I'm always one of those making "hits"...

Niels Bohr was influenced by Danish author Poul Moller who wrote
"The Diary of a Danish Student" in which he described that a consciousness must
break into three roles before learning can occur..

Two are engaged in a conflict while one is an observer..Whether it is two people
debating or one person engaged with trying to paint a picture or build a cabinet,
the role of playing an audience is needed...to stand back to see how the work is coming out...Then, the audience must change, becoming a participant, bringing in a slight modification...

When Bohr would debate with Einstein or Heisenberg, they would retreat for a walk and return, waiting for the audience to become participants, bringing in another perspective...without which would cause Bohr to blow up...

One particular thing stands out in these most recent posts is the volcanic activity
on Io that kicks up dust and, due to Io's relatively weak escape speed, it gets
kicked easily into planetary space...

Now, the planets are hustled around the sun along with all of their moons...What
percentage of the dust that they spit up winds up back in our faces again? What percentage winds back up in the sun's face?...And, to drag another thread into
this ( but only temporarily ), ...what percentage is iron?

Granted, our galactic path is at a near perpendicular angle.....but some should wind up in the Kuiper Belt, shoudn't it?

What role are the moons playing in spreading their dust all over the place that is
influencing what we measure?

Shouldn't that dust be influenced by the EM radiation from the sun?
Shouldn''t that dust move at a right angle to that influence, winding up in the halo
of our solar system?

Just one of the curiosities I have..

blueshift

Hi there,

Thanks for the input, I am also "listening-in" on discussions, mostly on the Badastronomy Bulletin Board where some real interesting discussions are going on. I simply don't respond because that would take much more time, which I don't have.

Ok, I'll return to the issue of magnetic reconnection and "frozen in" magnetic fields. Tim I hope you don't expect that I will provide a technical assay "proving" that assumptions underlying plasma physics are wrong. All I hope I can do is show where the conflicts are between "standard" plasma physics and "Plasma Cosmology" (and EU model) physics.

It was Hannes Alfvén (indeed one of the founders of the field) who later saw his error in assuming that plasmas are "perfect" conductors. They are not, I'd like to quote from his 1970 Nobel Lecture, but it is difficult to copy formula's, so I'll refer to this PDF file.
The part I want to stress can be found in table 1. Although the lecture is old, the points adressed by Alfvén are still valid.
Alfvén was convinced that plasmas are not the perfect conductors that was assumed and was the basis of all current plasma models.
Since no plasma is a perfect conductor, magnetic fields don't "freeze in", which will affect the way that we mathematically treat plasmas.

The other point stressed by Alfvén is the use in mathematical models of magnetic field lines, they are often pictured, but in reality a magnetic field is a continuum, so no real lines exist. Using magnetic field lines as real existing features lead to the notion of "crossing" "merging" or "reconnecting" lines. The only thing that really happens is that oppositely directed magnetic fields cancel each other out, with no release of energy.

These are the basic differences in assumptions (that I know of) that influence the way plasmas are treated in the different models. There are more papers to find, but I can only refer to the list of publications of Anthony Peratt and the people he worked with.

I hope this made some sense, because I don't want to misrepresent the work of people like Peratt and Alfvén.

Cheers.

Yo. I have been operating under the assumption that it has been you assertion that the electric universe hypothesis is correct, and the standard physics incorrect. Therefore I figured a reason for its incorrectness should be forthcoming. But now you claim only the role of a reporter, so to speak, pointing out the differences without taking sides? Do I understand correctly? Or do you in fact think that the EU hypothesis is to be favored over standard physics?

I will read Alfven's lecture & see what he had to say. But before even doing that, I will point out that science in general is not a one-person affair, and Alfven has never been God (to the best of my knowledge at least). Plenty of Nobel winning scientists have been wrong and there is no reason for Alfven to be any different. This is especially important in his case, because he worked in plasma physics when it was a new, young science, with more speculation than knowledge. Alfven was a major source of the knowledge we now have, but he was also eccentric and overly self confident. He became convinced that his insight into plasma physics was greater then it really was. This was evident to me on the one occasion where I saw him talk in person, here at JPL many years ago. Plasma physics is not about Alfven, it's about what works & what doesn't.

Of course that is true, as Alfven knew, and all plasma physicists know. But the field can "freeze", in a practical sense, if its diffusion time scale is long compared to the velocity of the plasma, another fact which Alfven knew, and so does everybody else.

Another fact well known to anyone who has ever studied electromagnetism. But an interesting topic that I may return to nonetheless. The idea of field lines as an illustrative tool comes from Faraday, but was also deeply studied by Maxwell, who made the same point. But the relation between mathematics & physics is more profound, and Alfven was wrong in his criticisms om field line based models, as experience has abundantly shown.

I will likely be inactive over the weekend,as usual. Cheers.

Don't get me wrong here, I do think the EU/Plasma model is the way forward, I do "take sides", otherwise I wouldn't be discussing physics with a person much more knowledgeable than I am. But for me the EU model is not a complete theory yet, it needs a lot of research, which I'm hoping is done while we speak.

I don't agree, never put people down on appearances.

And here is the point we were discussing earlier, imo it is down to a matter of assumptions underlying the models.

Cheers.

OK, maybe I'm not quite so inactive.

I read Alfven's Nobel lecture. Most of it is not relevant to the discussion, and deals with his ideas on the formation of the solar system. Only a small part dealt with plasma physics, and there are no equations anywhere, except in table 1, and that's the part that matters to us. Alfven speaks of the "first approach" and the "second approach" to cosmical electrodynamics, where the first approach is the then "standard" approach to what is now called "ideal" MHD, and the second approach is Alfven's suggestion. The table is basically Alfven's view of the difference between the way plasmas were studied, and they way they should be studied. Let me take the entries in turn (see Alven's biography for a link to the PDF version of his talk, or follow the link previously provided by VanderL.

Homogenous models. Alfven points out that while the then current models were mostly homogenous, real space plasmas are mostly inhomogenous. But at the time, homogenous models were the only ones anyone could understand. Space plasma physics, as it is practised today, follows Alfven's desires, and treats space plasmas & astrophysical plasmas as inhomogenous.

Conductivity & electric field. What we now call "ideal" MHD treats a plasma as having infinite conductivity, and often ignores electric fields. That too was done for simplicity in understanding the basics. Neither of these assumptioins are common in space plasma physics today. Finite conductivity & the presence of electric fields is the standard treatment.

Frozen field. Alfven says: "Frozen-in picture often completely misleading." Nowhere in this lecture, in his text book, nor anywhere else I can find, does he say it is wrong. Indeed, in his text book, he proves that it can be valid. Of course he was right, and in most cases the magnetic field is not treated as "frozen" in space plasma physics. However, this is one case where Alfven's intuition failed. We now know that the field will act as frozen when the kinetic energy density of the plasma is significantly greater than the energy density of the magnetic field, because this causes the diffusion time scale for field transport through the plasma to be long, compared to the time scale of motions of the plasma, which is why it is called the "frozen field approximation".

