Slashdot Mirror

Re: "if you want to take on mainstream cosmology, then create a consistent and testable hypothesis, and publish it."

The hypothesis that we can use observations of electric discharges in plasma laboratories to inform inferences about what we are seeing in space has proven to be wildly successful at predicting the features of space. There is a very long history of successes which are generally not taught to American graduate students; IEEE, the world's largest technical organization, publishes a journal which runs science papers on this topic (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science); the U.S. government has employed one of the world's most authoritative experts in electrical cosmology - Anthony Peratt - to run some of its most expensive classified experiments. Peratt is the intellectual descendant of Hannes Alfven, who received the Nobel Prize in 1970 for his creation of magnetohydrodynamics. There can be little doubt that Alfven's work has been put to great use in a variety of U.S. military applications. Kristian Birkeland, e.g., actually invented the electromagnetic rail gun.

But you'd not realize any of this by listening to Big Bang proponents. Let's review the history they like to ignore, and take a closer look at the misleading ways that they prefer to tell the story.

Despite a half-century of resistance led by the Royal Astronomical Society, Kristian Birkeland's theory that the aurora is caused by the Sun is now the accepted theory. So, what were the types of reasons proposed for why we should reject Birkeland's hypothesis?

"After Kristian Birkeland [1] (1867-1917) suggested in 1908 that Earth’s auroras were powered by corpuscular rays emanating from the Sun that become deflected into Earth’s polar regions by the geomagnetic field, the existence of such magnetic field-aligned currents was strongly disputed based partially on the idea that currents could not cross the presumed 'vacuum' of space."

Birkeland became the world's first laboratory astrophysicist when he constructed his terrella - a "mini-Earth" - in order to help formulate his model. Birkeland's success would prove to be a major loss for the Royal Society, and as Ian Tresman documents, it took many years for mainstream astrophysicists to finally acknowledge that Birkeland was right: [pay close attention to the parts they leave out!]

"The history of Birekland Currents appears to mired in politics.[17]

After Kristian Birkeland suggested 'currents there are imagined as having come into existence mainly as a secondary effect of the electric corpuscles from the sun drawn in out of space,' (1908), his ideas were generally ignored in favour of an alternative theory from British mathematician Sydney Chapman.

In 1939, the Swedish Engineer and plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén promoted Birkeland's ideas in a paper published on the generation of the current from the Solar Wind.[18] One of Alfvén's colleagues, Rolf Boström, also used field-aligned currents in a new model of auroral electrojets (1964).[19]

In 1966 Alfred Zmuda, J.H. Martin, and F.T.Heuring reported their findings of magnetic disturbance in the aurora, using a satellite magnetometer, but did not mention Alfvén, Birkeland, or field-aligned currents, even after it was brought to their attention by editor of the space physics section of the journal, Alex Dressler.[20] [this part is not mentioned in the wikipedia article]

In 1967 Alex Dessler and one of his graduates students, David Cummings, wrote an article arguing that Zmuda et al had indeed detected field align-currents.[21] Even Alfvén subsequently credited (1986) that Dessler 'discovered the currents that Birkeland had predicted' and should be called Birkeland-Dessler currents.[22]

In 1969 Mi

I once encountered a cosmic filament expert on Twitter. He agreed that the EU idea was actually a scientific hypothesis, but similar to what you've stated above, he said that if it was true that the many plasma filaments we observe are electric currents, then we should see large magnetic fields and even synchrotron emissions associated with them. He presented a detailed conceptual rebuttal - a short two-page explanation. That interaction was a great example of how people should be discussing these issues - in a calm, rational manner where we are comparing the idea against known observations. People pay attention to different things, so these discussions can bring to light important, missed details when everybody seeks to approach the subject in a scientific manner.

That exchange helped me to see that he was assuming a simple transmission line model. Birkeland currents are not bound to this simple transmission line model now that we can see that they can form into more complex coaxial (Bessel function) configurations. The coaxial configuration of the Birkeland current - known more formally as the "force-free field-aligned Birkeland current" - has two remarkable implications:

1. The coaxial configuration will make it difficult to observe the electric current's magnetic field signature. That part should be fairly straightforward to anybody with a modest EE background or even just familiarity with the right-hand rule.

2. Considerably less obvious is that there would also not necessarily be any synchrotron emissions. From Section 8 of Scott's paper:

"At every point in the plasma, j and B are collinear."

In technical terms, this means that such charged matter has zero radial acceleration, meaning zero synchrotron emission.

What was interesting about the exchange was that it had very little impact upon the filament experts' approach and mindset. I've since witnessed him purchase a novelty plasma globe, but that's it!

Re: And yet when we search for these massive fields, they've never been found

It's not clear why you expect to see "massive" fields. Don Scott has published the mathematics for the force-free field-aligned Birkeland current, and it is a Bessel function - a series of concentric cylinders of counter-rotating charge.

To be clear, there is no mathematical basis in the Bessel function for your claim that a massive field would be observable from outside of the filament structure.

