I thought I'd start this thread to help debunk some of the false claims of http://electric-cosmos.org/

There's also a topic similar to this at the Bad Astronomy forum:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7897

Kashi

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Tim Thompson is a physicist at JPL and has written some very good papers on why the electric cosmos is not an acceptable theory for the mysteries of the cosmos.

I have posted a couple sites on other threads, but they bare repeating here too.
About the electric sun,

HR diagram and steller evoution, and

Why Venus is not a new planet.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

after reading the articles kindly supplied by kashi and tinaa I am becoming less convinced of the electric universe and am no longer convinced that venus is a young planet.

These theories seem to bad science as Tim Thompson stated in the article that Tinaa supplied - this is dangerous to learning and dangerous to education also. :angry:

Thank you for clearing up the dilemma for me....so the odd socks remain a mystery, Kashi?

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

I never thought that Venus was a young planet... that makes no sense to me...

__________________
"The stars are my home"
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion... I've watched c-beams glitter in the dark, near the Tanhauser Gate... all those moments will be lost, in time... like tears in the rain..."

The Venus part comes from a thread in the Questions and Answers section about retrograde Venus. It was argued that Venus must be new because of its slow and backwards spin, temperature, orbit and relative lack of cratering on its surface. Just trying to cover the topics that have been discussed in the forum.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Thanks people,
I have read Tim's debunking of the Electric model, and the main reason he doesn't believe in it (besides the fact that the proponenets of the electric model don't depict the Standard Model the way it should), is because no electrons have been found streaming towards the Sun. On the other hand Thornhill and Scott tell us that those electrons have low energy and are easily missed unless we specifically look for them. I have also seen the the threads in BA and there are a lot of points undiscussed. I can't see the danger in trying to find out if an electric model describes the Universe better, but I hope you don't mind if I'll carry on discussing.
Cheers.

At the risk of sounding like a moron

I was wondering how is it possible for electrons to flow between such widely spaced particles in the wider universe?

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

You're no moron to ask this question, it's exactly the heart of the matter.
Do electric currents flow in space? And the answer to that must be yes.

This is how I understand what the electric model is about:
There are currents flowing through space; they are called Birkeland currents. For a long time space was considered to have an aether, after Einstein space was considered a empty void, now space is known to have particles and should be considered a plasma; exactly this property is where the current theories and the electric model differ. The Standard model needs a power source from the stars that is capable of ionizing atoms, thus explaining how these particles are formed (like the solar wind). In an electric model it happens exactly the other way around; vast expanses of space flowing with electric currents form into Birkeland ropes (helically formed shapes that attract to each other magnetically) that can accumulate matter (charged and neutral as well) into concentrations needed to form stars (called the Z-pinch effect). These concentrations work as a kind of anode to the existing current and electrons flow towards the star, powering the star and the star dissipates the energy outward in an electrical circuit. Plasma self-organizes into double layers, you can find these double layers close to the Sun (corona) and there is one somewhere outside Pluto's orbit (also known as the Sun's magnetosphere or heliosphere). These double layers are the boundaries where the electrical charge is exchanged. Every star will have these features, but depending on the amount of current (current density) in the vicinity of the star and it;s mass, the star will behave differently. Like an electric circuit a star will have it's own "frequency" to dissipate energy, some stars have a low frequency (our Sun's frequency seems to be eleven years). When the density is low, there almost no discharge and the star will look like (is) a brown dwarf. Higher densities will make the plasma glow and all the known normal stars can be found, when the density is even higher, the star will have trouble to accomodate the charge and will start to behave differently. It can "fission" and thus creating a larger surface which will lead to the formation of planets or, when the stress is higher, a nova resulting in a new star and so on. There's whole lot more but this post is long enough already.
Cheers.

A question to Tinaa and Kashi, why call this thread the debunking of the electric model, I'm not trying to debunk it, merely trying to find out if there is truth to find in this model.
Cheers.

So you're saying the reason no electrons have been found streaming towards the sun is because we haven't been looking hard enough.

According to you they ARE there (even though we can't see them), because of a theory that says they should be!

