Now, I don't have enough knowldege of black holes, dark energy and dark matter to be able to defend their popularity within the science as it stands today, and quite frankly I don't want to, but I can say, with confidence, that tolerence of ambiguities and uncertainties in well established scientific hypotheses should not be used as a basis for accepting newly forged and untested theories.
Much of what you say is true. However, your phrase "ambiguities and uncertainties" conveys the perception that anomalies within astrophysics today are minimal enough to not pose any serious challenge to traditional mainstream astrophysical theories.
Another problem with your posting is the implication that we must abandon one theory in order to investigate another. By bringing more cosmologies into mainstream awareness, people will be induced to compare and contrast theories rather than just memorizing and listening.
We can generate proofs for multiple cosmologies. We will only figure out which one is true by comparing these proofs. Space basically is a giant plasma. To assert that we cannot create a plasma-based cosmology in light of this fact is somewhat absurd.
The reason scientists are not paying attention to the Electric Universe is the same reason why they're not reading what/dev/urandom has to say about the universe : time is precious and they can't afford to spend it equally on all theories.
The problem with your statement is that it completely ignores the fact that Wallace Thornhill was the only person to accurately predict all of the results of the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 -- results which to this day, nearly two years later, continue to baffle NASA. I think you will find that the only satisfying explanation for our observations of comets involves electromagnetism:
To assert otherwise leaves open the question of how Thornhill could have known about a pre-impact flash before it happened (among his other accurate predictions). Nobody else was predicting anything like that.
Due to the good electrical conductivity, the electric fields in plasmas tend to be very small. This results in the important concept of quasineutrality, which says that it is a very good approximation to assume that the density of negative charges is equal to the density of positive charges over large volumes of the plasma... but on the scale of the Debye length there can be charge imbalance. In the special case that double layers are formed, the charge separation can extend some tens of Debye lengths.
This is far from being some sort of death blow to plasma cosmology or Electric Universe Theory.
The fact is that it takes less than 1% ionization for a gas to become a plasma and conduct electricity. We know this from working with plasmas in the laboratory. However, scientists continue to model plasmas in space using gas and fluid equations -- in spite of the fact that we see strong evidence for the classic hourglass z-pinch morphology all over space and in spite of the fact that plasmas in the laboratory are electrical phenomenon.
Electric Universe Theory proposes that the plasmas we observe in space, which appear to be very pervasive, are no different than the plasmas we see in the laboratory -- which we know are electrical in nature. Mainstream astrophysicists are trying to tell us that plasmas in space can *instantaneously* neutralize all charge imbalances and contain magnetic fields that are fixed-in-place within gases. These assumptions violate both common sense and what we know about electromagnetism from decades of research in plasma physics. To assert that the mainstream astrophysicists are the ones that are properly applying electromagnetism and that the plasma cosmologists don't understand electromagnetism is a rather stunning assertion on your part. The plasma-specific physicists that are making these "fringe" assertions are actually basing their statements upon laboratory experiments that have controlled inputs and carefully monitored outputs. The mainstream astrophysicists base much of their own theories on thought experiments and *interpretations* of space observations.
Hannes Alfven, the man who largely invented the field of magnetohydrodynamics, which astrophysicists use to model plasmas in space, received the Nobel Physics Prize for his work in this field. During his acceptance speech, he warned that much of his earlier work is "pseudo-pedgagogical": an idea that appears to help us, but which in fact does great harm to our understanding of the universe. The mainstream astrophysicists ignored his warning, and continue to ignore clear signs of electricity in space to this day. Rather than accept the existence of electricity in space as a means of explaining how spiral galaxies can rotate as a fixed plate, they would rather infer the existence of particles and forces that are invisible to our instruments. Plasma cosmologists can generate spiral galaxy morphologies within the laboratory and in computer simulations that mimic the rotational properties of real spiral galaxies.
I recommend that before formulating an opinion on the topic that you should at least listen to what the EU Theorists have to say first. I highly recommend Don Scott's "The Electric Sky". If you read that book, you will be surprised to discover that there are in fact a great number of reasons to suspect that electricity is playing a large role in our space observations. But if you are commenting on their theory without actually reading what it says, then how can you even know if they are in fact lacking "a basic understanding of electromagnetism"?
The comments within this forum on this topic are very disturbing. This is a mob mentality. This is not in any way a scientific debate or discussion of the issues. None of these people have even read any of the Electric Universe materials, and yet everybody is sure that it bullshit. I'm very familiar with the Electric Universe materials and they deserve careful consideration.
Every single person who has gone on the record on these forums talking about a theory that they know very little about will eventually regret their comments here. The evidence for an electric universe is very strong, and continues to strengthen every week that goes by. The real problem is that nobody is paying any attention to what these guys are actually saying. There is nothing flawed about their arguments.
If you are the type of person who is absolutely convinced of the theory of stellar evolution and a sun with a thermonuclear core, then there is in fact little that we can observe that will shake your confidence in that theory. It's not until you actually talk to skeptical astrophysicists that you will actually even hear a reason for why this might be a crisis. This is an important fact: if you only consult other people who believe the exact same thing as yourself, you will only hear a very limited spectrum of possible interpretations for the data.
In my own conversation with against-the-mainstream cosmologists, I've been told that the key to this study is in the following line:
"We find an unsettling fluctuation of the oxygen abundance over the field of view."
The authors have seen that the solar O/Fe ratio is variable in 3D imaging, something unexpected for the standard solar model (SSM). The specific person I was talking to has been anxiously awaiting these 3D images of the Sun for some time for the precise reason that they expected to observe fluctuations in the relative abundances of any two elements of greatly different atomic weight (mass).
The source of the crisis results from the logical assumption that our own Sun's composition should reflect the oxygen ratios we observe elsewhere. Our Sun should be typical. Although the article suggests that the solar abundance of oxygen needs to be revised downward, this would make our own sun atypical.
Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the solar photosphere, behind hydrogen and helium.
Unless the Sun is unique, oxygen is probably the 2nd or 3rd most abundant element in the visible universe. That is about its position in rocky planets, like Earth, and in ordinary meteorites.
I think the general point is that people need to keep an open mind about how the Sun works. One of the reasons we send probes up to observe the Sun is so that we may formulate new theories of how the Sun works -- not *just* to confirm our old theories. When the data does not confirm the old theories, people must prioritize the data over the old theories. There isn't a whole lot of this happening right now in astrophysics. Mainstream astrophysicists are absolutely convinced that they understand the universe quite well right now, but these people only achieve this consensus by limiting who they confer with, and by assuming that we will one day figure out the anamolous data that does not currently support the mainstream theories. There are in fact numerous anomalies associated with the standard solar model that remain unresolved.
Obviously, there is no physical reason to expect the actual abundance to exhibit spatial variations in the solar photosphere. We must then conclude that this is an artifact of the analysis, probably due to imperfect modeling especially in the presence of magnetic fields (notice that the granulation pattern is not visible in the abundance images).
I suppose this is how people deal with unexpected results in astrophysics?... We didn't expect to see that, so it must be a problem with the analysis or some pesky magnetic fields rather than the theory itself...
I imagine you could prove just about anything by appending that to the end of every paper.
I think you will find that this response is not the senseless ranting one would expect of a "loony". My hope is that you will in the future respect that a group of scientists who can deliver such responses deserve more than name-calling.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my posting. After forwarding your response to the theorists themselves, I've received a detailed response for you that should help to clarify and move the debate forward. I hope that you will afford as much time to consider their response as they have in carefully responding to your challenge. It's unfortunate that such a delay is necessary to respond that few people will actually notice that a response has been posted. For this reason, I hope that in the future, you opt to propose that issues associated with Electric Universe Theory are debatable rather than settled. It's easy to deny that something can be possible, as you have done, but when somebody can respond to every one of your assertions, it may be that you have misled some people into thinking that the issue is settled when in fact it is not.
Here is the response:
The critic noted above says: "Rotation is necessary to explain the extraordinary predictability of the pulse rate." But that is the issue to be settled, not a confirmed principle to be announced to the unwashed. The statement implies that a rotating beam sweeping by the Earth is the only way to produce the detected regular and rapid electromagnetic pulse from a pulsar. This assertion is not only contradicted by electrical experts (see below), it requires one to accept theoretical speculations divorced from anything observed or even physically plausible. A star rotating at up to 642 times per second or more? To "explain" the observed pulsation, astronomers must imagine a theoretical compression of matter beyond anything modern science or technology can achieve or classical physics would allow. Restricted to the gravity-only universe, mainstream astronomers and cosmologists are guessing at answers so far from observation and experiment as to remain untestable. In a rational world, how do speculations refute an electrical view based on well-demonstrated principles?
