I find this concept really interesting and confusing at the same time. Consider that within plasma laboratories, we can observe certain fundamental morphologies that naturally result from the existence of charge density. Plasmas naturally form double layers, which tend to protect a plasma's charge. The double layer leads to the formation of plasma filaments. We see within the laboratory that plasma filaments tend to exhibit long-range attraction and short-range repulsion with one another. This causes the filaments to twist around one another like a braided rope. Within the plasma laboratory, we observe these complex twisted transfer charged particles very efficiently. They are called Birkeland Currents.
We see these braided filament plasma structures in space too, like in the Cygnus Loop...
Braided ropelike plasma structures are the fingerprints of electromagnetic activity. When you see plasma behaving this way, you need to make sure that you're not trying to use fluids-based equations to understand/model it.
It's interesting that the same thing can be done with respect to radio waves. I'm actually a little bit confused as to why this works for radio waves. When Birkeland Currents do this, they require the existence of a plasma medium, and the structures do their thing in the lab because of the existence of the ionization. The plasma both responds to magnetic fields and creates its own due to the right-hand rule. But these guys seem to be saying that they can create these structures within the Earth's atmosphere in the absence of a plasma medium (?). With Birkeland Currents, the collimation occurs because the flow of charged particles generates a magnetic field.
I'm not getting something. Any plasma physicists out there??? Is HAARP creating an ionized pathway for the signal through the atmosphere?
I'm quite sure you will see whatever it is you want to see in it. People generally appear to like to confirm their pre-existing beliefs. That's why it's generally a good idea to introduce people to alternative ideas. It provides a more useful context to begin with. In a general sense, the confidence exhibited by Slashdotters on the topic of cosmology is not really shared by a lot of mainstream astrophysicists. Quotes are not hard to come by to demonstrate this fact.
Speculating a little bit, SETI is not receiving signals because ET is most likely inside of the diffuse atmosphere of brown dwarf stars. Planets can orbit within the glow of a brown dwarf. You cannot transmit radio signals through a plasma double layer like that, so ET doesn't even know what stars are inside of this environment. All he can see in his sky is a red glow and possibly vortex-like plasma formations. The perpetual harvest that surrounds him deprives him of any desire to contact us anyways. Why would you try to contact aliens when you are in the Garden of Eden? Brown dwarf atmospheres contain copious amounts of water, which when combined with the perpetual glow from the sky, would cause the entire planet to explode with life.
We have a pretty good idea that this is happening because it appears to be what happened to the Earth as well. Humans were alive to testify to it.
Sounds pretty absurd to you, I'm sure. But when you dig into the details, it's a pretty interesting theory for SETI's failure.
I love how somebody labeled you as "flamebait" for pointing this out. I mean, that's a fairly uncontroversial statement you made there. The Electric Universe is almost entirely based upon the observations of the glow discharge in a plasma laboratory. It shouldn't really be all that controversial.
Once some unambiguous predictions (or even post-dictions) are made which are more comprehensively explained by an Electric Universe theory than by more traditional theory, then perhaps the misunderstandings will be resolved. Until then, expect to work very, very hard at making things understood, and expect more push-back.
The notion that we cannot build a simple, workable cosmology based upon the observed behavior of the glow discharge within a plasma laboratory is quite a stunning allegation once you actually educate yourself on the behavior of glow discharges. We can explain EVERY enigmatic feature of the Sun by just observing glow discharges. Kristian Birkeland used nothing more than plasma in a vacuum chamber 100 years ago to replicate numerous astrophysical observations. Anthony Peratt has demonstrated that galaxies are the natural result of large-scale twisting Birkeland Currents. We plainly see that spiral galaxies are oriented like beads on a string, as if they are connected by transmission lines. The writing is already on the wall. You guys just don't know what is being alleged, so the evidentiary support for the Electric Universe just goes right over your head.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't consider it important to observe the behavior of plasmas within the laboratory when accounting for the behavior of plasmas in space. It's really pretty mind-bending when you consider that the visible matter in space is 99.999% matter in the plasma state. THEMIS has already demonstrated that Birkeland Currents connect the Sun and Earth. The existence of Birkeland Currents clearly violates the premise that space plasmas are magnetized fluids. You can create any cosmology you want by manipulating your models for space plasmas. We have VERY GOOD REASON by now to suspect that the models are extremely flawed.
The entire dominant paradigm demands the overly-simplistic, erroneous application of magnetohydrodynamics models in order to minimize the importance of plasma's electrodynamic properties in astrophysical observations. Hannes Alfven warned the astrophysical community as he was receiving the Nobel Physics prize. Many astrophysicists don't even know what he said in that speech to this day, as if it was never even said. It's quite scandalous.
So long as you imagine that the dominant paradigm is working well, you'll never be motivated to learn about competing paradigms. But you won't ever find any fault in the dominant paradigm if you never actually listen to what the critics are saying. Once you have even a general grasp of what the two paradigms say, it's really rather funny to watch the astrophysicists spin enigmatic observations. They use enigmas to spur interest with the public in the mystery of space. But, the enigmas are never really treated as the predictive failures of the model. They always propose some ad hoc mechanism as a solution, which complicates the model. Our understanding of space is steadily, week after week, becoming more complex. If we were on the right track, we would be seeing a simplification -- not a complexification, if you will. Most of the time, they are actually doing nothing more than binning enigmas into the result of black holes, dark matter or magnetic fields. The public is left with the false impression that progress is being made. But when you dig into concepts like magnetic reconnection, you start to see a willingness to accept metaphysical concepts (that magnetic fields can store and release energy) in order to ignore the more established link between electric currents and magnetic fields.
Most people never investigate deep enough into the issues to even notice the serious problems with our dominant paradigm -- which is rather perplexing for a group of people like Slashdotters. You guys are the engineers of this world. You should put more faith in your ability to understand and critique the astrophysicists. They are saying things that directly violate your own educations -- particularly if y
Sunspots are understood reasonably well in terms of magnetic fields.
Yeah, except for the fact that the sunspots exhibit attraction to one another without apparent combination. By sharp contrast, this is exactly what would be expected if you took a cross-section of two twisted Birkeland Current filaments. They possess long-range attraction and short-range repulsion, meaning that they will dance around one another and yet never fully combine. Think novelty plasma globe.
And Harp's "surveys" have long been known to be statistically invalid. They suffer from selection effects. And there are also some real physical effects that correlate distant objects with foreground objects, such as gravitational lensing.
My understanding is that most, if not all, claims of gravitational lensing require the existence of copious amounts of dark matter in order to even get into the ballpark mass required.
Also, I've seen all sorts of pitiful attempts by ideologues to cast doubt upon Arp's findings. At one point, scientists actually published a paper claiming that Arp's quantization was not observed in raw redshift observations. Those researchers didn't understand what Arp was saying well enough to even realize that the quantization was being proposed for only the intrinsic component of the raw value.
Tom Bridgman has similarly been trying to argue that Arp's quantization is the result of some sort of statistics error. But, why would the recessional component not also demonstrate quantization?
It seems to me that ideologues are very anxious to be done with Arp's observations, which come in a pretty wide array of types of evidence. To this day, however, the idea that redshift must only come in one flavor is pure speculation. The only reason it's never questioned is because it serves as a critical crutch propping up the dominant paradigm.
People will surely argue about Arp for decades to come. The statistics argument is the treatment of last resort for scientific heretics. It's the same thing that was done to Verschuur when he proposed that he was seeing relatively local filaments of hydrogen within the CMB. When people resort to statistics for argumentation, we'd all be wise to keep in mind that there may be politics involved.
Alfven waves are the popular EU mechanism for coronal heating. I have no problem with this, but you'll have to demonstrate how wave heating can deposit energy in the corona rather than simply propagating clean through.
If you spoke correctly here (and I'm not sure that you intended to say "EU" there), I believe that this demonstrates a rather severe misunderstanding of the EU model. The corona is hot for the same reason that an anode in a glow discharge is hot. An electron drift occurs within the heliosphere, from the heliospheric boundary (the cathode) towards the anode. This is pretty basic plasma physics here -- the same thing we see with high-voltage DC transmission lines. They ionize the air around them because their voltage difference with the atmosphere creates an electric field that causes electrons to drift into the transmission line while ions are simultaneously accelerated away. The heat is a natural byproduct of the discharge.
Should we just assume that it is pure coincidence that all of the Sun's most prominent features correspond precisely to the glow discharge? Only if we are being biased about it.
I'm no solar physicist, but I'd wager that coronal heating draws upon both waves *and* reconnection. Has anyone looked at coronal temperatures at various altitudes/depths through a whole solar cycle?
Spoken like Plato. It's fun to deduce the operation of the universe, eh? Deduction, however, isn't even necessary when we can study plasmas within the laboratory, and plainly see that our magnetohydrodynamics models are completely archaic.
EM phenomena in the sun are well understood. Please don't stir up a fake aura of mystery around solar EM. "Electric Universe" theories are junk science. If you want those theories to be taken seriously, get rid of the junk.
Um, you guys should get your own house in order before criticizing others. From http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2814-earths-magnetic-field-boosts-gravity.html...
The values of G measured so far seem to fit with that idea. But the researchers say the best way to test their theory would be to take accurate measurements of G at locations such as the magnetic poles and particular longitudes on the equator, and then check those values against the predictions.
Studies of the Sun also support the theory. To make mathematical models of the star's interior tally with experimental data, physicists have to use a lower value of G than is traditionally agreed. Mbelek says his calculations predict that electromagnetism would not boost gravity as much at higher temperatures, so you would expect G to be lower inside the Sun.
Exotic physics
But other researchers are not convinced. Clifford Will, a gravity theorist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, believes improvements in terrestrial experiments will eventually do away with the need for explanations that rely on such exotic physics.
