I think the answers go together, in that a binary system is really only an extreme example of the kind of stuff we see in our own solar system. Electrical & magnetic phenomena, and plasma physics, do shape the solar system, and in some sense even define what it is. But this is all well known, and thoroughly documented over the decades, in books & papers. One could easily discover this without any reference to the electric cosmos model.

There is so much to say about this that I can't hope to tell a complete story here. I've already provided a number of links to sources of info on the web, the Oulu Space Physics Online Textbook being probably the best of the lot, for web reading. Otherwise, it's off to the library or bookstore, as the case may be. A few examples (none, I fear, suitable for the non-scientist reader): Space Physics: An Introduction to Plasmas and Particles in the Heliosphere and Magnetospheres, May-Britt Kallenrode, Springer, 2001 (2nd ed); Plasma Astrophysics, Toshiki Tajima & Kazunari Shibata, Perseus Publishing, 2002; Physics of the Jovian Magnetosphere, A.J. Dessler (ed), Cambridge University Press, 1983 (there is a new edition, according to the publisher, but I have the old one). But of course, this is an active area of research, and one must watch the journal pages as well. There is a huge amount of material on the solar wind, and solar system plasma physics. My only point here is to show that, despite some claims to the contrary, plasma physics is by no means an area that is ignored in standard science.

Classically, the solar system is "defined" by the sun & the nine planets, plus a few comets & asteroids, as they were discovered. But it was not really until the 1950's that anyone realized the real extent & effect of plasma physics in the solar system, and it has been a hot topic ever since (see Origins of Magnetospheric Physics, James A. Van Allen, Smisthonian Institution Press, 1983, for a good history of the topic; very little physics, lots of history). Pluto hangs out about 40 AU from the sun, but the solar wind can travel 100 AU or more, before it rams into the interstellar wind (and it will go much farther in the down-wind direction, as a long plasma tail, much like the tail of a comet). If the "solar system" is defined by that bubble carved out of the interstellar plasma, by the solar wind, the the solar system is a lot bigger than the nine planets would imply. In this sense, the solar wind, and the electromagnetic processes that go with it, actually define what the solar sustem is (along with such outliers as the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud, which might expand the solar system half way to the next star over).

Inside the solar system, there are numerous shock waves induced in the solar wind, where it encounters the strong planetary magnetic fields (Earth & the 4 giant planets). the shock waves occur where the solar wind runs head-on into the magnetic fields, but the planetary magnetospheres all have huge long tails (the tail of the Jovian magnetosphere includes Saturn when it points that way), which are swept & shaped by the solar wind.

The Jovian magnetosphere is the busiest, including the electrical connection between Jupiter & Io. My own research centered on the Jovian magetosphere for several years, and we wound up demonstrating that solar wind plasma was penetrating unexpectedly deep into Jupiter's magnetic field, and explained why.

In a normal binary system, the stars are far enough apart that all you get is shock waves similar to those in our solar system, where the stellar winds collide. But in the more exotic cases, like close binaries, or contact binaries, the stellar winds get more complicated. But the real fun with stellar winds comes with supermassive stars. A star that shines bright enough to reach the Eddington limit will blow away its own outer atmosphere, simply by the pressure of the extreme light emitted by the star (this is what happens in Wolf-Rayet stars, or in many cases with Luminous Blue Variables). When it comes to stellar winds, the sun is a real wimp, compared to the big stars.

What we see in the interplanetary medium is a complicated affair; it's not just a "plasma", and unadorned plasma physics will not correctly describe it, because it is magnetized (by the solar magnetic field), and it is "dusty" (where interplanetary dust particles may or may not be charge neutral). So the plasma & dust can (and do) affect each other, and the magnetic field (the rotation of which cannot be ignored) constrains the motion of the solar wind plasma, and the dust (which also responds to light pressure, as do small asteroids).