Magnetic field lines. Alfven points out that "it is equally important to draw the current lines and discuss the electric curcuit", in reference to the use of magnetic field lines. This too is commonly done in space plasma physics today, though it is usually less informative than Alfven expected it to be, since electric fields are usually secondary in effect as compared to magnetic fields.

Double layers. Alfven simply says "Electrostatic double layers are of decisive importance in low density plasmas". True enough for laboartory plasmas, with anodes & cathodes, but Alfven overestimated their importance in astrophysical plasmas, where double layers play no role, and usually do not exist at all. On this he was simply wrong.

Filamentary structures. Alfven complains that filamentary structures and current sheets are "neglected or treated inadequartely". They are all the rage in space plasma physics today, especially in solar system applications, where current sheets are the most important aspect of the solar wind and planetary magnetospheres.

Mathematical theory. Alfven says of his owm second approach, that "theories still not very well developed and partly phenomenological." That was the case then, and is in some ways still the case today. However, it has been 34 years since Alfven gave his Nobel lecture, and we have learned since then.

So that's my response. The most important point is that the lecture is 34 years old, and both space plasma & laboratory plasma physics has grown immensly since then. It is quite natural that not all of Alfven's intuition was correct.

Always generally true, but you overlook the salient fact that some assumptions can be ruled out by observation. For instance, the presence of plasma double layers can be definitively ruled out by direct observation. That has nothing at all to do with assumptions or interpretations, but is a simple fact. Plasma double layers simply do not exist where you think they do. For instance, you were qiuite emphatic about saying that a toroidal magnetic field made the detection of double layers impossible, but you have yet to expalin why. Please do.

So, like I asked before, where is standard physics wrong? Why is the EU a better idea? As precisely as you can, please explain where you think standard physics has failed & why.

Thanks Tim! Thanks for reading the lecture, thanks for filtering out the details that matter here. Thanks for a solid explanation and retelling with a look to today's science.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi Tim,

Promises, promises..

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can, I'm afraid I made a mess of the sequence of your post though.

Points conceded, there is progress, but although a plasma is said to be treated as an "imperfect" conductor, the static resistivity of a plasma is still called "anomalous". I'll jump to your question on the toroidal magnetic fields experiment. What I meant is that firing two plasmas at each other and trying to measure what happens is, as far as I can see, not a very realistic scenario when . Trying to point to places where double layers should form (the ones you say don't exist) is maybe impossible under these conditions (I'm not sure how complex double layers can become, I've read about V-shaped double layers and tubes (filaments) where the walls consist of double layers (maybe the more comples forms are the "magnetic reconnections"?, I don't know) .


Double layers are easy to show experimentally as you say, and their existence in space is inferred by the EU people, and apparently denied by the rest of the science community. That's an important difference, so suppose there is evidence of double layers in space would you reconsider the importance of the EU model?

I think this could very well be the main point of disagreement.
The electric component is the primary source of energy (even in a bar magnet), the magnetic field is a secundary effect. Nowhere in the "reconnection" studies do we see this point acknowledged. So where is the electric circuit in space plasmas, or better, why are they thought to be unimportant?


I hope I answered the first qustion, it is in the underlying assumptions (electric circuit and the formation of double layers), the EU model could be a better idea, at this moment I think it deserves attention because it could explain a lot of things that are unexplainable at this moment.
If the EU model is true then in the end it doesn't really matter what road we followed to get to that realisation (yep). If the EU model is proven wrong (which for me at least hasn't happened yet) it allows me at least to have some sort of focus on all the confusing findings and announcements in astronomy.


Cheers.

That's because it is "anomalous", when compared to the "normal" that is defined as the "Spitzer resistivity" (Physics of Fully Ionized Gases, Lyman Spitzer Jr., Interscience Tracts on Physics and Astronomy, 1956, which I just happen to have on my bookshelf). Spitzer computed the resistivity of a plasma so as to account for the collision between electrons and the slower moving ions, but only considered single collision events. This was the standard treatment of the day. But it eventually became evident that instabilities in the plasma caused the electrons & ions to bunch up, and collide collectively, which causes the conductivity of the plasma to go down (and the resistivity to go up), in a real plasma, as compared to Spitzer's original approach (Instability, Turbulence, and Conductivity in Current-Carrying Plasma, O. Buneman, Physical Review Letters 1(1): 8-9, July 1, 1958; Dissipation of Currents in Ionized Media, O. Buneman, Physical Review 115(3): 503-517, August 1, 1959; Evidence of Anomalous Resistance in Plasmas, K.I. Thomasson, Physical Review Letters 10(3): 80-82, February 1, 1963). If you thought that "anomalous" meant "unexplained", you thought wrong.

They are important, and they are acknowledged, but you don't know enough about plasma physics to be aware of that fact. Remember that journal papers are written for a target audience, in this case an audience that is assumed to be educated in plasma physics. Hence, the repetition of the basic facts covered in textbooks is simply not considered (although sometimes a textbook will be cited if the author(s) think it necessary). If you read a text book, or studied plasma physics, you would discover that electrons, being much lighter than ions, usually move faster. So the plasma has to be modeled as a two-fluid stream, and the net current that creates the magnetic field is the difference current, between the electrons & ions. Unlike the current in a wire, which is driven by an electric field imposed on the wire, astrophysical plasmas are not necessarily accelerated by electric fields, but can be thermally accelerated. But regardless of the acceleration mechanism, the plasma will still generate a magnetic field. The time varying magnetic field will then generate an electric field by the usual induction process. But in this case it is the magnetic field which dominates, and the electric field which is secondary (because it is generated by the magnetic field, not vice-versa). But you're supposed to know all that (and more) before trying to understand a journal paper on plasma physics.

I would reconsider the role of double layers before I reconsidered the role of the EU hypothesis, because the EU is far more than just "double layers". The EU hypothesis is riddled with mistakes, and fundamental claims that have already been falsified. I don't see any reason to consider, or re-consider, any hypothesis that has already been falsified, until somebody comes up with a good explanation to negate its falsification.

That's about all I have time for now, but another note on who's watching. At 5:29 PM PDT, on Sep 13, the page showed 4489 "hits" for this thread. Today, at 5:29 PM PDT, exactly one week later, there are 4754 "hits", a total of 265 in one week. I didn't bother to count the number of posts in that week, but it's a lot less than that. I hope the peanut gallery is entertained.

I admit that I'm not the best reader on Earth..Maybe my question was answered but it bears repeating..

Where is the location for returning current to the sun? How is that being detected?

If the EU model cannot answer that question, then the rest seems to be babble.
It has no importance...

This argument about reconnection started over a claim that the standard model
was perceiving some flapping disconnected field...

Well, it seems to me that a disconnected circuit exists in the EU model that needs
addressing here before the two of you continue..

If you can't cough up the location then toss out the theory...It should be obvious.
No book ...No site...Just location.

blueshift

Hi Tim,

(I hope I did this quoting correct) It would help if the news articles used electric fields once in a while, but the textbooks are also very short on what generates magnetic fields. If articles are only published for target audience, and I'm not one of them, it tells me that maybe science is a bit too specialised nowadays. This also means that it is a good thing to put stuff in perspective once in awhile. Are there any good links to what you keep referring to as basic facts that specifically show how a magnetic field is generated. I have found a lot of webpages (some of them from you, the rest by googling) that summarize the state of plasma physics. The site I visit most often is the Los Alamos National Laboratory website on plasma by Anthony Peratt (hence Alfvén and Birkeland currents).



