Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I/.... Some of it is *still* over my head. &nbsp; Good luck. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I guess I am ignorant about the basic premises of the EU.&nbsp; I found this web site: <br /><br />http://www.the-electric-universe.info/The_idea.html</p><p>Does this get across the basic idea ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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:&nbsp;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...220..743BJust 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. </DIV></p><p>Thank you very much for these excellent references by the way.&nbsp;&nbsp; It seems to me that one primary difference between this approach and EU theory in a broader sense, is that this paper presumes that the universe is a self contained and closed system. &nbsp; EU theory tends to begin with the premise that the physical material in the universe acts as a giant contductor of current flow.&nbsp; In other words it's part fo a larger circuit. &nbsp; This particular paper was interesting to me because it suggests that heavier items would be more likely to take on a more positive net charge over time.&nbsp; I'm not sure how that might play out in a current flowing through the physical universe scenario, but it might well explain why the solar wind is always accelerating away from the sun.&nbsp; The sun is receiving electrons and sheding it's lightest positively charged elements like hydrogen and helium.&nbsp;</p><p>The primary difference between this paper and EU theory is the basic premise itself.&nbsp; There is no assumption of a closed and self contained system in EU theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; The assumption of EU theory is that there is a current flow *through* the physical universe.&nbsp; While a short turn build up of charges may not play a slgnificant role in a closed, self contained system, that would not necessarily be the case in an EU oriented viewpoint.&nbsp; The natural charge separation of bodies by gravititational forces is an interesting phenomenon, but unfortunately it would not tell us the whole pictiure in a constant current flow scenario.</p><p>Thanks again for the links by the way. &nbsp; Let's be careful to not forget the assumptions that separate this particular paper and EU theory in a broader sense. &nbsp;&nbsp; While a small natural charge separation might not be a big deal in a closed and self contained system, it may play a more important role in an EU oriented set of viewpoints.&nbsp; I'll have to think about the implications of this information for awhile.&nbsp; I really do appreciate the links. </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>

 

[genius2007]

<p>One of the problems in physics is defining how the big bang should proceed. First the quantum method with the forces existing from the start:- strong nuclear and combined weak nuclear and electromagnetic. Well that is fine but for the first 130,000 years the expanding fireball was just energy and no particles.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So where is the problem? The problem is those forces are associated with matter. For 130,000 years forces with nothing to do just wait around to attach to matter, very odd. The second way is to just use the components of general relativity and see if they can simulated the extra forces when needed. It means starting with just time, space and gravity.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Right for 130,000 thousand years the big bang is an inflating fireball and turbulent. It must be turbulent and uneven otherwise no clumping of matter later and so no stars, planets or us. Assuming turbulence then associated with turbulent flow outwards would be localised hot and cold spots in the current of inflating energy. Weather systems form whirlpools in cooler regions which swirl and the centre can move out of the plane of the circular opening. I will use the term tornado as these could have been very large indeed. As more is drawn into the mouth of the tornado the heat is concentrated in the apex of the tornado. It then produces localised regions of cooler area relative to its hot&nbsp;apex in a distant&nbsp;position.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The interesting thing about these tornadoes is that geometrically they are a two dimension plane circular mouth, a single linear tapper to the vortex and a point vortex itself which all up makes four dimensions. Consider it a storm system that must form structure. When all of the storm energy is in structure still well within the 130,000 years the energy must orient itself. So some swallowing of smaller tornadoes by larger ones but more importantly the connection of hot vortex ends when no more energy is spare.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What is the point? Well using just space, time and gravity a structure of two ended energy tubes fully connected small within large and ultimately fully contained with one large structure form a huge energy sponge. But once the energy is used and in structure it has no more to feed on. This energy tube system fractal in nature then equalises to form something like a huge cooling sponge. This would have led to a dark epoch after the light of the initial fireball.&nbsp;It is interesting to note that a tube based on energy is called a wormhole and is a solution favoured by Einstein over black holes.