"In many ways it's a scandal that we don't have an agreed value for G, but if you look at the experiments, the values have been converging," he says. "In five years or so, we'll have an agreed value."
But Mbelek does not think so. Although the precision of individual measurements is improving, he says, the values are not converging.
Actually no I don't see that the electric universe star theory is capable of playing that game. There are two key observations the electric star theory cannot explain. First, it can't explain the absence of intergalactic energy flows into the Sun. It requires them. We see that they aren't there.
You know, when you permit yourself to develop an opinion on the matter prematurely, you will not pay attention to the evidence that supports competing paradigms. For instance, a quick search on "spiral galaxies aligned" will lead to the following article. From http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4215...
Astronomers have known since the early 1990s that galaxies cluster in filaments and sheets surrounding vast voids in space. Now, an international team of astronomers has found that spiral galaxies, like the Milky Way, line up like beads on a string, with their spin axes aligned with the filaments that outline voids.
[snip]
Also, you should look carefully at the shape of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. They are not at all circular morphologies. That whole system fully supports Anthony Peratt's supercomputer simulations that demonstrate that spiral galaxies can be created by twisting together two large plasma filaments.
You will see braided ropelike plasma structures all over nebulas. We're supposed to believe that these structures are shock fronts, but that assumes that plasmas can be modeled as magnetized fluids. Unfortunately, plasmas are not as easy to model as astrophysicists would like to believe. If I may quote a private conversation with Don Scott...
Suppose there is a fairly straight B-field (magnetic field) within a plasma. Shoot a stream of charge (an electric current) into this. Suppose the velocity vector (the direction and speed) of the injected current is at some angle to the axis of the B-field. The current will begin to spiral. (A spiral is a combination of a circular motion in a plane at right angles to the B-field plus a straight-line motion parallel to the B-field). Thus we get a spiral (vortex / helix) of current.
BUT this is just the first step. We know that any current will produce its own B-field surrounding it (right-hand rule) and so the spiral current is surrounded by what you might visualize as a fat spiraling worm of B-field (whose intensity decreases with distance from the spiralling current.
So now we have two B-fields in the same space (the original straight one, and the worm-like shaped new one). They add together to make a total overall B-field. The current stream at this point says, "Oops, I'm not exactly following the new total B-field path - and adjusts its direction to accomplish this. Alfven wrote about the wierd effects observed at this point in the process. Sometimes the current bends in the opposite direction from what looks proper.
As a result we have an altered current shape, and a newly altered total B-field, and so it goes on and on.
So the point is you can't solve this problem in a single step of vector algebra. You need to do an iterative process that goes through the steps and then goes back and does them over and over, each time recognizing you have a different shaped current and a different shaped B-field. (For you old computer buffs: We need to use a 'Do-Loop' algorithm). There is another complication too - the vector sum of the original B-field and the new (just generated) B-field is not simple if the medium (the plasma) is non-linear. And Boy! is plasma non-linear.
Bottom line:
Algebraic solutions are almost certainly doomed to failure in cases like this. Lab experiments (and properly done simulations) are the only hope we really have of seeing what happens. This is the big error made by plasma 'theoreticians' as opposed to experimentalists.
The idea that plasmas can be modeled as fluids is rather archaic.
You're using YOUR paradigm to judge somebody ELSE's. Sheesh! I believe that Anthony Peratt's view is that plasmas are scalable over 16 orders of magnitude. And in this alternative paradigm, fusion is a byproduct of the action of an anode within a glow discharge. It occurs up near the surface of the Sun, which is why sunspots are observed to anti-correlate with neutrino production. That observation is one of many enigmatic observations within the dominant paradigm.
You shouldn't accept it until you can at least rattle off all the key characteristics of stellar equilibrium, stellar fusion, helioseismology, spectroscopy, stellar dynamics in aggregate, and from the looks of things basic thermodynamics as well (you can't have that much hydrogen in one place and expect it not to fuse!).
Well, that's convenient. You seem to have reduced the total number of people who can legitimately interpret astrophysical imagery to those who are already trained to believe in the dominant paradigm.
Oh, and by the way, helioseismology is the most speculative garbage that has ever been called science in the history of science. You cannot look into the Sun. Get over it!!!
I would also point out that these papers did not detect anything like filaments or braids.
But THEMIS has. And, if you don't just accept as fact the interpretations for astrophysical imagery that you've read countless times, then with a little bit of help, you'd plainly see the filaments and braids in space imagery. They range from ambiguous to absolutely undeniable in form.
And Verschuur has identified local filaments of hydrogen gas that correlate with the CMB.
Filaments are everywhere in space. And so is plasma. What makes plasma filamentary? It's electromagnetic rotation. You might be able to get the math to work in a fluids-based model for plasmas under some situations, but fluids do not create the braided ropelike structures we've seen with THEMIS connecting the Sun with the Earth. Many people will dismiss this, but the fact is that it calls into question our magnetohydrodynamics models. Can we really afford to just assume that the math we use to model space plasmas in correct when plasmas represent 99.999% of all visible matter in space? THEMIS should have caused astrophysicists to blink. But the inertia of pre-existing belief is strong.
Well, I would add to that that when it comes to the topic of physics, ridicule possesses the power of a psychological weapon. Studies demonstrate that when a spectator observes somebody else being ridiculed, the spectator will be inclined to avoid the same thing happening to him. In this manner, when it comes to the topic of physics, ridicule is perhaps one of the most effective tools available for keeping people from discussing or thinking about controversial subjects. People already fear making an ass of themselves. Public ridicule -- like here on Slashdot -- will tend to raise the cost of speaking up about one's opinions. This creates a society on Slashdot that is generally more close-minded on the topic of cosmology -- or at least arguably more receptive to opinions that tend to dismiss alternative physical paradigms.
When it comes to debunking the Electric Universe, for instance, many people like to throw around URL's by Tim Thompson, Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger. But behind the scenes in discussions with Tom and Leroy, we can plainly see that they lack the understanding of plasma glow discharges that Wal Thornhill possesses (Wal is the primary target of their criticisms). Leroy Ellenberger will in fact say anything so long as it causes David Thomson to look bad. Ellenberger hasn't paid any attention to any of the recent findings by any of our probes -- literally for decades. And yet, people on wikipedia treat him as though he's some sort of expert on the Electric Universe just because he turned coat on Velikovsky decades ago. We've come a long, long way from Velikovsky. The Electric Universe, unlike catastrophism, is based upon laboratory plasma physics principles -- in particular, the behavior of the plasma glow discharge. The Sun is, without much doubt, a glow discharge phenomenon. Getting the math all in order to reflect it will take some time, but much of the work has already been done by people like Hannes Alfven, Ralph Juergens and Wal Thornhill.
btw, I still hold out hope for Tim Thompson. His criticisms are far more targeted and intelligent. But, he oftentimes proposes possible explanations that might work in explaining enigmatic observations for the Standard Model as a rationale for not looking into competing paradigms. Many people already accept as fact that the Standard Model has poorly performed, and are already looking for a new paradigm to be created from scratch. We want something simpler than what we've been offered, and the Electric Universe appears to offer that.
Khallow, with all due respect, you appear to be refusing to learn about what a drift current is. We already see that charged particles, when subjected to the electric field of an electric discharge, can actually flow upstream of an outflow of positively charged particles being accelerated away. This is what happens when high-voltage DC trolley lines ionize the surrounding air. The transmission line is the anode and the surrounding atmosphere is the virtual cathode. The same thing also happens in a glow discharge. If you are having problems believing it, then you should get your hands on the Cobine book that I liberally referenced. Wal Thornhill has come to see that book as being the most useful book available for understanding glow discharges.
From Wal Thornhill's book "The Electric Universe"...
When a theoretical model is not working, the logical thing to look for is a trend toward growing anomalies. Below we offer a partial list of solar features that cause problems for mainstream theory but are expected in an electrical model. As the reader will note, the list includes almost all of the prominent attributes of the Sun:
- Solar spectrum. The spectrum of light from the Sun is characteristic of electrical discharging. Thus the leading solar physicist, Giorgio Abetti, uses the terms âelectric arcâ(TM) and âlightning flashâ(TM) when explaining the solar spectrum and solar flares. More recently, micro-flares have been discovered to occur every few minutes on the Sun, comparable to scaled-up thunderstorms on Earth.
- Neutrino deficiency. Solar physicists have acknowledged for decades that the Sunâ(TM)s output of neutrinos, a by-product of nuclear fusion, is about 1/3 of that expected in the standard solar model. Three types or âflavorsâ(TM) of neutrinos have been identified, and recent attempts to solve the problem require unwarranted assumptions about neutrino âchange of flavorâ(TM) en route from the center of the Sun. An electric Sun, however, can generate all flavors of neutrinos in heavy element synthesis at its surface. Therefore, it requires no assumptions about âchanging flavorsâ(TM) to hide the deficit.
- Neutrino variability. The neutrino output varies inversely with the surface sunspot cycle. Were they produced in the nuclear âfurnaceâ(TM) at the center of the Sun, this relationship would be inconceivable, since solar physicists calculate that it takes about 200,000 years for the energy of internal fusion to affect the surface. In the electrical model, more and larger sunspots mean less âlightningâ(TM) at the surface, where the nuclear reactions occur. Thus, the decline in neutrinos with increasing sunspot number is expected.
- Solar atmosphere. As pointed out by astronomer Fred Hoyle, given the strong gravity and 5,800 degree temperature of the Sunâ(TM)s photosphere, a very thin atmospheric âskinâ(TM) should be expected on the Sun, perhaps a few thousand kilometers thick on a sphere 1.4 million kilometers in diameter. Instead, the atmosphere balloons out to 100,000 kilometers, where it heats up to a million degrees or more. From there particles accelerate out among the planets. Thus, it could be said that we orbit inside the Sunâ(TM)s atmosphere! None of this makes any sense for a 5,800-degree body radiating its heat into space. It makes perfect sense in a plasma discharge, with the Sun acting as an anode.