Is this really true, can we generate magnetic fields simply by heating?

Wait a second, I grant that mistakes are being made (which model doesn't have any mistakes) and also that some points that were important earlier (like solar neutrino counts) have disappeared now (or seem to), that is no reason to abandon the model. After all, neutrino researchers didn't abandon the Standard Model when the neutrino's didn't add up. I think it is legitimate to keep looking for answers even though the data are sometimes puzzling. Another example is Dark Matter; the missing matter in galaxies that was the original observation, actually falsified gravitational models. Did science throw out the model of gravity?
The most fundamental claim of the EU model is the existence of currents in space, so if that is proven to be true (which it has) it opens the door to the rest of the model, I think.


I think a lot of people like to follow arguments, I won't speculate on why, but I know that I have been able to get detailed information that otherwise is difficult to come by (in the BABB for instance). There seems to be a certain ratio of "hits" to "posts" that is reasonably constant.
Don't you think that the least this thread has to offer (besides differing views) is a lot of links to information?

Cheers.

The textbooks that I have, and have recommended on this thread, are certainly not lacking in explanation of what generates magentic fields. But they also don't deal in watered down explanations, which is why they are called "textbooks". The short explanation, such as I gave, is distilled from the more complicated. It's actually quite difficult to find in print, or on the web, for the simple reason that there is no market for it. Textbook readers don't need the short version, they will figure it out for themselves anyway. So, as cruel as it seems, if you really want to know what's going on in plasma physics, you will just have to study plasma physics to old fashioned way.

Science may indeed be too specialized, but that's the price one pays for knowledge. Depth requires focus, in any intellectual pursuit. One cannot penetrate deeply into the mysteries of anything without specializing. But that inhibits interdisciplinary research. One possible response to that is something like the Santa Fe Institute, which specializes in interdisciplinary studies (you might say it specializes in not specialzing).

It's not even that hard. Anything that moves electric charge creates an electric current, and any electric current creates a magnetic field. So, drop some charged particles in free fall, in a gravitational field (no electric field), and you have a current that will generate a magnetic field. The basic principle of dynamo theory, discovered well over 50 years ago now, is that rotational or turbulent motion of any electrically conducting fluid will generate a magnetic field. In astrophysical settings it's just this kind of thing that usually happens, a heated or shocked or accelerated plasma will generate magentic fields, without the intervention of a primary electric field. The magnetic field will then induce a secondary electric field, so things are exactly the opposite from what one would expect from the naive point of view.

It's not that simple. The EU hypothesis is far worse than you give it credit for being. The fact is that the EU hypothesis makes unambiguous, factual claims which observation shows to be false. it is also incompatible, not with some small subset of physics, but with virtually every known aspect of physics. in short, it is an horrendous idea. Just look at the mess they make of explain ing solar flares, by claiming that the arcs as seen, for instance, in TRACE images are electric fields insted of magnetic fields. But you can tell one from the other by spectroscopy quite readily (the magnetic Zeeman effect and the electric Stark effect). The results are that they are magnetic fields, which has been known for a long time. So, why are they still talking about electric fields? Beats me.

Hi Tim,

Aren't electrical forces much stronger (by orders of magnitude) than gravitational forces, especially when we consider charged particles with extremely low mass?

Well I think you summarise here what the EU model thinks is wrong in the standard view; everything is turned around.
Call it naive, but the EU model states that there are electric currents in space and these currents generate the magnetic fields.

That's why the EU model talks about electric fields. If there is anything fundamentally wrong with the EU model, it is exactly this notion: electric currents in space are responsible for most (if not all) the magnetic activity we see in plasmas in space.

To Blueshift (and anyone asking themselves where the electric energy that is powering stars can be found)
Recently is was shown that our galactic core shows an abundance of linear filaments that start or end on discrete sources or resolved shells. These are the structures the EU model calls Birkeland currents, feeding the sources with electric energy. These filamentary structures are ubiquitous, even galaxies are found in similar (but much larger) filamentary structures. These observations merit the study of the EU model.
There are many more things that are supportive of an EU view (like the "bright spots" on comet Wild2, or crater chains, or Io's "volcanoes", or enhanced aurora's watched by ancient people on Earth etc etc), so if there is evidence pointing towards the electrical nature of the Universe, is it not a good thing to gather all those pieces together and try to make a coherent model from it?

Whatever the details of the model (every model evolves), we shouldn't be too dismissive when we are still collecting the pieces of the puzzle. Tim, you asked for detailed descriptions, formulae and math when that is imo not the first priority. The first priority is to collect data and try to find patterns and try to build a coherent model. The EU people are seeing a pattern and are gathering the evidence, unfortunately for the people that are focussed on the mathematical approach (which you stated is the primary approach) plasmas are the "prime movers" in the EU model and plasmas are notoriously difficult to describe mathematically.
So at this moment there are only observations and patterns, maybe on a later point in time there will be mathematical models as well.
I have the idea (could be wrong) that there are more and more people actively trying to show the EU model has merit, we wil see how this develops. In the meantime I'm glad to be discussing these things, it helps focussing on the points that need to be addressed.

Cheers.

VanderL,

Thanks for the reply..

However, I still would need to see the electric force as displaying itself as the
most fundamental force..It doesn't appear to. Experiments in particle accelerators
don't support this at all. Quantum tunneling should not exist. Fusion should not
occur..Nothing should overcome this most fundamental force..

Maybe I'm mispicturing something here..It appears that mountains do not come from mole hills..The bright spot of Comet Wild 2 could be molecular gas like cyanogen that is changing from one state toward another as it gets closer toward the sun. Cyanogen is temperature sensitive and will change quantum states that
vary a great deal..It has vibrational states where the two nuclei change their
distances from each other as if they were attached by a spring. There are states
where the electron distances from the nuclei extend. There is a tumbling state where the nuclei tumble end over end at a family of distinct radio frequencies. As the comet approaches the sun, more numbers of cyanogen go into the rotational
state...yet some are still at optical wavelengths and this is what you may be observing..The whole cloud of cyanogen never stays in one state that I know of..

The gases being observed in our galaxy that you point out should be observed
in all galaxies..They should have been detected in other galaxies more easily
than in the MW.

How do you account for the stretching of gluon fields being able to produce pions?
This suggests that expansion...spatial expansion is more fundamental than the
electrical force..


During ancient times...
enhanced auroras could have been observed if a comet slammed into the moon,
leaving a cloud that would not have settled for months, driving much material
into our polar regions..The rising dust would have given the moon a very odd and
enlarged shape, frightening the ancients that witnessed it. This would be a better
reasoning for fearing the moon than the ridiculous crap about the change of phases
making the association of change with something to be feared...The ancients would have feared the Earth if change frightened them and they would have never been hunters/gatherers...They would have always been farmers..