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Where is this taking us? The proton. The proton is the base form of matter for the entire universe. If it were to be a wormhole then the strong nuclear force would be the energy needed to hold together&nbsp;each single end opening of the proton. It is an energy structure and&nbsp;would interact with energy and the weak force would be the tiny asymmetry of one end that we would see as something solid. For quantum purposes general relativity has now formed all the quantum nuclear forces and without the need of a single physical particle. Electricity would be the result of all the static now contained in structure and as tornadoes spin all forces associated with magnetism become available. As for plasma it is high energy laced with the electron stripped proton.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Why the proton? It is the only thing that comes through nuclear reaction unbroken which says a lot about the strength of the structure. All other perceived particles are energy only, a fact quantum concedes that particles can only be measured by their waveform (aka energy).</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Is it important? Well sort of, if everything is based on a foam like structure then the distribution of heat can be described in the geometry of tube connections which is ds^2=x^2+y^2.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>But is it really important? Yes because it means that there is no matter anywhere in the universe only the approximation of matter through an incredibly stable structure, the proton.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So what? A number of things:-</p><p>1. It gives a basis for unified theory.</p><p>2. It means high energy excitement may form a stable large wormhole.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So? Well unified theory is a start. Then if point two is considered a stable wormhole able to consume the energy or merge smaller proton wormholes may produce a severe cooling effect in what we call matter.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Why should anybody care? Perhaps because soon we may be creating thousands of the larger stable wormholes that draw heat and if the effect is to cool the region they traverse it may mean cooling say one side of the earth's core making the core more treacle like and leading to instability of rotation. That may upset ocean currents.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>But this has to be wrong, what about gravity and time? Gravity is applied from the opening of the wormhole all the way along but as it is only noticeable at the opening it is tiny compared to the other forces. Time is like following a speed boat on a ski rope.&nbsp;I will use quantum for simplicity. All time is measured on particle movement. So the only thing the skier is directly relative to is the tow cable so what ever speed the boat goes or direction the skier is fixed relative to the tow cable.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well that was pretty simple wasn't it.</p>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One of the problems in physics is defining how the big bang should proceed. First the quantum method with the forces existing from the start:- strong nuclear and combined weak nuclear and electromagnetic. Well that is fine but for the first 130,000 years the expanding fireball was just energy and no particles.&nbsp; <br />Posted by genius2007</DIV><br /><br />I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but I think that the first particles (quarks) formed about <strong>10^-33 seconds</strong> after the big bang, not 130,000 years.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[genius2007]

<p>In reply to:- by <strong>origin</strong></p><p>------------------------------------------------------</p><p>I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but I think that the first particles (quarks) formed about <strong>10^-33 seconds</strong> after the big bang, not 130,000 years.</p><p>-------------------------------------------------------</p><p>From all the particle accelerator experiments carried out over the last eighty years how much matter has been created? From the addition of so much energy&nbsp;there is not a single piece of matter that can be weighed or seen as&nbsp;matter. It is like after eighty years the bumps in a haunted house are real.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Granted there is anti-matter but less than enough to fill the head of a pin. With a structure for the proton it can be banged against the detector like the various rhythms any good drummer could play. All that is needed is the right amount of force to provide the whack.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>For instance an electron is spun until it achieves the 'weight' of silver or gold and "becomes a real particle" as measured by how hard it hits the detector. Quantum a particle is only detectable through its waveform (the energy it hits the detector with). Same analogy with a watermelon seed. I spin it really fast until it achieves the 'weight' of a&nbsp; watermelon and becomes "a real watermelon". Yet when it hits the detector there is no watermelon&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>There has been an unexplained loss of about 10,000 protons in a fireball. And where did they go? Well according to the quantum specialists ... not only do we not get any watermelon but when stuff is taken away it is no longer in the universe. Yeah right&nbsp; </p>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In reply to:- by origin------------------------------------------------------I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but I think that the first particles (quarks) formed about 10^-33 seconds after the big bang, not 130,000 years.-------------------------------------------------------From all the particle accelerator experiments carried out over the last eighty years how much matter has been created? From the addition of so much energy&nbsp;there is not a single piece of matter that can be weighed or seen as&nbsp;matter. It is like after eighty years the bumps in a haunted house are real.