- Neutrinos and solar wind. Neutrino counts have been found to wax and wane with the flux of particles in the solar wind, a predictable effect if the solar wind is part of an electric circuit fueling nuclear fusion on the Sunâ(TM)s surface.
- Heavy elements. It has long been claimed that heavy elements are born in the flashes of supernova explosions and are then scattered into space, to be recycled into the next generation of stars. But there are far too few supernovae to account for the abundance of heavy elements in
Zerkshop, be careful with your open mind. It will get you into trouble in the physics discipline. As you get older, you will come to see that cosmology is unfortunately no place for people with open minds like yourself. The best tactic is to learn your studies as hard as you can, but keep your opinions of "fringe" scientific readings to yourself. I wouldn't even let your professors know that you're reading this stuff. It could very well affect your upward mobility within your field.
(As for psy trance, I would propose that psytrance has largely been killed off by dubstep. A lot of people who used to listen to psytrance have discovered that dubstep is a far more melodic and danceable drum&bass. I highly recommend it!)
What you've noticed with wikipedia is like watching the Hatfield-McCoy family feud through a pinhole in a fence. The theory of the Electric Universe has been barred from wikipedia by the likes of Leroy Ellenberger, scienceapologist and various other BAUT/talk.origins "authorities". These authorities are actually defenders of conventional wisdom. They do not believe in building new cosmological models because they try to tear them all down before any are ever built. Everybody seems to take their cue from the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today website, run by Phil Plait, where people who create new astrophysical paradigms are set before a panel of like 6 or 8 astrophysicists and burned at the stake on every single minute detail imaginable. What that effectively does is spur people to try to develop mathematics-based models. What we need to be doing, however, is questioning our mathematical models. We need to be taking a closer look at our physical fundamentals within the discipline of physics. The EU Theorists are doing this. We need to be asking tough questions about things like galactic rotation, observations of the photosphere, filamentary structures in space, stellar observations that are enigmatic to the Standard Model, etc.
The fact that people cannot go to wikipedia to understand what the theory says makes it pretty damn difficult for people to learn what the theory says and whether or not its wrong. We've been struggling for years now just to be allowed to explain to people what the theory says on wiki. Online vigilantes have worked tirelessly to prevent it, even though they frequently have to violate their own precious wikipedia rules in order to do so. We can in fact point to published literature, some of it by Nobel Physics laureates like Hannes Alfven, and some of it peer-reviewed to support our interpretations for astrophysical imagery. The Electric Universe debunkers spend much of their time trying to use high school electrostatics to disprove that the math can be made to work when modeling the Sun as a glow discharge. But, so long as the prominent features of the two match up, isn't it obvious that the math can be made to work? And why do they think that people are taught plasma physics in high school? Electrostatics can be used to disprove the behavior of a plasma glow discharge in the laboratory. Can we really count on it to help us in cosmology, or in the study of astrophysical plasmas -- which constitute 99.999% of all visible matter in space?
Unfortunately, and not by choice, the only places to understand EU Theory are at http://www.thunderbolts.info, http://www.holoscience.com and in their books "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott, and "The Electric Universe" by Wal Thornhill. I would in particular point to the writings of Wal Thornhill, who is largely self-taught on the subjects of astrophysics and plasma physics. Wal has proven himself to be very well read on the subject of glow discharges -- better than most professional astrophysicists -- and this has been the key in formulating a new plasma-based cosmology. The more you read of Wal Thornhill, the more you will likely come to respect him as I have. He's been playing the role of scientific heretic for a very long time now. He knows ALL of the criticisms dished at him by now, and he's
"the scientists"? Are they programmable lemmings? Or are people permitted to formulate their own opinions on these sorts of things?
You know, when a new paradigm comes in, it will only be interesting to people if it simplifies our current understanding of our relationship with the universe. When you defer to authority, you ignore this simple fact. What we have here is a situation where the plasma glow discharge behaves strikingly like a miniature Sun. If you look at some of the most perplexing problems of the Sun's behavior, you see that these things are naturally explained by the plasma glow discharge. We really need to pursue this research vigorously to examine if a new paradigm can be quantified. I'm quite certain that it can be based upon what I've read. The only thing stopping it, in fact, are all of the people who simply like the dominant paradigm so much that they don't see the point in creating more models.
That's not science. That's personal preference. We won't know which model is the best until they both exist. That means that we have to create the competing models before we can evaluate them. And that means that we have to spur interest in quantitating them.
Okay, your posting is full of errors here. If you care to see why, please read on. Otherwise, I would advise not posting on the subject until you learn more about glow discharges...
The Sun being externally powered would be easily observable from Earth. In fact, we would see similar inflow of energy into our atmosphere, dramatically heating up the surface of the Earth and by our space probes. We would observe the plasma flowing in onto the Sun. The fact is we don't observe these effects. Hence, we can discard that prediction of the theory, assuming someone ever gets bold enough to make it.
To your own credit, you have actually read more than most. The problem is that you're listening to the likes of Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger, who collectively know absolutely nothing about plasma physics.
A typical quote from Leroy Ellenberger goes something like this:
"The REAL point is that I do not have to pick one issue when the entire EU model is based on Juergens' uncorrected misunderstandings of science and physics, and the model is falsified by many observations, including the presence of convection in the photosphere and absence of x-rays in coronal holes."
Let's dissect in detail why this is wrong. First of all, Wal Thornhill's and Don Scott's "Electric Sun" hypothesis was originally inspired by Ralph Juergens, but later amended by Wal (as evident in the chapter on the Sun in the book, The Electric Universe). Don Scott added further scientific perspective, in his book, The Electric Sky. Leroy's all too typical statement above, about "Juergens' uncorrected misunderstandings of science and physics," fails to touch the real issue at all. The question is: in what way did Wal amend Juergens' model?
Much of what follows is based on a page on Wal's Holoscience website:
"Transmission lines carrying high-voltage direct current - electric trolley wires, for example - discharge almost continuously to the surrounding air. In the case of a positive (anode) wire electrons ever present in the Earth's atmosphere drift toward the wire, attracted by its positive charge. As they penetrate the increasingly intense electric field close to the wire, the electrons gain energy from the field and are accelerated to energies great enough to initiate electron avalanches as they collide with and ionize air molecules. The avalanching electrons, in turn, intensify the ionization immediately surrounding the wire. Positive ions, formed in the process, drift away from the wire in the electric field. In this way, a more or less steady discharge is maintained, although there is no tangible object other than the surrounding air that can be considered a cathode."
Electric Discharge As The Source Of Solar Radiant Energy, KRONOS Vol 8 No. 1, Fall 1982.
In the second instalment (KRONOS Vol 8 No. 2.), Juergens amplified his supposition about the region of the anode function in an electric sun:
"the postulated discharge â" though focused on a central solar anode - would appear to embrace a vast region of space, most of it devoted to cathode mechanisms. The solar corona, and its extension through interplanetary space and beyond, finds an analog in the "negative glow" region of a glow discharge. The chromosphere we shall interpret as the inner limit of this negative glow. Only the photosphere, at the inner limit of the vast discharge cavity, will be assigned an anode function in this model."
After giving these citations, Wal presents an illustration of his revision, based on the classical study of glow discharge published in J.D Cobine's book Gaseous Conductors.
Wal's own caption to the illustration reads:
Diagram showing the important features of a glow discharge. Note that in a spherically symmetrical corona discharge the cathode glows ar
Cosmology is the search for answers in the universe. We aren't going to find those answers without ever questioning our magnetohydrodynamics models. That's what's happening here. *YOUR* paradigm was evolved before it was even discovered that space was filled with charged particles. That you guys didn't imagine that this should have any serious impact upon the paradigm was a major mistake. As you know, the plasma state of matter is very different from gas.
Quasi-neutrality is oftentimes misunderstood by people like yourself to mean that electricity in space doesn't do anything. But, quasi-neutrality is the state of the positive column between the anode and cathode of a plasma glow discharge. Despite the quasi-neutrality of the column, positive charged particles are accelerated away from the anode and electrons drift in towards the anode. The Electric Universe merely proposes the same behavior for the Sun.
The glow discharge model can accommodate some of the Sun's most perplexing characteristics -- features that the thermonuclear model for the Sun never predicted, and struggles to explain to this day. For instance, the Standard Model fails to naturally explain the inverse temperature of the corona. How is the Sun's atmosphere heated to 100x the surface temperature without raising the surface temperature? To explain this, magnetic reconnection has been proposed as one possible mechanism. But, this is pretty much standard practice in astrophysics for dismissing an enigma: when in doubt, blame either magnetic fields, black holes or dark matter. In this particular case, they look to the activity of magnetic field lines -- as if magnetic fields can store and release energy. This confers a metaphysical status to magnetic fields that I don't necessarily disagree with, but which is very reminiscent of an aether. In other disciplines of science, magnetic fields are acknowledged to be the side-effect of an electric current. Astrophysicists have also taken the unusual stance that field lines can actually "connect". To plasma physicists and electrical engineers, these notions about magnetic fields are rather silly. And if explained exactly what is being claimed, they will unanimously agree that the astrophysicists are really forging their own deductive pathway.
The Standard Model has also had a very hard time explaining the fact that the solar wind fails to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the orbits of the planets. It's as if little rocket ships are propelling them forward against the force of gravity -- as if, (gasp!) gravity is not controlling the charged particles. Well, it wouldn't be the first time! For God's sake.