Somehow, I need a bigger list than what you gave..I've come up with different
spatial expansion theories that had more data going than that and each one of
them I threw out the window...

Maybe I'm missing something..I just don't see it. I get the funny feeling you are trying to tell me that my old Heathkit courses I took through the mail were in touch with something Heath was unaware of..

blueshift

Hi Blueshift,

The "list" I mentioned is just a few points. If you like I could compile a list with more observations (with references where possible) so you can see for yourself, which of those make sense to you and which don't. Maybe it is better if I summarise the observations supporting the EU model than just linking to their websites?
I'll reply to your comments later (too busy now),

Cheers.

It is the EU which has its physics backwards, not the standard model. on the simple side, it is simply obvious, to anyone with a minimal education in physics, that electric currents can flow without being instigated by an electric field. It's just as I described, any force that moves a charged particle creates a current, which creates a magnetic field. It is from this obvious foundation that the more complicated physics of the dynamo theory arises. The theory has two strong points in its favor.

First, it makes sense. The idea that there is something "weak" about a theoretical or mathematical derivation, as opposed to an observation, is far too naive. Theoretical & mathematical developments are every bit as revealing and informative as any experiment, and the history of physics in particular, is well populated with profound discoveries that were entirely theoretical in conception, only to be verified later by observation. One should not underestimate the power of theoretical reasoning in mathematical physics.

Second, the theoretical concept of dynamo theory, which was actually based on engineering dynamos, has been confirmed by laboratory experiments, mostly using liquid metals. We now know as a matter of experimental fact that flowing electrically conducting fluid, in the absence of exterior fields, generates magnetic fields (as simple physics would suggest, since electric currents generate magnetic fields!).

Some relevant research paper references (in most cases the actual papers are unavailabe online):

• The Madison Dynamo Experiment
• Design of the Madison Dynamo Experiment
• Riga dynamo experiment and its mathematical background
• The Riga Dynamo Experiment
• Colloquium; Laboratory experiments on hydromagnetic dynamos
• The Karlsruhe Dynamo Experiment
• on the Mean Field Theory of the Karlsruhe Dynamo Experiment
• Laboratory experiments on the transition to MHD dynamos

And a few webpages (much harder to find) ...

• The Madison Dynamo Experiment
• The new Mexico alpha-omega Dynamo Experiment
• Magnetic Field Self-Excitation in the Riga Dynamo Experiment

The point is that dynamo action is both a theoretical & experimental success. One does not simply say that the standard model is "backwards" and leave it at that. Backwards, in fact, is the kind of lazy thinking which demands that magnetic fields are always secondary to electric fields, when it should be painfully obvious that this is not the case, and should not be the case, from simple theoretical considerations. The confirmation of this theory by experiment makes it quite a strong idea, consistent with both astronomical & laboratory observations.

But that is exactly what the standard model says, word for word, so you have yet to penetrate the difference between the two. Quite simply, the EU model demands physically unrealistic currents. Their claim is that the currents flow in space for the same reason that currents flow in your house wires, because of great cosmic batteries, or the equivalent thereof. On the other hand, the standard model looks towards the known forces & physics to generate the currents which then generate magnetic fields. The real difference therefore lies in the anticipated role of electric fields, not magnetic fields. According to the EU the electric fields (not currents) dominate the generation of magnetic fields, whereas in the standard model it is the magnetic fields which dominate the generation of electric fields.

The standard model looks backwards only to those who don't study physics, or don't understand it, because their approach is far too simplistic. As a matter of fact, the standard theory is very good at producing consistency with observation, which is the real test of any theory (of course, we realize that there is no such thing as a theory that is "right", only one that is either "consistent" or "inconsistent"). On consistency with observation, the standard model is by far the better, the EU failing crucial tests, such as the presence of strong electric fields on the sun. The EU also fails badly when compared to even simple physics. It is, in fact, quite a failure as theories go, and survives only because of the enthusiastic marketing of 5 or 6 people, most of whom have never cracked open a physics book in their lives. This is not impressive.

Au Revoir for now.

Hi Tim,

Again, thanks for the links (this thread is becoming a big plasma physics resource),

Yep! Guilty as charged.


True, but there is a real danger that the results of mathematical derivations are accepted as truths before the observations can be made, even if they are incorrect.

Interesting, you call the currents necessary for the EU model unrealistic, while at the same time the structures that are supposed to be carrying these currents can be found everywhere in the Universe. The article I linked to earlier is one of many examples where these filaments can be seen. Where there is smoke....?

Also, the standard model is struggling to explain some observations, like the solar cycle and the acceleration of the solar wind, which the EU model can explain quite simply. Btw the EU model states that there is a weak radial electric field "pervading" the solar system, the strong fields are only found in very small regions (double layers or sheaths).

I think there is something more to the EU model yhan electric fields, it starts with electric currents in space "pinching off" matter into dense objects (stars) and these stars dissipate the continuous input of electric energy depending on the amount of energy and the size/mass of the star.

So every star responds to its environment leading to the "zoo" of different objects we classify as stars. Variability is a given, where some stars show great variability (even explosive, leading to formation of new stars or planets by "fissioning") and others are relatively quiet (our Sun) and some are almost "switched off" (Brown dwarves, giant planets).

The model is indeed quite simple in it's basic assumption, but quite complex in it's details, because plasmas are inherently unstable and unpredictable entities.

I like to add that most of current physics is unchanged in a EU model (there is no need for new physics) only cause and effect can be different. Plus the realisation that most of the Universe (about 99.99%, I gather) is in the plasma state, which, as is abundantly clear from this discussion and the number of links you provided, is not very easy to study.

Cheers.

The most recent take on the electric cosmos thesis appears to be a book or series of books which is near release and seems to be a second edition of David Talbott's "Saturn Myth":

http://www.thunderbolts.info

Hah. The EU has no explanation for either phenomenon. The EU explanation for the acceleration of the solar wind is self contradictory, and no explanation at all is offered for the solar cycle, so far as I can see. The EU claim that the solar wind positive ions are accelerated by an electric field is self contradictory, because no electric field can accelerate both positive ions & negative electrons, in the same direction, at the same time.

The EU does state that there is a radial electric field strong enough to accelerate protons, and that statement is known to be false, for the same reason I gave just above. Such an electric field would separate the protons & electrons in the solar wind. Since they are not separated, it is a trivial matter to see that the presumed electric field cannot be there.

It's a nice story, but plasmas don't just "pinch" to see if they are dreaming. Something has to pinch them, and it has to pinch fairly hard on a hot plasma. What's doing the pinching, do they say that? If not, then it's just a bunch of meaningless buzzwords rammed together.

Another fairy tale. Plasmas are neither unstable nor unpredictable.

You should have linked to the abstract page instead of the pdf, so people can decide for themselves if they want to see the actual paper. In fact, the paper you linked to has no diagrams at all, because they would make it too big. The whole paper is 205 pages long, and requires a subscription to see before it's published in the Astrophysical Journal Supplement.