&nbsp;Granted there is anti-matter but less than enough to fill the head of a pin. With a structure for the proton it can be banged against the detector like the various rhythms any good drummer could play. All that is needed is the right amount of force to provide the whack.&nbsp;For instance an electron is spun until it achieves the 'weight' of silver or gold and "becomes a real particle" as measured by how hard it hits the detector. Quantum a particle is only detectable through its waveform (the energy it hits the detector with). Same analogy with a watermelon seed. I spin it really fast until it achieves the 'weight' of a&nbsp; watermelon and becomes "a real watermelon". Yet when it hits the detector there is no watermelon&nbsp; &nbsp;There has been an unexplained loss of about 10,000 protons in a fireball. And where did they go? Well according to the quantum specialists ... not only do we not get any watermelon but when stuff is taken away it is no longer in the universe. Yeah right&nbsp; <br />Posted by genius2007</DIV></p><p>What in the heck are you talking about??</p><p>How did any of what you wrote address my comment?</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[genius2007]

<p>In reply to:- by <strong>origin</strong></p><p>------------------------------------------------------</p><p>I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but I think that the first particles (quarks) formed about <strong>10^-33 seconds</strong> after the big bang, not 130,000 years.</p><p>-------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Actually the last post did not answer your question. The answer is that I worked out a way that the forces of quantum mechanics could be simulated just by using time space and gravity. These are the forces of general relativity.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The assumption I have made is that extrapolating the known strength of the quantum forces back to a big bang is not the only way to produce a space time universe. The only change is to assume that Einstein was right with his reworking of his field equations with Bose to confirm worm holes do not violate the laws of general relativity.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What I have assumed is that matter as we think of it is a highly stable&nbsp;structure of energy and that is why we can interact with energy. I started with an idea if light can be bent a bit by the sun then a whole galaxy of 400 billion stars could be a tube of stars because all of the orbits along a fair portion that we see have the same period of rotation. The inner galaxy is where we see into the wormhole and due to distortion in local space we do not see beyond what looks like (or gives the illusion of)&nbsp;a massive galaxy black hole at the centre. The tapering edges of the galaxy&nbsp;are where light is too far out of our reference frame to see because of the dragging of our local space.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The answer is something that hasn't helped on any science board so far and that is I worked it out myself with a lot of reading and deep thinking and even more praying and thanks to God when I felt we were all on a certain path to destruction. We may well be but with this working of the universe in structure the appearance of dark matter is explained away by our receiving light based on our own time reference frame. That is we only see an average of the time of the universe and that we speed up and slow down and turn corners in time rather harmlessly.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In short I worked out a new structure for general relativity. It fits with asymmetry in atomic scale and dust ring accumulation on one side of a galaxy. It fits with using general relativity to define quantum forces and that those forces are an extreme compression of gravity as one would expect an opening to a wormhole to have extreme energies to ensure stability.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What if the pencil lines were drawn back too far using quantum forces and assuming quantum particles? I would not be wrong if I said there are no free quarks in nature.</p>

 

[genius2007]

<p>Hello<strong> origin</strong>,</p><p>I had no idea it was going to be so hard to explain an idea. I actually considered myself to be a bit of a dummy because it has taken me over a year to try and describe an idea in words and using everyday shapes.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I can replay in my mind what I have done during the day with my eyes open and see in my mind just as if I was looking at&nbsp;the room with my eyes at&nbsp;all the things in it and the colors and objects. Replay what I do forwards or backwards, change the order of events, morph one object into something else or do a fly through like a CADCAM in wire frame or solid&nbsp;any object I know. Engines are fun and changing cylinder numbers or even being the path the oil takes through the engine. Redesigning the interior of a bus is fun from seats to a camper and back, looking at the fabric even zooming though to look at the fibre. So I suppose I am a bit of a visual person.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I realise now that even the shapes I try to describe just are not being seen or maybe it is that a picture is not forming of what I try to describe. It must be frustrating for you not being able to pick up on the shape or geometry I am seeing because I&nbsp;use such word salad to serve it all&nbsp;up. So using s for distance then ds^2=x^2+y^2 is a shape geometry in six dimensions that I can see but just can't seem to share. I am so sorry because it is frustrating for me too.</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p>genius2007, you should probably start a new thread to expand upon your ideas further.&nbsp; They sound very interesting.&nbsp; I would suggest the relatively new but active Physics forum.&nbsp; I know from personal experience (my brother) that not all physics geeks are interested in astronomy.&nbsp; ;-)&nbsp; So your idea will probably get its best exposure there.</p><p>Meanwhile, this thread is discussing the important topic of whether or not there has been supression of a less mainstream view of the Universe -- the Electric Universe (EU) model.&nbsp; I'd hate to see this thread get derailed.</p><p>Thanks! </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>

 

