Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[drwayne]

<p>*Calli's moderator hat on*&nbsp;</p><p>We do not encourage the discussion of other board's rules / postings etc. on this board.&nbsp; Please do not try to initiate&nbsp; a discussion of that sort.&nbsp; Thanks.</p><p>*Calli's moderator hat off</p><p>General thought...</p><p>I would like to provide a perspective that I have picked up from boards I am a regular reader of.&nbsp; This is a general observation - so don't think I am pointing fingers at anyone or anywhere&nbsp;in this thread.</p><p>Boards can develop an - allergy to certain topics which I will refer to as "excitement topics" in that new posters who arrive at the board have a good level of excitement about that topic.&nbsp; This can be a very good thing, but it can also be negative if new posters appear who:</p><p>(1) Start posting about the topic without looking around first to see if it has been discussed before their arrival.&nbsp; Having a new user who pops in and starts posting hyper-enthusiastically about a topic that has been run into the ground 3 times in the last six months (and who obviously never bothered to read anything on the forum before posting) is not always received well by the board.&nbsp; (Image of W.C. Fields famous line of "Get away kid, ya bother me" comes to mind).&nbsp; Is that fair?&nbsp; Probably not, but then again, not doing your homework before starting to post (or worse, starting to make pronouncements) is not a good way to influence strangers.</p><p>(2) Start making very strong statements about how the current state of affairs is completely wrong, and scientists have blindly followed dogma, or turned a blind eye, or some other fairly accusative statements.&nbsp; (We even get the occasional person who will insist that relativity is wrong in large part because&nbsp;Einstein was Jewish).&nbsp; The aggressive and argumentative from the get-go approach needlessly polarizes a situation in which dialogue and meaningful consideration of a position are the poster's best friends.</p><p>(3) (2) above is all too frequently coupled with a user whose study of an issue consists or reading a few popular books.&nbsp; They can make statements about the "existing" theory of something is wrong (and scientists have turned a blind eye to how wrong it is), but if you ask them simple details of the basis of the existing theory, they really don't know or understand.&nbsp; In general, if you are going to proclaim something wrong, it helps to understand what it is (and is not).</p><p>(4) Attempt to get a theory accepted by "arguing it into acceptance", and assuming that someone who disagrees is "the enemy".&nbsp; If one recognizes that a question that points to a problem with an idea, or an aspect that you have not considered yet is your friend, then you start moving in the direction of the truth a lot faster and more effectively.&nbsp; A scientist should always be thinking of things in terms of getting closer to the truth, not in "being proved right".</p><p>(5) Of course, there are those that think of a forum such as this as a journal, and that if something they predicted comes true at some point in the future (like their *really* are kilometers long worms of Mars), then they will get credit for coming up with the idea.&nbsp; (OK, including this one in the current discussion is a little off, but it is true, and has&nbsp;some humor).</p><p>(6) Finally, because I am out of lunch time, there are those for which every thread is an opportunity to discuss theory XYZ.&nbsp; If my dog is sick, "one can not escape the conclusion that this is a direct result of XYZ and the way science has turned a blind eye to it"</p><p>If a board gets&nbsp;an abundance&nbsp;of these sort of posters and posts appearing in a given topic, and "allergy" can develop.&nbsp; It can lead from anything to rude receptions which lead to arguments which lead to bannings, to special rules for topics.&nbsp; To new users this can seem, and may be unfair.&nbsp; To folks who have been through the flame wars, it can seem quite reasonable.&nbsp; From this soup, reality springs.&nbsp; </p><p>Allergies develop.&nbsp; Even if it's not your fault, and is not fair, they may be there - so try and avoid whining about it.&nbsp; It also helps if you are willing to engange is discussions in an open and logical fashion.&nbsp; If you don't know something, or if data suggests something is wrong, then stop and look at it.&nbsp; Listening can lead to positive engagement.&nbsp; If people are mean to you, rude to you, insulting to you - don't respond to it.&nbsp; Stay positive.&nbsp; Remember, the point of bringing your stuff to a forum like this should be to get constructive feedback that gets you closer to the turth,&nbsp; it really isn't a place to publish it, or advertize it.</p><p>Wayne</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why would a high conductivity remove large-scale electric fields? </DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Any large scale electric field would yield a rapid current separating the charge distribution and yielding an opposite electric field cancelling out the original one. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can there be magnetic fields dictating stellar structure without a corresponding electrical effect?</DIV></p><p>There will be associated electric fields when the magnetic fields change. I think part of the problem may be one of language. People talk about magnetic fields dragging material along and reconnecting and things without mentioning the electric fields, and to purist this seems like nonsense, however the effect of moving a magnetic field through a conducting plasma is that the material is moves in the direction that the field moves this happens due to electric fields. f the magnetic field moves through the plasma (due to moving the source of the field) this generates a current in the plasma that will oppose the changing magnetic field but also move the material along with the field. When the magnetic field stops moving the currents dissipate. Similarly if you move the plasma with a field threading through it the resulting emf will have the effect of dragging the magnetic field along with the plasma. The reason people focus on magnetic fields and don't mention the electric fields that do develop is that 1. you can have a large scale magnetic field without electric fields, and when the magnetic fields stop moving/changing the electric fields dissapate. 2. The magnetic field stores energy that can later be converted to some other form of energy (of course electric fields will involved in that transformation). and 3. you can observe magnetic fields remotely in astrophysical contexts via the zeeman effect. The models used to model astrophysical plasmas do account for the E-fields, but they aren't usually that interesting to focus on since they tend to have the effect of locally tying the plasma and B-fields together while the magnetic fields can form large scale coherent structures. The language people use to describe the phenomena tends to ignore the E-fields but that doesn't mean the E-fields aren't included in the numerical models used to predict what will happen. Now the magnetic fields don't really dictate the structure of M-dwarfs, though they may be important (at the ~10% level).&nbsp; We know that B-fields are strongly correlated with stellar rotation rate (stellar rotation rate and B-field strength are both things that can be measured in straightforward ways) and that the ~10% error appears for rapidly rotating M-dwarfs but not for slowly rotating ones (the error is larger than what you would get from including centrifugal/coriolis forces). Strong magnetic fields tend to suppress convection which changes the energy transport in the outer layers of the star and thus changes the equilibrium radius of the star, but numerical predictions for this are afaik not available... so it's a hypothesis. Note that with a fixed magnetic field and a perfectly conducting star material is inhibited from moving/rising due to emfs that develop as the material moves against the magnetic field .