There are lots of filaments in the Galaxy, but there are lots of ways to get filaments without charged curent flow, especially in a turbulent plasma. But the EU "explanation" requires large non-neutral current flow, and that cannot be reconciled with physics at any level. non-neutral currents don't just "happen', they have to be caused, and constantly nutured. The EU offers no insight into the cause, so why should not the more ordinary explanations offered by standard physics be preferred? Even if the standard explanation is wrong at some level, it's s cinch that the EU is far worse, as explanations go.

And so ...

Not a chance that this can be true. The EU model is so strongly contradicted by physics (as well as by itself), that there can be no reconciliation. If the EU is true, than all of physics is very wrong, which seems unlikley for now.

So people keep saying, but that refers to the volume of the universe. If you consider the fraction by mass, or by a count of the number of particles, then its's probably 50-50. Stars are certainly mostly plasma, but the large majority of the mass of the interstellar medium is not. That appears to hold for the intergalactic medium as well, which sports abundant neutral hydrogen.

Aside from that, so what if the universe is 99.99% plasma? That only means that plasma physics has cosmological significance, which is already given. But it certainly does not mean that the EU is even remotely close to being a useful idea.

Hi Tim,

That was a lot of quoting again, I hope this is still readable.


Sure they do.

The solar cycle is the response of our Sun to the input provided by the current powering it. Apparently it is on an eleven year cycle, but this could change anytime. Every star is variable, their luminosity/activity depends on the amount of electrical input.

Is that really true in a plasma?
If positive ions are accelerated , would it be surprising if electrons are dragged along? And are these positive and negative charges moving in the same direction? What are the "temperatures" of the particles?

Here are some concise explanations of the EU model. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod-archive-...ation-space.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod-archive-...ctric-stars.htm

You could also look at this page about plasma cosmology
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html



See above.


Ha, plasmas do pinch, especially when they are aligned in Birkeland currents. The currents twine like ropes because they attract each other, particles are concentrated, changing the plasma density and this effect can lead to densities large enough to eventually become self-gravitating (stars, even galaxies).



Then why is it taking so long to get the fusion reactors to work?
They even name some of the phenomena plasma instabilities.


Sorry.

That is a matter of interpretation, the EU model sees currents, others see colliding plasmas and bow shocks.

Wel that’s exactly what is happening, these giant parsec-scale filaments are exactly the currents you say are missing.
Recognising currents is more than enough to build a model on. Are asking why there are currents in space? They just are, just like the Universe just is.

Because that question can’t be answered. Just like "Why does the Universe exist".

The EU model is not proposing new physics as I said, unlike "normal" physics where there has been a constant stream of new physical entities over the past decades, things like neutron stars, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, quark stars and whatnot.

And so ...

That is an overstatement, not all of physics is wrong if the EU model is correct, some aspects can be interpreted another way, leading to a very different cosmology.



You might be right on all counts except that there are some people genuinely convinced that there is enough reason to do serious research on a plasma cosmology. Whether this approach will lead to breakthroughs, only time will tell. But it deserves our attention. There is already a big shift in our view on space, it used to be an empty void, now it is a hard vacuum filled with plasma.

Cheers.

**Sorry, I was having trouble following this thread, so I've tried to make it a bit more readable. ****

I really don't have the time to try to address every possible aspect of plasmas, cosmology & the EU. Still, let me try to refocus on what seems to me to be by far the mot important point: Fundamentals. Don't get distracted by details, which might be equally well explained by one theory or another, and instead concentrate on the fundamental aspects which clearly distinguish one theory from another, or one hypothesis from another. That's how progress is made.

But we already know that there is no such current, no such input power, a point I have made repeatedly. That by itself renders this "explanation" as somewhat pointless. Why even consider such a thing, in light of that knowledge? This is a fundamental failure, which clearly separates the standard explanation from the EU. The EU relies on the perpetual myth of "input", and not on any known fact, to explain the most basic behavior of "electric stars" (see my own webpages On the Electric Sun Hypothesis and On Electric Stars for lots of details; yes, I know they could probably use an update, but I don't have lots of time for that). On the other hand, the standard model relies only on known basic physics, and some reasonable extrapolations therefrom, and the standard model is strongly consistent with observation. in this contest it's a no-brainer, the standard model wins easily. Fundamentals directly falsify the EU hypothesis. Why is it so hard to admit the facts? What is so magic about the EU hypothesis that any consideration that it might be false is so intolerable?

Why "in a plasma"? Fundamental physics is the same in a plasma as it is outside a plasma. It is very basic, freshman physics we are dealing with here. Any applied electrostatic field absolautely must, under all conditions, accelerate oppositely charged particles in opposite directions. It would be extremely surprising (actually, impossible) for electrons to be dragged along by positive ions (or vice versa). It's easy enough to see why. Just look at it from the point of view of Joe Electron in the ion sea. As Joe looks around, he sees positive ions in front, pulling hime forward. But he also sees positive ions in back, pulling him in the opposite direction. And likewise up, down right, left, & etc. But he also sees lots of other electrons, and they are pulling/pushing oppositely from the positive ions, and they are moving, just like the positive ions, they have just as much charge as the positive ions, so where would the net force come from anyway? The EU hypotheis rests on a postulate that viollates the laws of physics, namely that the solar wind particles are accelerated by an electrostatic field. It is a fundamental flaw that sets the EU apart from the standard. After all, does it not make sense to first consider explanations that do not violate the laws of physics, and only when they have all failed, to consider those that do (and therefore establish new laws of physics)?

On the other hand, the standard theory recognizes that you can accelerate electrons & protons together, in the same direction, with magnetic waves in a plasma (Alfven knew this, and that's why one class of such waves are called "Alfven waves"). Once again, the standard theory relies on what we know, not what we wish. The overused excuse that the standard theory cannot explain the acceleration of the solar wind, or the heating of the corona, is deceptive at best. The reality is that there are so many different ways to do it, and the environment so complicated, that we can't be sure which one or few of the possible explanations are responsible (for a relatively recent review, see The heating of the solar corona, R.W. Walsh & J. Ireland, Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews 12(1): 1-41, December, 2003).

Once again the EU model fails a fundamental test, while the standard theory passes the same test, namely the reliance on physics over myth.

And to answer the other questions, yes, the electrons & ions of the solar wind travel in the same direction, side by side. I don't know the temperature, though one could figure it out.. The temperature will by directly proportional to the speed, which is roughly 800 km/sec for the fast solar wind, and 300 km/sec for the slow solar wind. I see temperatures varying from 10,000 to 1,000,000 Kelvins. If I am not mistaken, the electrons in the solar wind are faster, being less massive (Solar Wind).

They are not very useful, offering excuses not explanations. I was particularly amused by the one that identifies the Cat's Eye Nebula as a aupernova remnant, when it is actually a planetary nebula. The webpage authors seem to know surprisingly little about astronomy.

One shouild not confuse fundamental physics with practical engineering. A contained fusion plasma has to have a temperature around 5,000,000 Kelvins, preferably higher. Its's no easy engineering task to pull that off, regardless of the predictability, or lack thereof, of the basic plasma. That's why.