[centsworth_II]

<p><font color="#666699"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...for the first 130,000 years the expanding fireball was just energy and no particles....<br /> Posted by genius2007</DIV></font><br />The diagram below is in line with every recent description I have seen of the big bang theory.&nbsp; In it the period up to 1/1000 of a second after the big bang is actually called the "Particle Era". Also, it shows that by the first three minutes, protons, neutrons and electrons were formed -- the building blocks of all the matter we see. So it seems that there was plenty of matter in the very early universe to keep the forces acting on matter occupied. I think it is a mistake to not consider matter to exist unless it is in the form of atoms.&nbsp; The neutrons, protons, and electrons that existed one minute after the big bang are just as much matter as the atoms that existed 300,000 thousand years later. </p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/15/7c3e4e50-5f50-4e4a-8f46-7e198a07d6a9.Medium.jpg" alt="" /> </p>http://www.scampnet.net/Personal-Website/popIII_files/popIII_summ_bbang.html<p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[genius2007]

<p>Yes sorry about that. I have chatted with Michael before on this forum and find the Alfven waves that show best in black and white photography most helpful. The electric universe proponents have all but been kicked out of the other forum I post on. They certainly aren't given much time to put an idea and get shouted down by the mainstream quantum mechanics and general relativity lobby.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It is still a branch of science and I should have posted what I originally intended which is that given our solar system is travelling in the local bubble of space surrounding us, sometimes called the local fluff.&nbsp;It is significant that the ambient temperature of space around our solar system is 6000 degrees which is incidentally about the same temperature as the surface of the sun. I was wondering that as we are moving through that region if consideration is being given to the sun not being a star at all and drawing&nbsp;some or nearer its&nbsp;full energy from the local bubble&nbsp;by being 99.9% of the mass in our solar system.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>We&nbsp;look at the sun as a star but in the context that it might&nbsp;act like&nbsp;a sponge for the electricity surrounding our region of&nbsp;the solar system. I was going to ask <strong>MichaelMozina </strong>if there was any update from the electric universe group that the sun is more like a very hot planet. I haven't followed up on the Pioneer probes which failed a lot closer to the sun than the Voyager probes but wondered if it was an early heat or electrical death for the probe. That might indicate a flat geometry to the shape of the shield of the solar system like a discus.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I have found that outside the normal content of some forums ideas that do not fly with the aims of the stated science do seem to draw more heat than I would have expected a debate should.</p>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess I am ignorant about the basic premises of the EU.&nbsp; I found this web site: http://www.the-electric-universe.info/The_idea.html</p><p>Does this get across the basic idea ? <br />Posted by <strong>DrRocket</strong></DIV></p><p><br />bump ... </p><p><strong>michaelmozina</strong>&nbsp;- Does the site DrR posted above give a fair primer on EU theory ?&nbsp; Anything there you strongly disagree with ? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>I'm sure your ideas will draw a lot of attention, and probably ire, here as well.&nbsp; For instance I'm confounded as to how you can consider the sun to be a hot planet...in anything but the looses analogy (that it's a blackbody).</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>But, if I have any say in it, you'll be able to speak your piece and try to defend it as well.&nbsp; Any attempts to just drive you away or shut you up will be discouraged.</p><p>That said it is expected that you actually try to defend any claims you make, and also not to pose them as accepted theory by mainstream science.&nbsp; I.e. if someone asks how sunspots work, and you say it's a giant hole in the sun caused by planetary shadows (or some such gibberish), and give no indication that your answer is an alternative and controversial viewpoint... I won't like it.&nbsp; You can provide such answers, just be honest about them and thier standing in the overall community.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes sorry about that. I have chatted with Michael before on this forum and find the Alfven waves that show best in black and white photography most helpful. The electric universe proponents have all but been kicked out of the other forum I post on. They certainly aren't given much time to put an idea and get shouted down by the mainstream quantum mechanics and general relativity lobby.</DIV></p><p>It's the last part of the process that I find most disconcerting frankly.&nbsp; I don't put much faith in inflation or MOND theory either, but that doesn't mean that I need to shut anyone up about these subjects.