What exotic mechanism will be postulated for this acceleration, which mostly happens near the Sun, but in fact slightly continues throughout the entire heliosphere? Needless to say, we see the exact same behavior in the laboratory with glow discharges. There exists a weak electric field within the positive column of the glow discharge that accounts for this continued acceleration.
Look at the supposed convection cells on the Sun's photosphere...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granules2.jpg
Explain to me this: Why are the cells denser and hotter at the edges than in the middle? Is there any other convection that you can point to that has ever been observed by man to be like that? Those cells are better described as tornadic because they are densest at their edges (not the centers). Their rotation is most likely electrodynamic in nature.
People like yourself claim with so much certainty that our magnetohydrodynamic models for space plasmas are accurately modeling the plasmas as magnetized fluids. And they do this in spite of the direct observation of Birkeland Currents connecting the Sun to the Earth by THEMIS!
The Electric Universe is lumped in with the fringe sciences purely because it is not the conventional paradigm. The model itself is workable because there's a high correlation between observations of the Sun and heliosphere, and the action of an anode within a plasma glow discharge. No mathematical debunking can argue against these key correlations since they are based upon laboratory observations. If the key features match up, then the mathematics can be made to work for a model.
What you might not realize is that even though our gravity-based theories date back to the early 1900's, we've only relatively recently discovered that space is not the vacuum we once thought it was. It's in fact filled with charged particles (99.999% of all visible matter in space is matter in the plasma state), so there exists a burden to make sure that we're properly modeling the plasma in space. The question is: does it behave as a fluid, in accordance with gravity? Or, does it behave more like electrified plasma in the laboratory? The only way to answer that question is to maintain an open mind on the subject long enough to find correlations between plasmas in space and plasmas in the laboratory. The truth is that plasmas in space are frequently filamentary just like those in the laboratory. These filaments in the laboratory possess both long-range attraction and short-range repulsion amongst one another. And this attractive force is in fact the strongest force in the universe -- something like 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. The end result is that plasmas naturally form braided ropelike structures, and these structures can transmit charged particles -- electricity.
Advocates for the mainstream will throw up lots of flack. For instance, it's frequently cited that space (like the heliosphere) is quasi-neutral. But, what those people don't realize is that so is the positive column between an anode and a cathode in a plasma glow discharge! And yet, there still exists an electron drift into the anode from the cathode simultaneous with a release of positive charged particles from the anode to the cathode. Electricity is observed to flow in both directions in a glow discharge exactly as is proposed by the EU Theorists in their Electric Sun model. Any model for the Sun based upon laboratory plasma physics deserves more than just a dismissal.
Prior to the observation of magnetic fields in space in 1986, it was claimed that there was no observational evidence for magnetic and electric fields in space. We see the same sort of thing now when it comes to the topic of powering the Sun with electrons. Skeptics claim that we have not yet observed any flows of electrons into the Sun. The mechanism being argued is that of a drift current. The heliosphere is incredibly large. In the glow discharge model, an electric field inches these electrons towards the anode (the Sun) at an incredibly slow rate. But, since the heliosphere is so unimaginably huge, there is a very great amount of power available to the Sun. The problem is that you're not going to accidentally see these electrons moving in towards the Sun. Local turbulence will make it nearly impossible, in the same way that a fan drawing air on one end of your house will not be noticed on the opposite end unless it is extremely powerful. In this case, the electric field is incredibly weak -- and yet persistently there from the anode (the Sun) to the cathode (the heliospheric boundary).
Slashdot enthusiasts appear to not realize that astrophysicists blame either magnetic fields, dark matter or black holes every time that their model fails to predict their observations. If you guys pay more attention, you'll notice the trend. The Standard Model is not resolving its enigmatic observations so much as it is categorizing or binning the mysteries into these three categories, for future resolution.
In a strict sense, this is pretty pseudo-scientific -- especially when it comes to the manufactured mystery of magnetic fields. In every discipline OTHER than astrophysics, magnetic fields are acknowledged to be the side effect of electric currents. But, within astrophysics, magnetic fields and their line-drawn representations are treated as prime movers and shakers -- real, physical entities that can accumulate and release energy when the field lines connect (magnetic connection). The electrical engineers and plasma physicists that are actually listening to the astrophysicists will shake their heads every time that an astrophysicist talks about the merging of magnetic field lines. If a magnetic field is a real, physical entity that can store energy, then doesn't that qualify it as a metaphysical entity? Is it real or not? Is there an aether or not? Astrophysicists appear to reject the theory of the aether, and yet rely upon aether-based concepts in order to support their gravity-based cosmology.
Dismissals of competing paradigms as pseudo-science ignore all of this hand-waving that conventional astrophysicists are currently doing.
This is no joke.
For instance, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm...
"The origin of magnetic fields in galaxies is still a mystery to astronomers. Popular theories suggest continual strengthening over billions of years. The latest results from Simon Lilly's group, however, contradict this assumption and reveal that young galaxies also have strong magnetic fields.
"There is an astronomer joke that goes 'to understand the universe, we examine galaxies for radiation, gases, temperatures, chemical constitution and much more. Anything we can't explain after that we attribute to the magnetic fields'", explains Simon Lilly, Professor at the Institute of Astronomy at ETH Zurich. The creations of the magnetic fields in galaxies remain a badly researched mystery."
Now, does it make a whole lot of sense for a scientist to claim great certainty that there are no electric currents over plasmas in space, while simultaneously expressing frustration with the widespread observation of magnetic fields in space? In every other discipline, the two are inextricably bound.
Additionally, many textbooks agree that 99.999% of the visible matter in space is matter within the plasma state. In a behavioral sense as far as interpreting astrophysical imagery goes, the state of the matter is arguably just as important as the actual element.
References available at http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/99.999%25_plasma
Spun, the people of Slashdot do actually need to be reminded when an alternative cosmology is supported by an observation. The Slashdot debunkers like yourself tend to keep the masses here ignorant of what the competing paradigm actually says, so I do add value when I remind people.
Debunkers crack me up. I've been spending a lot of time lately with Tim Thompson, Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger. You guys try so hard to disprove that the math can be made to work. But, you shoot yourselves in the foot because you effectively keep yourself ignorant of what the model is saying. We've had to explain to Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger recently what a glow discharge is. Tom's insistent that he can analyze the glow discharge with high school electrostatics. Tell that to a plasma physicist and see what he says.
The Sun and heliosphere in fact share a great number of critical similarities with a plasma glow discharge -- including the Sun's most enigmatic feature, the inverse-temperature enigma at the corona. But also the acceleration of charged particles off of the anode is a great model for the enigma with the solar wind in the Standard Model. They are very similar phenomenon. And you might not realize this, but the quasi-neutrality of the space inside of the heliosphere is matched by the positive column of the glow discharge in the laboratory. In a transmission line discharging to a virtual cathode (like a train power line ionizing the air), we see both a drift of charged particles into the line (the anode) and an acceleration of charged particles away from the line. With the Sun, the positive column is instead a radial geometry -- meaning that as electrons drift in towards it, they are confined to a smaller and smaller space. Eventually, charge density reaches a point sufficient to change the plasma's operating modes from dark glow to glow, and then to arc.
On all three of these critical characteristics, we see a 1:1 correspondence between the laboratory and the Sun-heliosphere.
If you look closely at the supposed convection cells on the photosphere, you will notice that they are dark on the sides, not in the centers. This means that they are rotating and tornadic, and not convection cells at all. What math can you point to to fix THAT?!
The glow discharge solar model (Don Scott's Electric Sun hypothesis) deserves more than just a dismissal. There's nothing wrong with talking about it and I am not some evil troll out to wreck Slashdot. You are the one arguing that people should be ignorant to the conversation.
The Electric Universe debate is a debate between plasma physicists and astrophysicists. It dates back to Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir, Ralph Juergens and Hannes Alfven. People who think that there exists no peer review in support of it do not realize who the proponents are. Anthony Peratt, for instance -- who investigates evidence that supports the Electric Universe -- is a former adviser to the Department of Energy, a peer-reviewer for IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Sciences and a researcher who works on the z-machine.
People who don't think that the Electric Universe is supported by peer review aren't paying attention to the debate and are confused on what's actually happening. The EU Theorists have decided to circumvent the astrophysicists by appealing directly to the public. That means that the materials have to be understandable by laypeople. That does NOT mean that there is no peer review.
Rather than trying to tear down every model that comes our way, maybe the best way to figure out the most complex mysteries in space is to try to build competing models (?). Any model for the Sun that's based upon laboratory plasma physics should be sufficient for consideration. The Sun and heliosphere in fact share a great number of very critical attributes with the plasma glow discharge. To just dismiss it out of hand is a sign of extreme bias.
The Electric Universe is based upon the simple premise that the Sun can be modeled as a plasma glow discharge based upon our observations of the glow discharge in the plasma laboratory. It really shouldn't even be controversial, to be honest. And you shouldn't dismiss it until you can at least rattle off all of the key characteristics of both a glow discharge and the heliosphere.
They both have quasi-neutral positive columns. They both exhibit an inverse temperature just above the surface of the "anode". Both have charged particles accelerating off of them (in the heliosphere's case, gravity fails to appreciably slow those particles down). If you look at the granules in the photosphere, you will see that they are dark at the centers. If they were convection cells, they would be light in the centers. Those are tornadic cells and rotation comes directly from electromagnetism.
Use your head, people. Don't just accept things because they are popular. Science is inherently controversial, and we should keep it that way.
Slashdot Mirror
I find this concept really interesting and confusing at the same time. Consider that within plasma laboratories, we can observe certain fundamental morphologies that naturally result from the existence of charge density. Plasmas naturally form double layers, which tend to protect a plasma's charge. The double layer leads to the formation of plasma filaments. We see within the laboratory that plasma filaments tend to exhibit long-range attraction and short-range repulsion with one another. This causes the filaments to twist around one another like a braided rope. Within the plasma laboratory, we observe these complex twisted transfer charged particles very efficiently. They are called Birkeland Currents.