As for the instabilities, that's my lack of clear communication. I was thinking in terms of predictability. Plasmas do suffer numerous kinds of instabilities; the two-stream instability is the most basic. But the conext in which I read your message was one of being unstable in an unpredictable manner. Plasma instabilities are predictable, meaning you can know in advance when a plasma will be stable or unstable, and use that knowledge to your advantage. Indeed, plasma fusion in an engineering environment would be night onto impossible, if we were not helped along by some useful and predictable instabilities. I hope that makes things a tad more clear.

And regarding filamentary structures ...

Nonsense, of courst the question can be answered, and the standard model does exactly that, describing numerous ways of getting filamentary structures, sometimes via plasma instabilities (it is not true that the standard model ignores plasma physics in the formation of filamentary structures), and sometimes without. But the "explanations" offered by the EU do nothing more than hide the real explanation behind an extra level of complication. Hence the webpage you referred to, where they simply start with a universe full of separated charges, and completely ignore the question of how the charges got separated. That is about as unacceptable an approach to science as any I can think of. There is no such thing as a question that should not be asked; it isn't the question that starts trouble, it's the answer that does that.

I would also like to point out that "plasma cosmology" and the "electric universe" hypothesis are not the same thing, and should not be confused, one for the other. The EU hypothesis is a nonsensical fairly tale, like the joke about stars being some kind of plasma "pinch". You won't find that explanation in any plasma cosmology that I am aware of, primarily because real plasma cosmologists know enough physics to avoid that kind of silliness.

That's all the time I have. I hope the peanut gallery is sufficiently entertained. I really don't have the time to post as often as I would like to. Cheers to all.

yes, us peanuts are fine!

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

Care to tell why you're entertained?

Hi Tim,

Sorry to take up so much of your time, everything (well almost everything) you contribute is much appreciated.

The EU and Plasma Cosmology are indeed not quite the same, but only in including the idea of an Electric Star model. Plasma cosmology starts with Birkeland currents creating whole galaxies, the EU model is a "logical" (to some at least) extension of this, although apparently it has been disproven many times already.
The EU model also includes many "local phenomena", like weather systems, comet tails and planetary scarring and a whole lot more.
You say that the EU model is fundamentally flawed, if so, the same would apply to the Plasma Model, don't you agree?

I'll try to find out if this is indeed the case, both the postulate and the flaw. I thought the EU model was about discharging double layers.

I don't know if you have time to look at these papers, the first argues that the Sun is better explained as a liquid plasma.

Sun as a liquid plasma

We also agreed that magnetic fields and electric fields are connected (you can't have one without the other..), apparently magnetic fields can be found everywhere even on the largest scales.

This other article tries to explain why these fields are there and where they come from, in the BB model we either need to hypothesize "relic" fields (created during the period of "inflation" which is something unprovable, imo), or they are somehow created by stars and galaxies. In the Plasma model it is just the other way around, the filaments and fields create the galaxies and stars.

Magnetic fields in clusters of galaxies

Cheers.

VanderL: You say that the EU model is fundamentally flawed, if so, the same would apply to the Plasma Model, don't you agree?[/quote]

I do, but plasma cosmology is more subtle than the EU. Rather than rely on gross exaggerations, and impossible scenarios, as does the EU, plasma cosmology suffers from the weaknes of overestimating the force of space plasma in establishing large scale structures. Plasma cosmology is a relic of the 50's & 60's, when cosmology was far more speculative than it is now. At that time, the argument between the steady state and big bang cosmologies was even, and Alfven enetered the fray with his own cosmology based on plasma physics, which was not accidently, his field of expertise.

But today we know a lot more about cosmology & plasma physics than was the case 40 or 50 years ago. Both plasma cosmology & the steady state have fallen by the wayside, due to their inability to stand up to both observation & theory. Both are now supported only by small groups, who keep the argument alive, but are unable to make much headway in building consistent, confident theories.

The discussion is confuse by the fact that plasma physics really is important in understanding much of what happens in the interstellar medium, and really is heavily involved in mainstream astrophysics & cosmology. The notion that the mainstream ignores plasma in any way is quite wrong. The main difference between the mainstream & plasma cosmology is the difference in the role that plasma processes play in establishing large scale structure, and the argument that redshifts induced by plasma processes can eliminate the expanding universe interpretation of cosmological redshifts, and therefore eliminate the need for a "bang". But the appeal to plasma is physically weak, and the need to eliminate the "bang" is purely philosophical, not based on any strong observatioal evidence.

A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun. The associated web article says it was submitted to the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science on 5/2/2003, but it was posted to the archive on Oct 4, 2004 and has not yet been published beyond that, so far as I can tell. It is long, but I did look through it and find it quite unconvincing. The major weakness is that helioseismology is virtually ignored. There is only one small paragraph, and there Robitaille emphasizes the difficulties with helioseismology in the tenuous, low density layers of the upper photosphere, where one would expect it to be weak in any case. But he completely ignores the fact that the helioseismologically derived sound speed, as a function of depth in the sun, is altogether incompatible with his solar model. He claims the solar internal density is invariable with depth, but that would require a constant sound speed with depth, which helioseismology strongly rules out. Robitaiile also claims that nuclear fusion would be allowed throughout the body of the sun in his molde, because of the constant density. But nuclear fusion depends on temperature, not density, and his claim would require the sun to have a surface temperature on the order of 10,000,000 Kelvins instead of about 6,000 Kelvins. In fact, his entire assumption of a "classical" liquid sun will not stand up to high temperature at all. This makes the solar interior in reality, a hybrid "liquid-gas", very dense, but also very compressible, because the high temperature preculdes classical incompressibility (Robitaille ignores the importance of the photon bath).

I think this one goes nowhere fast. And also note that there are only two simple equations to be seen. There is no attempt to justify any of the physical assumptions with any physical model, or any physical calculations. Until that part of the job is forthcoming, it's just a hypothetical story, and one that already has big problems.

Magnetic Field in Clusters of Galaxies. This one actually says litle about the origin of magnetic fields, and talks mostly about how magnetic fields are measured. The standard explanation, that magnetic fields are generated in stars, and/or perhaps in the intragalactic plasma is not controversial. The generation of relic magnetic fields during inflation might be more controversial, but is not unreasonable. I consider the plasma cosmology explanation, as you say it, "... the filaments and fields create the galaxies and stars" to be backwards. To create galaxies & stars by purely plasma processes requires extremely strange physics. But to create them by standard means (gravitation & turbulence) is not only not extreemely strange, but practically unavoidable. It is the "obvious" way, and it certainly seems to work just fine. Why bother with the complications of plasma cosmology, many of which do not reach beyond the realm of speculation at all?

__________________
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

Hi Tim,

Thanks for commenting on the linked articles, you may be right on the liquid plasma model of the Sun, but if he is right, helioseismology is in big trouble. I do have a few other points:

Sorry, but I think current cosmology is even more speculative now than it was then. There's a lot of novel stuff in modern cosmology that is unproven and highly speculative (dark matter, dark energy, inflation, string theory and lots of other stuff). I know that in your view there is only one possible cosmology, but it has it's major problems, just like any other model. If you say that plasma cosmology has fallen by the wayside, I must note that more things belong in that category, like common sense. I still find it hard to believe that the work of Halton Arp is not cause to investigate in much more detail one of the cornerstones of Big Bang cosmology, the redshift/distance relation.