&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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"? </DIV></p><p>Because the unverse is exquisitely neutral over large volumes, so large-scale electric fields don't develop. But of course it's not right to say that EM doesn't play a role, it does primarily by providing microscopic interactions between particles. If there were no pressure or no interactions between light and matter (which are all the result of EM) the universe would be very different. Similarly the strong force dominates the EM force but because the quarks in the universe are finely balanced there aren't any free quarks left over and as a result the strong force is irrelavent for the large-scale motions/structure of the universe and indeed for any length-scale larger than a nucleus (the size of an atom would be "large-scale" for the strong force).&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just thought of another comment I could make.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; </DIV></p><p>I tended to mostly agree with your first two sentences, but definitely not the last one.&nbsp; The IEEE has published work related to EU theory. The Journal of Fusion Energy has published some of my material.&nbsp; I've seen some EU articles published in nuclear chemistry related publications.&nbsp; Alfven's work was published.&nbsp; Peratt's papers were published.&nbsp; Both of them had books that were published too.&nbsp; </p><p>The only thing we can agree to is that not much EU material is being published by astronomy related publications today.&nbsp; There in lies the rub.&nbsp;&nbsp; If it's "ok" to posit a hypothesis like "magnetic reconnection" over the objections of the author of MHD theory, then surely it should be "ok" ot publish work related to EU theory in mainstream publications since Alfven and Birkeland (and Peratt and a few others) literally wrote the book on EU theory and MDH theory.&nbsp; I find it odd that Alfven's work is used to promote magnetic reconnection theory after his death without emprical support, and in spite of his many objections.&nbsp; This magnetic reconnection theory is still routinely published in the APJ.&nbsp; Nothing is ever publsihed related to Alfven's EU theories, or current carrrying plasma theories.&nbsp; NEVER!&nbsp; That is not true of other publications like IEEE, but it is true of the APJ. &nbsp; The logical question then is: "Why?""</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.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; ;-) </DIV></p><p>Actually, I am a computer scientist by trade (software programmer) and I've been published in Journal of Fusion Energy among others. </p><p>http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1</p><p>Evidently being a published "scientist" isn't a guarantee of changing the popular opinion. &nbsp; I do however like the way you think.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. <br /> Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>I guess&nbsp; I'm ultimately interested in changing public opinion, and the internet makes that goal possible.&nbsp; In the publishing world however, there is certainly no such thing as a level playing field.&nbsp; It's fine to publish concepts in the APJ that go directly against the teachings of the author of MHD theory and the author of GR theory.&nbsp; It is not however acceptable to use Alfven's EU theories to promote any EU idea in the APJ.&nbsp; That's not fair.&nbsp; That's not scientific.&nbsp; It's pure unadulterated bigotry toward scientific theories by the mainstream publications.&nbsp; That will have to change. </p><p>I've become an EU proponent over the past three years based on satellite observations Ive made over the past 15 years.&nbsp; Some folks like Alfven and Birkeland have been propnents of EU theory for a whole lifetime, and they were far more credible "scientists" than I ever hope to be. &nbsp; About all I can do do is focus my attention on changing popular opinion as it relates to EU theory. &nbsp; In order to do that, I must point out that fact that the mainstream publications like the APJ are actively refusing to publish material related to EU theory.&nbsp; That is a fact. &nbsp; This systematic bias towards EU theory even plays itself out on message boards in cyberspace where EU theory discussions are literally "forbidden".&nbsp;&nbsp; There are a few good moderators out there like you the other moderators here Calli, but you are the rare exception in an otherwise dogmatically oppressive rule.&nbsp; I certainly don't take you for granted. </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'>&nbsp;Any large scale electric field would yield a rapid current separating the charge distribution and yielding an opposite electric field cancelling out the original one.</DIV></p><p>You're assuming a "closed" system, whereas I am not. I assume the universe is simply a conductor of current that is flowing from point A, to point B, and this current flows through our universe to get there.&nbsp; It is a constant source of energy, and there is never a complete "cancelling out" of energy. That is why solar wind continues to be accelerated and has been accelerating toward the heliosphere for billions of years.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There will be associated electric fields when the magnetic fields change.</DIV></p><p>Sure. We see that play out in coronal loop activity where Birkeland currents cross one another and "reconnect" electrically.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think part of the problem may be one of language.</DIV></p><p>You are definitely right about that.&nbsp; I've seen the mainstream use the term "magnetic rope", yet ignore Alfven's description of the electron flow inside of it.&nbsp; Language is defintely a part of the problem, but unfortunately I think it runs deeper than that when it comes to the publishing channels.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>People talk about magnetic fields dragging material along and reconnecting and things without mentioning the electric fields, and to purist this seems like nonsense, however the effect of moving a magnetic field through a conducting plasma is that the material is moves in the direction that the field moves this happens due to electric fields.</DIV></p><p>It's that "due to electric fields" part that is systemically being surpressed.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the magnetic field moves through the plasma (due to moving the source of the field) this generates a current in the plasma that will oppose the changing magnetic field but also move the material along with the field. When the magnetic field stops moving the currents dissipate.</DIV></p><p>IMO, this is analogous to looking at a magnetic field in copper wire and claiming that the magnetic field is the power source and the electrical fields in the copper wire will disippate when the magnetic field stops.&nbsp; You have the cart before the horse from my point of view.&nbsp; The powerful magnetic field around the light plasma in the upper solar atmposphere is a direct result of the electrical current that is running through it. If you looked at a lightening bolt with a magnetic field strength device, you would not necesssarily assume it was the magnetic field that was doing the work would you?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Similarly if you move the plasma with a field threading through it the resulting emf will have the effect of dragging the magnetic field along with the plasma. The reason people focus on magnetic fields and don't mention the electric fields that do develop is that 1. you can have a large scale magnetic field without electric fields,</DIV></p><p>See, this is the critical issue from my perspective as well.&nbsp; Dr. Charles Bruce demonstrated that the discharges in the solar atmosphere were directly related "speed wise", to propogation speed of discharges here on Earth.&nbsp; It would take a powerful discharge through the plasma to create a powerful magnetic field in a the light plasma of the corona.&nbsp; This part however is never mentioned by the mainstream.&nbsp; Why?</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>doubletruncation, I'm not an astronomer,&nbsp;I'm a molecular biologist, so&nbsp;may I&nbsp;beg you to clarify even more?