&nbsp; Unfortunately there seems to be a single bias that is directly aimed at the EU theory specifically. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is still a branch of science and I should have posted what I originally intended which is that given our solar system is travelling in the local bubble of space surrounding us, sometimes called the local fluff.&nbsp;It is significant that the ambient temperature of space around our solar system is 6000 degrees which is incidentally about the same temperature as the surface of the sun. I was wondering that as we are moving through that region if consideration is being given to the sun not being a star at all and drawing&nbsp;some or nearer its&nbsp;full energy from the local bubble&nbsp;by being 99.9% of the mass in our solar system.&nbsp;We&nbsp;look at the sun as a star but in the context that it might&nbsp;act like&nbsp;a sponge for the electricity surrounding our region of&nbsp;the solar system.</DIV></p><p>I recently read a paper on Arxiv about the mean temperature of the heliosphere.&nbsp; I was suprised that it came up with that same 6000K figure.&nbsp; It seems pretty logical in the context of EU theory would would predict that the energy is flowing from the universe, through the sun, and therefore the energy everywhere is relatively consistent.&nbsp; In a "sun is it's own energy source" scenario, that doesn't seem very logical.&nbsp; By the time we reach the heliopshere, we would exet the temperature would have dropped off significantly if the sun is the energy sole source of the solar system.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was going to ask MichaelMozina if there was any update from the electric universe group that the sun is more like a very hot planet. </DIV></p><p>I have recently come across some Doppler images of the sun from Stanford that I will be posting on my website later this week.&nbsp; The video shows what seems to be one of the clearest images of volcanic activicy that I have seen.&nbsp; When I update my blog page to include the image, I'll update the sun thread I have going here so I'm not hijacking this thread from it's real intent.&nbsp; </p><p>IMO I'm running into an impass in solar theory that is directly related to the larger problem of the bias against EU theory in general, and the limits of our current satellite and ground based technologies.</p><p>If one theorizes that the sun is it's own energy source, and the core of the sun is the whole energy source of a solar system, it's hard to imagine a sun with a crust.&nbsp; If however one puts a Birkeland model sun in context with EU theory, and theorizes it to be a simple conductor of electrical current, then a sun with a crust doesn't seem far fetched at all.&nbsp; It can still radiate heat from the current it conducts, and we should not be surprised that the heliosphere is roughly the same temperature as the photosphere.&nbsp; </p><p>Some acceptance of EU theory is virtually required to even begin to entertain a Birkeland solar model, and the mainstream seems dead set against accepting any part of EU theory.</p><p>There is also a limit here on what can be done with the current satellite technologies that led me to these theories in the first place.&nbsp; While I can demosntrate my case via observation evidence at the wavelengths available, it's not easy to make any headway on the subject when the mainstream scientiest that work on these projects refuse to discuss them publicly due to the implications of the observations. &nbsp;</p><p>When you see high temperature (million degree) "loops" in light plasma around a sphere, just as Birkeland created them in his lab over 100 years ago, it's pretty obvious that electrical current is involved in this plasma heating process.&nbsp; The mainstream however keeps using verbiage like "magnetic reconnection" in place of "electrical reconnection", in spite of the fact that Alfven himself chastized the idea of "magnetic reconnection" as an energy source.&nbsp; Charged particles "reconnect" all the time, but the reconnection process has nothing to do with magnetism, and everything to do with electrical circuits.&nbsp; It's hard to get the mainstream to even talk about these million degree coronal loops, let alone show us in a lab how they created high temp "loops" around a sphere with "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>There is a distinct difference between the empirical testing of ideas that Birkeland did with EU theory and what the mainstream does with it's ideas.&nbsp; The mainstream never seems to go into a lab to actually test an idea *before* writing a math formula and a computer simulations based on that math formula.</p><p>The mainstream seems to believe that a computer software simulation is equal to "controlled scientific test".&nbsp; That is not the case.&nbsp; A computer can easily simulate anything you wish, but only some things actually exist in reality and have an effect on plasma in a lab.&nbsp; Inflation has&nbsp; never moved any plasma in a lab.&nbsp; Dark energy has never moved any plasma in a lab.&nbsp; Magnetic fields can and do move plasma in a lab, but nobody has ever shown magnetic fields to make and break connnections like electircal circuits and charged particles in plasma.&nbsp; The whole notion of "magnetic reconnection" is nothing but a ruse, a ruse that was discussed and chastized by the created of MHD theory.&nbsp; That hasn't stopped the mainstream from attributing "magnetic reconnection" to Alvven's work, and naming these events after him.&nbsp; That's the part that is unethical, misleading and down right sinister IMO.&nbsp; The mainstream astronomers are not doing their research in the lab, they are doing it on a computer and paper.&nbsp; That isn't an acceptable alternative to empricial testing however.&nbsp; The mainstream has lost touch with emprical science entirely at this point.