When the critic suggests that a rotating star is necessary to produce the observed "random precipitous changes in pulse rate of some pulsars" he is reversing common sense, since changes in pulse rate are the last thing one would deduce from an imagined super-dense, rapidly rotating star, whose pulses are due to a "lighthouse" effect of an electromagnetic beam. The original model did not anticipate such glitches in the pulse rate; it precluded them. The later observation of glitches in the pulse rate required them to add untested conjectures to previous speculations.
Nor is the supposed "infalling matter" either seen or measured. It is something imagined in an intellectual vacuum to account for observations that can be readily explained in terms of things closer to home. (Again, see below).
The critic writes, "Impact of infalling matter with a degenerate matter surface in the presence of an ultra-strong magnetic field also explains the short time-scale, decay curves, and spectrum of pulsar flares."
Read the above too quickly and you might suppose that astronomers have witnessed and measured "infalling matter" and developed an analysis of its "impact" to relate it to electromagnetic data. Not true. Rather, they have formulated imagined conditions with arbitrary, untested attributes, so any arbitrary figures that will make the model work are accepted. In the minds of its formulators, the model becomes increasingly "real" the longer they gaze at their computer screen.
How reliable is a model based on things beyond the reach of observation and experiment? How reliable is a model that sees only the magnetic fields, ignores the electric currents that create magnetic fields, and ignores the laboratory-based work that can account directly for the electromagnetic signals?
A peer-reviewed paper by Kevin Healy of the Very Large Array Operations Center and Anthony Peratt of the Los Alamos National Laboratory presents firm experimental evidence showing that the dominating, observed characteristics of pulsars are accurately predicted by electrical oscillati
That you imagine that a forum titled "Bad Astronomy" is going to act as an objective resource for evaluating out-of-the-mainstream astrophysical theories says quite a bit.
One hopes that you formed your opinion on the basis of at least one person that *supports* the theory, and that you are not asserting that a consensus judgment is enough to disprove a theory.
It's hardly objective to do, as most people on this forum have done, which is to
(a) not read what the theory says;
(b) proposee that *calculations* by advocates of other theories (like on BAUT) is both comprehensive and definitive in disputing *observations* that support EU Theory;
(c) ignore anomalous data regarding the mainstream theories, much of which cannot be resolved without inferring the existence of particles and forces which we cannot observe within the lab; and
(d) ignore the fact that 95% of the universe's matter under mainstream theories appears to be unaccounted for.
If you read what EU Theory has to say, it explains exactly how and why space plasma is being incorrectly modeled. That mainstream astrophysicists on BAUT don't believe in electricity in space should come as no surprise. This is what they are taught in college to believe. All scientists depend upon proper training in order to produce the right results.
There is plenty of noise surrounding the EU issue on Slashdot that is interfering with an intelligent conversation about the science. By being a part of that noise, you are inserting yourself as a part of the decision-making process for spectators without actually asserting or demonstrating any expertise whatsoever. I recommend that you investigate the issue in greater depth before commenting on it further. Science is not a static process. It shouldn't surprise you to realize that the study of plasma may one day evolve into the mainstream theory. These types of things can happen. To assert that the idea is "loony" adds nothing to conversation.
This is actually a great article because, if you read and think about what it's saying closely, it's hard not to wonder if it's possible that neutron stars could be pulsing for electrical reasons rather than spinning. We've observed pulsars to be pulsing at such phenomenal rates that it was necessary to postulate the existence of a new form of matter, neutronium, in order to explain the fast rotational velocity. But the idea that the flickering could be the result of electrical sparking between a binary star pair, as plasma does within the laboratory, was passed over in favor of a theory that depended upon matter that had never been observed to exist within the laboratory.
Why? Because the notion that electricity flows through space to such an extent that it can create visible lightning bolts between two stars is not an acceptable notion for mainstream astrophysicists. And yet, we know that matter within the plasma state is an electrical phenomenon within the laboratory. We know that the luminosity graphs we see coming from pulsars, unlike a rotating body, very closely match the behavior of lightning in that it possesses a fast rise and a slow decay (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050 527variablexray.htm). We know that we identify many of the pulsars to actually be members of binary star pairs. We've observed that this flickering can glitch, as it has with the Vela Pulsar. We've even observed lightning-like filaments being emitted from this same pulsar (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04092 0pulsar.htm). One wonders why we continue to so strongly hold onto the belief that the flickering for pulsars is due to rotation instead of electrical activity even as it is supposed that the flickering of brown dwarfs is now observed to be the result of electrical activity at its poles. The very fact that pulsars are emitting radio emissions, which is presented within this article to be a mystery, suggests that the flickering is due to electrical activity. Our data regarding pulsars, which is at least enough to prevent us from forming any consensus opinion on the cause of pulsar flickering, appears to be taking a back seat to the theory that their flickering must be the result of spinning.
It will be very interesting to see what happens over time to TVLM 513-46546. In the Electric Universe view, these objects are not stars in their death throes, but rather gas giant planets that can potentially turn into objects as bright as our Sun, given more charge density. It is very possible that we could see this gas giant turn into a star right before our eyes. Given enough charge density, the plasma can change modes from the normal glow mode into the arc mode. Or, if the distance between it and its binary companion is decreasing, we may see the rate of flickering decrease. In the electrical view, we've observed this type of thing before for another nearby star, Betelgeuse. Look at the "hot spot" on that star at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse. This is what one would expect to see with EU Theory if the star is transitioning between the normal glow and arc modes. What's important to note is that we may see dramatic changes for the star take shape over the course of just years, and that these changes can violate the mainstream stellar evolution theories. It's easy when a star is far away to suppose all sorts of hypothetical explanations for our observations. But when we can see detail, as for this brown dwarf, it places additional constraints on our speculations.
I'm very happy to discuss the evidence that supports the theory if you are unimpressed by the philosophy of science arguments. To be honest, you've failed to respond to absolutely any of the evidence that I've brought up regarding the differences between how plasma acts within the laboratory and how astrophysicists speculate that it operates in space as it is modeled within magnetohydrodynamics. These are very simple facts to check up on. It is within your powers to validate these statements for yourself and it could be done in under a half-hour, and yet you opt to avoid it. I get the sense that you will believe whatever it is you are told so long as the person telling you is "qualified". Since I don't match this criteria, it appears your sole purpose is to either prove to others that I am a crank, as you allege, or to induce me to believe as yourself and others. This ignores the fact that I have legitimate complaints about astrophysics that I have attempted to detail for you. You don't care about this disconfirming evidence; like many others, you'd be happy if we just ignored the fact that comets, for instance, do not behave in accordance with the models because for you the mainstream theories are more important than the data. Usually, when people are told of data that contradicts their knowledge, fair-minded people would not immediately propose that the data is skewed before actually hearing it out. They might challenge the person to present the evidence. But your belief in a gravity-centric universe is so strong that, like others, there is no evidence that can contradict this belief -- and thus, you display no curiosity in anything that might contradict this "knowledge". You have attained this level of conviction by confusing established scientific facts with assumptions, speculations and premature consensus. It is not your fault. The material was all presented to you as if it is fact. Like many others, you have no idea that, for instance, nobody has ever observed matter to gravitationally contract into a ball. And so, you have no idea what level of confidence you can place into the notion that matter gravitationally contracts into a ball over billions of years to form a planet. In the absence of this critical information, you just assume that you have 100% confidence in all of it. If you read the EU materials -- even if you didn't believe in the theory itself -- you would learn the difference between what we know for a fact and what is assumed and speculated.
It was less than 12 months ago that I possessed beliefs very similar to your own. It wasn't until I started reading materials that challenged my beliefs that I realized that my beliefs about the space sciences were based upon some very weak evidence. In this way, you have stunted your ability to intellectually mature. Your ideas about astrophysics will continue to be fixed at that last moment in time when you closed your mind to disconfirming evidence. One day, your kids will make fun of you for believing in things like black holes. Before you know it, you will have become the crank that you believed that other people were as the education process continues (sometimes never ends) for younger and more open-minded people. When we are young, we like to think of ourselves as contemporary individuals. But we are in fact only contemporary so long as we try to keep our minds young and available to new ideas. If you had read the evidence and decided that you did not agree with it, then perhaps you could make a case. But you display no interest in doing as much.
The only thing that will change your mind is for you to directly observe some sort of anomalous electrical activity within the sky. What you fail to realize though is that if we as a society collectively wait for something like that to happen, we may have sealed our fate and go the way of the mammoths. Charge density in an electrically interconnected space can change very dramatically overnight. You don't realize this because of the very evidence that you refuse to read.
Okay, it's time for us to get into some specifics here. To demonstrate my point that we can interpret every relevant NASA press release in terms of EU Theory, let's look at two articles that are currently featured on Space.com:
In the asteroid article, we're told that scientists do not understand how it is possible that some parts of the asteroid Itokawa can possibly be covered in fine dust while the rest is instead boulders and gravel. To explain this unusual finding, they suggest several patently absurd propositions:
regolith's patchy distribution is the result of shaking, which causes the finest and lightest materials to accumulate in dips on the asteroid's surface, where the local gravity is lowest.
"It's sort of like if you poured water over Itokawa, all the water would tend to pool in these [low] regions," said study team member Daniel Scheeres of the University of Michigan. "The water would flow downhill until it couldn't go downhill anymore."
A shaky asteroid
The new findings suggest seismic activity of some kind is occurring on Itokawa, a small asteroid only 1,600 feet (500 meters) in diameter.
"Even though it's this tiny little guy, it is in some sense geologically active," Scheeres told SPACE.com. "Things are happening on the surface. Stuff moves from one point to the other."
The regolith distribution suggests Itokawa has been shaken up in the past, but what might have rattled it is still an open question.
One hypothesis is that smaller asteroids occasionally strike Itokawa and shake the space rock up. Because of its diminutive size, even tiny impacts could send Itokawa into a tremor. Another idea is that Itokawa might occasionally fly close enough to the Earth, where our planet's gravity could jostle it.
Jostled by sunlight
Perhaps the most intriguing hypothesis, however, is one recently put forth by Scheeres. In a study to be published in the scientific journal Icarus, Scheeres ties Itokawa's periodic shaking to the YORP effect, in which sunlight provides a small nudge that can speed up or slow down an asteroid's rotation.
Every single one of these propositions are defied by common sense. However, the electrical view follows from the laboratory (and even the manufacturing industry that was used to create the computer you're using right now). From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 17deepimpact3.htm:
Cathode sputtering has an effect that is simply "beyond the reach" of evaporating volatiles. It can create an exceedingly fine dust down to 1 micrometer or even finer. (One micrometer is just 40 millionths of an inch). This unique capability of cathode sputtering is why the process is used in the manufacture of highly reflective mirrors for modern telescopes. So again, a comparison of practical electrical technology with the discoveries of Deep Impact is only reasonable.
This line of investigation introduces another surprise: Astronomers could not understand what occurred when the 800-pound projectile hit the comet nucleus. An enormous volume of an extraordinarily fine dust was thrown into space at high speed, creating an extremely bright cloud due to the dust's remarkable reflectivity. NASA scientists estimated that the dust particles were only.5 to 1 micrometer in diameter.
But was the surprise justified? Almost twenty years earlier the visit to Halley had investigators wondering how "sublimating ices" could produce such fine comet dust. But that surprise, like so many others, seems to have been quickly
Excellent example of what I mean when I say that you don't understand the scientific method and skepticisim, the whole point of building a consensus is to give people a solid target to attack. It's simple to dissmiss EU as unsupported conjecture, all I have to say is "show me the peer-reviewed research".
Now before you go into a rant about how EU has been suppressed by a conspiracy that prevents them from being published in a recognised journal, take a deep breath, sit back and look at it in a dispassionate way. From what your posts say (and the bits I have read) the EU proponents are claiming astrophysics is wrong, cosmology is wrong, climatology is wrong, nuclear physics is wrong (and thus chemistry is wrong), "ancient writings" are a warning, something mysterious happened to mammoths, ect.
You appear to possess very idealistic views of the peer-review system. Instead of acknowledging that consensus science deprives out-of-the-mainstream scientists from receiving funding that would enable them to debunk the consensus, you specifically focus on the idealistic notion that it somehow makes the consensus more of a target. But in your analysis, you presume that there is this objective pool of money out there which universities and governments are willing to disperse to anybody with a good idea. This ignores the fact that a premature consensus will shift the dispersal of monies in favor of the safe bet. You also assume that the pre-existing faculty at universities would embrace people who wish to do research that violates the consensus (and possibly their own research). You ignore all of these politics. The real problems are happening in the details of how money is distributed and how students are increasingly taught to be a part of a scientific society where they oftentimes literally vote to resolve their disputes, as if science is comparable to a democracy. Had any of the great minds of the 19th and 20th centuries been coerced by their peers to vote rather than debate their beliefs, we would not be where we're at today. Scientists should be taught that disagreement and debate is fundamental to the notion of advancement within the sciences. Ideas are not right just because they are the most popular. Ideas should be evaluated on the basis of the evidence.
This many things cannot be wrong unless we have seriously fucked up centuries of research into physics, chemistry and maths. The chances that Don Scott and Wallace Thornhill are correct and the rest of us are complacent morons who spend their time supressing obvious genius is not zero, but it might as well be.
Now we get to the meat of the problem: the refusal to believe that our prior assumptions and speculations within astrophysics can be wrong. Astrophysicists will freely admit that they do not understand what causes Type 1a supernovae. The models for the exact process are all guesses, and we now have observations that indicate that the current theories may be wrong. This is a fact. And yet, there exists further speculation regarding dark energy based upon the notion that Type 1a explosions have a consistent brightness. You don't have to talk to EU Theorists in order to learn about this situation.
By ignoring the observational anomalies that are oftentimes freely admitted by mainstream scientists within space.com press releases, and focusing explicitly upon the theories that are taught within popular books and textbooks, you have convinced yourself that there is no reason to even have a debate on this issue.
The fact that the universe can be explained in terms of gravity does not mean that the explanation is correct. There is nothing technically wrong with an analysis of the universe based upon laboratory observations of plasma. There are in fact two separate possible explanations for the universe now. And we as a society are favoring the former for the sole reason that it was conceived first. What people will eventually wise up to is that the latter explana
it seems to me they are claiming to have reinvented pratically all of modern science along with disproving man-made global warming.
What you have to understand is that there are limits to their allegations. They are not alleging that there is anything wrong with chemistry, for instance -- which we can establish through laboratory science works. The idea that astrophysics and the science of global warming have attained the maturity of something like chemistry is not supported by the evidence. When we do a chemistry experiment, we can predict the result. Astrophysics is producing very little in the way of successful predictions relative to the other sciences.
They (like yourself) attack "consensus science" without understanding that consensus amoung investigators is what defines a scientific finding as "established", leading to the term "established science".
There's a good time and a wrong time for consensus. When you can't account for 95% of the particles within your universe, it's a little bit premature to be forming consensus. Don Scott and Wallace Thornhill do a very good job of explaining the large number of solar observations that were never predicted by the thermonuclear model for the Sun. Even though we can create equations that can model most of these things without relying upon things like double layers and Birkeland Currents, we should not form a consensus on how the Sun works until we can demonstrate that we are very good at predicting the Sun's behavior. And yet, if you're paying attention, you'll realize that the Sun continues to surprise us with each new piece of equipment we launch to observe it. The consensus for comets remains in spite of the fact that the consensus is completely contradicted by our recent missions to comets. The consensus that Einstein was "correct" has completely derailed science away from trying to identify what gravity actually is. Everybody ignores the fact that Einstein can be computationally correct while not correctly explaining *why* his equations work. The consensus that lightning results from processes inherent to storm clouds continues in spite of the fact that we can now observe lightning extending to the edge of space; the consensus persists even though we see disturbances within the Van Allen radiation belts that correlate with terrestrial lightning bolts. The consensus that Mammoths were killed by hunters completely obscures the really strange findings that people have made with respect to that particular situation; the consensus actually has *nothing* to do with the data. The consensus that Venus is our sister planet has actually caused us to disregard the data we received from probes that have landed on that planet, which told us that the planet's surface was discharging heat.
In other words, it appears that we have prematurely formed consensuses on many issues. And once solidified, the consensus is used as a mechanism to prop up the status quo. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you accept, for instance, that the Mammoths were just slaughtered by a bunch of Indians, then this will drastically reduce the chances that you will be motivated to actually learn about the completely surreal circumstances of their death.
Your posts contain a large amount of ad-homs that target the competence of the scientific community and the value of "established science" yet you/they are proposing we should throw it all out and replace it with a theory that cannot make it past the first level of peer-review. It is not the astrophysicist's "lack of education" that is the problem here, it is the inability of EU theory to withstand formal scrutiny.
There is hardly a fair playing field here. EU Theorists cannot even launch probes to investigate the interconnections that they allege. When your theory asserts that the universe is electrically connected and that plasmas that contain less than 1% charged particles can be conducting currents in a dark mode,
My purpose on these boards is to clarify for people who are intellectually curious what Electric Universe Theory states. These are scientific debates that have nothing to do with religion or politics. I'm trying to inform people of the material. When the material is over my head, I will consult directly with the theorists themselves and relay their responses. I am serving the purpose of a middle-man, free of charge, so that the EU Theorists themselves can continue to spend their time doing what they do best -- theorizing. Imagine if you read a theory that you regarded as highly as Einstein's materials. If you had the time to spend on it, you too might decide to do exactly as I am doing. My hope is that we can eventually get past the initial arguments over whether or not there exists electricity within space because their theories discuss so much more that has relevance to people and our future. If anybody brings up creationism or ID or anything of that sort, you can bet that I will closely disect their invocation of those concepts so that there is no confusion amongst people who are still trying to learn what the theory states. EU Theorists and enthusiasts are certainly no strangers to hostile or demeaning remarks.
If you are annoyed by my presence, then all I can say is that I'm sorry. I'm doing my best to perfectly represent their theory. I've read a good amount of their materials and I find them to be compelling. Like many other EU enthusiasts, I am an electrical engineer. This site is read by a large number of other electrical engineers and software engineers with circuitry experience. The fact that mainstream cosmologists and mainstream space enthusiasts do not recognize the importance of the role that plasma plays in cosmology does not faze us because this is precisely what they are taught in school to believe. What is happening right now is a direct result of the astrophysical educational system. This is why there is a valid debate here. It is our belief that astrophysics has run astray. It is the only field of science that is allowed to cherry-pick from the other sciences as it sees fit (which it does for laboratory plasma physics). And it is the only field for which it is customary and routine to invent particles and forces when the observations do not match the theory. Even though mainstream astrophysics is an interpretive science that largely refutes the utility of laboratory science in formulating its theories, astrophysicists still believe that they have a right to rewrite the textbooks of those sciences from which they draw upon. In this way, the field has become both a scourge and a spectacle that is buoyed by consensus science and support for the fanciful stories it generates with the public. The EU Theorists merely assert that laboratory plasma physics does indeed scale to galactic scales (and to many scales in between), and that we can see the evidence for this within our observations.
You and I surely disagree on many of the points that I outline here. What I ask of you though is to give me the respect that you would afford anybody else in your responses. If you have evidence that contradicts my statements, then let's discuss the issues on that level. But please let me serve my purpose as a conduit for the EU Theorists so that you and others can understand what they are saying without people having to purchase their materials, and so that we can have a technical conversation about the observations and theory. We are both experts in different areas. By offering each other information that relates to our own expertises, we can continue to believe whatever it is we wish while simultaneously learning from the other person. This is in fact what the Internet was designed to do. My hope is that after being exposed to enough of the evidence for their theory, that you and others will realize that neither hostility nor condescension has any place in this conversation.
Although I am certainly not the first to discuss these materials on this forum, I am apparently
Using the spectrum of a star, not only can the densities of various ions and electrons be calculated, but also the relative abundances of the elements. It's unfortunate that you are unaware of an entire branch of science, but not unexpected. I'd also like to know why you think that a large current in space would z-pinch in only one central point along the length of the current rather than along the entire length.
We are fortunate in that Wallace Thornhill has posted a response to the Red Square press release on his holoscience.com site. In that response, he explains that "The Birkeland current filaments will only be visible where the plasma density is high."
Even if one were to accept the possibility of large currents forming the structures of nebulae, an X shape is not what one would expect.
From the holoscience article:
Exploding double layers are very important in stellar outbursts. It is the only stellar explosion mechanism that naturally produces bipolar remnants and equatorial ejection disks (as distinct from hypothetical 'accretion' disks) and lends itself to empirical testing in the lab.
[...]
A number of double layers develop in series between a star and its galactic environment. Strong electric fields exist across them summing to the voltage difference between the star and the galactic plasma environment. Cosmic rays allow us to estimate the voltages of stars at tens of billions of volts. Ions and electrons are accelerated across the thin double layers and collide. The 'linear rungs or bars' of the Red Square fit Alfvén's circuit diagram as polar 'double layers,' symmetrically situated along the Z-pinch filaments, some distance from the star's two poles. Their thinness and electrical excitation results in the enhanced glow and sharp definition of the 'rungs or bars.'
Alfvén pioneered the stellar circuit concept and it seems his 'wiring diagram' is essentially correct but incomplete because it does not show the star's connection to the larger galactic circuit. Alfvén remarked, "The current closes at large distances, but we do not know where." Plasma cosmologists have supplied the answer by mapping the currents flowing along the arms of spiral galaxies. It is but a small step from there to see that all stars are the focus of Z-pinches within a galactic discharge. Normally the current flows in 'dark mode' so we don't usually see the spectacular bipolar 'wiring harnesses' of hyperactive stars, like that at the heart of Red Square. All we witness, closest to home, are the effects on the Sun's 'surface,' in its superheated corona, and the solar 'wind.'
Your thoughtful skepticism is actually appreciated. These are the sorts of conversations that people should be having on this forum. A lot of time is wasted with condescension and remarks intended only to convince people that there is no serious debate here. The fact that every single technical objection within this discussion can be responded to should, in an objective world, cause people to think.
Yes I did get the title wrong but you are splitting hairs, the plasmas.org site credits Scott with both the book and the hypothisis so I assumed they are related in a similar way as creationisim is related to ID.
Other than the fact that EU Theory is against-the-mainstream, there are very few similarities between creationism and EU Theory. EU Theory lacks any political or religious agenda whatsoever. When you opt to make such comparisons, it is misleading to people who are just trying to figure out what to believe about the theory because it suggests that there is something about it that is more religious than BB Theory. This acts to dissuade many people from learning about it on the basis of a slander.
I hope for your own sake that you are right in your infinite wisdom. These are on some level serious issues. EU Theory proposes that charge density for the solar system can increase without warning, and potentially result in the fissioning of our Sun in a nova outburst -- and that evidence from ancient writings is in agreement that this has happened before for our solar system. Those are some pretty serious consequences for being wrong. We've seen evidence for warming on multiple planets within the solar system. NASA brushes it off because it is disconfirming to the consensus that warming on Earth has a primary manmade component. I've also seen it argued that at any given moment, some number of planets should be observed to be warming. But, this is a double-standard for consensus science. The consensus is that there is something wrong with the Earth if it doesn't have a stable average temperature. Why should the other planets be judged by a different standard? Judging what to believe based upon what other people believe can be tricky "science".
I've run into a very good website that you may be interested in that discusses the issue of electricity in space by focusing explicitly on the concept of the charge sheath vortex:
There are other links on that same site that you may be interested in as well. All of this material appears to be in complete agreement with Electric Universe concepts.
I've admitted that I was wrong on at least a couple of occasions within these forums. I'm not afraid to do so when it appears in fact that I am wrong about something.
Tim Thompson's site does not critique "The Electric Sky" book. It was written a few years before Don Scott published his book and it is limited to addressing Wallace Thornhill's Electric Sun hypothesis. It fails to address planetary rilles that track the topography of rock-based landscapes both up and down, in apparent violation of gravity; it fails to address all of the anomalous data associated with comets, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, black holes and supernovae; it says nothing about stars that are too small and cool on their surface to have internal fusion reactions (T-type Brown Dwarfs). It's hardly a rebuttal to Don Scott's book either temporally or even topically.
Invoking a global conspiracy to explain the lack of acceptance for your theory
I never mentioned anything about any conspiracy. I've merely stated that NASA is not willing to fund any theory that is antithetical to the Big Bang Theory -- even when the mainstream theories are producing no results (as is the case for comets). The fact that Wallace Thornhill predicted a pre-impact flash remains unexplained to this day. How did he know that that would happen? How is it that he was so confident about this that he publicly proclaimed the prediction? Why was he ignored when his prediction turned out to be correct? Why does he continue to be ignored even though he can fully explain all of the anomalous data associated with comets using nothing more than laboratory plasma physics and electrodynamics? What is technically wrong with his analysis?
Although I haven't sufficient information to clearly debunk you at the moment, I do recall some allusions as to how electromanetic forces simply do not have enough power over stellar distances to actually cause any of the stuff you imply. That is the primary reason astrophysisits have not examined the theory. Most people who point to the establishment and say to the effect of "they say I'm wrong because they're poo heads" tend to be wrong.
Let's look at the bigger picture of what's happening here. I'm telling you that these *observations* are best represented by z-pinches. You're responding to me that some people did some *calculations* that demonstrate a lack of energy for an electric Sun. This is largely the story of this debate. When Halton Arp, for instance, points to pictures that demonstrate high-redshift quasars in front of low-redshift spiral galaxies, Big Bang theorists tell us that we should believe their theories over these "chance" observations.
There are calculations to demonstrate lots of things. There are calculations that possibly demonstrate a neutrino deficit from a fusion-only Sun and there are calculations that possibly demonstrate a lack of charged particles to externally power the Sun. Neither calculation should qualify as being disconfirming to the theories they impugn. Observations should always take priority over calculations when it comes to evaluating cosmologies.
A detailed treatment of everything we know about comets at this point in time is sufficient in itself to suggest that EU Theory is perhaps the *only* theory at the moment that can explain comets:
The fact that solar neutrinos appear to inversely correlate with the number of sunspots should inspire a second look at the notion that the Sun is a fusion reaction at its core. Unlike back-of-the-envelope calculations, this observation is in fact disconfirming to the notion that the Sun is a fusion reaction at its core. Anomalies related to planetary rilles and craters are similarly disconfirming to traditional theories (especially when we observe rilles to travel both up and down with the topography), and yet make sense when planets are allowed to accumulate and trade charge with foreign bodies and each other.
The combined weight of these anomalies represents a far more serious problem than some guy calculating that something shouldn't be possible. By only reading the materials that confirm traditional theories, a lot of people have failed to challenge their own mainstream beliefs. The refusal by large numbers of people to actually read the EU materials acts as the sole barrier to its adoption. Whether or not you believe them, there is in fact nothing technically wrong with what they are saying.
Most people with a scientific education would have stopped reading after the first line because it is a distortion of the truth based on total ignorance of how science and skepticisim work (and they do work!).
You might want to check your facts. My sources tell me that NASA freely admits that it will not fund any research antithetical to the BB Theory. If people stop reading after my first line, it's not because of any dispute over that fact. It's generally accepted that funding only goes to the BB studies. Wallace Thornhill, for instance, accurately predicted all of the anomalous results of the Deep Impact mission, but it did not earn him any funding. NASA would rather fund traditional explanations for our cometary data that have produced no predictions whatsoever (or even a coherent theory of how comets work) than any sort of plasma-based theories -- which can explain every single aspect of the Deep Impact's mission results.
You have been duped/mislead and when/if you learn how to determine what is credible science you will be pissed off at those who duped you. A good place for you to start learning genuine skepticisim would be Carl Sagan's book "Demon haunted world".
I've read enough of "Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky" to realize that Carl Sagan wasn't scared to take a hypocritical stance in order to "prove" a point. In his public statements against Velikovksy, he frequently contradicted his own writings. I prefer people who invest a little less emotion in their interpretation and arguments, and who are willing to admit to being wrong. I don't see that character trait much in the mainstream astrophysicists or the enthusiasts on these forums -- which is odd because, regardless of the fact that the mainstreamers have proven to be good labelers, they still can't account for the particles that they've named.
When you're an against-the-mainstream theorist, it doesn't matter how amazing your theory is these days. The EU Theorists do not pay me to spend my free time trying to get people to read their materials. I do it purely out of goodwill because I've come to the realization that the only thing standing in the way of people realizing what these guys have accomplished is the barriers that people have raised to considering alternative theories. Every person that I convince to just read the materials will realize that these guys are onto something. I've already received appreciative letters from people suggesting as much.
On some level, you guys have to realize that your beliefs in cosmology are the result of an intensive public relations campaign. I assert no knowledge for *why* this is happening. I only know that it is happening. Being scientists and programmers, slashdotters are not immediately privvy to the PR side of things. But this is a fact. You are being inundated with materials that encourage you to support the status quo theories. It's up to you to turn your brain back on and start analyzing the data in an objective way.
The first step is to learn what plasma does in the laboratory. Plasma permeates all of space and you cannot understand the universe until you understand what matters does when it's in the plasma state. I'm telling you that plasma is being incorrectly modeled in magnetohydrodynamics as a fluid. Plasma in the laboratory conducts electricity, which means that it behaves according to completely different equations. Plasma in the laboratory has resistance. Why should plasma in space be any different? If we have any eminent authorities here who want to show me to be some uninformed jackass, please answer for me this one single question.
Slashdot Mirror
Another problem with your posting is the implication that we must abandon one theory in order to investigate another. By bringing more cosmologies into mainstream awareness, people will be induced to compare and contrast theories rather than just memorizing and listening.
We can generate proofs for multiple cosmologies. We will only figure out which one is true by comparing these proofs. Space basically is a giant plasma. To assert that we cannot create a plasma-based cosmology in light of this fact is somewhat absurd.
The problem with your statement is that it completely ignores the fact that Wallace Thornhill was the only person to accurately predict all of the results of the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 -- results which to this day, nearly two years later, continue to baffle NASA. I think you will find that the only satisfying explanation for our observations of comets involves electromagnetism:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pd
To assert otherwise leaves open the question of how Thornhill could have known about a pre-impact flash before it happened (among his other accurate predictions). Nobody else was predicting anything like that.
The fact is that it takes less than 1% ionization for a gas to become a plasma and conduct electricity. We know this from working with plasmas in the laboratory. However, scientists continue to model plasmas in space using gas and fluid equations -- in spite of the fact that we see strong evidence for the classic hourglass z-pinch morphology all over space and in spite of the fact that plasmas in the laboratory are electrical phenomenon.
Electric Universe Theory proposes that the plasmas we observe in space, which appear to be very pervasive, are no different than the plasmas we see in the laboratory -- which we know are electrical in nature. Mainstream astrophysicists are trying to tell us that plasmas in space can *instantaneously* neutralize all charge imbalances and contain magnetic fields that are fixed-in-place within gases. These assumptions violate both common sense and what we know about electromagnetism from decades of research in plasma physics. To assert that the mainstream astrophysicists are the ones that are properly applying electromagnetism and that the plasma cosmologists don't understand electromagnetism is a rather stunning assertion on your part. The plasma-specific physicists that are making these "fringe" assertions are actually basing their statements upon laboratory experiments that have controlled inputs and carefully monitored outputs. The mainstream astrophysicists base much of their own theories on thought experiments and *interpretations* of space observations.
Hannes Alfven, the man who largely invented the field of magnetohydrodynamics, which astrophysicists use to model plasmas in space, received the Nobel Physics Prize for his work in this field. During his acceptance speech, he warned that much of his earlier work is "pseudo-pedgagogical": an idea that appears to help us, but which in fact does great harm to our understanding of the universe. The mainstream astrophysicists ignored his warning, and continue to ignore clear signs of electricity in space to this day. Rather than accept the existence of electricity in space as a means of explaining how spiral galaxies can rotate as a fixed plate, they would rather infer the existence of particles and forces that are invisible to our instruments. Plasma cosmologists can generate spiral galaxy morphologies within the laboratory and in computer simulations that mimic the rotational properties of real spiral galaxies.
I recommend that before formulating an opinion on the topic that you should at least listen to what the EU Theorists have to say first. I highly recommend Don Scott's "The Electric Sky". If you read that book, you will be surprised to discover that there are in fact a great number of reasons to suspect that electricity is playing a large role in our space observations. But if you are commenting on their theory without actually reading what it says, then how can you even know if they are in fact lacking "a basic understanding of electromagnetism"?
The comments within this forum on this topic are very disturbing. This is a mob mentality. This is not in any way a scientific debate or discussion of the issues. None of these people have even read any of the Electric Universe materials, and yet everybody is sure that it bullshit. I'm very familiar with the Electric Universe materials and they deserve careful consideration.
Every single person who has gone on the record on these forums talking about a theory that they know very little about will eventually regret their comments here. The evidence for an electric universe is very strong, and continues to strengthen every week that goes by. The real problem is that nobody is paying any attention to what these guys are actually saying. There is nothing flawed about their arguments.
If you are the type of person who is absolutely convinced of the theory of stellar evolution and a sun with a thermonuclear core, then there is in fact little that we can observe that will shake your confidence in that theory. It's not until you actually talk to skeptical astrophysicists that you will actually even hear a reason for why this might be a crisis. This is an important fact: if you only consult other people who believe the exact same thing as yourself, you will only hear a very limited spectrum of possible interpretations for the data.
In my own conversation with against-the-mainstream cosmologists, I've been told that the key to this study is in the following line:
"We find an unsettling fluctuation of the oxygen abundance over the field of view."