&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because the unverse is exquisitely neutral over large volumes, so large-scale electric fields don't develop. </DIV></p><p>I have difficulty understanding why this is so.&nbsp; While it is certainly the case that there are the same number of positive and negative charges present, the universe seems to act more like charge-separated plasma flows than an electrically neutral soup, like Birkeland theorized.&nbsp; According to his work, the interstellar medium naturally forms&nbsp;heterogeneous regions of charge-separated plasma sheets.&nbsp; What work has been done contrary to what he had to show? How do we know that the average volume of interstellar media is homogeneous when laboratory studies seem to show that plasma organizes itself into charge-separated sheets?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But of course it's not right to say that EM doesn't play a role, it does primarily by providing microscopic interactions between particles. If there were no pressure or no interactions between light and matter (which are all the result of EM) the universe would be very different. Similarly the strong force dominates the EM force but because the quarks in the universe are finely balanced there aren't any free quarks left over and as a result the strong force is irrelavent for the large-scale motions/structure of the universe and indeed for any length-scale larger than a nucleus (the size of an atom would be "large-scale" for the strong force).&nbsp; <br />Posted by doubletruncation</DIV></p><p>I'm not a quantum physicist, so I don't get what you're saying here.&nbsp; How can strong force dominate EM force when strong force isn't relevant beyond atomic scale?</p><p>EDIT: had to fix HTML tags- all caps on this board, now I know</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>

 

[cyrus4iam]

<p><strong><font size="5">as nodding head in agreement......</font></strong></p><p><br /><strong><font size="5">4, 13, 16, 21, 39, 48</font></strong></p><p><br /><strong><font size="5">This is an Experiment.....</font></strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font size="5"><font size="1">cyrus </font>4, 13, 16, 21, 39, 48</font><font size="1">I AM</font></strong> </div>

 

[glaiven34]

<p>I had one more question....</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Any large scale electric field would yield a rapid current separating the charge distribution and yielding an opposite electric field cancelling out the original one. </DIV></p><p>This doesn't occur in "average" scale electric fields because there is a load at one end, right?&nbsp; So the opposing electrical field doesn't cancel itself out when you turn on your flashlight because the opposing field's potential energy is used up producing light.&nbsp; The EUH suggests the same mechanism for the universe, that solar systems and galaxies serve as loads capacitively coupled to the universal circuit.&nbsp; Would you agree that a large-scale electric field could exist in space if&nbsp;there was a load to maintain current flow?</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.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by doubletruncation</DIV></p><p>http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/felines/</p><p>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25292</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current</p><p>These articles together paint an electrical induction picture, where heavy a central object is spinning at very high speeds and is electromagnetically interacting with surrounding clouds of iron plasma to create an induction process that results in current flow through and out of the central objects of the galaxy.&nbsp; There are many ways to approach these sorts of findings, but inverably only the "non-electrical" ones ever get published in the APJ or similar mainstream astronomy journals. &nbsp; Anything that even remotely hints and current flows between objects is systematically ignored and/or surpressed by the mainstream publishing channels.&nbsp; </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/felines/http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25292http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_currentThese articles together paint an electrical induction picture, where heavy a central object is spinning at very high speeds and is electromagnetically interacting with surrounding clouds of iron plasma to create an induction process that results in current flow through and out of the central objects of the galaxy.&nbsp; There are many ways to approach these sorts of findings, but inverably only the "non-electrical" ones ever get published in the APJ or similar mainstream astronomy journals. &nbsp; Anything that even remotely hints and current flows between objects is systematically ignored and/or surpressed by the mainstream publishing channels.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>OK, I'll bite.&nbsp; I have each post in this thread and have checked out many of the references, plus one or two others.&nbsp; I am unable to discern what, specifically, it is that is alleged to have been suppressed.&nbsp; Perhaps someone is unhappy that a submitted article was rejected, but if so, that has not been clearly stated.</p><p>I am not quite sure how one separates "magnetic" phenomena so cleanly from"electric" phenomena.&nbsp; Except in a truly static&nbsp;situation, and I don't believe that there are any that are germane to this discussion, E and B fields come already paired up.&nbsp; If there is a magnetic field, then I would expect a current, somwhere, to be generating it.&nbsp; I strongly suspect that any astronomer/physicist acting as a referee for APJ or any similar journal would be aware of the relationship between electric and magnetic fields (probably at least since his sophomore days).&nbsp;&nbsp; It is pretty hard to have a plasma without having some&nbsp;to those charged particles moving -- i.e. a current, &nbsp;If one has a magnetic field without a current somewhere, then perhaps we have actually uncovered the elusive magnet monopole -- in which case there may be bigger fish to fry.&nbsp; </p><p>If the complaint is somehow based on a count of APJ articles with "magnetic" vs "electric" in the title then I suggest a better metric may be needed.&nbsp; Quantity of papers counts for very little.&nbsp; Quality counts for much more.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ultimately the arbiter of physical hypotheses is the abilty to make good predictions that are supported by experimental data.&nbsp; It is not a very democratic process, and the result is not determined by counting published pages supporting one hypothesis or another.</p><p>I did read of Alfven's complaint regarding lack of attention to current effects in astronomy texts.&nbsp; It seems to me that the proper response would have been to write a better one.&nbsp; He seems to have been a fairly smart guy, and probably could have written a good one.</p><p>On the other hand, contrary to a previous post, the fact that he received a Nobel Prize, does not make him right.&nbsp; It is his ideas, the the ability of those ideas to explain observed phenomena that make him right or wrong.&nbsp; The opinion of a committee only determines whether or not he gets a little piece of metal.&nbsp; Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein each received the Nobel Prize.&nbsp; Both cannot have been correct about quantum mechanics.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.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. <br /> Posted by glaiven34</DIV></p><p>I think you missed my point.&nbsp; I agree about the electrostatic cleaning being more plausible than wind (though sandblasting is a viable possibility as well -- the air may be thin, but the dust storms aren't), but it's not quite what the EU theory is talking about.&nbsp; That is to say, it's not a plasma conduit from the Sun wiping the dust off.&nbsp; It's a much more local effect.&nbsp; Plus, it's electrostatic.&nbsp; That's quite a different beast from an electrical current.&nbsp; (Static electrical charges are not moving; that's the key difference.) </p><p>I don't believe that dust devils are created by electrostatic effects.