO he should have started in a lab and empirically demonstrated that it is a unique form of energy release from ordinary electrical&nbsp; interactions in plasma.</span><font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial"><p><span>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>New discoveries about magnetic field lines and the first-ever direct observation of their reconnection in space are offering hope that scientists will learn how to unlock fusion power as an energy source in the future.</DIV></span></p><p>The first paragraph is a gross oversimplification of the physical process in play.&nbsp; There are Birkeland currents inside plasma, and such currents create magnetic field lines that form tornado like structures in plasma.&nbsp; That's been verified in a lab and was described by Birkeland himself over 100 years ago.&nbsp;&nbsp; Copper wire will also conduct current like plasma and you find strong magnetic fields around copper wire when there is current flowing through the wire. The same is true of any conductor, including plasma.&nbsp; What is unique about plasma is that it is kinetically mobile, and foms flowing plasma filaments in plasma that we call Birkeland currents. </p> <p><span>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"The reconnection processes in the [Earth's] magnetosphere and in fusion devices are the same animal," said </span><span>James Drake</span><span>, a </span><span>University</span><span> of </span><span>Maryland</span><span> physicist.</DIV></span></p><p>Pure speculation. The one that they might all have in common is that all these processes typically involve the strong flow of electrical current.&nbsp; In that sense they are in fact all related.</p> <p><span>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Space contains magnetic fields that direct the flow of plasma, </DIV></span></p><p>Again, this is a pure assumption.&nbsp; The current flows inside the plasma direct the flow of plasma, and the charge separation between objects in space directs the flow of current inside the plasma.&nbsp; The current flows control the magnetic field lines too.&nbsp; Suggesting it's a one way process is a gross oversimplification.&nbsp;&nbsp; Plasma will indeed flow along magnetic field lines and form currents in the process, but there is no indication that this is anything other than an electrical phenomenon, particularly the "reconnection" part.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><span>an energetic fourth state of matter consisting of positive ions and electrons. The plasma particles normally follow the paths of the magnetic field lines like streams of cars following highways.[QUOTE}</span></p><p>Er, they flow in current streams too.&nbsp; How come nobody is mentioning the current flow aspect of plasma, particularly light plasma?</p> <p><span>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic reconnection can release that stored energy when two magnetic field lines bend towards each other and fuse to create new field lines. </DIV></span></p><p>&nbsp;<br /><span>This is the unproven, and assumed part of the claim of this article.&nbsp; No such thing takes place.&nbsp; Every electrical engineer knows that magnetic field lines always form a full continuum.&nbsp; They do not "make and break' connections like electrical circuits.&nbsp; This statement from the article is both false and misleading.&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></p><p><span>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The effect is not unlike an earthquake forcibly realigning parallel highways into perpendicular routes and channeling cars along the newly created paths.</DIV></span></p><p>Here is where it became misleading.&nbsp; The curent flows inside the Birkeland currents can "reconnect" with other Birkeland currents in plasma, but magnetic field lines always form a full continuum.</p><p><span>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Although some released plasma energy travels in a straight line &mdash; called a super-Alfvenic electron jet &mdash; other plasma particles fan out as though escaping the opening of a trumpet.</DIV></span></p><p>How clever to name it after Alfven since Alven rejected the idea outright.&nbsp; It makes it sound like he agreed with the idea or he came up with the idea himself when in reality he chastized and critized the whole concept of magnetic reconnection and called it pseudoscience.&nbsp; That's almost brilliant in terms of deception.&nbsp; As long as you're ignorant of history, it makes is sound positively "scientific" rather than pseudoscientific as Alfven claimed.</p> <p><span>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The effect not only fascinates astrophysicists but also frustrates efforts on Earth to create sustained energy sources through fusion. Experimental fusion reactors force atomic particles to fuse together and release energy as plasma. The plasma is contained within a "magnetic bottle," or a cage of magnetic field lines, so that the high plasma temperatures can maintain the fusion reaction.</DIV></span></p><p>The only sustained fusion process I've seen from the sun was "sustained' by sustained electrical currents. </p> <p><span>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, magnetic reconnection can break the magnetic bottle and allow plasma to reach the colder walls of the reactor where fusion will not sustain itself.</DIV></span></p><p>Plasma is liquid like in nature.&nbsp; Any sort of turbulance can "break the magnetic bottle".&nbsp; There is not necessity to evoke "magnetic reconnection" to explain turbulance in plasma.