But are stars electrical, as suggested by the electric cosmos model? The evidence does not support such a notion. Are the planets subjected to electromagnetic forces large enough to move them around? Aside from the aforementioned Yarkovsky effect, which would be unmeasurably small for anything as massive as a planet, the evidence does not support that notion either. It is important to realize that this is not a scientifically casual area of investigation. On the contrary, it is a huge & intense area of investigation, about which a great deal is well known. Of course, "great deal" does not equal "everything", but it does rule out a lot of speculation about the driving forces in the solar system. The extreme ideas of the electric cosmos are ruled out, rather confidently, by what we do know.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Here's a stray random question for Tim; Do you think of Jupiter and Io as a double planet configuration?
Also, do you think of Earth and it's Moon as a double planetary configuration?

__________________
<span style='color:purple'>&quot;To Infinity and Beyond&quot; - Buzz Lightyear</span>

<span style='color:green'>http://www.mi-geocaching.org</span>

Tim, thanks for your very detailed replies. When I first read about the Electric Universe, it sounded intriguing. IMO after reading the articles defending it, and your words and references debunking it, it clearly doesn't make the grade.

Although there are questions still unanswered in most theories, any counter theory needs to provide a *better* overall answer. The problem is that you often need to dig deep into each theory to see the point it changes from an interesting idea into wild and inaccurate speculation. I think that's why there is always friction between the "established" theories and the "outsiders". Most people don't have time to get an accurate understanding of all possible theories. And unfortunately in amongst the wild and wacky theories often lurks the gem that will eventually supplant the established theory.

In this case, I don't think the Electric Universe is such a gem but I've enjoyed reading up on it and speculating about whether some of it could be applicable.

So thanks to VanderL for raising the subject, and thanks to Tim for explaining the counter arguments.

__________________
Spike
:)

I'm sorry Tim, but I honestly think that there is nothing easy about finding out how the plasma and electric phenomena shape our solar system. There is mention of magnetism on the Sun's surface and there is mention of a solar wind, but basically that's where it stops and you need to really dig to get any coherent information at all. I'm happy that you made the effort to clarify what is known, and provide all the links to websites and books. And I hope you continue to look into the subjects being discussed in this forum.
Is it known what the defining property of a star is for the strength of it's stellar wind?

Another question and I'm not sure that you've already answered it earlier, is about Io's volcanoes; could it be possible that these are electric phenomena?

I think this is the way to learn something, and I hope to learn a lot more.
Thanks.

i teach my students:

Be discerning, seek evidence but never close the door and never attack the person, question them, seek evidence from them, never draw your conclusions as science evolves.

Its had a profound effect, cause when i brought up the subject about the electric cosmos, sure there was skepticism, but many turned the debate/discussion to the torus of Io/Jupiter, all of a sudden there was a collective 'hmmmmm' as they ponder that prospect. I won't dictate to them what is right or wrong, only to follow the path of evidence and their ideas.

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

That's how it ideally works, although during my education (which never ends) a lot of stuff wasn't open to discussion. It's a good thing that astronomy (like a lot of sciences) is in it's infant stage, so there is still room for alternative views and discussions.
Cheers.

I'll answer that one with another question:

Is it known what the strength of a star's stellar wind is before it explodes?

And another:

What's the youngest star detected that's gone supernova???

I know of three mechanisms which can drive a stellar wind: (1) radiation, (2) Alfven waves, and (3) a magnetic rotor. Supermassive stars will shine bright enough to push the wind by radiation pressure. That works for solar type stars only when they enter the red giant stage of evolution, and get bright enough. An Alfven wave is a wave in the magnetic field, which will certainly drive charged particles, and is most likely the source for the acceleration of the solar wind. The magnetic rotor effect is based on the fact that a rotating magnetic field will transfer angular momentum to a stellar wind.

So it's not just "a" defining characteristic, but at least a few defining characteristics. Since spectral class, mass & temperature are related, it's no surprise that stellar winds will be related to spectral class too. So O, A & B stars will have faster and more massive stellar winds, in general. Wolf-rayet stars have huge stellar winds. Our own sun will probably lose about 20% of its mass to stellar winds before it settles into a long retirement as a white dwarf. A more massive star, say 5 solar masses, will probably lose over 80% of its mass to stellar winds, in its red & asymptotic giant phases. More massive, supermassive stars won't likley lose that much, but will probably lose about half their mass to stellar winds.