Not controversial but maybe incorrect, it takes a lot of hypothetical processes to generate filamentary magnetic structures when there is no star or galaxy anywhere near; we're talking intergalactic space as well.


That's really the crux of the matter, you're right that something is backwards, imo it's just a matter of viewpoint. The "extremely strange physics" needed for a plasma based cosmology is very much wrong (no new physics is actually needed) and you should compare it to the already strange proposals that are thought up already (quark stars, "neutronium" or whatever I should call it, gravity waves, and all the stuff I mentioned above). Maybe you haven't noticed but there are a lot of people questioning the validity of Big Bang cosmology and one of the alternative models is a plasma or EU model. I don't think a big leap is necessary, only a re-evaluation of already existing models.

Cheers.

I think this obviously cannot be true, for the simple reason that we know a great deal more now than we did 50 years ago, and knowledge invariably constrains speculation. We know, for instance, that there is a genuine, truly thermal, cosmic background radiation, which was n ot know to exist 50 years ago (it was a "speculation" of big bang cosmology). We know what large scale structure looks like, thanks to such projects as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and several other large area sky suveys. These observations, and others, strongly constrain cosmological speculation.

String theory is known to be speculative, and is in fact not part of main stream cosmology (it is, rather, a "working hypothesis" on quantum gravity, one of many such hypotheses being studied by several groups; loop quantum gravity is more popular than strings). Inflation is a standard tool in cosmology because it solves problems that appear in an over simplified big bang cosmology. I would say that it is no more speculative than is cosmology itself (which is obviously & necessarily speculative at all levels). But dark matter & dark energy are not speculative at all, if one accepts an expanding universe cosmology. They are in fact necessary consequences of that theory. Why would you think they are any more "speculative" than cosmology itself?

It is, and it has been done already. The argument was hammered out in the astronomical community over several years, some 30 years ago. It's all old news now. Arp's work is unconvincing. Most of his alleged redshift anomalies have long since been shown to be not anomalous. There are a few well known examples of remaining anomalous objects, and they are under study. But you don't seem to understand what the redshift - distance relationship really is all about. Things that are farther away, look smaller & dimmer, right? Hubble knew that, and he came upo with the redshift - distance relationship when he proved that smaller & dimmer galaxies had biger redshifts. That has not changed. And add to it, that rough surfaces look smoother, fart away (this is the surface brightness fluctuation tool for relative galactic distances). That one correlates with distance too.

So it's not that simple. You can't just abandon the redshift - distance relation on a whim, without also abandoning every common sense notion you ever had about distance. If there is no relation between redshift & distance, then why is there a relation between redshift and every direct distance indicator that we know? That's a serious problem for alternative cosmologists to explain. But they never bother, and Arp doesn't either.

Actually, we are talking about the space between individual galaxies, but inside galaxy clusters, and in the regions between clusters that define the large scale structure of the universe. We are not talking about space far removed from galaxies.

The "extremely strange physics" remark was directed at the EU, not plasma cosmology in general (although plasma cosmologists engage in far more speculative scenarios than any "mainstream" cosmologist). In general, I do not doubt that new physics is essential for all versions of plasma cosmology; they simply fail the test, when ever they meet physics face to face.

What's strange about gravitational waves (pedantic aside: a "gravity wave" is a pressure wave in an atmosphere, a "gravitational wave" is a wave of gravitational field; nobody ever gets it right, but I like to gripe about it anyway, since I have worked in both fields)? And who says gravitational waves are responsibler for filamentary structure? And i have no idea what neutronium is supposed to refer to, unless maybe you don't think there are any neutron star either?

__________________
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

Hi Tim,

It is beyond this topic, but the failings of the Big Bang model are also reason to look further.
Big Bang cosmology has been painting itself in a corner for some time now, there are plenty of reasons to doubt the validity of this theory.
Let me list a few:

1. Time dilation
In supernovae it is seen as proof of expanding space, it is contested now because the methods used to show time dilation are faulty. When properly reduced the data show no time dilation (Jensen).
No time dilation in quasar variability has been found (Hawkins).
Also in quasars the "Transverse Proximity Effect" has been shown to be absent, so quasars are not distant objects.

2. WMAP data
This is always heralded as the big success of BB, the Cosmic Microwave Background can only be explained by the BBT. Recently is became clear that there is an asymmtry between the Northern and Southern hemisphere CMB. It seems we are again viewing the universe from a special place (like the "Fingers of God" and shells of galaxies in the structure of the Universe, also an indication something is out of whack).

3. Galaxy evolution
It was expected that the deepest images would show evidence of galaxy evolution, but high metallicity and mature galaxies are found extremely close to the "beginning".

4. Inflation
This untestable event must have happened otherwise the BBT is wrong, I find it difficult to believe that astronomers are happily living with an untestable parameter in their cosmological model, and confidently saying other models are wrong because they suppose "new physics".

5. Gravitational Waves
These were hypothesized from the calculations of Einsteins formulae and every billion dollar experiment to verify their existence has come up empty, euphemistically explained away as "new contraints".

6. Dark Matter/Energy
You say that dark matter and dark energy are logical if the redshift/distance relation is true. No evidence of what this dark matter could be has been found thusfar, how many dark matter candidates must be disproven before we accept there is something wrong with our model?
Dark energy see point 1, no time dilation no need for accelerated expansion.

7. Redshift controversy
If there's only 1 quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy, it would invalidate this assumption and all the other assumptions have to be re-evaluated.


Having said this, space could still be expanding, I'm not sure it will invalidate the concept, but a lot of things just don't add up. For me it is clear that an alternative (or a major adaption) to the standard model is needed. Imo the plasma/EU model is a promising candidate, and it needs a lot more to become a contender, but at the moment I don't see anything better.
If String theory can be an acceptable way forward for mainstream science, why not the Plasma/EU model. It doesn't take new physics of any kind only a new way of interpreting the data. If any predictions can be experimentally or observationally verified, why not spend fundings for those proposals as well. Contrary to what you seem to think, I see no harm in searching for truth in these alternatives.

Cheers.

These large-scale structures are based on the redshift/distance correlation, it could look different from what we think now, although I believe that filaments will be found on all scales.

There could still be a redshift /distance relation, only not based on expanding space. Space isn't empty and an "attenuation factor" can be derived from it. Maybe this attenuation will give a redshift, and on top of that an additional intrinsic component as proposed by Arp et al.

I'm drifting from the topic though, I went over the thread again and I have a question: somewhere in this thread you said that you don't want to comment on specific examples (when I asked about the "bright spots" on Comet Wild2). Did you mean that as a general approach (known physics first, phenomenology later) or do you only apply this to alternatives for current models.
I think observations are always more important than models, from specific examples we can sometimes learn something about the models, that would otherwise go unnoticed.



Cheers.