We see these braided filament plasma structures in space too, like in the Cygnus Loop ...
http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/hd1080p_screen/heic0712g.mp4
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070103cygnusloop.htm
Braided ropelike plasma structures are the fingerprints of electromagnetic activity. When you see plasma behaving this way, you need to make sure that you're not trying to use fluids-based equations to understand/model it.
It's interesting that the same thing can be done with respect to radio waves. I'm actually a little bit confused as to why this works for radio waves. When Birkeland Currents do this, they require the existence of a plasma medium, and the structures do their thing in the lab because of the existence of the ionization. The plasma both responds to magnetic fields and creates its own due to the right-hand rule. But these guys seem to be saying that they can create these structures within the Earth's atmosphere in the absence of a plasma medium (?). With Birkeland Currents, the collimation occurs because the flow of charged particles generates a magnetic field.
I'm not getting something. Any plasma physicists out there??? Is HAARP creating an ionized pathway for the signal through the atmosphere?
I'm quite sure you will see whatever it is you want to see in it. People generally appear to like to confirm their pre-existing beliefs. That's why it's generally a good idea to introduce people to alternative ideas. It provides a more useful context to begin with. In a general sense, the confidence exhibited by Slashdotters on the topic of cosmology is not really shared by a lot of mainstream astrophysicists. Quotes are not hard to come by to demonstrate this fact.
Speculating a little bit, SETI is not receiving signals because ET is most likely inside of the diffuse atmosphere of brown dwarf stars. Planets can orbit within the glow of a brown dwarf. You cannot transmit radio signals through a plasma double layer like that, so ET doesn't even know what stars are inside of this environment. All he can see in his sky is a red glow and possibly vortex-like plasma formations. The perpetual harvest that surrounds him deprives him of any desire to contact us anyways. Why would you try to contact aliens when you are in the Garden of Eden? Brown dwarf atmospheres contain copious amounts of water, which when combined with the perpetual glow from the sky, would cause the entire planet to explode with life.
We have a pretty good idea that this is happening because it appears to be what happened to the Earth as well. Humans were alive to testify to it.
Sounds pretty absurd to you, I'm sure. But when you dig into the details, it's a pretty interesting theory for SETI's failure.
I love how somebody labeled you as "flamebait" for pointing this out. I mean, that's a fairly uncontroversial statement you made there. The Electric Universe is almost entirely based upon the observations of the glow discharge in a plasma laboratory. It shouldn't really be all that controversial.
Once some unambiguous predictions (or even post-dictions) are made which are more comprehensively explained by an Electric Universe theory than by more traditional theory, then perhaps the misunderstandings will be resolved. Until then, expect to work very, very hard at making things understood, and expect more push-back.
The notion that we cannot build a simple, workable cosmology based upon the observed behavior of the glow discharge within a plasma laboratory is quite a stunning allegation once you actually educate yourself on the behavior of glow discharges. We can explain EVERY enigmatic feature of the Sun by just observing glow discharges. Kristian Birkeland used nothing more than plasma in a vacuum chamber 100 years ago to replicate numerous astrophysical observations. Anthony Peratt has demonstrated that galaxies are the natural result of large-scale twisting Birkeland Currents. We plainly see that spiral galaxies are oriented like beads on a string, as if they are connected by transmission lines. The writing is already on the wall. You guys just don't know what is being alleged, so the evidentiary support for the Electric Universe just goes right over your head.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't consider it important to observe the behavior of plasmas within the laboratory when accounting for the behavior of plasmas in space. It's really pretty mind-bending when you consider that the visible matter in space is 99.999% matter in the plasma state. THEMIS has already demonstrated that Birkeland Currents connect the Sun and Earth. The existence of Birkeland Currents clearly violates the premise that space plasmas are magnetized fluids. You can create any cosmology you want by manipulating your models for space plasmas. We have VERY GOOD REASON by now to suspect that the models are extremely flawed.
The entire dominant paradigm demands the overly-simplistic, erroneous application of magnetohydrodynamics models in order to minimize the importance of plasma's electrodynamic properties in astrophysical observations. Hannes Alfven warned the astrophysical community as he was receiving the Nobel Physics prize. Many astrophysicists don't even know what he said in that speech to this day, as if it was never even said. It's quite scandalous.
So long as you imagine that the dominant paradigm is working well, you'll never be motivated to learn about competing paradigms. But you won't ever find any fault in the dominant paradigm if you never actually listen to what the critics are saying. Once you have even a general grasp of what the two paradigms say, it's really rather funny to watch the astrophysicists spin enigmatic observations. They use enigmas to spur interest with the public in the mystery of space. But, the enigmas are never really treated as the predictive failures of the model. They always propose some ad hoc mechanism as a solution, which complicates the model. Our understanding of space is steadily, week after week, becoming more complex. If we were on the right track, we would be seeing a simplification -- not a complexification, if you will. Most of the time, they are actually doing nothing more than binning enigmas into the result of black holes, dark matter or magnetic fields. The public is left with the false impression that progress is being made. But when you dig into concepts like magnetic reconnection, you start to see a willingness to accept metaphysical concepts (that magnetic fields can store and release energy) in order to ignore the more established link between electric currents and magnetic fields.
Most people never investigate deep enough into the issues to even notice the serious problems with our dominant paradigm -- which is rather perplexing for a group of people like Slashdotters. You guys are the engineers of this world. You should put more faith in your ability to understand and critique the astrophysicists. They are saying things that directly violate your own educations -- particularly if y
Ok, I'll bite. What do you get when you separate the reasonable from the ridiculous claims of Electric Universe? All I get is the nul set.
Let me guess: You don't have a clue about how a glow discharge works, do you?
Sunspots are understood reasonably well in terms of magnetic fields.
Yeah, except for the fact that the sunspots exhibit attraction to one another without apparent combination. By sharp contrast, this is exactly what would be expected if you took a cross-section of two twisted Birkeland Current filaments. They possess long-range attraction and short-range repulsion, meaning that they will dance around one another and yet never fully combine. Think novelty plasma globe.
And Harp's "surveys" have long been known to be statistically invalid. They suffer from selection effects. And there are also some real physical effects that correlate distant objects with foreground objects, such as gravitational lensing.
My understanding is that most, if not all, claims of gravitational lensing require the existence of copious amounts of dark matter in order to even get into the ballpark mass required.
Also, I've seen all sorts of pitiful attempts by ideologues to cast doubt upon Arp's findings. At one point, scientists actually published a paper claiming that Arp's quantization was not observed in raw redshift observations. Those researchers didn't understand what Arp was saying well enough to even realize that the quantization was being proposed for only the intrinsic component of the raw value.
Tom Bridgman has similarly been trying to argue that Arp's quantization is the result of some sort of statistics error. But, why would the recessional component not also demonstrate quantization?
It seems to me that ideologues are very anxious to be done with Arp's observations, which come in a pretty wide array of types of evidence. To this day, however, the idea that redshift must only come in one flavor is pure speculation. The only reason it's never questioned is because it serves as a critical crutch propping up the dominant paradigm.
People will surely argue about Arp for decades to come. The statistics argument is the treatment of last resort for scientific heretics. It's the same thing that was done to Verschuur when he proposed that he was seeing relatively local filaments of hydrogen within the CMB. When people resort to statistics for argumentation, we'd all be wise to keep in mind that there may be politics involved.
Alfven waves are the popular EU mechanism for coronal heating. I have no problem with this, but you'll have to demonstrate how wave heating can deposit energy in the corona rather than simply propagating clean through.
If you spoke correctly here (and I'm not sure that you intended to say "EU" there), I believe that this demonstrates a rather severe misunderstanding of the EU model. The corona is hot for the same reason that an anode in a glow discharge is hot. An electron drift occurs within the heliosphere, from the heliospheric boundary (the cathode) towards the anode. This is pretty basic plasma physics here -- the same thing we see with high-voltage DC transmission lines. They ionize the air around them because their voltage difference with the atmosphere creates an electric field that causes electrons to drift into the transmission line while ions are simultaneously accelerated away. The heat is a natural byproduct of the discharge.
Should we just assume that it is pure coincidence that all of the Sun's most prominent features correspond precisely to the glow discharge? Only if we are being biased about it.
I'm no solar physicist, but I'd wager that coronal heating draws upon both waves *and* reconnection. Has anyone looked at coronal temperatures at various altitudes/depths through a whole solar cycle?
Spoken like Plato. It's fun to deduce the operation of the universe, eh? Deduction, however, isn't even necessary when we can study plasmas within the laboratory, and plainly see that our magnetohydrodynamics models are completely archaic.
EM phenomena in the sun are well understood. Please don't stir up a fake aura of mystery around solar EM. "Electric Universe" theories are junk science. If you want those theories to be taken seriously, get rid of the junk.
Um, you guys should get your own house in order before criticizing others. From http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2814-earths-magnetic-field-boosts-gravity.html ...
The values of G measured so far seem to fit with that idea. But the researchers say the best way to test their theory would be to take accurate measurements of G at locations such as the magnetic poles and particular longitudes on the equator, and then check those values against the predictions.
Studies of the Sun also support the theory. To make mathematical models of the star's interior tally with experimental data, physicists have to use a lower value of G than is traditionally agreed. Mbelek says his calculations predict that electromagnetism would not boost gravity as much at higher temperatures, so you would expect G to be lower inside the Sun.
Exotic physics
But other researchers are not convinced. Clifford Will, a gravity theorist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, believes improvements in terrestrial experiments will eventually do away with the need for explanations that rely on such exotic physics.
"In many ways it's a scandal that we don't have an agreed value for G, but if you look at the experiments, the values have been converging," he says. "In five years or so, we'll have an agreed value."
But Mbelek does not think so. Although the precision of individual measurements is improving, he says, the values are not converging.
I smell junk!
Actually no I don't see that the electric universe star theory is capable of playing that game. There are two key observations the electric star theory cannot explain. First, it can't explain the absence of intergalactic energy flows into the Sun. It requires them. We see that they aren't there.
You know, when you permit yourself to develop an opinion on the matter prematurely, you will not pay attention to the evidence that supports competing paradigms. For instance, a quick search on "spiral galaxies aligned" will lead to the following article. From http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4215 ...
Astronomers have known since the early 1990s that galaxies cluster in filaments and sheets surrounding vast voids in space. Now, an international team of astronomers has found that spiral galaxies, like the Milky Way, line up like beads on a string, with their spin axes aligned with the filaments that outline voids.
[snip]
Also, you should look carefully at the shape of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. They are not at all circular morphologies. That whole system fully supports Anthony Peratt's supercomputer simulations that demonstrate that spiral galaxies can be created by twisting together two large plasma filaments.
You will see braided ropelike plasma structures all over nebulas. We're supposed to believe that these structures are shock fronts, but that assumes that plasmas can be modeled as magnetized fluids. Unfortunately, plasmas are not as easy to model as astrophysicists would like to believe. If I may quote a private conversation with Don Scott ...
Suppose there is a fairly straight B-field (magnetic field) within a plasma. Shoot a stream of charge (an electric current) into this. Suppose the velocity vector (the direction and speed) of the injected current is at some angle to the axis of the B-field. The current will begin to spiral. (A spiral is a combination of a circular motion in a plane at right angles to the B-field plus a straight-line motion parallel to the B-field). Thus we get a spiral (vortex / helix) of current.
BUT this is just the first step. We know that any current will produce its own B-field surrounding it (right-hand rule) and so the spiral current is surrounded by what you might visualize as a fat spiraling worm of B-field (whose intensity decreases with distance from the spiralling current.
So now we have two B-fields in the same space (the original straight one, and the worm-like shaped new one). They add together to make a total overall B-field. The current stream at this point says, "Oops, I'm not exactly following the new total B-field path - and adjusts its direction to accomplish this. Alfven wrote about the wierd effects observed at this point in the process. Sometimes the current bends in the opposite direction from what looks proper.
As a result we have an altered current shape, and a newly altered total B-field, and so it goes on and on.
So the point is you can't solve this problem in a single step of vector algebra. You need to do an iterative process that goes through the steps and then goes back and does them over and over, each time recognizing you have a different shaped current and a different shaped B-field. (For you old computer buffs: We need to use a 'Do-Loop' algorithm). There is another complication too - the vector sum of the original B-field and the new (just generated) B-field is not simple if the medium (the plasma) is non-linear. And Boy! is plasma non-linear.
Bottom line:
Algebraic solutions are almost certainly doomed to failure in cases like this. Lab experiments (and properly done simulations) are the only hope we really have of seeing what happens. This is the big error made by plasma 'theoreticians' as opposed to experimentalists.
The idea that plasmas can be modeled as fluids is rather archaic.
Second, it can'
You're using YOUR paradigm to judge somebody ELSE's. Sheesh! I believe that Anthony Peratt's view is that plasmas are scalable over 16 orders of magnitude. And in this alternative paradigm, fusion is a byproduct of the action of an anode within a glow discharge. It occurs up near the surface of the Sun, which is why sunspots are observed to anti-correlate with neutrino production. That observation is one of many enigmatic observations within the dominant paradigm.
You shouldn't accept it until you can at least rattle off all the key characteristics of stellar equilibrium, stellar fusion, helioseismology, spectroscopy, stellar dynamics in aggregate, and from the looks of things basic thermodynamics as well (you can't have that much hydrogen in one place and expect it not to fuse!).
Well, that's convenient. You seem to have reduced the total number of people who can legitimately interpret astrophysical imagery to those who are already trained to believe in the dominant paradigm.
Oh, and by the way, helioseismology is the most speculative garbage that has ever been called science in the history of science. You cannot look into the Sun. Get over it!!!
I would also point out that these papers did not detect anything like filaments or braids.
But THEMIS has. And, if you don't just accept as fact the interpretations for astrophysical imagery that you've read countless times, then with a little bit of help, you'd plainly see the filaments and braids in space imagery. They range from ambiguous to absolutely undeniable in form.
And Verschuur has identified local filaments of hydrogen gas that correlate with the CMB.
Filaments are everywhere in space. And so is plasma. What makes plasma filamentary? It's electromagnetic rotation. You might be able to get the math to work in a fluids-based model for plasmas under some situations, but fluids do not create the braided ropelike structures we've seen with THEMIS connecting the Sun with the Earth. Many people will dismiss this, but the fact is that it calls into question our magnetohydrodynamics models. Can we really afford to just assume that the math we use to model space plasmas in correct when plasmas represent 99.999% of all visible matter in space? THEMIS should have caused astrophysicists to blink. But the inertia of pre-existing belief is strong.
Well, I would add to that that when it comes to the topic of physics, ridicule possesses the power of a psychological weapon. Studies demonstrate that when a spectator observes somebody else being ridiculed, the spectator will be inclined to avoid the same thing happening to him. In this manner, when it comes to the topic of physics, ridicule is perhaps one of the most effective tools available for keeping people from discussing or thinking about controversial subjects. People already fear making an ass of themselves. Public ridicule -- like here on Slashdot -- will tend to raise the cost of speaking up about one's opinions. This creates a society on Slashdot that is generally more close-minded on the topic of cosmology -- or at least arguably more receptive to opinions that tend to dismiss alternative physical paradigms.
When it comes to debunking the Electric Universe, for instance, many people like to throw around URL's by Tim Thompson, Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger. But behind the scenes in discussions with Tom and Leroy, we can plainly see that they lack the understanding of plasma glow discharges that Wal Thornhill possesses (Wal is the primary target of their criticisms). Leroy Ellenberger will in fact say anything so long as it causes David Thomson to look bad. Ellenberger hasn't paid any attention to any of the recent findings by any of our probes -- literally for decades. And yet, people on wikipedia treat him as though he's some sort of expert on the Electric Universe just because he turned coat on Velikovsky decades ago. We've come a long, long way from Velikovsky. The Electric Universe, unlike catastrophism, is based upon laboratory plasma physics principles -- in particular, the behavior of the plasma glow discharge. The Sun is, without much doubt, a glow discharge phenomenon. Getting the math all in order to reflect it will take some time, but much of the work has already been done by people like Hannes Alfven, Ralph Juergens and Wal Thornhill.
btw, I still hold out hope for Tim Thompson. His criticisms are far more targeted and intelligent. But, he oftentimes proposes possible explanations that might work in explaining enigmatic observations for the Standard Model as a rationale for not looking into competing paradigms. Many people already accept as fact that the Standard Model has poorly performed, and are already looking for a new paradigm to be created from scratch. We want something simpler than what we've been offered, and the Electric Universe appears to offer that.
Khallow, with all due respect, you appear to be refusing to learn about what a drift current is. We already see that charged particles, when subjected to the electric field of an electric discharge, can actually flow upstream of an outflow of positively charged particles being accelerated away. This is what happens when high-voltage DC trolley lines ionize the surrounding air. The transmission line is the anode and the surrounding atmosphere is the virtual cathode. The same thing also happens in a glow discharge. If you are having problems believing it, then you should get your hands on the Cobine book that I liberally referenced. Wal Thornhill has come to see that book as being the most useful book available for understanding glow discharges.
From Wal Thornhill's book "The Electric Universe" ...
When a theoretical model is not working, the logical thing to look for is a trend toward growing anomalies. Below we offer a partial list of solar features that cause problems for mainstream theory but are expected in an electrical model. As the reader will note, the list includes almost all of the prominent attributes of the Sun:
- Solar spectrum. The spectrum of light from the Sun is characteristic of electrical discharging. Thus the leading solar physicist, Giorgio Abetti, uses the terms âelectric arcâ(TM) and âlightning flashâ(TM) when explaining the solar spectrum and solar flares. More recently, micro-flares have been discovered to occur every few minutes on the Sun, comparable to scaled-up thunderstorms on Earth.
- Neutrino deficiency. Solar physicists have acknowledged for decades that the Sunâ(TM)s output of neutrinos, a by-product of nuclear fusion, is about 1/3 of that expected in the standard solar model. Three types or âflavorsâ(TM) of neutrinos have been identified, and recent attempts to solve the problem require unwarranted assumptions about neutrino âchange of flavorâ(TM) en route from the center of the Sun. An electric Sun, however, can generate all flavors of neutrinos in heavy element synthesis at its surface. Therefore, it requires no assumptions about âchanging flavorsâ(TM) to hide the deficit.
- Neutrino variability. The neutrino output varies inversely with the surface sunspot cycle. Were they produced in the nuclear âfurnaceâ(TM) at the center of the Sun, this relationship would be inconceivable, since solar physicists calculate that it takes about 200,000 years for the energy of internal fusion to affect the surface. In the electrical model, more and larger sunspots mean less âlightningâ(TM) at the surface, where the nuclear reactions occur. Thus, the decline in neutrinos with increasing sunspot number is expected.
- Solar atmosphere. As pointed out by astronomer Fred Hoyle, given the strong gravity and 5,800 degree temperature of the Sunâ(TM)s photosphere, a very thin atmospheric âskinâ(TM) should be expected on the Sun, perhaps a few thousand kilometers thick on a sphere 1.4 million kilometers in diameter. Instead, the atmosphere balloons out to 100,000 kilometers, where it heats up to a million degrees or more. From there particles accelerate out among the planets. Thus, it could be said that we orbit inside the Sunâ(TM)s atmosphere! None of this makes any sense for a 5,800-degree body radiating its heat into space. It makes perfect sense in a plasma discharge, with the Sun acting as an anode.