There is in fact a lot that is not known about stellar winds. There may be, and probably are, other mechanisms for driving winds (plain old thermal instabilities in pulsating stars?), it's a really complicated field. See Introduction to Stellar Winds, H.J.G.L.M. Lamers & J.P. Cassinelli (no typo there, Lamers has a lot of names), Cambridge university Press, 1999. It's the only full-length treatment of the topic that I know of, though there will be a chapter on winds in any book on stellar evolution or stellar atmospheres.

I don't see how they could be, but the standard explanation is perfectly acceptable, and explains why only Io connects to Jupiter electrically, and that's tidal flexing. Io is caught in a tidal squeeze between Jupiter and the other Galilean satellites. The flexing generates internal heat, which is expressed at the surface by volcanism. Io is the smallest of the Galiean satellites, and its the nearest one to Jupiter, which makes the effect greatest for Io. Europa is also tidally stressed, but it's bigger and farther away. So, instead of overt volcanism, the internal heating generates the stress fractures seen all over the surface (which form a pattern that focusses on the Jupiter-Europa axis). Ganymede & Callisto are too far out, and not subject to so much stress, since they don't have more satellites outside their orbits. I don't see a problem with this explanation.

But once the volcanos provide the sodium, it's not that hard to ionize, and Jupiter's strong magnetic field creates an electrical connection, a current that flows from Io to Jupiter. That part is certainly electrical.

Only a few supernovae have been successfully matched with pre-observed stars, so i son't think either question can be directly answered. The mass loss for Eta Carinae, and extreme supermassive star, is about 0.001 solar masses per year, which is the highest mass loss rate I know of. Wolf Rayet stars blow off from 0.00001 to 0.0001 solar masses per year.

As for age, stars go supernova because of their mass, not their age. For single stars and type II (core collapse) supernovae, I should think they are mostly less than a few hundred million years old, and certainly not a billion. But in multiple star systems, and type I supernovae, it's harder to tell. The more massive star might evolve to a white dwarf, then accrete material from the other star, before it goes boom. then it depends on the accretion rate, and I don't know much about that.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Thanks Tim, again very detailed information; I'll have to digest all that stellar wind info first.
I'm still trying to figure out why Io is the only moon with all these volcanoes. Saturn is very similar to Jupiter in size and distribution of it's satellites. Tidal flexing should also be working in some of Saturn's moons (Dione or Rhea perhaps) but since there's no volcanic activity on any of those moons, my guess is that other mechanisms should be considered. Are there any other possible mechanisms to your knowledge, and since we know that Io is smack in the middle of Jupiter's electromagnetic torus (Jupiter's magnetic fields are way stronger than Saturn's) wouldn't it be just possible that this torus is actively shaping Io's surface?
Cheers.

You are moving into the realm of planetary geology VanderL. Maybe I can help here. Although I think what I have written is clear, please ask away if not.

Io just happens to be orbiting at a point just shy of the Roche Limit". As such, it is already under a great deal of strain and subject to tidal flexing.

To complicate it, it is also in a 2:1 "resonance" with Europa. Because Io is relatively small, and because it is so close, the gravity of Jupiter pulls on it unequally--such that a higher amount of gravity affects the equator and causes the equator to bulge towards Jupitor. Because Io is spinning, it's equator is pulled at different places, which causes the crust to flex.

This flexing is also strengthened or lessoned by it's orbit, which is slightly eccentric.

Now this flex alone may be enough to cause interior to melt , but it is accentuated by the resonance it has with Europa (and to a lesser extent, the other moons). That resonance also causes Io to flex slightly, in the direction of Europa.

The flexing of the planet heats it, which then melts the interior. Because Io is a relatively small body, it has to find a way to release that heat from it's interior. That way is by volcanism.

In Io's case, the volanism is extreme, because the tidal flexing is also extreme.

