Hi Steve,

Sorry to hear this, apparently I (or the model) fails to convey enough substance. I though it was me using poor arguments and bad examples.
I guess most people here only feel confident in math as proof of models, since that's not going to happen soon, it'll take much longer (if ever).

Cheers.

There are people who have the impression that it is somehow important to get you to agree that the EU model can't work as advertised. I've given up on that aspect of it. I have demonstrated for myself that charges can't get unbalanced enough in the materials we are talking about to cause the kind of phenomena the EU people claim as evidence, but no longer feel that you can or need to be converted.

The EU makes some goofy claims that are hard to mesh with current observations of the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy, and the Universe in general.

My understanding of your approach is that you do not claim it is true, but that you are not ruling it out since you can't prove exhaustively that it is false. I also get the impression that you like the idea that the Earth may have been created around 4004 BC, or maybe sometime in the last 12,000 years, and are reluctant to accept as fact ideas that demand that certain objects be billions of years old. The EU seems to offer this to you.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Well Antoniseb,

Whatever the correct model for our Universe will turn out to be, one thing is for sure:

This idea of what I think is absolutely untrue (whatever makes you say that?), in "my" Universe, Earth is old, the Universe is infinite and Earth wasn't "created". I do think that Earth was "hit" by some spectacular and catastrophic events in the not so distant past, as witnessed by ancient people and captured in myth and art. Ice ages are enough reason to believe in catastrophic events on Earth (and what about the dinosaurs).
I think our solar system is a chaotic and violent place and the reasons for this chaos and violence are not well understood. The mechanism for both the chaos on the one hand (Venus' surface and Uranus' tilted orbit), and the sometimes perfectly circular orbits show that there also must be stabilising forces at work. I don't see gravity being able to either wreak the havoc, or being the stabilising factor. More is needed, and the EU model is the only model I know of that has the capacity (if proven true of course) of providing these "countering" forces.

Cheers.

My error, I was mis-reading the difference between the catastrophes and creation in some things that you've written, and apparently lumped some other things you've written into some other archival storage box in the back of my mind.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

No worries, the fun of this board is to exchange ideas, to speculate and learn. If I gave the impression of being a "creationist" I'm glad to have that at least cleared up.

I can be converted to either side of the argument, but it will take more than repeating current theories to convince me that there is nothing to the EU model. I've seen enough ideas in science being overturned to assume we have a long way to go yet in understanding the Universe.
Maybe in a years' time I could look back on this dicussion thinking: well, I was wrong, but I did have some good discussions in the meantime.
The frustrating part is that there are ways to confirm/refute the EU model that haven't been done yet; I want to know it now (for myself, without being told).

Cheers.

I agree with you that charge build up (to the extent that can cause electric scarring) does not appear to be occuring today.

But charge build up can occur, and indeed might be occuring. As you will recall, one of the fundamental properties of plasmas is that they can form double layers (or sheaths). They feature a potential drop within the layer, and a vanishing electric field on either side. In other words, if there is a charge build up, on one side of a layer, you couldn't necessarily measure it from the other side.

But there are lots of processes that we do not see today, and assume happened in the past, such as Solar System formation by matter condensation and accretion.

Incidentally, plasma can acrete matter too in a process called hetegony.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Hi Ian,

Only if you discount comet activity and Io's arcs, apparently the charge buildup of comets is enough to produce the jets. The Jupiter-Io connection is (also apparently) still powerful enough to sculpt Io's surface.

Other arguments in favour of the EU model is that Io's surface must be rigid to an extensive depth because it can support 16 kilometer mountains, while the enormous heat from volvanoes suggests that the crust should be quite thin (and able to accomodate a bulge of up to 300 feet, according to calculations, or are these values really measured?). Also outgassing of the "volcanoes" should be enough to support some sort of atmosphere on Io, even in the low gravity conditions (comparable to the Moon). We don't see en atmosphere, so it could be supportive of an EU explanation.


Cheers.

Has the EU model been used to predict anything that has not been observed until after the prediction? For it is easy enough to create a theory that fits with all current observations, it is another matter entirely to predict something that has not been observed yet.