&nbsp; They are meteorological phenomena caused by rising columns of air.&nbsp; If I'm understanding correctly (and I'm a bit out of my depth here) the relative thinness of Mars' atmosphere, plus the abundance of dust, allows them to grow to tremendous heights undisturbed.&nbsp; Mars just doesn't have as much weather to disrupt them as Earth does.&nbsp; Once a dust devil is going, however, it will inevitably generate a static electrical charge.&nbsp; Dust can be a potent charge generator, as anybody who uses a sandblaster routinely can tell you.&nbsp; (Yow!)&nbsp;&nbsp; So the dust devils being taller doesn't really tell you anything about the validity of the Electric Universe concept.</p><p>Now, there is one very good example of dust moving around because of the plasma flow from the Sun.&nbsp; Airless bodies, which have no protection, get continually bombarded by the solar wind.&nbsp; And in one of the weirder effects of electromagnetism in space, this causes such things as levitating dust particles above Saturn's rings near equinox (the latest and currently dominant theory for what causes the "spokes") and levitating Moon dust around sunrise and sunset at Full Moon (when the Moon passes through the Earth's magnetotail, significantly altering the local plasma environment). </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>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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; </DIV></p><p>It sounds like you are implying that electrons are flowing through a conductor (plasma).&nbsp; Did you misspeak?&nbsp; The plasma <em>is</em> the charge carrier.&nbsp; Plasma is partially or completely ionized atoms.&nbsp; So plasma is a 'soup' of free electrons and positively charged atomic nuclei.&nbsp; In the presence of an electrical field the electrons will move to the positive source and the nuclei will move to the negative source.&nbsp; So saying the electrons a moving through the great conductor of plasma is misleading.</p><p>In conventional electrical theory a conductor is a material that has a high number&nbsp;weakly held valence electrons, such as copper.&nbsp; So in this case it is appropriate to say that the electrons are flowing through the conductor.</p><p>Plasma theory can also be applied to&nbsp;liquids like salt water where the Cl- and the Na+ ions take the place of the electrons and the nuclei.&nbsp; You can see that saying that the Cl- flowing throught Na+ conductor is not correct.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>Michael, You state</p><p>" In order to do that, I must point out that fact that the mainstream publications like the APJ are actively refusing to publish material related to EU theory.&nbsp; That is a fact. "</p><p>What proof do you have that they are <strong>actively</strong> refusing to publish?</p><p>Perhaps there are just not enough well written, scientifically supported articles?</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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, You state" In order to do that, I must point out that fact that the mainstream publications like the APJ are actively refusing to publish material related to EU theory.&nbsp; That is a fact. "What proof do you have that they are actively refusing to publish?Perhaps there are just not enough well written, scientifically supported articles? <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>That's basically what I was trying to get at too.&nbsp; One should be careful of making conclusions based on what gets published and what doesn't.&nbsp; The absence of publications can be simply because not many people are interested in writing them in the first place.&nbsp;</p><p>Of course, that means that there's an avenue of opportunity for folks who *are* interested.&nbsp; ;-)</p><p>I've seen the same thing happen many times here on the message boards.&nbsp; People will complain that there's not enough discussion of particular topics, and sometimes even allege censorship.&nbsp; But we are adamantly opposed to censorship -- the&nbsp; only reason for lack of activity on certain topics is because not enough people are posting on those subjects.&nbsp; The good news there is that anybody can help fix that problem.&nbsp; ;-)&nbsp; All it takes is people will to post on those subjects.&nbsp; Same thing with scientific publications.&nbsp; It's very hard work to get published, but if enough people are willing to do so, it'll happen. </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'>I think you missed my point.&nbsp; I agree about the electrostatic cleaning being more plausible than wind (though sandblasting is a viable possibility as well -- the air may be thin, but the dust storms aren't), but it's not quite what the EU theory is talking about.&nbsp; That is to say, it's not a plasma conduit from the Sun wiping the dust off.&nbsp; It's a much more local effect.&nbsp; Plus, it's electrostatic.&nbsp; That's quite a different beast from an electrical current.&nbsp; (Static electrical charges are not moving; that's the key difference.) </DIV></p><p>We're sort of in agreement here.&nbsp; I misspoke saying that a plasma conduit removes the dust- in my opinion, the plasma conduit is what creates the dust storms, which then remove the dust electrostatically.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't believe that dust devils are created by electrostatic effects.&nbsp; They are meteorological phenomena caused by rising columns of air.&nbsp; If I'm understanding correctly (and I'm a bit out of my depth here) the relative thinness of Mars' atmosphere, plus the abundance of dust, allows them to grow to tremendous heights undisturbed.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Well, Mars' thinner atmosphere would mean that weather and the heating/cooling of air would have a far lesser effect on the dust storms.&nbsp; These dust storms can grow huge in hours or days- far faster than the sparse atmosphere should be able to&nbsp;transfer energy to the dust.&nbsp; In addition, the storms are still incredibly fast in the near-vacuum upper martian atmosphere.&nbsp; Current explanations suggest that the dust storms grow because they absorb more solar radiation as the grow.&nbsp; But then they would never stop.</p><p>I just think it makes more sense to assume that there is a charge differential between the Martian surface and the ionosphere generated by the solar wind, just like we have here on earth.&nbsp; Without thunderstorms and water to generate self-healing breaks in the dielectric, a massive capacitive effect builds until it powers the dust storms to&nbsp;close the planetary circuit.</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 sounds like you are implying that electrons are flowing through a conductor (plasma).&nbsp; Did you misspeak? </DIV></p><p>You are correct.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The plasma is the charge carrier.&nbsp; Plasma is partially or completely ionized atoms.&nbsp; So plasma is a 'soup' of free electrons and positively charged atomic nuclei.&nbsp; In the presence of an electrical field the electrons will move to the positive source and the nuclei will move to the negative source.&nbsp; So saying the electrons a moving through the great conductor of plasma is misleading.</DIV></p><p>It is certainly not misleading.&nbsp; Have you ever used an arc welder before?&nbsp; Electrons will flow *through* plasma on it's way from one point to another.&nbsp; It will act as a conductor of current and it will form filament channels inside the plasma to carry that current.&nbsp; In every respect light plasma will act as a conductor of electrical current.&nbsp; IMO our entire phyiscal universe, including all the plasma in our physical universe, is simply a conductor of electrical current.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In conventional electrical theory a conductor is a material that has a high number&nbsp;weakly held valence electrons, such as copper. </DIV></p><p>In conventional electrical theory, magnetic fields always form a complete continuum, they don't make and break connections like electrical circuits.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So in this case it is appropriate to say that the electrons are flowing through the conductor.