In Saturns case, none of her moons are orbiting close enough for the tidal flexing to occur at the same extreme level as occurs on Io. That is not to say that some tidal flexing is not occurring--there is evidence of a small amount of outgassing on Thethus, amoung others.

One premise of the origin Saturn's rings is that an orbiting satelite passed within the Roche Limit, and broke up.

There is also hypothesis' suggesting that Europa's ocean may be partly liquid, or at least slushy, also as a result of tidal flexing. This is why some see it as a good place to look for extra-terrestrial life--tidal flexing may cause the interior to be warm enough to force outgassing, if not outright volcanism. This, in turn, warms the bottom of the ice-ocean and may lead to "smokers", where minerals from within the crust are circulated out into the liquid(y) ocean. On Earth, lots of new species have been found around similar "black smokers".

As for the torus that Io is imbedded in, most of the particles in that torus are compounds of sulfer, and sulfer. These are escaping from Io because of the volcanism. When the volcanoes there erupt, some of the material forming the plume has enough energy to achieve escape velocity--the result of Io's low gravity. It then interacts with Jupitors magnetic field.

The material in the torus is very thin, gossemer really, almost non-existant. It's existance wasn't even known until after Voyager, and at that it was only found by indirect means. So it could not be the mechanism shaping Io's surface.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

No I'm not, just sitting here in front of my Mac.
Okay, sorry but that's the fun of this forum; jumping from discipline to discipline.

Thanks for the explanations Duane, it's all very plausible the way you explain it, although I still don't see a reason why the moons of Saturn don't show Io's features. Saturn also has a Roche limit and both systems have moons orbiting inside and probably very close to this limit (which is of course a mathematical approach that is based on the assumed mass of the objects).
Wait, I'll just sum up the questions:

1. How much would the resonance factor add to the heating
2. How much would the the spin add to the heating
3. What gets heated, the crust or something deeper inside and why?
4. Why would size matter for the release of the heat
5. What are all those tiny moons doing inside the Roche limits

Well let's leave it at that for now, I hope you're not tired of explaining yet.
Cheers.

Heh, nope!

There are no large moons orbiting inside the Roche Limit of either Saturn or Jupiter. In fact, Saturn's ring system actually extends past the Roche Limits.

Note here that the Roche Limit is also a factor of mass. The tiny bodies orbiting very close to the planets are not massive enough to be torn apart by the unequal gravity.

By your questions, I think you are starting to get this! Consider for a minute what the Roche Limit actually postulates. In essence, it says that a body over a certain mass and under a certain tenstile strength(like steel has a higher tenstile strength than rock) which approaches too close to another massive body is affected by the gravity of the massive body unequally. The point closest to the massive body feels the gravity more than the point farthest away. As a result of shear, when the inequality gets high enough, the object can be torn apart.

In Io's case, it is close enough to the Roche Limits that it feels that unequal pull of gravity to the point that it is nearly pulled apart. The stress this causes makes the moon flex, and this flexing creates heat. Now add to that the fact that it also is flexed by the gravity of Europa every 2nd orbit (the 2:1 resonance I mentioned earlier) and you can see it is being flexed alot.

You can reproduce this effect somewhat, using a handball. Take the handball and squeeze it for a few minutes, and you will notice it heats up. Same process.

This should also make it obvious what the effect of the moons spin is. As the moon spins, the "bulge" created by the unequal gravity moves. In Io's case, the amount of heat generated has apparently melted it from a point only a few kilometers below the lithosphere right to the core. The lithosphere remains solid due to the coldness of space, causing heat to build up more and more within the melted core.

The heat has to go somewhere--so melted material from the core pushes through the weakest points of the lithosphere it can find and viola, volcano.
Remember here that stuff which is heated expands. It will continue to expand until it is stopped (like by say, the lithosphere) however as it is heated more it keeps trying to expand until finally something has to give. In Io's case, the lithosphere cracks.

Can you see how this would also make a difference on a smaller body? Less room to expand = more pressure.

Cheers!