__________________
MacTalk - The Australian Apple Community - iPod, iPhone and Mac.

Hi Matthew,

Sure there were predictions, like Juergens who predicted that Io's "volcanoes" would be much hotter than any known volcano. X-rays from comets were predicted, and another prediction is that Titan and Venus are next of kin, see this article. The EU model predicts that planets form by ejection from their parent star, problem is how can this be proven/imaged. Maybe an indication could be that after such a "fissioning" event (what we call "nova") so we should expect to find planets. Then again it could also be argued that these planets were already there and survived the explosion.

The problem is not predicting specific things, but devising tests that could verify the mechanism. The only test I know of that could settle the issue is either movies of the variations and spectra of the bright spots/jets on comets, or finding fulgurites (melted soil caused by lightning) on Mars or the Moon where the EU model expect them to be, it was suggested that the "blueberries" on Mars are maybe formed the same way as fulgurites . One thing I like to add is that mainstream predictions are also scarce and we have witnessed some big revisions of theories as a consequence of the observations. That's how science works, models only survive until observations contradict them, and then it's either "adapt or perish".

Cheers.

The EU model predicts that planets form by ejection from their parent star,

How is it possible a planet be ejected from a star and then fall into an orbital path in which the square of the period of the planet is proportional to the cube of its semimajor axis?

An object ejected from another object cannot possibly orbit said object but will follow a trajectory orthogonal to its point of exit from the progenitor. If the ejected object has little velocity and the progenitor massive, the object will follow an eccentrical path back towards the center of the progenitor.

Most likely though is that an ejection would be powerful and the ejected objects velocity would be too great for it to ever reach aphelion and fall back towards the star. Jupiter and Saturns orbits would be the most difficult, if not impossible to derive from such an ejected path.

Inquiring minds want to know?

__________________
Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power. --Eric Hoffer

I'm not sure whether all Electric Unverse folk would agree with this, or whether they believe that this could be a method of formation of binaries. But you are correct that if ejection occurs radially from the parent body, then gravitationally, this doesn't work.

But before you completely dismiss the idea, I believe there is a possible solution by considering the fission of spinning liquid into two masses. See Rotation in Stars [PDF] which refers to R. A. Lyttleton: The Stability of Rotating Liquid Masses (Cambridge University Press, 1953), 133-144.

Of course there are issues with these theories (primaries tend not be liquids), but see also:

• N. R. Lebovitz: "The Fission Theory of Binary Stars for Compressible Masses", Mémoires Soc. Roy. den Sciences de Liège, 6e série 8 (1975), 47-53.
• R. A. Gingold and J. J. Monaghan: "Binary Fission in Damped Rotating Polytropes", Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 184 (1978), 481-499

I have no idea whether these theories are possible, or whether they apply to the problem in hand, but I just wanted to point out that while you were probably correct to dismiss them for the reasons you gave, there may be other models.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

But before you completely dismiss the idea, I believe there is a possible solution by considering the fission of spinning liquid into two masses.

Sorry, I did not glean that assertion from the article - I believe the author instead came to this conclusion:

btw - I could not find errors in his derivatives - nice work!

__________________
Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power. --Eric Hoffer

My fault, I only mentioned the article because of its reference to Lyttleton's, but I couldn't find access to his online, nor the other two that I mentioned.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Maybe I read the ejection model wrong, but it would be important to include the EM forces in how orbits are formed and stabilized, gravity alone won't do it (gravity alone wouldn't allow for an EU model in the first place). But I'm afraid it hasn't been modelled yet, at least not that I'm aware of.

Cheers.

Here are the pictures that explain and show why the "volcanoes" on Io are electrical arcs.


This page, this page, and this page

Have fun,

Cheers.

And also this page, hopefully is shows that these "volcanoes" are really strange features that are consistent with an electric arc explanation.

Cheers.

Here is an interesting summary of recent findings of the Cassini mission regarding Saturn:

Lightning on Saturn is a million times stronger than lightning on Earth.