</DIV></p><p>I simply see the physical universe as one giant flowing conductor.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Plasma theory can also be applied to&nbsp;liquids like salt water where the Cl- and the Na+ ions take the place of the electrons and the nuclei.&nbsp; You can see that saying that the Cl- flowing throught Na+ conductor is not correct.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I am not suggesting that CL flows through NA, I am suggesting thet CL- AND NA+ are both capable of being conductors of electrons depending on the specific conditions involved. </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>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you ever used an arc welder before?&nbsp; Electrons will flow *through* plasma on it's way from one point to another.&nbsp; It will act as a conductor of current and it will form filament channels inside the plasma to carry that current.&nbsp;</DIV>&nbsp; </p><p>You keep talking about electrons as if it is the only current carrier.&nbsp;&nbsp;Positively charged particles are also current carriers.&nbsp; If you have a plasma that is all positively charged nuclei in a electric field they will form a current.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The&nbsp;plasma will actually&nbsp;cause more resistance to <em>electron flow</em>&nbsp;relative to&nbsp;the <em>same concentration of electrons</em> in a vacuum.&nbsp; That is due to the&nbsp;interaction of the electrons with the positively charged ions, which will result in&nbsp;a longer mean free&nbsp;path than&nbsp;electrons in a vacuum.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, I'll bite.&nbsp; I have each post in this thread and have checked out many of the references, plus one or two others.&nbsp; I am unable to discern what, specifically, it is that is alleged to have been suppressed.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Anything related to an electrical explanation of astronomical phenomenon have been actively surpressed by mainstream publications, and even some websites.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps someone is unhappy that a submitted article was rejected, but if so, that has not been clearly stated.</DIV></p><p>It's not that a single article was rejected, but rather than *NO* EU articles are being published by mainstream astronomy publiications.</p><p>http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf</p><p>Publications like the IEEE are willing to publish EU matierals, and they even devote entire publications to EU theories.&nbsp; Show me one "pro" EU published article from the APJ last year.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am not quite sure how one separates "magnetic" phenomena so cleanly from"electric" phenomena. </DIV></p><p>In the real world I don't believe you can separate them, particularly in light plasma.&nbsp; In the publishing world you simply refuse to publish anthing that treats the plasmas of space as conductors of electrical current.&nbsp; If the terms used say "magnetic reconnection", it gets published.&nbsp; If it says "electrical current from the heliopsphere", it's not published in the APJ.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Except in a truly static&nbsp;situation, and I don't believe that there are any that are germane to this discussion, E and B fields come already paired up.&nbsp; If there is a magnetic field, then I would expect a current, somwhere, to be generating it.&nbsp; I strongly suspect that any astronomer/physicist acting as a referee for APJ or any similar journal would be aware of the relationship between electric and magnetic fields (probably at least since his sophomore days).&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Unfortunately most of the astromers I have talked with have only a rudimentary understanding of electricity, and a misinformed view of MHD theory as Alfven himself taught it.&nbsp; Alfven actiively disagreed with the whole concept of magnetic fields making and breaking connections because he had a strong electronics background and he (and his students) had lots of experience with plasma in a lab.&nbsp; Today, most astronomers barely know how to program a computer to similate some archane math formula mathematically, they never play around with plasma in lab, and they can't tell you the physical difference between ideas like "magnetic reconnection" and ordinary electrical interactions in plasma.&nbsp; There is no emprical evidence that magnetic reconnection is any different than any ordinary electrial interaction in plasma.</p><p>When the astronomers talk about "jets" around "black holes" they never mention the fact that "Birkeland currents" form in exactly that same "trwisted spiral" pattern, and the fail to mention anything about the current inside the jets.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is the kind of bias you see in every single published article in the APJ.&nbsp;&nbsp; You don't find that kind of bias in the IEEE publications.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is pretty hard to have a plasma without having some&nbsp;to those charged particles moving -- i.e. a current, </DIV></p><p>Indeed.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If one has a magnetic field without a current somewhere, then perhaps we have actually uncovered the elusive magnet monopole -- in which case there may be bigger fish to fry.</DIV></p><p>The elusive monopole as you call it is a fictictious entity. None have ever been shown to exist in nature or have any effect on plasma in a lab.&nbsp; Electricity can effect plasma in lab.&nbsp;&nbsp; APJ will print anything related to monopoles, but they will not publish anything related to EU theory.&nbsp; That's the kind of bigotted self selection process we see in the APJ and other astronomy specific publications.&nbsp; It's fine to discuss any metaphysical entity you might dream up and it will get published in the APJ as long as the math works.&nbsp; EU theory however is off limits and never sees the light of publishing day in the APJ.&nbsp; The lack of any pro EU paper in the APJ is not for lack of good EU material.&nbsp; The IEEE has published plenty of excellent EU matieral in the past year. The APJ has published nothing that is even remotely EU oriented.&nbsp; That cannot be a coincidence.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the complaint is somehow based on a count of APJ articles with "magnetic" vs "electric" in the title then I suggest a better metric may be needed. </DIV></p><p>That is not the metric.&nbsp; The metric is pro-EU authors seeing the light of publishing day on the APJ.&nbsp; It *never* happens, yet there is planty of good material to choose from.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Quantity of papers counts for very little.&nbsp; Quality counts for much more. </DIV></p><p>Quantity also counts.&nbsp; If you read enough articles that associate a "magnetic reconnection" hypothesis wih Hannes Alfven, you might easily start to think that MHD theory supports this concept when the reality is that MHD theory does not support the idea, Hannes Alfven vehemently rejected the concept, and he was a strong EU proponent.&nbsp; In fact Alfven was one of the founding fathers of the EU movement.&nbsp; The quantity fo paper that the APJ published that relate to magnetic reconnection never require any disclaimers about that fact.&nbsp; They never mention that fact,&nbsp; They get through the published "editors" the obviously don't care about that fact.&nbsp; That is misrepresentation on a big scale. Why doesn't the APJ require that "magnetic reconnection" be demonstrated in a lab and explained at the physical level? Why do the just "assume" such a thing is actually any different from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma?&nbsp; Where is any real criticism of this idea in the APJ?&nbsp; Why isn't Scotts work ever applied to this concept, or Alfven's criticisms even dealt with in these publications.&nbsp; There is a problem here and it runs very deep.