If you take a close look at the geometry which is being alleged, you should notice that the existence of these counter-rotating cylinders means that we cannot assume that electric currents will produce large magnetic fields.

It wasn't more than about two years after Dr. Scott published this paper, by the way, that another paper was published, acknowledging the existence of counter-rotation in AGN [active galactic nuclei] jets:

our results have now yielded firm evidence that many — possibly all — AGN jets have inward currents along their axes and outward currents in a more extended region surrounding the jets. This provides fundamental information about the conditions leading to the formation and launching of the jets, as well as key input to theoretical simulations of astrophysical jets. It also indicates that astrophysical jets are fundamentally electromagnetic structures, which must be borne in mind when interpreting observed features in the distributions of both their intensity and linear polarization.

Setting aside the fact that the existence of mathematics does not somehow make it correct, it is absolutely misleading to assert that there is no mathematics associated with either electrical cosmology (for example here) or the Electric Universe (for example here). In fact, understanding both require a deep appreciation for the Lorentz Force and Maxwell's Equations. Mathematics has been a part of electrical cosmology from its inception (for example here).

Math is crucial for understanding the critical ionization velocity effect; it has been used to show how Marklund convection can replace gravitational accretion as a system for forming stars (and unlike the idea of stars accreting gravitationally, the geometry matches observations of actual stars forming all at once in a burst). Don Scott could not have accurately predicted the structure of AGN jets without significant amounts of mathematics. He's a retired EE professor, so he has spent his life immersed in these mathematics which you claim the EU does not include.

Attempts to model space without electrodynamic plasma physics concepts are destined to fail. We know this because it's already been tried, and the approach has failed to explain the nature of the many cosmic plasma structures we observe.

Think about it this way: What is the first plasma we encounter as we leave the Earth? It's the ionosphere. You may not know a whole lot about the ionosphere, but if you've been paying attention at all, you will at least understand that it is layered. You might spend some time thinking about why that is. Why should differing concentrations of charge exist in layers at all? Why not just a smooth gradient of charge that tapers off as one leaves Earth? Why should differing, adjacent regions of charge not neutralize one another?

The math here explains why.

"As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory.

A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources ... Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object." ("Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics", Hannes Alfven, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Dec 1986)

In a 1992 paper titled, "Double Layers Do Accelerate Particles in the Auroral Zone," the authors plainly state:

"the direct observational evidence for substantial (multi-kV) electrostatic potential structures in the auroral zone is plentiful [16-27].

The Earth's auroral zone is far from being fully understood, but observations clearly show that electrostatic-potential structures (called double layers or electrostatic shocks) reside in the auroral magnetosphere."

Observations of laboratory plasmas have shown that double layers are what lend plasmas their structure. When you see a plasma filament in a novelty plasma globe, you should be asking: Why is charge confined to this thin filament? Laboratory plasma physicists point to the double layer as the source of this structure.

You should also be asking these same types of questions about the Van Allen Radiation belts: How can it be that these belts have all of this

Setting aside the fact that the existence of mathematics does not somehow make it correct, it is absolutely misleading to assert that there is no mathematics associated with either electrical cosmology (for example here) or the Electric Universe (for example here). In fact, understanding both require a deep appreciation for the Lorentz Force and Maxwell's Equations. Mathematics has been a part of electrical cosmology from its inception (for example here).

Math is crucial for understanding the critical ionization velocity effect; it has been used to show how Marklund convection can replace gravitational accretion as a system for forming stars (and unlike the idea of stars accreting gravitationally, the geometry matches observations of actual stars forming all at once in a burst). Don Scott could not have accurately predicted the structure of AGN jets without significant amounts of mathematics. He's a retired EE professor, so he has spent his life immersed in these mathematics which you claim the EU does not include.

Attempts to model space without electrodynamic plasma physics concepts are destined to fail. We know this because it's already been tried, and the approach has failed to explain the nature of the many cosmic plasma structures we observe.

Think about it this way: What is the first plasma we encounter as we leave the Earth? It's the ionosphere. You may not know a whole lot about the ionosphere, but if you've been paying attention at all, you will at least understand that it is layered. You might spend some time thinking about why that is. Why should differing concentrations of charge exist in layers at all? Why not just a smooth gradient of charge that tapers off as one leaves Earth? Why should differing, adjacent regions of charge not neutralize one another?

The math here explains why.

"As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory.

A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources ... Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object." ("Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics", Hannes Alfven, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Dec 1986)

In a 1992 paper titled, "Double Layers Do Accelerate Particles in the Auroral Zone," the authors plainly state:

"the direct observational evidence for substantial (multi-kV) electrostatic potential structures in the auroral zone is plentiful [16-27].

The Earth's auroral zone is far from being fully understood, but observations clearly show that electrostatic-potential structures (called double layers or electrostatic shocks) reside in the auroral magnetosphere."

Observations of laboratory plasmas have shown that double layers are what lend plasmas their structure. When you see a plasma filament in a novelty plasma globe, you should be asking: Why is charge confined to this thin filament? Laboratory plasma physicists point to the double layer as the source of this structure.