&nbsp; Any non EU&nbsp; astronomy related idea with a nifty computer simulation and nice math is published, irrespective of whether or not there is any actual emprical evidence of the idea from laboratory testing.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've seen articles this month about "chain inflation", though nobody has ever demonstrated in a lab that inflation wasn't simply a figment of Guth's imagination. &nbsp; I'm not really irked about the fact that people still beleive in, and write about inflation.&nbsp; I'm irked that EU theory doesn't get the same treatement as every other idea, particularly since all of it's core tenets have been tested in lab in controlled laboratory conditions, starting with Birkeland's work over 100 years ago. </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'>bump ... michaelmozina&nbsp;- Does the site DrR posted above give a fair primer on EU theory ?&nbsp; Anything there you strongly disagree with ? <br /> Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p>I'll try to read through that website later today and then I'll be happy to comment.&nbsp; If you want to understand EU theory, I personally think it's better to understand Birkelands terella experiments and Alfven's/Peratt's emprical testing and computer modeling. &nbsp; It should also be noted that EU theory is not a homogenous theory as one might assume at first glance.&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>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have recently come across some Doppler images of the sun from Stanford that I will be posting on my website later this week.&nbsp; The video shows what seems to be one of the clearest <strong>images of volcanic activicy</strong> that I have seen.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Mybe it is comments like this that make it hard for the evil mainstream scientist to take what you say seriously, let alone to not burst out laughing.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The diagram below is in line with every recent description I have seen of the big bang theory.&nbsp; In it the period up to 1/1000 of a second after the big bang is actually called the "Particle Era". Also, it shows that by the first three minutes, protons, neutrons and electrons were formed -- the building blocks of all the matter we see. So it seems that there was plenty of matter in the very early universe to keep the forces acting on matter occupied. I think it is a mistake to not consider matter to exist unless it is in the form of atoms.&nbsp; The neutrons, protons, and electrons that existed one minute after the big bang are just as much matter as the atoms that existed 300,000 thousand years later. http://www.scampnet.net/Personal-Website/popIII_files/popIII_summ_bbang.html <br /> Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p>And of course within three minutes, the mass of the pasticles should have caused the whole thing to implode, and the only known force of nature that is known to exist in nature and is known to 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity is the EM field. </p><p>Things that make you go "hmmmm"........</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'>Mybe it is comments like this that make it hard for the evil mainstream scientist to take what you say seriously, let alone to not burst out laughing.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>You know, it's comments like this, without you ever even having seen the video in question, that make it hard for me to take you seriously.&nbsp; I'm not going to get into a solar theory discussion in this thread.&nbsp; When I post the image and update my blog, I'll dig up the surface of the sun thread and post a link there if you want to continue that discussion.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>If we're going to have an EU discussion related to solar theory in this thread it will be limited to those million degree discharges you see inside of the plasma in coronal loop activity, or the acceleration of solar wind particles as they move away from the photosphere.&nbsp; These are simple plasma behaviors that are easily demonstrated to be associated with electrical current.</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'>... an EU discussion related to solar theory in this thread it will be limited to those million degree discharges you see inside of the plasma in coronal loop activity, or the acceleration of solar wind particles as they move away from the photosphere.&nbsp; These are simple plasma behaviors that are easily demonstrated to be associated with electrical current. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I am having an extraordinarily difficult time figuring out what you are talking about or precisely where the controversy lies.&nbsp; Is there someplace where I can find a description of the basic tenets of what you are calling EU theory?</p><p>I will readily admit that in most situations the electromagnetic force overwhelms gravity.&nbsp; If it did not we would all be falling through the floor.&nbsp; Similarly, it is pretty hard to have a plasma, with all those mobile charges available, without having a current.&nbsp; It is equally difficult to conjure up a&nbsp;magnetic field without finding a current lurking somewhere.&nbsp; Solar wind particles are charged.&nbsp; Therefore,&nbsp;essentially by definition, they feel the electromagnetic force; i.e. the Lorentz force equation is applicable.&nbsp; Stars are pretty hot, hot enough to create a plasma.&nbsp; Ditto for electrical arcs.&nbsp; So what ?</p><p>I see little hints of things like a hypothesis that fusion is not an important process in solar physics.&nbsp; Is such a hyothesis a part of the EU idea ? (A yes or no answer would be most appreciated.)