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Thank you Duane,

Ok, now back to Saturn; where's Saturn's Io (I guess Tethys is the best bet), or are they all too small? Will Cassini give us some information on those moons, you reckon?
How do you like this juggling of discussions over several threads?
Cheers.

Io, with a mass of 893.2 x 10^20 kg orbits in a 2:1 resonance with Europa (670.9 x 10^20 kg) and in 4:1 resonance with Ganymede (1070.4 x 10^20 kg), in orbits separated by only a few Jovian radii. They are massive, close, and in resonance. This means that Io is flexed in a periodic fashion, by strong gravitational forces. (Jovian Satellite Fact Sheet).

Tethys, with a mass of 6.27 x 10^20 kg (0.7% of Io's mass), orbits in a 1:2 resonance with tiny Mimas (0.375 x 10^20 kg, 6% of the mass of Tethys). They are both closer to Saturn than is Io to Jupiter. Then again, not only is the mass of Saturn only 30% of the mass of Jupiter, but the close moons of Saturn are much less massive than the close moons of Jupiter. Saturn has only one satellite that can compete for size with the Galilean satellites of Jupiter, and that's Titan (1345.5 x 10^20 kg), which, while more massive than any of the Galilean satellites (barely), orbits at 20 Saturn radii. (Saturnian Satellite Fact Sheet).

Io is in a unique tidal vice that is not duplicated anywhere else in the solar system. It is subject to more severe tidal heating than any other object that we know of in the solar system, and that's why it is the only actively volcanic moon in the solar system. (Io: Jupiter's Volcanic Moon).

And I don't doubt that the Cassini-Huygens mission will provide much new information on all of these moons, especially Titan.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Could there be any tidal flexing affecting Titan? I am curious could some of the nitrogen geysers of Triton be a result of tidal flexing as well? or is that not as well understood?

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

Titan and flexing will probably be a yes (meaning liquid beneath the frozen surface), I was unaware of Triton's plumes until your post, indeed there are geysers there and how are they explained? It must a be a totally different explanation from the flexing of Io's surface and the heat source here on Earth, so that means we have 3 different physical processes that can lead to one type of phenomenon.
Cheers.

VanderL, hey. I was just wondering, in the face of all this evidence from Tim Thompson in particular, whether and what you still believe about the Electric Cosmos?

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

It's not a matter of believing Josh, but I'm not making any decisions here, the data will decide. I'm trying to understand what it is all about and as I said earlier; if it's wrong it's wrong (and if it's right, it's right). I'm just happy that there are people willing to answer questions, and I will never stop asking them. My guess is that we don't know very much about the Universe, but time will tell; the fact I'm in this forum is because I don't want to wait for the professionals to tell me how the Universe is working, I want to know it now. As in the Peter Hammill song: " I Want The Future Now!"
Cheers.

Currently, it is postulated that the geysers on Triton are the result of an internal heat source or by solar energy. There is some evidence of tidal flexing, probably the result of the moons capture by Neptune.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Titan is too far away to tell if there is tidal flexing. It's surface is hidden by a thick atmosphere so there is no empirical evidence either way.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Is it true that Triton's orbit is degrading, so could the flexing (if any) be expected to increase? What is Triton's position to Neptune in respect to Io's position to Jupiter?

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

Damien, Neptune's Roche limit is much closer than Triton's orbit. So any gravitational flexing seems unlikely. That's why an internal heat source is postulated (even solar heating is proposed as mechanism). That's what I meant when I said that 3 different mechanism give rise to one phenomenon (active volcanism).
Are there any more of these active volcanoes in the solar system?
Cheers.

Ah yes, i understand VanderL, so some differental melting could be occurring in the internals of Triton , possibly as well as the miniscule heating from the Sun, would these nitrogen based geysers need much heat?

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

Nitrogen is liquid at -182 Celsius or something, so it doesn't need very much heat to vaporise, but it's the geyser form that makes it special; to make it expand "explosively" you need to build up pressure. That's where the excessive heating is needed, I think. I can't see the Sun produce the heat needed to build up subsurface pressure; most likely the heat source is internal, but we need to go there to see how those geysers work exactly.
Cheers.