The rotation rate (measured by the rate of rotation of the magnetic field) of Saturn changes over time, which made Dessler remark that Saturn's magnetic field and it's behaviour are more like the Sun's.

I guess this is consistent with the EU ideas on Saturn.

Cheers.

Actually what it says is:
That doesn't mean the lightning itself is a million times stronger, just that it gives off more radio signal. In fact, it says the reason they think it is because of how far away from Saturn the signal was detected, which might also mean the signal wasn't much stronger, simply that it was directional. Saturn is a good bit larger than Earth, with a distinctly deeper atmosphere, which is made very turbulent by the shadow of the rings. I don't think a lot of powerful lightning from there demands the EU hypothesis.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi Antoniseb,

From the article:
It does mean that the lightning is a million times stronger, the detection method used was the same (both times the Cassini detector). Explain why Saturn's lightning should be so much stronger than Earth's, remember that current ideas are that turbulence produces lightning, as a consequence of solar heating, Saturn receives smaller doses of the Sun's heat.

And Saturn behaving magnetically like the Sun is also consistent with EU predictions. I'm not saying that it is proof, only that it is consistent.

Cheers.

On Earth, the sun heats the ground, which in turn heats the atmosphere from below, generating the turbulence & charge separation that leads to lightning. You are assuming that Saturn has to rely on the sun as well for it's heat, but that is incorrect. All 4 of the giant outer planets are far from thermal equilibrium with the sun. Saturn emits 1.78 times as much thermal energy as it gets from the sun, so it has a strong internal energy source that drives vertical convection. The internal energy source is most likely the contnuing differentiation of the planet, a process that is essentially finished on the much smaller Earth.

On Earth, all weather happens in the troposphere, which is at most 5 or 6 kilometers deep, so that's the limit on any vertical convection path length. However, on Saturn & Jupiter, the cloud layers alone are about 100 kilometers deep, and there must be considerable convective atmosphere below that, so the planet offers convective path lengths at least 10 times what is available on Earth. The length of the convective path is directly related to the ability to separate charge and generate much stronger lightning.

But don't forget horizontal convection. On Earth, it rarely has anything to do with lightning, because it can't maintain charge separation. But not so on Saturn, where the winds blow ~1100 miles/hour, even stronger than the winds of Jupiter. On Earth, lightning can propagate horizontally between vertical storms, and maybe travel a few miles. But on Saturn lightning can propagate horizontally for hundreds, or even thousands of miles, because the atmosphere is much more turbulent & convective than Earth's (providing source power), and also more homogenous (providing super long horizontal paths). I think it is most likely that the strong lightning on Saturn is this horizontally propagting lightning, which can traverse paths 1000 times longer than Earth bound lightning.

So it's easy to see why lightning should be more powerful on all of the giant planets than on Earth.

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the reply

That would mean the internal heat source produces 0.78 of the Sun's input, which doesn't impress me as something that would lead to a million times stronger lightning.

Don't forget to include the sprites, blue jets and stuff like that, those effects are seen much higher in the atmosphere.

There's also a relation between buildup of charge and the ability of the atmosphere to discharge. At a certain level discharge occurs, irrespective of the potential to build to higher charges based on "convective path length", in other words there are limits to charge buildup.

I guess we don't know enough of Saturn's atmospheric activity to conclude this, I'm not surprised it is more powerful (after all size matters), but the factor of a million is certainly "astonishing" for Mr Gurnett, and I'm not going to argue his assessment.


Cheers.

And if the lightning is more horizontal there will be more lightning "facing" into space. On Earth it is usually just a small concentrated point source, with radio waves propergating from only one point. With horizontal lightning that "point" spreads out in realation to space and as it will have the same energy density then more radio waves will be eminated into space.

__________________
MacTalk - The Australian Apple Community - iPod, iPhone and Mac.

Hi Matthew,

On Earth a large percentage of the lightning bolts are horizontal as well (most cloud-to-cloud lightning), this link with some spectacular images shows some examples of visible horizontal bolts. And on top of that EM radiation from a point source radiates like a wavefront, if anything it would seem stronger than a "spread-out" lightning. Whatever the cause of Saturn's millionfold stronger lightning, we have yet to show how the lightning is generated.