The authors have seen that the solar O/Fe ratio is variable in 3D imaging, something unexpected for the standard solar model (SSM). The specific person I was talking to has been anxiously awaiting these 3D images of the Sun for some time for the precise reason that they expected to observe fluctuations in the relative abundances of any two elements of greatly different atomic weight (mass).
The source of the crisis results from the logical assumption that our own Sun's composition should reflect the oxygen ratios we observe elsewhere. Our Sun should be typical. Although the article suggests that the solar abundance of oxygen needs to be revised downward, this would make our own sun atypical.
Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the solar photosphere, behind hydrogen and helium.
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm
But oxygen is the second or third most abundant element in the bulk Sun, behind iron, or behind iron and nickel.
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm
or
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig4.htm
Unless the Sun is unique, oxygen is probably the 2nd or 3rd most abundant element in the visible universe. That is about its position in rocky planets, like Earth, and in ordinary meteorites.
I think the general point is that people need to keep an open mind about how the Sun works. One of the reasons we send probes up to observe the Sun is so that we may formulate new theories of how the Sun works -- not *just* to confirm our old theories. When the data does not confirm the old theories, people must prioritize the data over the old theories. There isn't a whole lot of this happening right now in astrophysics. Mainstream astrophysicists are absolutely convinced that they understand the universe quite well right now, but these people only achieve this consensus by limiting who they confer with, and by assuming that we will one day figure out the anamolous data that does not currently support the mainstream theories. There are in fact numerous anomalies associated with the standard solar model that remain unresolved.
I imagine you could prove just about anything by appending that to the end of every paper.
I'd like to invite you to observe the detailed response to the electric pulsar conversation posted by the Electric Universe Theorists at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231727&cid=188 87297 (based upon thread start at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231727&cid=188 26531) so that you may observe that there is indeed a legitimate debate.
I think you will find that this response is not the senseless ranting one would expect of a "loony". My hope is that you will in the future respect that a group of scientists who can deliver such responses deserve more than name-calling.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my posting. After forwarding your response to the theorists themselves, I've received a detailed response for you that should help to clarify and move the debate forward. I hope that you will afford as much time to consider their response as they have in carefully responding to your challenge. It's unfortunate that such a delay is necessary to respond that few people will actually notice that a response has been posted. For this reason, I hope that in the future, you opt to propose that issues associated with Electric Universe Theory are debatable rather than settled. It's easy to deny that something can be possible, as you have done, but when somebody can respond to every one of your assertions, it may be that you have misled some people into thinking that the issue is settled when in fact it is not.
Here is the response:
The critic noted above says: "Rotation is necessary to explain the extraordinary predictability of the pulse rate." But that is the issue to be settled, not a confirmed principle to be announced to the unwashed. The statement implies that a rotating beam sweeping by the Earth is the only way to produce the detected regular and rapid electromagnetic pulse from a pulsar. This assertion is not only contradicted by electrical experts (see below), it requires one to accept theoretical speculations divorced from anything observed or even physically plausible. A star rotating at up to 642 times per second or more? To "explain" the observed pulsation, astronomers must imagine a theoretical compression of matter beyond anything modern science or technology can achieve or classical physics would allow. Restricted to the gravity-only universe, mainstream astronomers and cosmologists are guessing at answers so far from observation and experiment as to remain untestable. In a rational world, how do speculations refute an electrical view based on well-demonstrated principles?
When the critic suggests that a rotating star is necessary to produce the observed "random precipitous changes in pulse rate of some pulsars" he is reversing common sense, since changes in pulse rate are the last thing one would deduce from an imagined super-dense, rapidly rotating star, whose pulses are due to a "lighthouse" effect of an electromagnetic beam. The original model did not anticipate such glitches in the pulse rate; it precluded them. The later observation of glitches in the pulse rate required them to add untested conjectures to previous speculations.
Nor is the supposed "infalling matter" either seen or measured. It is something imagined in an intellectual vacuum to account for observations that can be readily explained in terms of things closer to home. (Again, see below).
The critic writes, "Impact of infalling matter with a degenerate matter surface in the presence of an ultra-strong magnetic field also explains the short time-scale, decay curves, and spectrum of pulsar flares."
Read the above too quickly and you might suppose that astronomers have witnessed and measured "infalling matter" and developed an analysis of its "impact" to relate it to electromagnetic data. Not true. Rather, they have formulated imagined conditions with arbitrary, untested attributes, so any arbitrary figures that will make the model work are accepted. In the minds of its formulators, the model becomes increasingly "real" the longer they gaze at their computer screen.
How reliable is a model based on things beyond the reach of observation and experiment? How reliable is a model that sees only the magnetic fields, ignores the electric currents that create magnetic fields, and ignores the laboratory-based work that can account directly for the electromagnetic signals?
A peer-reviewed paper by Kevin Healy of the Very Large Array Operations Center and Anthony Peratt of the Los Alamos National Laboratory presents firm experimental evidence showing that the dominating, observed characteristics of pulsars are accurately predicted by electrical oscillati
That you imagine that a forum titled "Bad Astronomy" is going to act as an objective resource for evaluating out-of-the-mainstream astrophysical theories says quite a bit.
One hopes that you formed your opinion on the basis of at least one person that *supports* the theory, and that you are not asserting that a consensus judgment is enough to disprove a theory.
It's hardly objective to do, as most people on this forum have done, which is to
(a) not read what the theory says;
(b) proposee that *calculations* by advocates of other theories (like on BAUT) is both comprehensive and definitive in disputing *observations* that support EU Theory;
(c) ignore anomalous data regarding the mainstream theories, much of which cannot be resolved without inferring the existence of particles and forces which we cannot observe within the lab; and
(d) ignore the fact that 95% of the universe's matter under mainstream theories appears to be unaccounted for.
If you read what EU Theory has to say, it explains exactly how and why space plasma is being incorrectly modeled. That mainstream astrophysicists on BAUT don't believe in electricity in space should come as no surprise. This is what they are taught in college to believe. All scientists depend upon proper training in order to produce the right results.
There is plenty of noise surrounding the EU issue on Slashdot that is interfering with an intelligent conversation about the science. By being a part of that noise, you are inserting yourself as a part of the decision-making process for spectators without actually asserting or demonstrating any expertise whatsoever. I recommend that you investigate the issue in greater depth before commenting on it further. Science is not a static process. It shouldn't surprise you to realize that the study of plasma may one day evolve into the mainstream theory. These types of things can happen. To assert that the idea is "loony" adds nothing to conversation.
This is actually a great article because, if you read and think about what it's saying closely, it's hard not to wonder if it's possible that neutron stars could be pulsing for electrical reasons rather than spinning. We've observed pulsars to be pulsing at such phenomenal rates that it was necessary to postulate the existence of a new form of matter, neutronium, in order to explain the fast rotational velocity. But the idea that the flickering could be the result of electrical sparking between a binary star pair, as plasma does within the laboratory, was passed over in favor of a theory that depended upon matter that had never been observed to exist within the laboratory.
0 527variablexray.htm). We know that we identify many of the pulsars to actually be members of binary star pairs. We've observed that this flickering can glitch, as it has with the Vela Pulsar. We've even observed lightning-like filaments being emitted from this same pulsar (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04092 0pulsar.htm). One wonders why we continue to so strongly hold onto the belief that the flickering for pulsars is due to rotation instead of electrical activity even as it is supposed that the flickering of brown dwarfs is now observed to be the result of electrical activity at its poles. The very fact that pulsars are emitting radio emissions, which is presented within this article to be a mystery, suggests that the flickering is due to electrical activity. Our data regarding pulsars, which is at least enough to prevent us from forming any consensus opinion on the cause of pulsar flickering, appears to be taking a back seat to the theory that their flickering must be the result of spinning.
Why? Because the notion that electricity flows through space to such an extent that it can create visible lightning bolts between two stars is not an acceptable notion for mainstream astrophysicists. And yet, we know that matter within the plasma state is an electrical phenomenon within the laboratory. We know that the luminosity graphs we see coming from pulsars, unlike a rotating body, very closely match the behavior of lightning in that it possesses a fast rise and a slow decay (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/05
It will be very interesting to see what happens over time to TVLM 513-46546. In the Electric Universe view, these objects are not stars in their death throes, but rather gas giant planets that can potentially turn into objects as bright as our Sun, given more charge density. It is very possible that we could see this gas giant turn into a star right before our eyes. Given enough charge density, the plasma can change modes from the normal glow mode into the arc mode. Or, if the distance between it and its binary companion is decreasing, we may see the rate of flickering decrease. In the electrical view, we've observed this type of thing before for another nearby star, Betelgeuse. Look at the "hot spot" on that star at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse. This is what one would expect to see with EU Theory if the star is transitioning between the normal glow and arc modes. What's important to note is that we may see dramatic changes for the star take shape over the course of just years, and that these changes can violate the mainstream stellar evolution theories. It's easy when a star is far away to suppose all sorts of hypothetical explanations for our observations. But when we can see detail, as for this brown dwarf, it places additional constraints on our speculations.