Josh, I realise that I didn't fully answer your question on the Electric cosmos.
I think that Tim has found a number of holes in the electric model, some are the result of sloppy representation, others are more fundamental. These issues need to be addressed by the Electric model proponents and I'm still waiting on what they have to say.
The fact is that the Universe is filled with charged particles, so the most basic premise of the model; can stars be powered electrically, is a valid question. What is needed is evidence that electrons flow towards the Sun, otherwise there is no electric model. All the other stuff, like cratering and Io's volcanoes could still be electrical in nature, without stars being electrically powered, so there we need close-up data from the craters/volcanoes.
Mars is interesting because in the Electric model a lot of planetary puzzles are explained because of interplanetary lightning bolts. If that is true there must be evidence. Discharges can create (among others) craters,sinuous rilles, valleys, calderas and Lichtenberg patterns. All these phenomena can be recreated in a laboratory and all of these features can be found on many places in the Solar System. Tim is en endless source of facts and sites, so I'm happy he keeps answering questions. At this moment, I'm not convinced either way, there are still a lot of questions, and I need more time to formulate and ask them.
Btw did this exchange of ideas in this thread in any way mean something to you?
Cheers.

"Mean something" to me in terms of what? I'm just an interested bystander. From everything I've read on the various websites both you and Tim have offered up as well as the questions and answers in here it really looks as though everything in the electric universe theoury can be explained by other more "traditional" theories. If I see something that explains things and doesn't have more problems than it solves then I'd be more than willing to accept it as a valid theory. This one, however, just doesn't convince me. I recall in a number of other threads you have been the one saying that putting in fudge factors for eg in order to maintain the status quo of scientific theory is just wrong. But doesn't that hold for new theories trying to buck the system too?

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

Sure, but fudge factors are things that are added after observations show that there is something wrong with the model (this doesn't mean that all additions are fudge factors). Until now I haven't seen any fudging from the electric guys, they just try to do 2 things: pointing to where the problems with current models are, and replacing the current model with their own model and explaining why this model works better, or if it doesn't work better, that it applies to a larger set of observations.
Cheers.

...And now we've seen (mostly from Tim, and a big thanks to him) that these things are indeed explained by traditional theories and that they generally aren't adequately explained by the electric universe theory.

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

They already were explained by traditional theories, the reason that this electric stuff is of interest to me is that (if true) it could explain all kinds of "anomalous" observations. Like, why do we search for dark matter, and why are there so many binary star systems, why are there giant planets closely orbiting their parent star, how can stars be as flat as Achernar, how can brown dwarves suddenly flare, what is the mysterious force that interacted with the pioneer spacecraft, and so on.
Whatever the explanation will turn out to be, this electric model is something that shows me where the interesting stuff is and these people are seriously (and sincerely) trying to prove their model. So I'll keep a close eye on their claims and I hope people like Tim keep answering questions that come up.
Cheers.

I will throw my belated two cents in on this topic. Hopefully it will not rekindle this longstanding and interesting debate to any great extent. I think that the ideas of the electric universe have some merit in a very limited role. Their model does a reasonable job explaining the behavior of interstellar clouds such as the spiral arms. There are also areas of the galaxy and galaxy clusters where hot plasma on large scales do exist and some of these concepts may be helpful in explaining some of the phenomena occurring in the inner regions of the galaxy which are only now beginning to be observed with Chandra and like infra-red telescopes. I do agree that the stellar model extrapolations of this theory are poppycock given what I believe I know about the subject. Oliver's solar model theories seem thoroughly enlightened by comparison. My jaw would hit the floor if streams of incoming ions are seen from interstellar space headed to the poles of our star. This might be an excellent topic for a science fiction book in that it would make for a great power source!

__________________
Quid hoc ad aeternitatum
The conversion of complex and abstract ideas into simple and concrete ones is the essential function of teacher of a body of knowledge.