Weak Solar Convection 100 Times Slower Than Predicted

An anonymous reader writes about an observation that convection in the outer layer of the Sun seems not to behave how it ought to: "These new findings based on SDO imagery, if verified, would upend our understanding of how heat is transported outwards by the Sun and challenges existing explanations of the formation of sunspots, the magnetic field generation of the sun, not to mention the concept of convective mixing of light and heavy elements in the solar atmosphere. 'However, our results (PDF) suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations,' continued Hanasoge, also a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Plank Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. 'These motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun's interior.'"

Comments

Could this lead to new physics?

[vivian]

Some of the best moments in science have started with "Hmm, that's funny..." I wonder what this one will lead to.

Re:Could this lead to new physics?

[Talderas]

To the center of the sun!

We will find the jolly green giant is behind all magnetic fields.

Re:Could this lead to new physics?

[cusco]

They sound hot!

Re:Could this lead to new physics?

[Jeng]

Perhaps we'll realize that we misjudged how long till the sun goes BOOM! ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_of_Distant_Earth

All this new-fangled theorizering is bogus anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just go there and see with our own eyes. It's only 8 lightminutes away.

The simplest explanation

[EmagGeek]

If you get results that fly in the face of decades of peer-reviewed research, your first instinct should not be to believe you've upended physics as we know it. Your first instinct should be, "Oh shit, what did I fuck up?"

My money is on the "results" being wrong.

Re:The simplest explanation

[JasoninKS]

Well crap...I forgot to carry the "2"...

Re:The simplest explanation

[Splab]

They are not flying against decades of peer reviewed research - earlier data were projections; those will tend to be massively wrong, just look at your local weather forecasts...

Re:The simplest explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok! Ok! I must have, I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit. I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail!

Re:The simplest explanation

[Drethon]

Right. When an observation conflicts with years of previous observations, double check the most recent observation. When an observation conflicts with years of theory and computer models...

Re:The simplest explanation

[eggstasy]

Well I'm not an astrophysicist but in my admittedly poor understanding of this, they finally got around to measuring something, whereas before it was just a hypothesis. We assumed, for decades, that other planetary systems would be like ours, simply because we hadn't seen them.
It doesn't need any sort of new physics. We just need a better hypothesis on what causes the Sun's magnetic field.
NASA does screw up, sometimes, but it's not like some wacko in the middle of India looked at red-tinted rain and said it was some kind of alien lifeform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala#Extraterrestrial_hypothesis

Re:The simplest explanation

[your_neighbor]

If you get results that fly in the face of decades of peer-reviewed research, your first instinct should not be to believe you've upended physics as we know it. Your first instinct should be, "Oh shit, what did I fuck up?"

My money is on the "results" being wrong.

Increase the "Oh shit, what did I fuck up?" if your "results" are multiple of 2 or 10:

"What they found significantly departed from existing theory–specifically, the speed of the Sun’s plasma motions were approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected."

Re:The simplest explanation

[sg_oneill]

Considering the article linked is on a climate deniers website, you well may end up having a point. I'd like to see a more credible source for this story than the quack watt's site.

Re:The simplest explanation

[eggstasy]

It's called Google. Here's a whole bunch of places where you can see a similar article:
http://www.science-news.eu/astronomy-news/cluster142794/

And here's the actual paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3173v1.pdf

Re:The simplest explanation

[SirGarlon]

Sometimes decades of peer-reviewed research is wrong. Not very often, I admit, but it is exactly to find such occasions that people do science in the first place. I don't think we should discourage researchers from reporting unorthodox findings.

Instead of making veiled accusations when someone announces an unexpected finding, the correct response is to take a careful look at it. If accusations of fraud or ineptitude are warranted, peer review will make that clear.

Of course, I wholeheartedly agree that researchers should check their work and subject it to peer review before they call a press conference. I still remember the "cold fusion" fiasco. Like cold fusion, this result is nothing until it's passed thorough review.

Re:The simplest explanation

[Bengie]

Your weather is reported in kelvin? That is so awesome.

Re:The simplest explanation

[GameboyRMH]

Still, too bad our editors couldn't have done that for us. Submissions have been rejected for a lot less than linking to a shitty source.

Re:The simplest explanation

[the computer guy nex]

"They are not flying against decades of peer reviewed research - earlier data were projections; those will tend to be massively wrong, just look at your local weather forecasts..."

If Slashdot commenters admit that data projections can be massively wrong, then they must admit that climate projections (the favorite topic around here) could be wrong.

Re:The simplest explanation

[gmuslera]

Better yet, the recent faster than light neutrinos. Anyway, don't close the door to new discoveries and major rewrites of theories because facts don't match their predictions. Discarding facts because don't match the idea we have of the world is called religion, not science.

Re:The simplest explanation

[Rob Riggs]

Slashdot is linking to a climate denier's website in order to increase the hype factor. I'm sure they got plenty of submissions for this story that linked to more mainstream sites. But that would not provoke the masses. This site is morphing into HuffPo since CmdrTaco left.

Re:The simplest explanation

[Boronx]

But then you'd have to admit that they could be right.

Re:The simplest explanation

[kelemvor4]

Ok! Ok! I must have, I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit. I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail!

Oh! What is this fairly mundane detail, Michael?!!!!!

Re:The simplest explanation

[bunratty]

A result reached in only one reviewed paper is often next to nothing. That's why science requires repeatability. Any particular scientific paper stands a good chance of being wrong, for a number of reasons. If the paper requires a 5% probability or less of getting the results by chance alone, and most papers that get negative results are not published, then there's a higher than 10% probability that a published paper's results were obtained through chance alone -- the researchers were just lucky. Then there are numerous mistakes that can be made, although many of these mistakes are weeded out in peer review. And some scientists fudge the data or just publish outright fraudulent research.

On the other hand, if there are hundreds of research papers published over decades of research, and the vast majority of papers get results that are consistent with each other, and scientists have reached a consensus that the research is valid, then that's a completely different story. Unfortunately, most people (even Slashdot posters) can't distinguish between these two very different cases.

In this case, though, it looks like the numerous papers published previously were mere predictions. This latest paper provides observations that do not match the predictions. If these observations are repeatable, then it looks like the predictions were just wrong.

Re:The simplest explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no such thing as "degrees Kelvin." Kelvins are not degrees.

You should have wrote it like this:
For example, if they predict 305 Kelvins, it's usually correct to within 1 or 2 Kelvins. It doesn't end up being 30500 Kelvins, or 3.05 Kelvins.

Re:The simplest explanation

[moj0joj0]

To paraphrase some movie or person, I'm sure, the Data picks you, you don't pick the Data.

We all know the Data is fully functional.

Re:The simplest explanation

[phantomfive]

Sometimes decades of peer-reviewed research is wrong.

There are clues to when it might go wrong. When it does, there was always some kind of questionable scientific behavior going on, like not double-checking experiments, etc. (Some of those are discussed here).

Usually it happens in fields that are harder to check, for example, neurology, where you can't dissect living people's brains to test your theory, or economics, where it's impossibly to set up a double-blind experiment of economies to see exactly how your tax cut/stimulus will affect things. In the case of the sun, it's just hard to get up close to and look at. Hard to collect good data of what's going on.

But where you can collect good data, it's rare that there are mistakes. Every high school physics class has verified the acceleration of falling objects, that's not likely to be overturned any time soon.

Re:The simplest explanation

[lgw]

Yeah, nothing say "quack" like resisting the massive power and money grab based soley on secret computer models that never seem to actually make accurate predictions. After all "the science is settled"!

Re:The simplest explanation

[lgw]

The researches involved with that did the right things: they published a paper saying "we got these unbelievable results, help us find our error." Don't cast aspersions because of the horrific state of science reporting.

Re:The simplest explanation

[ultranova]

If Slashdot commenters admit that data projections can be massively wrong, then they must admit that climate projections (the favorite topic around here) could be wrong.

The difference is that here, the observations contradict the projections, while with the climate the observations confirm the projections.Yearly average temperatures are climbing, species are spreading north, arctic ice is shrinking...

It's the climate "scepticists" who deny observed reality, not scientists.

Re:The simplest explanation

[treeves]

Of course cold fusion was never decades of peer-reviewed research. As soon as some peers reviewed it (tried to replicate it) it was shown for what it was.

Bosonic Disruptor

[MacGyver2210]

Once again, I blame this phenomenon squarely on the Higgs Boson.

Re:Bosonic Disruptor

[hazydave]

Naa... it's the damn photino birds eating up the sun's core.

Electric Sun?

[Bobb Sledd]

Forgive me for asking a basic question, if it is one. Assuming these observations are indeed correct, does this make any part of the idea of an electric sun more plausible than the current model of the sun? If string theory seems more like physics than magic, then why is even the direction of the idea toward an electric sun absurd?

Re:Electric Sun?

[grantspassalan]

For centuries, people have assumed that the sun is nothing more than a big campfire in the sky. When scientists learned more about chemistry and the energies involved, they realized that the energy output is far too large to be supported by any chemical process known. Just at the time when that realization hit, humanity discovered atomic energy. So the natural assumption was that the energy source of the sun was the atom. Subsequent observations of the sun, including this latest one contradict the theory that the sun is heated from the inside out. The fact that the corona is much hotter contradicts well-known facts of thermodynamics. Sunspots are dark because they are holes in the solar atmosphere allowing the cooler solar interior to be seen through them. The fusion reaction supposedly happening in the interior of the Sun produces copious amounts of neutrinos. However, the number of neutrinos that should be measured here on earth from the sun are far below what we should see if the fusion model were correct. Although the energy output of the sun in the light and heat spectrum, that we depend on for survival, is remarkably constant, this is not so in other parts of the solar spectrum. During the 11 year cycle of the sun, the output in ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays varies widely.

Lines of magnetic fields do not exist anymore in reality than the lines of equal altitude on a map. Therefore the theory of reconnecting lines of magnetic energy is totally bogus. The EU theory has it that the sun and all stars are externally powered by immense galactic electric currents. All observations of the sun fit the theory that the sun is externally powered. I think the electric universe theory deserves a closer look, because it seems to explain solar observations. The EU theory also does not require dark matter, dark energy and black holes and other mathematical constructs which have never been observed in reality.

Re:Electric Sun?

[cusco]

A couple of reasons, one of which is that the electric sun people can't even come up with an even vaguely coherent hypothesis for how their supposed electric circuit is supposed to work, and it explains almost none of the observed solar phenomena. The enormous quantity of electrons that are supposed to be streaming in from the interstellar gas (because they think that the interstellar gas heats the sun, not gravitationally-induced heating and hydrogen fusion) should be easily observable, in fact they should be constantly producing auroras visible all the way to the equator, but no electrical flux of this magnitude has been observed.

Like the idea of 'morphic fields' the 'electric universe' foolishness is unlikely to die for a long time, in spite of the absolute dearth of evidence for it and better explanations for which evidence does exist.

Re:Electric Sun?

[ultranova]

The fact that the corona is much hotter contradicts well-known facts of thermodynamics. Sunspots are dark because they are holes in the solar atmosphere allowing the cooler solar interior to be seen through them.

A fun thermodynamical fact: if you surround a cold object with an envelope of hot gas, that object will heat to the same temperature as the gas. So it's not like the EU explains this either.

Re:Electric Sun?

[freality]

just reading the EU site now, http://www.thunderbolts.info/EU%20Intro%20and%20Chap1.pdf, they say it's the motion of plasmas, which are the dominant form of actually observed matter in the universe.

Re:Electric Sun?

[Mac_OSX-1]

The EU "Electric Sun" makes no testable predictions. When asking EU 'theorists' about the value of the magnetic field around the Sun according to their Z-pinch model, and how it is calculated, so we can compare to spacecraft measurements, we get no answer. Attempts to build a model based on their descriptions generate values that are factors of thousands to millions of times larger than the measurments.
That is not a characteristic of a working theory.
If we ask about the particle energy and flux of particles based on the EU solar 'cathode' model, we get no answer. Attempts to build a model based on their descriptions generate values that indicate that if such currents existed, they would be fatal to satellites and astronauts.
This is not a characteristic of a working theory.
For a quick summary of the failures of EU, see
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html

Re:Electric Sun?

[mister_playboy]

The fusion reaction supposedly happening in the interior of the Sun produces copious amounts of neutrinos. However, the number of neutrinos that should be measured here on earth from the sun are far below what we should see if the fusion model were correct.

Looks trollish to me but I do want to address this particular falsehood about solar neutrinos.

The solar neutrino problem was a major discrepancy between measurements of the numbers of neutrinos flowing through the Earth and theoretical models of the solar interior, lasting from the mid-1960s to about 2002. The discrepancy has since been resolved by new understanding of neutrino physics, requiring a modification of the Standard Model of particle physics – specifically, neutrino oscillation. Essentially, as neutrinos have mass, they can change from the type that had been expected to be produced in the Sun's interior into two types that would not be caught by the detectors in use at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem

Re:Electric Sun?

[haruchai]

Lines of magnetic fields do not exist?
Ever seen the iron filings experiment?

Re:Electric Sun?

[grantspassalan]

The iron filings experiment is the where that whole idea of “lines” of magnetic fields comes from. It is a convenient way of describing the intensity and direction of the magnetic field, but the lines themselves do not exist. Weather maps are often depicted with isobar lines, showing the locations of equal pressure in the atmosphere. There are no such lines in the atmosphere of course. Such isobar lines do not break or reconnect, neither do magnetic “lines”. Any explanation that requires the “reconnection” of magnetic fields is bogus.

Re:Electric Sun?

[grantspassalan]

Here we are not talking about a gas. The corona is an extremely hot plasma, heated by an electric current on its way to the solar atmosphere. Only a small fraction of the energy carried by the galactic electric current is dissipated in the Corona, but is nevertheless sufficient to produce incredibly high temperatures therein. Most of the electrical energy is dissipated in the form of electric arcs similar to lightning or a welder's torch.

Re:Electric Sun?

[grantspassalan]

You and mainstream scientists keep talking about gas. The solar corona and atmosphere do not consist of gas as we usually think of it, but of electrically conducting plasmas. Such a plasma is a much better conductor of electricity than any metal. The laws of physics that apply to gas, such as Boyles law and other gas laws to not apply in any way. As the galactic electrical current flows toward the sun and away from it, it first has to flow through the corona, which as you say is much less dense than the solar atmosphere further down. Because the corona is less dense, its plasma particles excited by the electric current can travel much faster. The speed of particles is the very definition of temperature. Most of the heat of the sun is generated by electricity the same way as it is on Earth by lightning or an electric arc welder. No one has ever generated a magnetic field by anything other than moving charge. It is these current impinging on and circulating in the sun that produce the enormous magnetic fields we observe.

Electricity is a force 10^39 times stronger than gravity. The only time gravity controls the motion of heavenly bodies, is when these are, fortunately for us, mostly electrically neutral. Most of the universe however is definitely NOT electrically neutral so that most matter exists not as solid, liquid or gas, but in the form of highly ionized plasma. I am an electrical engineer by profession, not a physicist or cosmologist. I am familiar with the laws of electricity and magnetism. What we observe on the sun and in the universe as a whole operates mostly by these laws because of the overwhelming overpowering strength of the electric interaction against gravity. If the rules of electricity and magnetism are taken into account, such fictitious purely mathematical constructs as dark energy, dark matter and black holes are not needed to explain the motion and behavior of stars and galaxies. Novas and supernovas can be explained in terms the dumping of electrical energy triggered by the interruption of inductive electric circuits. Mainstream scientists, especially cosmologists don't study electrical laws and plasma theories. Most of their models are based on the gravitational interaction which applies only to electrically neutral objects. If you want to know more about the electrical activity in the universe, you can look here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eg-contents/

There are other websites, but many of them go into esoteric math and field equations. The above-cited website gives a picture more in keeping with the knowledge that someone might have that is not specially schooled in electrical theory.

Re:Electric Sun?

[Michael Mozina]

This is simply not true. There is in fact a very specific prediction for the Birkeland solar model listed at http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm Since it's one of the few models that predicts a mass separated atmosphere, there is a specific prediction related to Neon +4 output from the sun, and the prediction that it originates in the photosphere not the coronal loops. As usual, you're claims about it's predictive capacity are simply false.

Re:Electric Sun?

[Mac_OSX-1]

1) Astronomers do know about electric fields in space. I have written much on this topic. (Electric Universe: Whither the Electric Currents?).

2) The standard of science is the numerical results of the mathematical models must match the observations. If you claim the 'Birkeland' model works better than the standard model, then you must meet that standard.
Where are the numerical results from the model you advocate? Can you tell me the proton and electron density and energy or magnetic field at Earth's orbit predicted by your model and show how it is calculated? Where is the solar spectrum computed from first principles by the model you advocate? The lives of astronauts depend on you being able to demonstrate this!
If you can't meet that standard, then your model fails. Game over.
The ACTUAL track record of "Electric Sun" models making testable numerical predictions is dismal (Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model, Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III)

3) I see a number of errors on your page. SDO first light images were not completely calibrated for intensity or scale information. Have you looked at more recent images on their site?
a) Doing science analysis on JPEG images or MPEG movies is just inviting embarrassment. You have to go back to the original data after the instrument has been calibrated.
b) Your sunspot data has obvious problems (Sunspot Number). Did you just make it up? And why only data to 1980? Are you trying to hide something about the more recent data?

And that's just what I could determine scanning your page before I realized some text was being clipped in my reader due to your lousy page formatting. I suspect I have hit just the beginning of your errors.

Re:Electric Sun?

[APODNereid]

For much the same reason the Pioneer Anomaly, decades ago, did not suddenly make geocentrism a cool idea worth (re-)investigating.

Re:Electric Sun?

[APODNereid]

"An electric universe explains none of the physics of the universe ..."

FTFY

Re:Electric Sun?

[APODNereid]

"Only a small fraction of the energy carried by the galactic electric current is dissipated in the Corona"

And what is that current, in amps, if I may be so bold as to ask, grantspassalan?

And how much of it is dissipated in the corona?

Also, where does this current enter the Sun (or its corona)? Where does it leave?

Or, perhaps, is the Sun merely a Hotel California-like sink (current enters, but never leaves)?

Re:All this new-fangled theorizering is bogus anyw

[GameboyRMH]

It'll be hot so you'll have to go at night.

How does this affect age estimates for the Sun

[borroff]

What I would like to know is how this change in measured convection rate affects our models of solar lifecycles. Granted, this may be a methodology error; IANAP (anymore), so I can't answer that question, but it seems to me some important new questions arise as a result of this finding. Does this mean stars age slower than we thought, or faster - or is the rate unchanged? Is the overall heat transfer is slower, is some other known mechanism transferring more heat, or is there some unknown transfer mechanism we have yet to discover? There's a lot of work for some lucky grad students out there.

The Sun's Fusion is Failing!

[Antipater]

Assemble our hottest astronauts!

Electric Universe crackpots

[uigrad_2000]

The Electric Universe crackpots have always claimed that convection had nothing to do with it.

I've been fascinated with the thunderbolts.info site for quite a while. They haven't yet convinced me that we need to throw out our conventional understanding of the universe, but they have some extremely fascinating theories, and I'm disappointed that I haven't seen any serious responses to their theories.

Re:Electric Universe crackpots

[freality]

They don't read like crackpots to me. Name-calling alternative perspectives is something more indicative of religion than science ;p Also, this is the interwebz; there are actual crackpots in abundance.

From their site:

"... theories tend to harden into ‘facts,’ even in the face of mounting
contradictions. Astronomer Carl Sagan’s Cosmos was published a
quarter-century ago. At that time, some questions were still permitted.
On the issue of redshift, Sagan wrote: “There is nevertheless a
nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right
with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect,
that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found
enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair
of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very
different redshifts....” - p 20. http://www.thunderbolts.info/EU%20Intro%20and%20Chap1.pdf

They're overall arguing that electrodynamics can better explain many astronomical observations than gravitation + dark matter, dark energy and modifications to cosmological constants.

That seems reasonable; correct or not is a matter to be determined.

Dark matter, dark energy, etc. are the first examples I give to friends who are skeptical of big bang cosmology or even science in general, showing it as an example of how science is full of bad "working" theories, but we know it and keep chipping away. I hope I'm not wrong.

Re:Electric Universe crackpots

[Mac_OSX-1]

If you can't find responses to their claims, then you haven't been looking very hard. Basic conservation laws and Maxwell's equations accessible to high school physics students reveal serious problems. See http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html

Re:Electric Universe crackpots

[APODNereid]

Thunderbolts has theories? Really?

"Theories" as in "speculative guesses", sure, they have lots of those.

"Theories" as in "scientific theories", well, I have yet to find any on that site; which are the ones you found, uigrad_2000?

Re:Electric Universe crackpots

[APODNereid]

"They're overall arguing that electrodynamics can better explain many astronomical observations than gravitation + dark matter, dark energy and modifications to cosmological constants."

LOL. We must be reading different websites; I found nothing at all to suggest that anyone has developed any models which show " that electrodynamics can explain any astronomical observations"!

At least none that aren't already well-established parts of mainstream astrophysics. Care to share, freality?

Re:Electric Universe crackpots

[freality]

The one I looked at most closely was in the intro chapter to one of the books they linked:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/EU%20Intro%20and%20Chap1.pdf

That the shapes and spins of galaxies can be shown in simulation by collapsing parallel electric filaments ("pinch" effect), p. 26.. In contrast, from what I understand, you have to introduce a majority of dark matter & energy into such a simulation to get a stable galaxy if the stars interact otherwise with only gravity.

Something I'm looking at that's related to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Run

It runs an N-body particle solver using gravitational interactions, to run the cosmic microwave background "forward" to see what kind of modern universe it should develop. This produces the pictures of the filamentary large-scale structure of the universe that I've become accustomed to seeing in recent years, but it turns out you can use the same software to model both radiative and magnetic coupling effects. Here's a variation showing how radiation changes stellar evolution:

    http://www.astro.ex.ac.uk/people/mbate/Cluster/clusterRT.html

Same basic large-scale structure, but different number of "stars", different brightnesses, speeds, etc.

I've got the GADGET code running on my MacBook Air using MacPorts, etc.. should be fun, though very slow :)

Re:Electric Universe crackpots

[APODNereid]

"That the shapes and spins of galaxies can be shown in simulation by collapsing parallel electric filaments ("pinch" effect), "

No, your source is lying.

In 1986, Peratt published two Plasma Cosmology (NOT Electric Universe) papers, reporting the results of some simulations (similar to, but not quite the same as, what you wrote). However, these were not simulations of real galaxies. Why not? Because real galaxies contain stars (duh!), whose motions ("spins", to use your term) cannot possibly be represented in Peratt's simulations (stars have charge-to-mass ratios vastly different from the ions Peratt assumed, in his simulations).

Worse, real galaxies do not have double nuclei with the same shape as those in Peratt's simulations. And so on.

Re:Electric Universe crackpots

[freality]

Hm, I think you're missing my point... I wasn't supporting their claims as more correct than a gravitationally-based cosmology, just noting that they seemed to be making reasonable conjectures, albeit non-mainstream, and that they didn't deserve to be called names. I said:

    "That seems reasonable; correct or not is a matter to be determined."

The same can be said about dark energy/matter. Reasonable, but correctness TBD. It is problematic for a simulation to not model all know behaviors of a system, but nonetheless, we do it all the time and often find useful models in them.