</p><p>Could we at least make it clear what the argument is about ?</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am having an extraordinarily difficult time figuring out what you are talking about or precisely where the controversy lies.&nbsp; Is there someplace where I can find a description of the basic tenets of what you are calling EU theory?I will readily admit that in most situations the electromagnetic force overwhelms gravity.&nbsp; If it did not we would all be falling through the floor.&nbsp; Similarly, it is pretty hard to have a plasma, with all those mobile charges available, without having a current.&nbsp; It is equally difficult to conjure up a&nbsp;magnetic field without finding a current lurking somewhere.&nbsp; Solar wind particles are charged.&nbsp; Therefore,&nbsp;essentially by definition, they feel the electromagnetic force; i.e. the Lorentz force equation is applicable.&nbsp; Stars are pretty hot, hot enough to create a plasma.&nbsp; Ditto for electrical arcs.&nbsp; So what ?I see little hints of things like a hypothesis that fusion is not an important process in solar physics.&nbsp; Is such a hyothesis a part of the EU idea ? (A yes or no answer would be most appreciated.)Could we at least make it clear what the argument is about ?&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Like many of these 'non traditional theories' it depends on who you talk to as to what the EU theory is.</p><p>The bottom line is that EU theory says that electrical fields&nbsp;are more important in the large scale structure of the universe than&nbsp;gravity.&nbsp; That is to say glaxies are held together by electrical charge differences not gravity.&nbsp; I know that some EU proponets go as far as to say the planet are held in orbit by electrical fields instead of gravity.</p><p>As far as the sun goes Michael diverges from many of the EU proponets.&nbsp; He beleives that the suns core is a neutron star and the 'surface' of the sun is an actual solid surface made of mostly iron.&nbsp; This iron surface is in the form of a shell that surrounds the neutron star.&nbsp; Edited to add - the power of the sun comes from neutron decay on the collapsed core and from electrical discharges (lightning) on the surface of the sun.</p><p>Michael, is this more or less an accurate discription of your ideas?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25344</p><p align="left"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font face="geneva,arial,verdana" size="-1">PASADENA, Calif. -- As a powerful electrical storm rages on Saturn with lightning bolts 10,000 times more powerful than those found on Earth, the Cassini spacecraft continues its five-month watch over the dramatic events. </font></p> <p align="left"> <font face="geneva,arial,verdana" size="-1">Scientists with NASA's Cassini-Huygens mission have been tracking the visibly bright, lightning-generating storm--the longest continually observed electrical storm ever monitored by Cassini. </font></p> <p align="left"> <font face="geneva,arial,verdana" size="-1">Saturn's electrical storms resemble terrestrial thunderstorms, but on a much larger scale. Storms on Saturn have diameters of several thousand kilometers (thousands of miles), and radio signals produced by their lightning are thousands of times more powerful than those produced by terrestrial thunderstorms.</DIV></font></p><p align="left">So, in other words, as we go up the scale in physical size of the astronomical body in question, we see siginificant increases in the emount of electrical atmospheric activity.&nbsp; Why then are coronal loops any kind of "mystery" at all?&nbsp; Bruce had them pegged as electrical discharges over 50 years ago, and Birkeland simulated them in a lab over 100 years ago.&nbsp; Miraculacely however, when we point our equipment at the solar atmosphere and see obvious signs of electrical discharges in it's atmosphere, we call it "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Boloney.&nbsp; There's a problem here.&nbsp; The universe itself is electric.&nbsp; Any physical body will conduct current.&nbsp; The larger the body, the larger the current it will carry. It's not a mystery why the sun erupts as it does.&nbsp; It's simply electrically interacting with an electrically conductive universe. </p><p>When we point Rhessi at Earth, we see gamma rays from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; Likewise when we point that same equipment at the sun, we see gamma rays from the electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; It's not a mystery folks.&nbsp; The only mystery is why the mainstream continues to deny the 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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Like many of these 'non traditional theories' it depends on who you talk to as to what the EU theory is.The bottom line is that EU theory says that electrical fields&nbsp;are more important in the large scale structure of the universe than&nbsp;gravity.&nbsp; That is to say glaxies are held together by electrical charge differences not gravity.&nbsp; I know that some EU proponets go as far as to say the planet are held in orbit by electrical fields instead of gravity.As far as the sun goes Michael diverges from many of the EU proponets.&nbsp; He beleives that the suns core is a neutron star and the 'surface' of the sun is an actual solid surface made of mostly iron.&nbsp; This iron surface is in the form of a shell that surrounds the neutron star.&nbsp; Edited to add - the power of the sun comes from neutron decay on the collapsed core and from electrical discharges (lightning) on the surface of the sun.Michael, is this more or less an accurate discription of your ideas? <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Yes, that is a reasonably accurate description of my views.&nbsp; You are actually more attentive to detail than I gave you credit for.