A few minutes to spare for semi-random response, in whatever order I think of them ...

This maybe the most important point in the whole thread, so I want to do this first. My point is simple: When in doubt, always retreat to the fundamentals and start with what you know. Any hypothesis that contradicts the fundamentals should always be assumed to be wrong. Therefore, anyone who advances an hypothesis which does contradict the fundamentals, must first & foremost explain, either why the fundamentals are wrong (they could be of course), or why the contradiction is only an appearance of contradiction, but not in reality. Failing that, the hypothesis should be abandoned and/or ignored. There is a simple reason for this. We all have limited personal resources to devote to anything, and I won't waste my time on ideas not deserving of the work it takes to understand them. There are plenty of things to do.

On the matter of observations, I will not agree that they are always "more important", but i will agree that they are always definitive, in that the universe is in reality what it is observed to be, not what it is theorized to be. But some observations are "more important" than others. Those are the observations which enable the distinction between competing hypotheses or theories, and the observations which more clearly illiustrate the role played by fundamentals in any phenomenon. The point about the spots on Wild2 is that they are "spots", and cannot be distinguished as anything beyond that. What they are is pure speculation, they have nothing to do with fundamentals, and they do not enable any distinction between competing hypotheses. So, it is a waste of time & effort to dwell on them. Now, suppose instead we were to observe a lightning bolt arc from the comet and across its tail. Now that would be a far more important and useful observation, immediately illustrating the role of electromagnetism in the comet, and enabling a distinction between the ideas of comets as "electric" and "non-electric". But we don't see that yet. Indeed, I can think of no such enabling observation that has been made.

What's "euphemistic" about it? Theory predicts gravitational waves, and there is sound, albeit indirect observationl evidence for such waves. General relativity predicts that close binary pulsars will radiate energy in the form of gravitational aves, and that this loss of energy will manifest itself as a change in the rotation rate of the binary system. The changes have been observed in at least one binary pulsar system, and the magnitude of the change in orbital periods is as predicted by general relativity. We have simply not been able to build an instrument, as yet, which could measure the gravitational waves that are predicted from theory. The current crop of gravitational wave detectors is also too insensitive for the task (or so I think, but next week the director of Caltech's LIGO Laboratory will talk about this for the Los Angeles Astronomical Society, we'll see what he has to say). You make it sound as if there is some pro gravitational wave conspiracy, but it's just a matter of engineering the right stuff.

Since when is there a time limit on scientific investigations? Is the Greek concept of atoms invalid, simply because it took observational scientists a few thousand years to see them? How long it takes to find dark matter particles is not decisive to the argument. Indeed the evidence can be overwhelming, even if they are never found, so I think you raise a point that is not so important.

What we observe is that galaxy rotation, and the motion of galaxies in clusters, is not consistent with the idea that all of the graviting matter is luminous, if Newtonian gravity is valid (the effect does not require general relativity to be considered). So, either there is dark matter, or Newtonian gravity is wrong. The proponents of MOND, although in the minority, make an interesting case for an extension or modification to the Newtonian equations. But the assumption that there is extra, non-luminous ("dark") matter is far simpler and more prosaic. If MOND fails, and another hypothesis is not forthcoming, then there is dark matter, and it matters not whether or not the particles are ever found.

As for the quasar in front of a galaxy, it's easy enough to see that it is a "microquasar", one of the smaller local relatives of the cosmological beasts. It's X-ray luminosity as reported by the authors is roughly 100,000 solar luminosities, which is a lot, but hardly cosmic (Alnilam, the massive main sequence star in the center of Orion's belt shines 375,000 times brighter than the sun). We know from direct observation that cosmological quasars are at large distances, and therfore are far larger & more energetic than their local cousins. But Arp et al. are unable ever to be wrong, so they essentially make stuff up for the heck of it (in my opinion) and simply don't know (or care) what they are talking about.

Au Revoir.

__________________
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

Not to belabour the point (or maybe to belabour it! , this paragraph succinctly sets out what I have been trying to say in a number of threads involving the EU theory in general, and especially the website devoted to the photographs they rely on in expousing this theory.

The problem with relying on some optically unusual item in a photograph is that one can only speculate on what it might be. Without some other means to determine what the oddity actually is, it becomes simply that--an oddity.

An excellent example of this is Hoagland's face on Mars. He hooked onto an oddity, an unusual feature in a single photograph, and turned it into vehicle for fame (or perhaps more precisely, infamy). The was no science behind his claims, there remains no science behind it now, but because he was able to get attention for the oddity, the reality no longer matters. That is why he has been labled a psuedoscientist--there is no "real" behind his claims.

I see the exact same arguments from the bulk of the EU people. "you can't explain this odd-looking thing, so there must be something wrong with physics, or you must be hiding something". It is an unwinnable circular argument that is not worth the time of most busy researchers/scientists to refute.

__________________
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~

Completely wrong deduction. Firstly, they can be distinguished as anything beyond "spots". Read the material provided by the NASA/JPL team.
1. They are real.
2. They are connected to the jets.
3. They throw a shadow.
4. They were totally unexpected.

And secondly, since they were totally unexpected from the current theories, what's wrong in looking for explanations outside the current theories. They open the possibility of another model.

What is important here is that these images provide new evidence, of course we need to interpret the findings, it'll take more detailed studies (as always). What I hear from you is that they are useless for scientific purposes, then why send probes if you don't want to use the images. I don't think you are fully aware of the implications here. What you seem to be saying is that everything we imaged on Mars, or any other place, is useless for scientific purposes. You seem to think it is all pure speculation on what they mean. That's just not true, that would mean that the volcanoes on Io are pure speculation for example, and that could mean that electrical discharges on Io are an equally possible explanation.

All progress starts with asking questions and looking for patterns. Sometimes imaging is the only tool we have. We start by looking with our eyes, nowadays aided by the most powerful magnification techniques, and interpret what we see. The EU model is not a fullfledged model, it is in the descriptive phase.

What you are asking for is evidence that would confirm your version on what an electrical comet should look like. We have to deal with reality, so we need to look at all possible angles to understand what we see.

There is evidence that binaries spiral inwards, but the billion dollar experiments proving the theory came up empty. Coming up empty was not expected, what is happening now is that the technology is blamed: "constraints" driven by observation, not by predictions. Maybe gravitational waves don't exist. It looks like the dark matter chase; expensive with no results to show. This line of research is not wrong in itself, but there must also be a balance to look for different explanations, which is lacking.

No, it think it is strange that the "engineering" is the problem, if the theory was correct, we would be able to calculate exactly what sensitivity was needed, we haven't been able to get it right in at least three tries, is the theory correct?

Duane, the face on Mars is a good example, it only took more detailed imaging to lay the story to rest. What's wrong with that? Things like that happen, and if you want to compare the EU model with the Face on Mars, that's rout opnion, I think there is more to the EU model, but is certainly needs testing.

All they say is "look at this example, isn't there a better explanation?". You are not convinced by the EU explanations, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

That's not your job, just let others do that work, but don't jump to conclusions and keep an open mind for new possibilities

Cheers.