- Neutrinos and solar wind. Neutrino counts have been found to wax and wane with the flux of particles in the solar wind, a predictable effect if the solar wind is part of an electric circuit fueling nuclear fusion on the Sunâ(TM)s surface.
- Heavy elements. It has long been claimed that heavy elements are born in the flashes of supernova explosions and are then scattered into space, to be recycled into the next generation of stars. But there are far too few supernovae to account for the abundance of heavy elements in
Zerkshop, be careful with your open mind. It will get you into trouble in the physics discipline. As you get older, you will come to see that cosmology is unfortunately no place for people with open minds like yourself. The best tactic is to learn your studies as hard as you can, but keep your opinions of "fringe" scientific readings to yourself. I wouldn't even let your professors know that you're reading this stuff. It could very well affect your upward mobility within your field.
(As for psy trance, I would propose that psytrance has largely been killed off by dubstep. A lot of people who used to listen to psytrance have discovered that dubstep is a far more melodic and danceable drum&bass. I highly recommend it!)
What you've noticed with wikipedia is like watching the Hatfield-McCoy family feud through a pinhole in a fence. The theory of the Electric Universe has been barred from wikipedia by the likes of Leroy Ellenberger, scienceapologist and various other BAUT/talk.origins "authorities". These authorities are actually defenders of conventional wisdom. They do not believe in building new cosmological models because they try to tear them all down before any are ever built. Everybody seems to take their cue from the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today website, run by Phil Plait, where people who create new astrophysical paradigms are set before a panel of like 6 or 8 astrophysicists and burned at the stake on every single minute detail imaginable. What that effectively does is spur people to try to develop mathematics-based models. What we need to be doing, however, is questioning our mathematical models. We need to be taking a closer look at our physical fundamentals within the discipline of physics. The EU Theorists are doing this. We need to be asking tough questions about things like galactic rotation, observations of the photosphere, filamentary structures in space, stellar observations that are enigmatic to the Standard Model, etc.
The fact that people cannot go to wikipedia to understand what the theory says makes it pretty damn difficult for people to learn what the theory says and whether or not its wrong. We've been struggling for years now just to be allowed to explain to people what the theory says on wiki. Online vigilantes have worked tirelessly to prevent it, even though they frequently have to violate their own precious wikipedia rules in order to do so. We can in fact point to published literature, some of it by Nobel Physics laureates like Hannes Alfven, and some of it peer-reviewed to support our interpretations for astrophysical imagery. The Electric Universe debunkers spend much of their time trying to use high school electrostatics to disprove that the math can be made to work when modeling the Sun as a glow discharge. But, so long as the prominent features of the two match up, isn't it obvious that the math can be made to work? And why do they think that people are taught plasma physics in high school? Electrostatics can be used to disprove the behavior of a plasma glow discharge in the laboratory. Can we really count on it to help us in cosmology, or in the study of astrophysical plasmas -- which constitute 99.999% of all visible matter in space?
Unfortunately, and not by choice, the only places to understand EU Theory are at http://www.thunderbolts.info, http://www.holoscience.com and in their books "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott, and "The Electric Universe" by Wal Thornhill. I would in particular point to the writings of Wal Thornhill, who is largely self-taught on the subjects of astrophysics and plasma physics. Wal has proven himself to be very well read on the subject of glow discharges -- better than most professional astrophysicists -- and this has been the key in formulating a new plasma-based cosmology. The more you read of Wal Thornhill, the more you will likely come to respect him as I have. He's been playing the role of scientific heretic for a very long time now. He knows ALL of the criticisms dished at him by now, and he's
"the scientists"? Are they programmable lemmings? Or are people permitted to formulate their own opinions on these sorts of things?
You know, when a new paradigm comes in, it will only be interesting to people if it simplifies our current understanding of our relationship with the universe. When you defer to authority, you ignore this simple fact. What we have here is a situation where the plasma glow discharge behaves strikingly like a miniature Sun. If you look at some of the most perplexing problems of the Sun's behavior, you see that these things are naturally explained by the plasma glow discharge. We really need to pursue this research vigorously to examine if a new paradigm can be quantified. I'm quite certain that it can be based upon what I've read. The only thing stopping it, in fact, are all of the people who simply like the dominant paradigm so much that they don't see the point in creating more models.
That's not science. That's personal preference. We won't know which model is the best until they both exist. That means that we have to create the competing models before we can evaluate them. And that means that we have to spur interest in quantitating them.
Okay, your posting is full of errors here. If you care to see why, please read on. Otherwise, I would advise not posting on the subject until you learn more about glow discharges ...
The Sun being externally powered would be easily observable from Earth. In fact, we would see similar inflow of energy into our atmosphere, dramatically heating up the surface of the Earth and by our space probes. We would observe the plasma flowing in onto the Sun. The fact is we don't observe these effects. Hence, we can discard that prediction of the theory, assuming someone ever gets bold enough to make it.
To your own credit, you have actually read more than most. The problem is that you're listening to the likes of Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger, who collectively know absolutely nothing about plasma physics.
A typical quote from Leroy Ellenberger goes something like this:
"The REAL point is that I do not have to pick one issue when the entire EU model is based on Juergens' uncorrected misunderstandings of science and physics, and the model is falsified by many observations, including the presence of convection in the photosphere and absence of x-rays in coronal holes."
Let's dissect in detail why this is wrong. First of all, Wal Thornhill's and Don Scott's "Electric Sun" hypothesis was originally inspired by Ralph Juergens, but later amended by Wal (as evident in the chapter on the Sun in the book, The Electric Universe). Don Scott added further scientific perspective, in his book, The Electric Sky.
Leroy's all too typical statement above, about "Juergens' uncorrected misunderstandings of science and physics," fails to touch the real issue at all. The question is: in what way did Wal amend Juergens' model?
Much of what follows is based on a page on Wal's Holoscience website:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=uf4ty065
In a paper published in 1982, Juergens wrote:
"Transmission lines carrying high-voltage direct current - electric trolley wires, for example - discharge almost continuously to the surrounding air. In the case of a positive (anode) wire electrons ever present in the Earth's atmosphere drift toward the wire, attracted by its positive charge. As they penetrate the increasingly intense electric field close to the wire, the electrons gain energy from the field and are accelerated to energies great enough to initiate electron avalanches as they collide with and ionize air molecules. The avalanching electrons, in turn, intensify the ionization immediately surrounding the wire. Positive ions, formed in the process, drift away from the wire in the electric field. In this way, a more or less steady discharge is maintained, although there is no tangible object other than the surrounding air that can be considered a cathode."
Electric Discharge As The Source Of Solar Radiant Energy, KRONOS Vol 8 No. 1, Fall 1982.
In the second instalment (KRONOS Vol 8 No. 2.), Juergens amplified his supposition about the region of the anode function in an electric sun:
"the postulated discharge â" though focused on a central solar anode - would appear to embrace a vast region of space, most of it devoted to cathode mechanisms. The solar corona, and its extension through interplanetary space and beyond, finds an analog in the "negative glow" region of a glow discharge. The chromosphere we shall interpret as the inner limit of this negative glow. Only the photosphere, at the inner limit of the vast discharge cavity, will be assigned an anode function in this model."
After giving these citations, Wal presents an illustration of his revision, based on the classical study of glow discharge published in J.D Cobine's book Gaseous Conductors.
Wal's own caption to the illustration reads:
Diagram showing the important features of a glow discharge. Note that in a spherically symmetrical corona discharge the cathode glows ar
Yes, you are right. The Electric Universe paradigm extends plasma cosmology. On the core fundamentals, however, they are both in agreement.
Cosmology is the search for answers in the universe. We aren't going to find those answers without ever questioning our magnetohydrodynamics models. That's what's happening here. *YOUR* paradigm was evolved before it was even discovered that space was filled with charged particles. That you guys didn't imagine that this should have any serious impact upon the paradigm was a major mistake. As you know, the plasma state of matter is very different from gas.
Quasi-neutrality is oftentimes misunderstood by people like yourself to mean that electricity in space doesn't do anything. But, quasi-neutrality is the state of the positive column between the anode and cathode of a plasma glow discharge. Despite the quasi-neutrality of the column, positive charged particles are accelerated away from the anode and electrons drift in towards the anode. The Electric Universe merely proposes the same behavior for the Sun.
The glow discharge model can accommodate some of the Sun's most perplexing characteristics -- features that the thermonuclear model for the Sun never predicted, and struggles to explain to this day. For instance, the Standard Model fails to naturally explain the inverse temperature of the corona. How is the Sun's atmosphere heated to 100x the surface temperature without raising the surface temperature? To explain this, magnetic reconnection has been proposed as one possible mechanism. But, this is pretty much standard practice in astrophysics for dismissing an enigma: when in doubt, blame either magnetic fields, black holes or dark matter. In this particular case, they look to the activity of magnetic field lines -- as if magnetic fields can store and release energy. This confers a metaphysical status to magnetic fields that I don't necessarily disagree with, but which is very reminiscent of an aether. In other disciplines of science, magnetic fields are acknowledged to be the side-effect of an electric current. Astrophysicists have also taken the unusual stance that field lines can actually "connect". To plasma physicists and electrical engineers, these notions about magnetic fields are rather silly. And if explained exactly what is being claimed, they will unanimously agree that the astrophysicists are really forging their own deductive pathway.
The Standard Model has also had a very hard time explaining the fact that the solar wind fails to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the orbits of the planets. It's as if little rocket ships are propelling them forward against the force of gravity -- as if, (gasp!) gravity is not controlling the charged particles. Well, it wouldn't be the first time! For God's sake.