Agreed, this is better termed Plasma Cosmology, not Electric Universe as that appears to be commercially co-opted; maybe you're reacting more to that; I was reading more of the folks they cited than the .info website. More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#Large_scale_structure

Re:Electric Universe crackpots

[APODNereid]

And I think you're missing mine.

You seemed pretty clear, when you claimed "They're overall arguing that electrodynamics can better explain many astronomical observations than gravitation + dark matter, dark energy and modifications to cosmological constants", where "they" refers to what's found on a particular website (actually, PDF), that you linked to. My point: there's no substance to any such claims (other than those which merely repeat what you can easily find from any mainstream source).

At least, none which has any quantitative, internally consistent legs to stand on.

"Agreed, this is better termed Plasma Cosmology, not Electric Universe [...] I was reading more of the folks they cited than the .info website."

Then why not say so? Why give airtime to folk who, not to put too fine a point on it, are deliberately lying? Who might, therefore, be reasonably called crackpots?

"That seems reasonable; correct or not is a matter to be determined."

Yes, it (the PC stuff) may indeed seem reasonable. However, it has long since been determined that it cannot possibly be correct. Or, more precisely, every single one of the principals involved in those efforts is either dead or has stopped doing research into showing that the reasonable-sounding ideas actually match the relevant, cold, hard, objective, quantitative astronomical data. For example, Peratt has published nothing new, on this topic, since the late 1980s (yes, he's published stuff, but none of it involves new research), and Lerner's last work on this seems to be sometime in the 1990s. In the meantime, the quantity and quality of the directly relevant astronomical data has grown enormously, from the WMAP results to the thousands of hours of Hubble observations to the SDSS to data from Spitzer, Herschel, Chandra, Fermi, WISE, ...

Don't you find it odd that, given the tens of thousands of hours EU and PC proponents have spent promoting their ideas on websites across the internet, and given the hundreds (thousands?) of ardent fans, not a single one has done anything to develop these ideas, on a scientifically-sound basis?

Re:Electric Universe pulsars, etc

[j-stroy]

I too remain open and skeptical of BOTH the unproven established theories and the unproven alternatives. One thing that really made me consider the electric theories is pulsar rotations. I find it much easier to conceive of a fast rotating electric field causing the periodicity than super fast spinning hyper dense matter.

Alternative sun physics model: solid surface

[freality]

This has been floating around the net for a while.. I think I first saw it on slashdot many years ago:

    http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

Maybe a solid metallic surface would align better with low observed surface wave transfer compared to a soupy plasma.

Re:Alternative sun physics model: solid surface

[APODNereid]

"Maybe a solid metallic surface would align better with low observed surface wave transfer compared to a soupy plasma." Perhaps it would.

Given how much energy the Sun radiates, per second, per square metre of its surface, an interesting follow-on question might be: How could such a surface remain metallic?

We were wong before

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

We used to believe the sun was powered by gravitational potential energy, giving us 10K years or so of solar system life. Then a geologist and and astronomer were chatting one day, and the geologist asked about the age of the solar system...

As it turns out, the rocks were all older than the solar system. So they knew something was weird.

LENR (aka Cold fusion) has been peer-reviewed

[Paul Fernhout]

An may work: http://pesn.com/2012/07/05/9602122_LENR-to-Market_Weekly_July5/

BTW, google on "iron sun" as well as "electric universe". I've been wondering if the sun is powered by LENR reactions from quantum tunnelling boundary evaporation of neutrons from a huge iron-nickel mass? The hydrogen seen on the surface of the sun may not be representative of what is below the surface, same as much of the earth is covered with water, but only a mile deep. The core of the Earth may be heated by a similar boudnary evaporation and LENR process? The universe may have a lot more iron decaying into hydrogen than hydrogen fusing into iron...

Re:LENR (aka Cold fusion) has been peer-reviewed

[treeves]

Based on the link you offered, I might as well Google 'homeopathy' or 'perpetual-motion device'.
Got anything more convincing?