&nbsp; There seems to be an association game going on here. If we associate "magnetic reconnection" with enough high tech processes we don't fully understand, maybe it will sound legitimate?&nbsp; Maybe nobody will notice that Alfven thought the whole thing was baloney?</p> <p><span>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"I started realizing some of the best magnetic reconnection data is in space," Drake said.[/QUOTE}</span></p><p>Only because Drake and everyone else cannot empirically demonstate that it exists in real life experiments here on earth.&nbsp; Drake (and every else) cannot explain what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that can be empirically demonstrated to be unique from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma.</p> <p><span>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>During a sabbatical at the University of California-Berkeley, the theoretical physicist happened to work in the same office as </span><span>Tai Phan</span><span>, an observational physicist who was looking at magnetic field data from the European Space Agency's Cluster satellites.</span></p> <p><span>"I was doing theory, Tai was doing data and we suddenly saw this correspondence," Drake marveled. "It was purely accidental."</span></p> <p><span>The four Cluster satellites crossed through a turbulent plasma region just outside Earth's magnetic field in January 2003, when they happened to run into an area where magnetic reconnection had occurred. Physicists thought such areas, known as electron diffusion regions, were just over six miles long and so spacecraft would probably miss them in the vastness of space.</DIV></span></p><p>That "magnetic reconnection" he's talking about was called a "magnetic rope" by the cluster team.&nbsp; A magnetic rope according to Alfven is a Bennet pinch inside current carrying plasma.&nbsp; Again, this statement is false and misleading IMO and it ignores the role of the electrons that are flowing inside the plasma that create the strong magnetic fields. &nbsp; </p><p>IMO the verbage of this article says volumes.&nbsp; Since astronomers cannot physically define what is unique about "magnetic reconnection" and empirically demonstrate it is unique from electrical interacations in plasma here on earth, they point to the sky and claim that magnetism did it.&nbsp; That's not emprical science. &nbsp; That's not good science.&nbsp; That's science by proclamation in the absense of physical empirical evidence of the magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; They only way "magnetic reconnection" can ever be demonstrate is in a lab, like Alfven did with his work.&nbsp; This pointing to the sky and claiming it was done by "magnetic reconnection" is misleading and pure pseudoscience as Alfven suggested. </p> </font></font></font></font></p> <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>

 

[glaiven34]

<p>It may be obvious that I am not an astronomer, so&nbsp;could you enlighten me?&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think electricity is a forbidden topic in astronomy, it's just that it doesn't really play that big of a role in the universe at large. If it was important, people would talk about it alot. The conductivity is high enough in most astrophysical plasmas that any large-scale electric fields will be quickly removed, short-scale fields obviously do build up and they are implicitely accounted for when solving the ideal MHD equations.</DIV></p><p>Why would a high conductivity remove large-scale electric fields?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In some situations, to get more accurate results you do have to consider finite resistivity (indeed in magnetic reconnection the finite resistivity of the plasma and energy dissipating electric currents play a very important role - if the plasma were truly a perfect conductor there would be no reconnection). So I don't think it's true that people don't talk about electricity, they just don't talk about it in situations where it is irrelevant. One such situation is the orbit of two stars about each other. There is no good reason to suppose that this is due to an electrical interaction. These scenarios are very well described by gravitational interactions, the gravitational masses that can be inferred from the orbits and the radii of the stars that can also be observed agree very nicely (to ~1% for FGK dwarfs) with the predicted relation between mass and radius by stellar models that incorporate all the physics that we know about and that is relevant (large scale electric fields are irrelevant for these models since they would be very quickly cancelled out and there is no clearly thought out mechanism to generate them in the first place, short scale fields that are involved in particle interactions are implicitely accounted for in the equation of state, opacities and nuclear reaction rates). To higher order, magnetic fields (and accompanying short-scale electric fields) may play a role in determining the structure of a star, this may well be true especially for rapidly rotating M dwarfs, the error from not including these effects is ~10%. <br />Posted by doubletruncation</DIV></p><p>Brown dwarfs are certainly lie at one end of the extreme, the EUH doesn't seek to disprove gravitiational effects.&nbsp; How can there be magnetic fields dictating stellar structure without a corresponding electrical effect?&nbsp; More importantly, an electromagnetic field is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than a gravitic field- how can this "not play a big role in the universe at large"?