I'm very happy to discuss the evidence that supports the theory if you are unimpressed by the philosophy of science arguments. To be honest, you've failed to respond to absolutely any of the evidence that I've brought up regarding the differences between how plasma acts within the laboratory and how astrophysicists speculate that it operates in space as it is modeled within magnetohydrodynamics. These are very simple facts to check up on. It is within your powers to validate these statements for yourself and it could be done in under a half-hour, and yet you opt to avoid it. I get the sense that you will believe whatever it is you are told so long as the person telling you is "qualified". Since I don't match this criteria, it appears your sole purpose is to either prove to others that I am a crank, as you allege, or to induce me to believe as yourself and others. This ignores the fact that I have legitimate complaints about astrophysics that I have attempted to detail for you. You don't care about this disconfirming evidence; like many others, you'd be happy if we just ignored the fact that comets, for instance, do not behave in accordance with the models because for you the mainstream theories are more important than the data. Usually, when people are told of data that contradicts their knowledge, fair-minded people would not immediately propose that the data is skewed before actually hearing it out. They might challenge the person to present the evidence. But your belief in a gravity-centric universe is so strong that, like others, there is no evidence that can contradict this belief -- and thus, you display no curiosity in anything that might contradict this "knowledge". You have attained this level of conviction by confusing established scientific facts with assumptions, speculations and premature consensus. It is not your fault. The material was all presented to you as if it is fact. Like many others, you have no idea that, for instance, nobody has ever observed matter to gravitationally contract into a ball. And so, you have no idea what level of confidence you can place into the notion that matter gravitationally contracts into a ball over billions of years to form a planet. In the absence of this critical information, you just assume that you have 100% confidence in all of it. If you read the EU materials -- even if you didn't believe in the theory itself -- you would learn the difference between what we know for a fact and what is assumed and speculated.
It was less than 12 months ago that I possessed beliefs very similar to your own. It wasn't until I started reading materials that challenged my beliefs that I realized that my beliefs about the space sciences were based upon some very weak evidence. In this way, you have stunted your ability to intellectually mature. Your ideas about astrophysics will continue to be fixed at that last moment in time when you closed your mind to disconfirming evidence. One day, your kids will make fun of you for believing in things like black holes. Before you know it, you will have become the crank that you believed that other people were as the education process continues (sometimes never ends) for younger and more open-minded people. When we are young, we like to think of ourselves as contemporary individuals. But we are in fact only contemporary so long as we try to keep our minds young and available to new ideas. If you had read the evidence and decided that you did not agree with it, then perhaps you could make a case. But you display no interest in doing as much.
The only thing that will change your mind is for you to directly observe some sort of anomalous electrical activity within the sky. What you fail to realize though is that if we as a society collectively wait for something like that to happen, we may have sealed our fate and go the way of the mammoths. Charge density in an electrically interconnected space can change very dramatically overnight. You don't realize this because of the very evidence that you refuse to read.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070419_shaki ng_asteroid.html and
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070418_star_ dangerzone.html
In the asteroid article, we're told that scientists do not understand how it is possible that some parts of the asteroid Itokawa can possibly be covered in fine dust while the rest is instead boulders and gravel. To explain this unusual finding, they suggest several patently absurd propositions:
Every single one of these propositions are defied by common sense. However, the electrical view follows from the laboratory (and even the manufacturing industry that was used to create the computer you're using right now). From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0602 17deepimpact3.htm:
You appear to possess very idealistic views of the peer-review system. Instead of acknowledging that consensus science deprives out-of-the-mainstream scientists from receiving funding that would enable them to debunk the consensus, you specifically focus on the idealistic notion that it somehow makes the consensus more of a target. But in your analysis, you presume that there is this objective pool of money out there which universities and governments are willing to disperse to anybody with a good idea. This ignores the fact that a premature consensus will shift the dispersal of monies in favor of the safe bet. You also assume that the pre-existing faculty at universities would embrace people who wish to do research that violates the consensus (and possibly their own research). You ignore all of these politics. The real problems are happening in the details of how money is distributed and how students are increasingly taught to be a part of a scientific society where they oftentimes literally vote to resolve their disputes, as if science is comparable to a democracy. Had any of the great minds of the 19th and 20th centuries been coerced by their peers to vote rather than debate their beliefs, we would not be where we're at today. Scientists should be taught that disagreement and debate is fundamental to the notion of advancement within the sciences. Ideas are not right just because they are the most popular. Ideas should be evaluated on the basis of the evidence.
Now we get to the meat of the problem: the refusal to believe that our prior assumptions and speculations within astrophysics can be wrong. Astrophysicists will freely admit that they do not understand what causes Type 1a supernovae. The models for the exact process are all guesses, and we now have observations that indicate that the current theories may be wrong. This is a fact. And yet, there exists further speculation regarding dark energy based upon the notion that Type 1a explosions have a consistent brightness. You don't have to talk to EU Theorists in order to learn about this situation.
By ignoring the observational anomalies that are oftentimes freely admitted by mainstream scientists within space.com press releases, and focusing explicitly upon the theories that are taught within popular books and textbooks, you have convinced yourself that there is no reason to even have a debate on this issue.
The fact that the universe can be explained in terms of gravity does not mean that the explanation is correct. There is nothing technically wrong with an analysis of the universe based upon laboratory observations of plasma. There are in fact two separate possible explanations for the universe now. And we as a society are favoring the former for the sole reason that it was conceived first. What people will eventually wise up to is that the latter explana
What you have to understand is that there are limits to their allegations. They are not alleging that there is anything wrong with chemistry, for instance -- which we can establish through laboratory science works. The idea that astrophysics and the science of global warming have attained the maturity of something like chemistry is not supported by the evidence. When we do a chemistry experiment, we can predict the result. Astrophysics is producing very little in the way of successful predictions relative to the other sciences.
There's a good time and a wrong time for consensus. When you can't account for 95% of the particles within your universe, it's a little bit premature to be forming consensus. Don Scott and Wallace Thornhill do a very good job of explaining the large number of solar observations that were never predicted by the thermonuclear model for the Sun. Even though we can create equations that can model most of these things without relying upon things like double layers and Birkeland Currents, we should not form a consensus on how the Sun works until we can demonstrate that we are very good at predicting the Sun's behavior. And yet, if you're paying attention, you'll realize that the Sun continues to surprise us with each new piece of equipment we launch to observe it. The consensus for comets remains in spite of the fact that the consensus is completely contradicted by our recent missions to comets. The consensus that Einstein was "correct" has completely derailed science away from trying to identify what gravity actually is. Everybody ignores the fact that Einstein can be computationally correct while not correctly explaining *why* his equations work. The consensus that lightning results from processes inherent to storm clouds continues in spite of the fact that we can now observe lightning extending to the edge of space; the consensus persists even though we see disturbances within the Van Allen radiation belts that correlate with terrestrial lightning bolts. The consensus that Mammoths were killed by hunters completely obscures the really strange findings that people have made with respect to that particular situation; the consensus actually has *nothing* to do with the data. The consensus that Venus is our sister planet has actually caused us to disregard the data we received from probes that have landed on that planet, which told us that the planet's surface was discharging heat.
In other words, it appears that we have prematurely formed consensuses on many issues. And once solidified, the consensus is used as a mechanism to prop up the status quo. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you accept, for instance, that the Mammoths were just slaughtered by a bunch of Indians, then this will drastically reduce the chances that you will be motivated to actually learn about the completely surreal circumstances of their death.
There is hardly a fair playing field here. EU Theorists cannot even launch probes to investigate the interconnections that they allege. When your theory asserts that the universe is electrically connected and that plasmas that contain less than 1% charged particles can be conducting currents in a dark mode,
My purpose on these boards is to clarify for people who are intellectually curious what Electric Universe Theory states. These are scientific debates that have nothing to do with religion or politics. I'm trying to inform people of the material. When the material is over my head, I will consult directly with the theorists themselves and relay their responses. I am serving the purpose of a middle-man, free of charge, so that the EU Theorists themselves can continue to spend their time doing what they do best -- theorizing. Imagine if you read a theory that you regarded as highly as Einstein's materials. If you had the time to spend on it, you too might decide to do exactly as I am doing. My hope is that we can eventually get past the initial arguments over whether or not there exists electricity within space because their theories discuss so much more that has relevance to people and our future. If anybody brings up creationism or ID or anything of that sort, you can bet that I will closely disect their invocation of those concepts so that there is no confusion amongst people who are still trying to learn what the theory states. EU Theorists and enthusiasts are certainly no strangers to hostile or demeaning remarks.