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ultimately the arbiter of physical hypotheses is the abilty to make good predictions that are supported by experimental data. </DIV></p><p>Show me even one controlled emprical lab test that demonstrated a unique and identifiable physical difference between "magnetic reconnection" and an ordinary electrical interaction in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not a very democratic process, </DIV></p><p>My complaint is that it has become an authoritarian process that selectively excludes EU theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and the result is not determined by counting published pages supporting one hypothesis or another.I did read of Alfven's complaint regarding lack of attention to current effects in astronomy texts.&nbsp; It seems to me that the proper response would have been to write a better one.&nbsp; He seems to have been a fairly smart guy, and probably could have written a good one.On the other hand, contrary to a previous post, the fact that he received a Nobel Prize, does not make him right. </DIV></p><p>Only an empirical test could demonstrate he was wrong. Where is it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is his ideas, the the ability of those ideas to explain observed phenomena that make him right or wrong.&nbsp; The opinion of a committee only determines whether or not he gets a little piece of metal.&nbsp; Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein each received the Nobel Prize.&nbsp; Both cannot have been correct about quantum mechanics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>In fact, no one has demonstrated that Einstein was wrong about black holes, or that Alfven was wrong about "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; &nbsp; It may not be possible to create a black hole in a lab to analyze it, but it should be possible to identifity the unique physical energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" in a lab, in controlled plasma conditions.&nbsp; Why wasn't that ever done?&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'>&nbsp; You keep talking about electrons as if it is the only current carrier.&nbsp;&nbsp;Positively charged particles are also current carriers.&nbsp; If you have a plasma that is all positively charged nuclei in a electric field they will form a current.&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;plasma will actually&nbsp;cause more resistance to electron flow&nbsp;relative to&nbsp;the same concentration of electrons in a vacuum.&nbsp; That is due to the&nbsp;interaction of the electrons with the positively charged ions, which will result in&nbsp;a longer mean free&nbsp;path than&nbsp;electrons in a vacuum.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>You are correct of course, that is certainly the case.&nbsp; Electrons however are much smaller, and they are more easily accelerated than particles inside of an atomic nucleus.&nbsp; The whole atoms tend to have a much higher mass concentration (particularly heavier elements) and they tend to move more slowly, and accelerate more slowly than electrons.&nbsp; EU theory also presumes an abundance of flowing electrons through the universe.&nbsp; The atomic plasma will move too of course, but the plasma is not the driving energy force, it simply carries the current and it and also moves around accordingly. </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'>Anything related to an electrical explanation of astronomical phenomenon have been actively surpressed by mainstream publications, and even some websites.It's not that a single article was rejected, but rather than *NO* EU articles are being published by mainstream astronomy publiications.Publications like the IEEE are willing to publish EU matierals, and they even devote entire publications to EU theories.&nbsp; Show me one "pro" EU published article from the APJ last year.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Again, you complain active supression with no proof to support your claim.</p><p>You seem aprticularly incensed with APJ.</p><p>Still you have provided NO proof of active suppression of articles.</p><p>Just a lack of articles, which is not the same as supression. Unless you have proof.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As far as IEEE is concerned, they are after all an "electronic" publication.</p><p>I have been VERY unimpressed with their forays into astronomy; there seems to be a lack of understanding of the subject.</p><p>Can you tell me the issue of the IEEE journal that dealt with EU?</p><p>Perhaps I can obtain a copy.</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's basically what I was trying to get at too.&nbsp; One should be careful of making conclusions based on what gets published and what doesn't. </DIV></p><p>I hear you on this point.&nbsp; I'm actually seeing EU material being published, so it's not really a question in my mind about what get's published.&nbsp; The information is being published IMO.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; EU material is published regularly and always has been published.&nbsp; That is true IMO since Birkeland did it himself in the early 1900's. &nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven published material.&nbsp; Bruce got his material published.&nbsp; Peratt has published papers and books on the topic.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is plenty of material being published on the topic IMO.&nbsp; From my perspective it's more a question of where the material is being published and how often, and with what frequency and what prerequisites are required of each idea, and how fairly each idea is treated by mainstream publications and the astronomy community in general.&nbsp; It seems fine to publish material about mythical monopoles, dark things galore, and stuff that has never been shown to have any effect on matter in a controlled laboratory test.&nbsp; What never seems to get published in the mainstream publications like the APJ are any material that relates to EU theory.&nbsp; Why is that? &nbsp; It seems like a natural question.&nbsp; There must be a reason why it's "ok" to publish a hypotheis about "magnetic reconnection" in charged particles, when it's perfectly obvious that it's the charge and the particle that are "reconnecting".&nbsp; It is evidently not "ok" to publish or talk about current carrrying plasma and EU theory in general.&nbsp; In fact we see a significant bias to that particular idea in the APJ and even on "mainstream" astronomy websites.&nbsp; There is in fact a different set of "rules'" applies to EU theory than to other concepts on popular mainstream astronomy websites. There are EU papers that get published, but never by mainstream publications.&nbsp; It is the "taboo" topic of mainstream astronomy publications like the APJ.&nbsp;&nbsp; Pro EU articles do not appear in the APJ, even though "magnetic" plasma behaviors are constantly being published and attributed to Alfven MHD work, when in fact Alfven MHD work does not support the concept at all, nor did Alfven himself.&nbsp; Not only is that misleading, it's unethical, particularly without empircal support.&nbsp; A computer software simulation is not a "controlled experiment".&nbsp; It is simply a simulation of a mathematical idea.&nbsp; You can calculate how many elves might fit on the head of a pin in a computer simulation, but that does not mean that elves exist in reality. &nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The absence of publications can be simply because not many people are interested in writing them in the first place.&nbsp; Of course, that means that there's an avenue of opportunity for folks who *are* interested.&nbsp; ;-)I've seen the same thing happen many times here on the message boards. </DIV></p><p>In this case we can rule that out because it is being published on a regular basis, so people are interested enough to write about it, and interested eneough in reading about it for numerous scientific publications to publish the material.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>People will complain that there's not enough discussion of particular topics, and sometimes even allege censorship.&nbsp; But we are adamantly opposed to censorship -- the&nbsp; only reason for lack of activity on certain topics is because not enough people are posting on those subjects.