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000ff">The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.</font></font></span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:11pt"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#0000ff">-Terry Pratchett</font></span></strong></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think electricity is a forbidden topic in astronomy, it's just that it doesn't really play that big of a role in the universe at large.</DIV></p><p>But how do we know that?&nbsp; We see x-rays from the sun and x-rays from electrical equipment here on earth too.&nbsp; How do you know that the x-rays from the sun are not completley controlled by electrical currents?&nbsp; What makes the solar wind accelerate away from the photosphere if not electrical currents?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it was important, people would talk about it alot. </DIV></p><p>Some people do.&nbsp;&nbsp; Popular beliefs are not always true by the way, nor are unpopular ones always false.&nbsp; Science tends to look for empirical evidence.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The conductivity is high enough in most astrophysical plasmas that any large-scale electric fields will be quickly removed, short-scale fields obviously do build up and they are implicitely accounted for when solving the ideal MHD equations. </DIV></p><p>The problem here as I see it is that you just "assumed" that the universe itself is not bathed in an EM field.&nbsp; From my vantage point that is your first mistake, just as you might say my assumption was my first mistake.&nbsp; I don't make such that assumption.&nbsp; I tend to believe that the cosmic wind is charged, and that charge flows through the physical structures of the universe.&nbsp; In other words, the phyiscal universe is simply a conductor of current.&nbsp; A lot depends on your opening premise.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In some situations, to get more accurate results you do have to consider finite resistivity (indeed in magnetic reconnection the finite resistivity of the plasma and energy dissipating electric currents play a very important role - if the plasma were truly a perfect conductor there would be no reconnection).</DIV></p><p>Sure, and because it's not a perfect conductor, plasma tends to heat up in the presense of strong current flows like we see in coronal loops. &nbsp; If it were a perfect conductor, we might have a problem explaining million degree coronal loops.&nbsp; Since it is a partial resistor, that's not a problem.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So I don't think it's true that people don't talk about electricity, they just don't talk about it in situations where it is irrelevant.</DIV></p><p>IMO, it's premature to "assume" it's irrelevant, particularly since astronomers can only explain about 4% of the universe without resorting to pure metaphysical entities, which are ultimately merely placeholder terms for human ignorance.&nbsp; For all we know electricity is the defining force of the universe.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One such situation is the orbit of two stars about each other. There is no good reason to suppose that this is due to an electrical interaction. These scenarios are very well described by gravitational interactions, the gravitational masses that can be inferred from the orbits and the radii of the stars that can also be observed agree very nicely (to ~1% for FGK dwarfs) with the predicted relation between mass and radius by stellar models that incorporate all the physics that we know about and that is relevant (large scale electric fields are irrelevant for these models since they would be very quickly cancelled out and there is no clearly thought out mechanism to generate them in the first place, short scale fields that are involved in particle interactions are implicitely accounted for in the equation of state, opacities and nuclear reaction rates). </DIV></p><p>EU theory does not exclude gravity from any possible interaction.&nbsp; It simply does not assume that gravity is either the dominant interaction in any given process, or the only interaction between the two physical bodies.&nbsp; In some cases gravity may be the dominant force.&nbsp; In other cases it may not be.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To higher order, magnetic fields (and accompanying short-scale electric fields) may play a role in determining the structure of a star, this may well be true especially for rapidly rotating M dwarfs, the error from not including these effects is ~10%. <br /> Posted by doubletruncation</DIV></p><p>The basic problem as I see it begins with the opening premise.&nbsp; If you assume there is no current flowing through the universe, your rational probably makes complete sense to you.&nbsp; If you don't begin with that premise, it's unlikely that you'll see the uinerse the same way ever again.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The key here IMO is emprical testing.&nbsp; If you can demonstrate for me physically that "magnetic reconnection" is an energy source of some kind, then I'll be happy to enterian all sorts of options about what it might do in space.&nbsp; If that part cannot be done in a lab as Birkeland did with his experiments and Alfven did with his plasma physics experiments, then I tend to believe it cannot do anything in space either. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <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>