You should also be asking these same types of questions about the Van Allen Radiation belts: How can it be that these belts have all of this

It's always fun whenever physics gets a good shake-up.

I'll just leave this excerpt from Robitaille's 2007 paper here.

There are numerous arguments supporting a liquid plasma model. These include: (1) the continuous nature of the emission spectrum, (2) the average density of the solar mass, (3) the gentle oblateness of the solar sphere, (4) the presence of a distinct solar surface, (5) the presence of surface gravity waves and helioseimology studies, (6) the known existence of hydrogen on Earth in the liquid metallic plasma state at high pressures and temperatures, (7) the existence of solar boiling, and (8) the presence of the corona, transition zone, and chromosphere. In addition, the liquid plasma model provides for the mixing of solar materials, resulting in important evolutionary consequences for the stars. At the same time, the liquid plasma model addresses the issue of coronal heating and helps to resolve the thermodynamic problems in this area.

It "doesn't have any math behind it"?

Re: "and it requires Relativity to be completely wrong"

All you've done here is to ignore the disconnect between Relativity and quantum mechanics. The two ideas cannot be made to work with one another, so simple logic suggests that at least one of them must be in error.

Also: the failure to observe dark matter, even as instrumentation for observing it has become a million times more sensitive over the past 15 years, is further reason to suspect -- as has been stated by the Electric Universe theorists -- that gravity does not dominate beyond the planetary scale.

To the extent that people contemplate alternative ideas in cosmology, they do so because of cosmology's own failure to solve these same problems.

The reasons for 'crankery'

The advancement of science requires - absolutely - what I call 'forced' induction (as opposed to 'free' induction - what animals do). This requires that you go off on your own to think independently. The extent to which you 'go off alone' determines whether you will become an acceptable scientist or what you call a 'crank'. Unfortunately, the originality of your ideas is tied inextricably to the measure of your 'aloneness'.

Other people act as guides and supports (a frame of reference) upon which you can rely to 'set you straight' when you stray into the realm of the 'illucid'. As I have said, 'Self delusion is the bane of induction'. I know this to be true from extensive personal experience. It is a real struggle to keep one's thoughts on track without the assistance of other readily available opinion.

Thus, if a scientist at Cern has a really bad idea, he may mention it to a colleague who says,

'Did you slip on a bar of soap in the shower? Don't you remember the 'X' factor we were just talking about last week?'

And then the first guy says, 'Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Forget it.'

Now he's back on track in less than ten seconds.

Someone alone however, may struggle for weeks in the same situation, unable to see a simple thing that another disinterested person would notice immediately. He may pursue the wrongheaded matter to some new bizarre conclusion and believe that he has found the Holy Grail. And the more effort he has put into it, the less he will be willing to give it up.

Therefore, if you go off alone you tend to become a 'crank'... but if you remain with the herd you tend to discover nothing new, i.e. and become a 'pundit'.

There is a Gaussian distribution here.

There are perhaps five or six thousand individuals who actually try to do 'forced induction' at the highest level. Half of them fall on the left 'crank' side of the distribution and half fall on the right 'pundit' side. Each half needs the other.

You could make the case that the 'extremes' ought to be cut off. But I would say, 'Who is to decide the cutoff point?'. I certainly wouldn't want to make such a momentous decision. Hence, I don't criticize other people's stuff in general since I understand how difficult it is to produce anything at all.

The same applies in the larger sense to wide groups of individuals. If the 'ship of science' (or one of its smaller boats) decides to drop anchor and wait for the truth to come to it ... they will stagnate and you will find that many more 'cranks' pop up to point out the paucity of perpendicular progress ... at the same time offering new and evermore bizarre solutions to present problems.

This is actually the present situation. The physics establishment has decided that they can proceed by experiment alone (data gathering) and that the data will tell them what to 'induce' next.

In fact, it will.

But this is the method of the animal population ... fre

Observation of concentric cylinders of electric currents in AGN jets is certainly a problem for mainstream science, as this is exactly what was predicted in a 2015 paper by Electric Universe theorist, Don Scott.

Please tell us why anybody should try to model such an observation with fluids equations. Seems like a complete waste of time to me.

Several labs have detected the effect, now NASA has shown it happens in a vacuum.

Theorists must be scrambling to make sense of it.

Here's a paper that uses something called Modified inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect. (MiHsC)

http://www.ptep-online.com/ind...

.....but the pressure exerted on the rock.......

I believe you are right. The pressure per se, would still steadily increase, all the way to the center, but the pressure GRADIENT would go towards zero. If there could be a hollow chamber in the center, one that could stand the pressure of the rock above it, then anything inside that chamber would not experience any net gravitational force. Is that not correct?

I came across an interesting article titled "The History of Black Holes". It gives reasons why they don't exists as a physical reality, but only as a theoretical, mathematical construct, and even then only if certain assumptions are made. If you are interested, you can get it here:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF

The reason why black holes have not been discovered and directly observed is simple: The are no such things. Neither is there dark matter/energy, parallel Universes, strings, worm holes and other mathematical fictions.