&nbsp; The good news there is that anybody can help fix that problem.&nbsp; ;-)&nbsp; All it takes is people will to post on those subjects.&nbsp; Same thing with scientific publications.&nbsp; It's very hard work to get published, but if enough people are willing to do so, it'll happen. <br /> Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>Yes, but you (and the other moderators here)&nbsp; have created a living legacy in folks like me that have championed the EU cause here for many years.&nbsp;&nbsp; There has never been any attempt to censor me in any way here because of my beliefs. &nbsp; That is the way that a scientific organization is support to work.&nbsp; It doesn't bother me that that APJ publishes papers on monopoles and dark stuff and things I don't believe in.&nbsp; What bothers me is that they selectively descriminate against EU theory just like some websites and other mainstream astronomy publishing organizations.&nbsp; That is my real complaint.&nbsp; I'm willing to keep an open mind about monopoles if anyone ever shows me empirical evidence that they exist and have some affect on matter.&nbsp; I'm even willing to read about them once in while in the APJ.&nbsp; What I resent is that I never get to read about EU theory in the APJ or on some websites because there is a systematic bias against that particular idea.</p><p>As I said from the start of this thread, this place is a real, honest to goodness scientific website.&nbsp; There is no bias shown to any idea that I have ever seen, and no one here has ever tried to censor me for my beliefs.&nbsp;&nbsp; Every website has to deal with "behavior problems" from time to time, and this site is no exception of course, but every moderator here has let me speak freely on a range of topics, including EU oriented matieral.&nbsp;&nbsp; That shows scientific integrity especially since I know for a fact that not all the moderators here agree with all my ideas. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; To me, that is what scientific integrity is all about.&nbsp; The fact that the IEEE published EU material shows that they too are willing to keep an open mind to EU theory, even if not all the editors happen to agree with EU theory. To me, that too shows integrity.&nbsp; That APJ's lack of EU material, just like the double standard rule system at other websites shows a complete lack of scientific integrity.&nbsp; If the APJ only rarely published EU material, I would understand your point of view. Since they *never* publish pro EU material, I tend to smell a rat.&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'>Again, you complain active supression with no proof to support your claim.</DIV></p><p>The proof of my claim is found in the lack of EU material that is published by the mainstream publications.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem aprticularly incensed with APJ.</DIV></p><p>No, they just happen to be a perfect example of a publication that clearly is guilty of that specific bias, and they happen to be a mainstream astronomy publication. &nbsp; It's an easy example of this behavior because they are so large and they publish a lot of material over a period of years.&nbsp;&nbsp; I singled them out because the are a good exmple of a mainstream astronomy publication that demonstrates this bias towards EU theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Still you have provided NO proof of active suppression of articles.</DIV></p><p>If there is no surpression of EU articles in the APJ, then kindly show me a single pro EU article published in the APJ over the past 3 years.&nbsp; I'll be happy to show you an entire IEEE publication devoted to EU theory.</p><p>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2007&isnumber=4287017&Submit32=Go+To+Issue</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just a lack of articles, which is not the same as supression. Unless you have proof.</DIV></p><p>What proof could a single individual provide you of a bias aginst EU theory other than to note that they *never* publish pro EU material?&nbsp;&nbsp; A couple of rejected articles would not be evidence of a systematic bias on the part of the APJ.&nbsp; A complete lack of published material on the EU topic *is* evidence of a bias.&nbsp; There is certainly no lack of EU material being written and published in other publications.&nbsp; Why isn't the APJ publishing *ANY* of it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as IEEE is concerned, they are after all an "electronic" publication.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and from the EU perspective it's an electronic universe we live in too.&nbsp; What is your point?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have been VERY unimpressed with their forays into astronomy; </DIV></p><p>See, this is where a personal bias can innocently be played out in the public.&nbsp; You are attempting to discredit the entire publication in how it deals with every topic related to astronomy?&nbsp; That's not logical IMO.&nbsp; That seems like an emotional reaction that stems from a bias against "electronics" and how it might relate to astronomy.&nbsp; There is no problem with you having an opinion or a bias.&nbsp; We all have them.&nbsp; The problem is not that we have them.&nbsp; The problem is that we can sometimes allow our biases affect what we allow to be discussed or printed.&nbsp; That's when it becomes a problem.&nbsp; You've never had a problem with your biases that I have seen, nor have I ever been offended by your attitude or your actions, even when we've clearly disagreed on speciffic topics.&nbsp; That shows maturity and scientific integrity.&nbsp; Unfortunately it's not a universel attitude Wayne.&nbsp; I wish it were, I really do.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>there seems to be a lack of understanding of the subject.Can you tell me the issue of the IEEE journal that dealt with EU?Perhaps I can obtain a copy. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Try IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 35, NO. 4, AUGUST 2007.</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'>The proof of my claim is found in the lack of EU material that is published by the mainstream publications.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />That is not proof, that is an unsupported assertion.</p><p>"No, they just happen to be a perfect example of a publication that clearly is guilty of that specific bias, and they happen to be a mainstream astronomy publication."</p><p>Again, assertion without proof. Ya know, like evidence...</p><p>Lack of articles does not PROVE "active suppression"</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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>See, this is where a personal bias can innocently be played out in the public.&nbsp; You are attempting to discredit the entire publication in how it deals with every topic related to astronomy?&nbsp; That's not logical IMO.&nbsp; That seems like an emotional reaction that stems from a bias against "electronics" and how it might relate to astronomy.&nbsp; There is no problem with you having an opinion or a bias.&nbsp; We all have them.&nbsp; The problem is not that we have them.&nbsp; The problem is that we can sometimes allow our biases affect what we allow to be discussed or printed.&nbsp; That's when it becomes a problem.&nbsp; You've never had a problem with your biases that I have seen, nor have I ever been offended by your attitude or your actions, even when we've clearly disagreed on speciffic topics.&nbsp; That shows maturity and scientific integrity.&nbsp; Unfortunately it's not a universel attitude Wayne.&nbsp; I wish it were, I really do.Try IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 35, NO. 4, AUGUST 2007.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No YOU are accusing me of bias. I have read quite a few IEEE astronomy articles and have found them lacking in usdertanding of astronomy.