What exotic mechanism will be postulated for this acceleration, which mostly happens near the Sun, but in fact slightly continues throughout the entire heliosphere? Needless to say, we see the exact same behavior in the laboratory with glow discharges. There exists a weak electric field within the positive column of the glow discharge that accounts for this continued acceleration.
Look at the supposed convection cells on the Sun's photosphere ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granules2.jpg
Explain to me this: Why are the cells denser and hotter at the edges than in the middle? Is there any other convection that you can point to that has ever been observed by man to be like that? Those cells are better described as tornadic because they are densest at their edges (not the centers). Their rotation is most likely electrodynamic in nature.
People like yourself claim with so much certainty that our magnetohydrodynamic models for space plasmas are accurately modeling the plasmas as magnetized fluids. And they do this in spite of the direct observation of Birkeland Currents connecting the Sun to the Earth by THEMIS!
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm
Braided ropelike structures of plasmas can ONLY be modeled as electrodynamic behavior. They have NOTHING to do with fluids. You guys ar
The Electric Universe is lumped in with the fringe sciences purely because it is not the conventional paradigm. The model itself is workable because there's a high correlation between observations of the Sun and heliosphere, and the action of an anode within a plasma glow discharge. No mathematical debunking can argue against these key correlations since they are based upon laboratory observations. If the key features match up, then the mathematics can be made to work for a model.
What you might not realize is that even though our gravity-based theories date back to the early 1900's, we've only relatively recently discovered that space is not the vacuum we once thought it was. It's in fact filled with charged particles (99.999% of all visible matter in space is matter in the plasma state), so there exists a burden to make sure that we're properly modeling the plasma in space. The question is: does it behave as a fluid, in accordance with gravity? Or, does it behave more like electrified plasma in the laboratory? The only way to answer that question is to maintain an open mind on the subject long enough to find correlations between plasmas in space and plasmas in the laboratory. The truth is that plasmas in space are frequently filamentary just like those in the laboratory. These filaments in the laboratory possess both long-range attraction and short-range repulsion amongst one another. And this attractive force is in fact the strongest force in the universe -- something like 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. The end result is that plasmas naturally form braided ropelike structures, and these structures can transmit charged particles -- electricity.
Advocates for the mainstream will throw up lots of flack. For instance, it's frequently cited that space (like the heliosphere) is quasi-neutral. But, what those people don't realize is that so is the positive column between an anode and a cathode in a plasma glow discharge! And yet, there still exists an electron drift into the anode from the cathode simultaneous with a release of positive charged particles from the anode to the cathode. Electricity is observed to flow in both directions in a glow discharge exactly as is proposed by the EU Theorists in their Electric Sun model. Any model for the Sun based upon laboratory plasma physics deserves more than just a dismissal.
Prior to the observation of magnetic fields in space in 1986, it was claimed that there was no observational evidence for magnetic and electric fields in space. We see the same sort of thing now when it comes to the topic of powering the Sun with electrons. Skeptics claim that we have not yet observed any flows of electrons into the Sun. The mechanism being argued is that of a drift current. The heliosphere is incredibly large. In the glow discharge model, an electric field inches these electrons towards the anode (the Sun) at an incredibly slow rate. But, since the heliosphere is so unimaginably huge, there is a very great amount of power available to the Sun. The problem is that you're not going to accidentally see these electrons moving in towards the Sun. Local turbulence will make it nearly impossible, in the same way that a fan drawing air on one end of your house will not be noticed on the opposite end unless it is extremely powerful. In this case, the electric field is incredibly weak -- and yet persistently there from the anode (the Sun) to the cathode (the heliospheric boundary).
Slashdot enthusiasts appear to not realize that astrophysicists blame either magnetic fields, dark matter or black holes every time that their model fails to predict their observations. If you guys pay more attention, you'll notice the trend. The Standard Model is not resolving its enigmatic observations so much as it is categorizing or binning the mysteries into these three categories, for future resolution.
In a strict sense, this is pretty pseudo-scientific -- especially when it comes to the manufactured mystery of magnetic fields. In every discipline OTHER than astrophysics, magnetic fields are acknowledged to be the side effect of electric currents. But, within astrophysics, magnetic fields and their line-drawn representations are treated as prime movers and shakers -- real, physical entities that can accumulate and release energy when the field lines connect (magnetic connection). The electrical engineers and plasma physicists that are actually listening to the astrophysicists will shake their heads every time that an astrophysicist talks about the merging of magnetic field lines. If a magnetic field is a real, physical entity that can store energy, then doesn't that qualify it as a metaphysical entity? Is it real or not? Is there an aether or not? Astrophysicists appear to reject the theory of the aether, and yet rely upon aether-based concepts in order to support their gravity-based cosmology.
Dismissals of competing paradigms as pseudo-science ignore all of this hand-waving that conventional astrophysicists are currently doing.
This is no joke.
For instance, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm ...
"The origin of magnetic fields in galaxies is still a mystery to astronomers. Popular theories suggest continual strengthening over billions of years. The latest results from Simon Lilly's group, however, contradict this assumption and reveal that young galaxies also have strong magnetic fields.
"There is an astronomer joke that goes 'to understand the universe, we examine galaxies for radiation, gases, temperatures, chemical constitution and much more. Anything we can't explain after that we attribute to the magnetic fields'", explains Simon Lilly, Professor at the Institute of Astronomy at ETH Zurich. The creations of the magnetic fields in galaxies remain a badly researched mystery."
Now, does it make a whole lot of sense for a scientist to claim great certainty that there are no electric currents over plasmas in space, while simultaneously expressing frustration with the widespread observation of magnetic fields in space? In every other discipline, the two are inextricably bound.
Go figure.
Additionally, many textbooks agree that 99.999% of the visible matter in space is matter within the plasma state. In a behavioral sense as far as interpreting astrophysical imagery goes, the state of the matter is arguably just as important as the actual element.
References available at http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/99.999%25_plasma
Ah, the memories ...
Spun, the people of Slashdot do actually need to be reminded when an alternative cosmology is supported by an observation. The Slashdot debunkers like yourself tend to keep the masses here ignorant of what the competing paradigm actually says, so I do add value when I remind people.
Debunkers crack me up. I've been spending a lot of time lately with Tim Thompson, Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger. You guys try so hard to disprove that the math can be made to work. But, you shoot yourselves in the foot because you effectively keep yourself ignorant of what the model is saying. We've had to explain to Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger recently what a glow discharge is. Tom's insistent that he can analyze the glow discharge with high school electrostatics. Tell that to a plasma physicist and see what he says.
The Sun and heliosphere in fact share a great number of critical similarities with a plasma glow discharge -- including the Sun's most enigmatic feature, the inverse-temperature enigma at the corona. But also the acceleration of charged particles off of the anode is a great model for the enigma with the solar wind in the Standard Model. They are very similar phenomenon. And you might not realize this, but the quasi-neutrality of the space inside of the heliosphere is matched by the positive column of the glow discharge in the laboratory. In a transmission line discharging to a virtual cathode (like a train power line ionizing the air), we see both a drift of charged particles into the line (the anode) and an acceleration of charged particles away from the line. With the Sun, the positive column is instead a radial geometry -- meaning that as electrons drift in towards it, they are confined to a smaller and smaller space. Eventually, charge density reaches a point sufficient to change the plasma's operating modes from dark glow to glow, and then to arc.
On all three of these critical characteristics, we see a 1:1 correspondence between the laboratory and the Sun-heliosphere.
If you look closely at the supposed convection cells on the photosphere, you will notice that they are dark on the sides, not in the centers. This means that they are rotating and tornadic, and not convection cells at all. What math can you point to to fix THAT?!
The glow discharge solar model (Don Scott's Electric Sun hypothesis) deserves more than just a dismissal. There's nothing wrong with talking about it and I am not some evil troll out to wreck Slashdot. You are the one arguing that people should be ignorant to the conversation.
The Electric Universe debate is a debate between plasma physicists and astrophysicists. It dates back to Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir, Ralph Juergens and Hannes Alfven. People who think that there exists no peer review in support of it do not realize who the proponents are. Anthony Peratt, for instance -- who investigates evidence that supports the Electric Universe -- is a former adviser to the Department of Energy, a peer-reviewer for IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Sciences and a researcher who works on the z-machine.
People who don't think that the Electric Universe is supported by peer review aren't paying attention to the debate and are confused on what's actually happening. The EU Theorists have decided to circumvent the astrophysicists by appealing directly to the public. That means that the materials have to be understandable by laypeople. That does NOT mean that there is no peer review.
Rather than trying to tear down every model that comes our way, maybe the best way to figure out the most complex mysteries in space is to try to build competing models (?). Any model for the Sun that's based upon laboratory plasma physics should be sufficient for consideration. The Sun and heliosphere in fact share a great number of very critical attributes with the plasma glow discharge. To just dismiss it out of hand is a sign of extreme bias.
Who needs help? Plasma physicists?!
The Electric Universe is based upon the simple premise that the Sun can be modeled as a plasma glow discharge based upon our observations of the glow discharge in the plasma laboratory. It really shouldn't even be controversial, to be honest. And you shouldn't dismiss it until you can at least rattle off all of the key characteristics of both a glow discharge and the heliosphere.
They both have quasi-neutral positive columns. They both exhibit an inverse temperature just above the surface of the "anode". Both have charged particles accelerating off of them (in the heliosphere's case, gravity fails to appreciably slow those particles down). If you look at the granules in the photosphere, you will see that they are dark at the centers. If they were convection cells, they would be light in the centers. Those are tornadic cells and rotation comes directly from electromagnetism.
Use your head, people. Don't just accept things because they are popular. Science is inherently controversial, and we should keep it that way.