I find this very hypocritical, not to mention the fact that it goes against basic scientific method. To quote the very page that you seem to promote religiously (http://electric-cosmos.org):

Notice how it didn't say "fabricate theory" then explain why observations of nature are wrong?

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Sorry, but I'm not the the person who wrote the website (and I try to think for myself, so I don't have to agree with evrything that is written about the electric model) and I'm not the guy who designs the different space programs and measurements. I may be stupid to think this model has merits, but it is certainly no religion to me. I do find it a very interesting model, and whether it's true or not worth the trouble of discussing it. And about the electrons flowing towards the Sun, the other half of the matter, positive particles streaming away, has been shown to exist.
Cheers.

No, you're not the person who wrote the website. Does this mean that you disagree with the fundamental scientific method outlined there?

__________________
Climate Change Australia

I think the fundamental scientific method is not a simple list of what-if-thens and rules. But I do think that models and theories need to be falsifiable, so if the electric model is falsifiable by showing that there are no electrons flowing towards the Sun, then I have to accept it as proof that it doesn't work that way. Does that answer you question?
Cheers.

Sounds like those mysterious electrons are not there! Why does the solar wind contain both positive and negative ions? The negative ones are supposed to be heading in, not out!

Here is another site to check out. Read it carefully. He step by step shows how the electric universe theory goes against all physics.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Sorry Tinaa, the link doesn't work (for me at least), about the particles that constitute the solar wind, what I gather is that the poles of the Sun are the point where the electrons enter (I have to check this) and the equator is where the + ions are released (net positive charge, so overall the charges are +, but negative charges can also exist).
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
Here is the page where the electric circuit of the Sun is explained complete with diagrams, but I'm not sure if it answers your question.
Cheers.

Theories should come AFTER initial observations and NOT before. They must not only be falsifiable, but actually be based on evidence (rather than forumulated and the propped up by one or two observations). This is where real science differs from pseudoscience.

Tinaa's link works fine for me now that she has edited her post.

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Well, I have a lot of reasons, but that's a big one. On this count Thornhill & Scott are not just wrong, they are really wrong. In fact, the claim is insanely inane. The "energy" that counts in the detection of an electron (or any other particle) is the energy of the collision between the detector and the electron. So, for the energy of the electron to be "too low" for the detector, then the speed of the electron needs to be very nearly the same as the speed of the detector (which is the speed of the spacecraft). But the spacecraft all orbit the sun, so they all vary in velocity as they move about in orbit. The Ulysses spacecarft, which explored the polar reagions of the sun for the first time, typically goes about 30 km/sec at perihelion (1 AU), and about 8 km/sec at apahelion (5 AU). In order to be undetectable, the electrons would have to mimic the orbit of the spaceraft, by the purest of acidents, as they fall into the sun (and must do this for several spaceraft simultaneously in different places and different orbits). This seems an unlikely event. And if the electrons are low energy, i.e. nearly at rest, with respect to the sun, then they must have a considerable (and detectable) velocity with respect to the spacecraft & detector. The whole argument just makes no common sense at all.

This does not describe what we actually know about the solar wind. In the equatorial region, where Earth and all the pre-Ulysses spacecraft hang out, we have a great deal of observational data extending over decades from a host of spacecraft, and we know that the solar wind consists of electrons, protons and a smattering of larger positive ions, all fleeing the sun at pretty much the same speed. It is hard to imagine that any incoming stream of charged particles could survive passage through that plasma (about 5-10 particles per cubuc centimeter at 1 AU) to reach the sun. As for the poles, we know from the Ulysses data that the solar wind over the poles looks much the same as it does around the equator; electrons, protons & positive ions leaving the sun at about the same speeds. Nary a hint of anything incoming.