</p><p>Thanx for that link, and the IEEE link you provided. I'll read up, then comment. May take a while </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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No YOU are accusing me of bias. </DIV></p><p>I actually acccused us both of having personal biases. I think if you read my statements again, you'll see that I intentionally accused us both of having opinions and personal biases galore.&nbsp; That's not the real problem.&nbsp; I was careful to note that the problem is not that we both have personal opinions, or that the editors of the APJ have opinions and personal biases, but that the mainstream publishers have gone much further.&nbsp; They have systematially refused to publish EU material, and some mainstream astronomy web sites go so far as to impose special restrictions on EU theory that are not applied to all theories.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have read quite a few IEEE astronomy articles and have found them lacking in usdertanding of astronomy.</DIV></p><p>The problem that this is a subjective statement (like mine as well).&nbsp; It depends entirely on the side of the fence you happen to find yourself on at the time.&nbsp; A few years ago EU theory didnt' make much sense to me either, but today most of what I read in the APJ sounds pretty lacking from my perspective as well.&nbsp; Specifically the material is often lacking in qualitative emprical evidence.&nbsp; The grass on the EU side of the fence looks a lot greener to me today.&nbsp; Once your heaset shifts, it's hard not be underwhelmed by other options.&nbsp; It's really not a problem unless there is a systematic effort to silence specific opposition and specific ideas.&nbsp; There's a fine line here that the mainstream publications have crossed, as have some mainstream astronomy oriented websites.&nbsp; Fortunately that is not the case here, or with you personally that I have ever seen.&nbsp; That's why I brought up the subject here by the way. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanx for that link, and the IEEE link you provided. I'll read up, then comment. May take a while <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Some of it is *still* over my head. &nbsp; Good luck. &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>

 

[doubletruncation]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>doubletruncation, I'm not an astronomer,&nbsp;I'm a molecular biologist, so&nbsp;may I&nbsp;beg you to clarify even more?&nbsp;I have difficulty understanding why this is so.&nbsp; While it is certainly the case that there are the same number of positive and negative charges present, the universe seems to act more like charge-separated plasma flows than an electrically neutral soup, like Birkeland theorized.&nbsp; According to his work, the interstellar medium naturally forms&nbsp;heterogeneous regions of charge-separated plasma sheets.&nbsp; What work has been done contrary to what he had to show? How do we know that the average volume of interstellar media is homogeneous when laboratory studies seem to show that plasma organizes itself into charge-separated sheets?I'm not a quantum physicist, so I don't get what you're saying here.&nbsp; How can strong force dominate EM force when strong force isn't relevant beyond atomic scale?EDIT: had to fix HTML tags- all caps on this board, now I know <br /> Posted by glaiven34</DIV></p><p>This may not respond directly to your point, but there has been work estimating the degree to which objects like stars become electrically charged. A very nice, and short, paper on the topic was published back in 1978 in the ApJ:</p><p>&nbsp;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...220..743B</p><p>&nbsp;Just to summarize, electrons, being much lighter than ions, may preferentially escape from a star building up a net positive charge on the star and an excess of electrons in interstellar space. The effect will be balanced when the electric field is strong enough to keep additional electrons from escaping. They calculate that the charge buildup corresponds to 100 coulombs per solar mass.&nbsp; They argue that the electrons won't form a cloud around the star to screen the positive charge. In fact, they argue that the entire galaxy will pick up a slight positive charge with a cloud of electrons building up in intergalactic space (or perhaps even voids between galaxy clusters). But then they go on to estimate the physical consequences of galaxies becoming slightly polarized electrically, and are disappointed to find that it is of no physical consequence. For example, the magnetic fields that are generated by the rotating sun being slightly charged are ~10^-16 gauss, or 10^-25 gauss in the ISM. They also estimate the radiation given off by a close binary system of two charged stars orbiting each other and find again that the amount of radiation is far below what could be observed.</p><p>&nbsp;Another paper on the topic of the strength of coherent electric fields around stars:</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...242..710A</p><p>&nbsp;The author determines the strength of a coherent electric field throughout a star and in its atmosphere and concludes that it has no dynamical importance.</p><p>&nbsp;Another thing to note is that in situ measurements of the electric field / magnetic field, and currents in the solar wind have been made. For example, by the "Electric Field and Wave Experiment" on ESA's CLUSTER network of satellites</p><p>http://cluster.irfu.se/</p><p>&nbsp;This experiment has provided a lot of detailed understanding of what's going on in processes like magnetic reconnection (I won't pretend to know much about it though).&nbsp; One paper that may be of note is:</p><p>&nbsp;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvL..94u5002B</p><p>&nbsp;where they measure the electric field fluctuation spectrum of the solar wind and find that it follows a classic Kolmogorov turbulence spectrum like the magnetic field except at very short wavelengths (short length-scales) where there is enhanced power, in agreement with the expectation that energy is dissipated by the electric field at these length scales.</p><p>There are a few other classic indicators of large-scale coherent electric fields such as the stark effect that one might expect to observe in the molecular rotation lines (e.g. in CO). To my knowledge no evidence of that sort has been found in the ISM. You do see broadening in some spectral lines of stars (particularly white dwarfs) due to essentially the stark effect, but it's the result of lots of close encounters between particles (i.e. the individual coulomb interactions).. I think there may also be some evidence of coherent fields in B-stars, but I may be remembering incorrectly. Now of course, finding nothing doesn't mean there aren't any such fields, but you should be able to put some limit on them.</p><p>&nbsp;Regarding the issue of the strong force vs. the EM force, my point was that if you were to take three quarks bound up in a proton and separate them there would be an enormous force drawing them back together (the force goes as ~r rather than 1/r^2 even). This is why there are no free quarks floating around. The force is strong enough to hold several quarks of the same charge together despite their electrical repulsion - in this way the strong force dominates the EM force.&nbsp; Once the three quarks are held together though, they effectively screen out the strong force, there is a little bit of residual force but it falls off very quickly with distance. If you take two protons and a neutron and bring them close enough together the protons will initially repel one other but at some point the residual strong force is large enough to bind them together into a nucleus. Anyway, the point of saying all that was just to note that just because one force is so much stronger than another force (strong vs EM or EM vs gravity) doesn't mean that force will be important on very large scales. EM is, apparently, not that important on the scales of things like galaxies just as the strong force isn't that important on the scales of things like a person. Again though, EM does play a big role in the structure of a thing like a galaxy, it does so though by providing interactions between particles over very short distances yielding the force that keeps everything from collapsing due to gravity. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>