If you are annoyed by my presence, then all I can say is that I'm sorry. I'm doing my best to perfectly represent their theory. I've read a good amount of their materials and I find them to be compelling. Like many other EU enthusiasts, I am an electrical engineer. This site is read by a large number of other electrical engineers and software engineers with circuitry experience. The fact that mainstream cosmologists and mainstream space enthusiasts do not recognize the importance of the role that plasma plays in cosmology does not faze us because this is precisely what they are taught in school to believe. What is happening right now is a direct result of the astrophysical educational system. This is why there is a valid debate here. It is our belief that astrophysics has run astray. It is the only field of science that is allowed to cherry-pick from the other sciences as it sees fit (which it does for laboratory plasma physics). And it is the only field for which it is customary and routine to invent particles and forces when the observations do not match the theory. Even though mainstream astrophysics is an interpretive science that largely refutes the utility of laboratory science in formulating its theories, astrophysicists still believe that they have a right to rewrite the textbooks of those sciences from which they draw upon. In this way, the field has become both a scourge and a spectacle that is buoyed by consensus science and support for the fanciful stories it generates with the public. The EU Theorists merely assert that laboratory plasma physics does indeed scale to galactic scales (and to many scales in between), and that we can see the evidence for this within our observations.
You and I surely disagree on many of the points that I outline here. What I ask of you though is to give me the respect that you would afford anybody else in your responses. If you have evidence that contradicts my statements, then let's discuss the issues on that level. But please let me serve my purpose as a conduit for the EU Theorists so that you and others can understand what they are saying without people having to purchase their materials, and so that we can have a technical conversation about the observations and theory. We are both experts in different areas. By offering each other information that relates to our own expertises, we can continue to believe whatever it is we wish while simultaneously learning from the other person. This is in fact what the Internet was designed to do. My hope is that after being exposed to enough of the evidence for their theory, that you and others will realize that neither hostility nor condescension has any place in this conversation.
Although I am certainly not the first to discuss these materials on this forum, I am apparently
Other than the fact that EU Theory is against-the-mainstream, there are very few similarities between creationism and EU Theory. EU Theory lacks any political or religious agenda whatsoever. When you opt to make such comparisons, it is misleading to people who are just trying to figure out what to believe about the theory because it suggests that there is something about it that is more religious than BB Theory. This acts to dissuade many people from learning about it on the basis of a slander.
I hope for your own sake that you are right in your infinite wisdom. These are on some level serious issues. EU Theory proposes that charge density for the solar system can increase without warning, and potentially result in the fissioning of our Sun in a nova outburst -- and that evidence from ancient writings is in agreement that this has happened before for our solar system. Those are some pretty serious consequences for being wrong. We've seen evidence for warming on multiple planets within the solar system. NASA brushes it off because it is disconfirming to the consensus that warming on Earth has a primary manmade component. I've also seen it argued that at any given moment, some number of planets should be observed to be warming. But, this is a double-standard for consensus science. The consensus is that there is something wrong with the Earth if it doesn't have a stable average temperature. Why should the other planets be judged by a different standard? Judging what to believe based upon what other people believe can be tricky "science".
I've run into a very good website that you may be interested in that discusses the issue of electricity in space by focusing explicitly on the concept of the charge sheath vortex:
r _and_the_Expanding_Universe.html
http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/Dark_Matte
There are other links on that same site that you may be interested in as well. All of this material appears to be in complete agreement with Electric Universe concepts.
I've admitted that I was wrong on at least a couple of occasions within these forums. I'm not afraid to do so when it appears in fact that I am wrong about something.
Tim Thompson's site does not critique "The Electric Sky" book. It was written a few years before Don Scott published his book and it is limited to addressing Wallace Thornhill's Electric Sun hypothesis. It fails to address planetary rilles that track the topography of rock-based landscapes both up and down, in apparent violation of gravity; it fails to address all of the anomalous data associated with comets, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, black holes and supernovae; it says nothing about stars that are too small and cool on their surface to have internal fusion reactions (T-type Brown Dwarfs). It's hardly a rebuttal to Don Scott's book either temporally or even topically.
I never mentioned anything about any conspiracy. I've merely stated that NASA is not willing to fund any theory that is antithetical to the Big Bang Theory -- even when the mainstream theories are producing no results (as is the case for comets). The fact that Wallace Thornhill predicted a pre-impact flash remains unexplained to this day. How did he know that that would happen? How is it that he was so confident about this that he publicly proclaimed the prediction? Why was he ignored when his prediction turned out to be correct? Why does he continue to be ignored even though he can fully explain all of the anomalous data associated with comets using nothing more than laboratory plasma physics and electrodynamics? What is technically wrong with his analysis?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pd
Check out the wiki images for z-pinches. They refer to the same morphology ...
s )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physic
Let's look at the bigger picture of what's happening here. I'm telling you that these *observations* are best represented by z-pinches. You're responding to me that some people did some *calculations* that demonstrate a lack of energy for an electric Sun. This is largely the story of this debate. When Halton Arp, for instance, points to pictures that demonstrate high-redshift quasars in front of low-redshift spiral galaxies, Big Bang theorists tell us that we should believe their theories over these "chance" observations.
There are calculations to demonstrate lots of things. There are calculations that possibly demonstrate a neutrino deficit from a fusion-only Sun and there are calculations that possibly demonstrate a lack of charged particles to externally power the Sun. Neither calculation should qualify as being disconfirming to the theories they impugn. Observations should always take priority over calculations when it comes to evaluating cosmologies.
A detailed treatment of everything we know about comets at this point in time is sufficient in itself to suggest that EU Theory is perhaps the *only* theory at the moment that can explain comets:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pd
The fact that solar neutrinos appear to inversely correlate with the number of sunspots should inspire a second look at the notion that the Sun is a fusion reaction at its core. Unlike back-of-the-envelope calculations, this observation is in fact disconfirming to the notion that the Sun is a fusion reaction at its core. Anomalies related to planetary rilles and craters are similarly disconfirming to traditional theories (especially when we observe rilles to travel both up and down with the topography), and yet make sense when planets are allowed to accumulate and trade charge with foreign bodies and each other.
The combined weight of these anomalies represents a far more serious problem than some guy calculating that something shouldn't be possible. By only reading the materials that confirm traditional theories, a lot of people have failed to challenge their own mainstream beliefs. The refusal by large numbers of people to actually read the EU materials acts as the sole barrier to its adoption. Whether or not you believe them, there is in fact nothing technically wrong with what they are saying.
I've read enough of "Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky" to realize that Carl Sagan wasn't scared to take a hypocritical stance in order to "prove" a point. In his public statements against Velikovksy, he frequently contradicted his own writings. I prefer people who invest a little less emotion in their interpretation and arguments, and who are willing to admit to being wrong. I don't see that character trait much in the mainstream astrophysicists or the enthusiasts on these forums -- which is odd because, regardless of the fact that the mainstreamers have proven to be good labelers, they still can't account for the particles that they've named.
When you're an against-the-mainstream theorist, it doesn't matter how amazing your theory is these days. The EU Theorists do not pay me to spend my free time trying to get people to read their materials. I do it purely out of goodwill because I've come to the realization that the only thing standing in the way of people realizing what these guys have accomplished is the barriers that people have raised to considering alternative theories. Every person that I convince to just read the materials will realize that these guys are onto something. I've already received appreciative letters from people suggesting as much.
On some level, you guys have to realize that your beliefs in cosmology are the result of an intensive public relations campaign. I assert no knowledge for *why* this is happening. I only know that it is happening. Being scientists and programmers, slashdotters are not immediately privvy to the PR side of things. But this is a fact. You are being inundated with materials that encourage you to support the status quo theories. It's up to you to turn your brain back on and start analyzing the data in an objective way.
The first step is to learn what plasma does in the laboratory. Plasma permeates all of space and you cannot understand the universe until you understand what matters does when it's in the plasma state. I'm telling you that plasma is being incorrectly modeled in magnetohydrodynamics as a fluid. Plasma in the laboratory conducts electricity, which means that it behaves according to completely different equations. Plasma in the laboratory has resistance. Why should plasma in space be any different? If we have any eminent authorities here who want to show me to be some uninformed jackass, please answer for me this one single question.