The only circuit model on that page is the one for a sunspot, near the bottom of the page. Since Scott is an electrical engineer, one would think he would be a tad embarrased to have his name attached to something quite so silly. See the diagram has a dotted line on it, that traces out the same kind of arch as the TRACE image shows. The dotted line runs along the current path, which means it has to be parallel to the electric field that accelerates the current. Now look at the trace image, and you can see the lines that are lit up by the confined plasma. But plasma is confined by a magnetic field, and ripped apart by an electric field, so the lines seen in the TRACE image can only be magnetic field lines (an obvious fact that can also be verified by remote measurement of the magnetic field strength via Zeeman splitting). If there were such a circuit as diagrammed involved in all this, then the magnetic field lines would wrap around the current like a solenoid. But the TRACE image clearly shows that this does not happen. The magnetic field lines in the TRACE image form the arch in parallel, which is physically inconsistent with the circuit. This is all pretty basic stuff, anybody with a background in physics or EE should really not make a mistake that simple.

Now take a peak at the Laboratory simulation of solar prominences webpage, from Caltech's Bellan Plasma Group. There are several links to collections of images of simulated solar prominences, for instance the Sequence of photos of simulated prominences taken with high speed camera. They show the same basic structure as the TRACE images, and all generated by the same kind of plasma processes thought to be responsible for solar prominences & flares. The chief point here is that "standard theory" & "standard experiment" both provide reasonable explanations for "standard observation". There is no "problem" here, that requires the intervention of some new model for the sun, to rescue anything. This is aside from the fact that the circuit diagram given on the electric cosmos page certainly seems to contradict even very basic electromagnetics.

I am a big fan of encouraging original thinking. But not all original thoughts lead far from home. The champions of the electric cosmos just happen to be wrong. It is not a matter of closed minded scientists being too scared to leave the established path. It is a matter of the electric universe folks just getting in over their heads and not being able to deal with it.

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

Ladies and Gentlemen-
The forum for discussions such as this is the "established" scientific literature- the refereed literature. While we are all experiencing the joy of the Internet, it is certainly not yet the place for "honest" science to be debated. Most of the discussions such as the one I am jumping in on appear to be initiated for some hidden agenda rather than to further real debate or discussion. Often the originator of the item becomes very defensive whenever anyone expresses opposed viewpoints (see so-called Arnold's Law discussions infecting various groups).

In any event, rational discussion requires, or rather is facilitated by, lucid communication. I have yet to see this in discussions of the sort referred to here.

With all due respect,
MH

Thankyou very much for your contributions Tim! Nonsensical theory doesn't even hold up to the good ol' "right hand palm rule" that one learns in high school physics.

ExAstro, the agenda of this topic was by no means hidden. With nearly 1500 members, some of them are bound to have some wacky ideas. After seeing psuedoscientific nonsense invade other forums, we thought that starting a topic like this and inviting experts in the field to participate in discussions was the best way to deal with things. If you have any other suggestions feel free to let myself or any of the moderators hear them!

Kind regards,

Kashi

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Hmm, would that apply to neutrino oscillations and dark matter as well?
Ok Kashi, you made it very clear to me that you have very strong feelings towards the electric model (whacky, nonsensical, pseudoscientific nonsense). I don't mind discussing a model that is eventually proven wrong, but I think there is no need to shout (the rules should also apply to moderators, no?). If, like Tim states, the model is wrong, based on the fact that the Sun is not electrically powered, so be it. I don't mind admitting I presumed wrong, but as you might have guessed I'm not totally convinced yet (being stubborn helps me with that). The data that are used to explain the Universe around us need interpretations, and that's where culture, human nature and assumptions come in. exAstro you are right that these discussions should be done in peer-reviewed journals, although publishing your data, interpretations and models is not a simple task. Even the peer-review system is not infallible (cold-fusion) and besides I'm not looking forward to see theories vindicated years after the people proposing them have died. So, basically I'm impatient and use this forum as a "shortcut" to find things out.
Tim, I know you have been debating the electric model with Thornhill for some time and I agree that if the Sun is powered electrically we need to see the electrons. Not being able to find them, doesn't mean they are not there, as you say it seems unlikely, but hey, we've heard stranger things being claimed.
ExAstro, what is this Arnold's Law you mentioned, I hope this is not one of those discussions.
Suppose, against all odds that we do find the electrons flowing towards the Sun, can I start a new thread vindicating the Electric model?
Cheers.