&nbsp; It is entirely correct that EU theory diverges at various points, particularly solar theory.&nbsp; Birkeland's solar model works well in a lab and it's been well tested to work in a lab.&nbsp; Hydrogen fusion doesn't seem to be sustainable in a lab.&nbsp; FYI, the solar model I favor is the same one that Birkeland himself favored over 100 years ago.&nbsp; He realized the sun had a plasma atmosphere that was electrically acitve.&nbsp; That would still be true of a completely plasma sun, uncluding a mass separated plasma sun.&nbsp; Either concept would likely produce similar results as long as the primary energy source is the electrical flow of the universe. </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'>I am having an extraordinarily difficult time figuring out what you are talking about or precisely where the controversy lies.&nbsp; Is there someplace where I can find a description of the basic tenets of what you are calling EU theory?</DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will readily admit that in most situations the electromagnetic force overwhelms gravity.&nbsp; If it did not we would all be falling through the floor.&nbsp; Similarly, it is pretty hard to have a plasma, with all those mobile charges available, without having a current.&nbsp; It is equally difficult to conjure up a&nbsp;magnetic field without finding a current lurking somewhere.&nbsp; Solar wind particles are charged.&nbsp; Therefore,&nbsp;essentially by definition, they feel the electromagnetic force; i.e. the Lorentz force equation is applicable.&nbsp; Stars are pretty hot, hot enough to create a plasma.&nbsp; Ditto for electrical arcs.&nbsp; So what ?I see little hints of things like a hypothesis that fusion is not an important process in solar physics.&nbsp; Is such a hyothesis a part of the EU idea ? (A yes or no answer would be most appreciated.)Could we at least make it clear what the argument is about ?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The primary theoretical difference in opinion begins with the primary energy source of the sun.&nbsp; While fusion may play a role in the total output of the sun, most EU theories begin with the premise that the electrical current running through the physical universe is the primary energy source of stars.</p><p>The differences then extend from the photosphere to the heliosphere, where EU theory predicts there to be a "current flow" that runs though the system and accelerates the charged solar wind particles as they accelerate towards the heliosheath.</p><p>The electrical discharges we observe on Saturn are not unlike the electrical discharges we observe in the solar atmosphere, other than the intensity and duration of these discharges.&nbsp; We would expect such difference in intensity anyway based on the differences we observe betweenn Earth's atmosphere as compared to Saturns atmosphere. &nbsp;</p><p>Keep in mind that the sun's atmosphere is hot enough to form plasma which is a nearly perfect conductor of electrical current. &nbsp; The sun then becomes the focal point of electrical energy running through our solar system and it's plasma atmosphere is capable of conducting huge amounts of electrical current.&nbsp; The sun is not "magnetically reconnecting" with anything.&nbsp; It's electrically interacting with an electrically conductive, and an electrically active universe.</p><p>Does that provide you with a sufficient overview overview of EU theory and how it compares to standard theory? </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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmologyThe primary theoretical difference in opinion begins with the primary energy source of the sun.&nbsp; While fusion may play a role in the total output of the sun, most EU theories begin with the premise that the electrical current running through the physical universe is the primary energy source of stars....It's electrically interacting with an electrically conductive, and an electrically active universe.Does that provide you with a sufficient overview overview of EU theory and how it compares to standard theory? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Yes.&nbsp; Thank you.&nbsp; Most enlightening.</p><p>But, doesn't that Wikipedia article answer the question that is the title of this thread ?</p><p>If an electrical current is responsible for the energy of the stars, including the sun, then since the plasma of the sun and of the stars is indeed a really good conductor, would not the implied ohmic heating require a gigantic current ?&nbsp; And if there were such a tremendous current flow, wouldn't there be an equally gigantic magnetic field resulting from it ?&nbsp; Such a field ought to be readily detected.&nbsp; To substantiate this notion one would expect to&nbsp;see&nbsp;a calculation of the current involved, the resulting field and experimental detection of that field.&nbsp; Does such a calculation exist ?&nbsp; Is it consistent with observed magnetic fields ?</p><p>What is the form of this current ?&nbsp; Is it electrons alone flying through space, or is it a flow of positive and negative charged particles in opposite directions ?&nbsp; In the former case, one ought to be able to detect the electric field associated with such a net negatively charged region of space.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When you see high temperature (million degree) "loops" in light plasma around a sphere, just as Birkeland created them in his lab over 100 years ago, it's pretty obvious that electrical current is involved in this plasma heating process.&nbsp; Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />I had no idea he created million degree temperatures in the lab!<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <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>