Cheers.

Although the original press release clearly infers that:

...you are quite correct that it does not mean that lightning is necessarily a million times stronger, and hence proportional to the strength of the radio signals. Now if only you'd apply the same level of criticism to the evidence presented for Big Bang cosmology!

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Sorry Ian, but I'd like to know how those radio signals could be a million times stronger without having a million times stronger source, after all, discharges are highly scaleable events.

Could you give a specific example where Antoniseb failed to do so? Imo this is not a very constructive criticism.

Cheers.

Maybe I read the ejection model wrong, but it would be important to include the EM forces in how orbits are formed and stabilized, gravity alone won't do it...

How can you make that statement after admittedly knowing nothing about gravity?

The mind boggles...

:blink:

__________________
Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power. --Eric Hoffer

I admitted no such thing.

My statement was a respons to your question on how ejection would work describing it in "gravitational" terms, I accept that it can't happen that way. But since we're assuming (at least I am) that ejection is driven electrically in a strong EM environment, we need to be aware that EM forces also contribute to the circularization of the orbit of the ejected mass.


About gravity in general:
It is Nobody knows why it is only an "attractive" force, so we certainly don't have "gravity" pinned down yet.

Cheers.

I actually agree with you, that a radio signal a million times stronger does imply lightning that is also a million times stronger. I was just acknowledging that just maybe, there is some mechanism out there, which is not yet understood, that could just focus or amplify the radio signals.

<!--QuoteBegin-VanderL@Dec 20 2004, 12:47 PM
Could you give a specific example where Antoniseb failed to do so? Imo this is not a very constructive criticism.[/quote]
And you're also right about my non-constructive criticism, it's just that I've noticed slightly different playing fields when it comes to the Electric Unvierse theory comparied to other theories; It does seem that established theories are not question at all, and are defended what may, yet the Electric Universe is always "attacked". For example, we can both point out a dozen observions that are consistent with both an Electric Universe AND Big Bang cosmology, and yet I get the feeling that if some people were to acknowledge the Big Bang consistencies, it would be tantamount to admitting that there might be something in it.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

I am mostly an equal opportunity attacker, but the fact is that I will try to explain the positions I understand in relation to specific observations or claims, and I certainly understand the main-stream models more than I do the EU model for example.

EU has a lot of giant holes that violate my general sense of how things work, particularly related to the tendency for net charges to experience forces that make them tend to equalize. I don't complain about the underlying ideas [though I disagree with them], because I think that eventually the failure to predict or explain phenomena will require serious alterations in the EU model that will boil it down to simply being more detail on top of the big bang cosmology.

I do think that there are interesting electro-magnetic phenomena in this universe of ours that are so far little documented or understood. They just don't rise to the scales that the EU model claims.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Quite correct, but one of the basic properties of plasmas (and interplanetary space is a plasma), is their ability to form double layers (sheaths) that can facilitate charge separation. If the interplanetary medium was a perfectly conducting plasma, then there would be no charge separation, but it isn't.

It seems that charge separation has even been postulated without double layers in pulsars, see "Double layers in expanding plasmas and their relevance to the auroral plasma processes" (abstract).

But double layers and charge separation go hand in hand, for example, see "Double layers in expanding plasmas and their relevance to the auroral plasma processes" (abstract) and "Electric field within Io's ionosphere caused by charge separation..." (abstract).

Weak double layers (and hence charge separation) has also been indentified in the Solar Wind, see "Weak Double Layers in the Solar Wind and their Relation to the Interplanetary Electric Field" (abstract).

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

If there is a sheet of positive charged ions and a sheet of high electron density in interplanetary space, at interplanetary densities, what force would prevent a free electron from moving into the sheet of positive ions?

How many such ions could there be, per cubic meter, before that force could no longer keep the electron from crossing over?

You guys have been writing about the double-sheath, but I don't believe it in astronomical scales and temperatures. I'd like to see some physics and math to back up the claim.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak