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.

__________________
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

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.

I actually agree with you Kashi that the electric universe theory does not hold much merit... But I disagree with your definition of real science. Real science comes in when you disprove or prove a theory no matter how the theory was originated wether it be through observation or from logical deduction or from pseudoscience. The REAL science as you put it come in when you find the evedience to back up or disprove the theory.

That's a fair enough call Bluewolf027. What I should have said was that theories can be developed prior to having observational evidence, but cannot be adopted confidently until after such evidence is acquired.

VanderL, I don't judge a scientific theory with feelings as you suggest. Rather I look at the available evidence and listen to people who have a great deal of knowledge of the subject. I'm not entirely sure what you mean about me breaking forum rules. Feel free to point out which rule I have broken and I will edit my posts accordingly.

Regards,

Kashi

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Hi-

Yup, discussion is fun. The problem is that often the wacko's are able to BS their way to some measure of legitimacy. They often prey on the web sites where amateurs or hobbyists express their opinions. In those forums they are able to twist arms at ease. The informed professionals and amateurs are often not inclined to respond to abject nonsense. So, the result is that the members of the list may think that the poster has some legitimacy.

It's kind of important that the professionals insulate the the general public from the wackos. If we don't perform that service we may lose the informed amatuer to the wacko fringe.

With all due respect,
MH

Thanks for your suggestions exAstro. I think your point of view is definitely a valid one. I'll discuss your ideas with Fraser and the other moderators and see what they think about being more diligent in insulating the forum against "wackos". It's often difficult to balance free speech with high quality content, especially as the forum gets larger.

Kashi

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Their's always the reciprocal theory of the Universe of motion.

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus/index.htm

Prime

Venus cannot be a young planet.. I've been alive for 37 years and as far as I know, It's always been there..

All the socks that have gone missing I reckon end up on Venus....Socks are attracted by Venus's Gravity. But, Only one sock can go...

Laws of Physics.."No Pair Of Socks Is The Same"

Now, Has anyone heard of the Sock In the Box?? :P

With all due respect, but that is assuming an evil intent of the people proposing their "wacky" ideas. And I find it condescending towards the people reading the posts. The "general public" can think for themselves and are not the hapless prey you seem to assume. If arguments like Tim's are used, I have no trouble to be referred to his work whenever a discussion goes in that direction.
If ideas that go against mainstream are filtered out, then how on earth are we supposed to learn something new? Who decides what is whacky and what is not? I'm sorry, but this seems like shutting people up. That can't be why a forum is started, or am I the only one who thinks this is wrong. I recall Fraser telling people to discuss whatever they like as long as the rules are followed.
Maybe we need to add rules that state what we are not allowed to discuss?

Cheers.

I'm not going to add rules that say what can and can't be discussed (except politics and religion), as long as it's on topic with space and astronomy. So, wacky ideas can freely be posted here on the forum. I agree with exAstro, though, that the informed amateur needs to be insulated against realistic-sounding pseudoscience. The best way to do that, though, is by being publicly skeptical and challenging.

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

Sorry Fraser, adding those rules was not a serious comment.
Do you really think the public can't see through failing models and false arguments?
I really can't see any harm in discussing these things on a forum like this, my guess is that most people read the headlines and only a fraction take the time to dig deeper.
I totally agree to being publicly sceptical and challenging and bringing in experts, but I disagree that people need to be kept away from alternative ideas.
Cheers.

Well, here's the way I see it. In order to intelligently evaluate any proposed scientific hypothesis, you need to be familiar with the relevant science. The vast majority of amateur astronomers (or amateur "scientists") are far short of the mark. I've been actively involved for many years as both a professional and an amateur astronomer, and I think I have a pretty good feel for both areas. I've met amateurs who can hardly be distinguished from professionals, and I've met professionals who think the breadth of knowledge exhibited by many amateurs is "scary".

But there is a considerable difference between the usual, very observational focus of the amateur, and the very mathematical & physical focus of the professional. That's where the difference between "amateurs" & "professionals" really shows. A hypothesis like the electric universe can be hard for an amateur to evaluate, because the amateur has no experience with the basic science, and so has no intuition to support intelligent guesswork, and no base of relevant factual knowledge to illuminate the discussion. To a professional, on the other hand, such ideas may seem so obviously flawed that they wonder how anyone can take them seriously. That's how I see the "electric universe", so obviously flawed as to be absurd.

For me, it's not so much a matter of "insulating" amateurs from bizzare, fringe, wacko ideas, as it is a matter of providing a scientifically informed viewpoint. Wal Thornhill thinks I am an "intellectual bully", and I've been on his case for 10 years now. In some sense, I'm glad he thinks that way, at least it means I've gotten his attention! His real focus is on mythology & Velikovsky. Thornhill is a "Saturnist"; he believes that the planets used to orbit around Saturn, and in a polar configuration, so that Saturn appeared to hang over the north pole of Earth, with Venus & Mars aligned between Earth & Saturn (I'm not sure where he put Jupiter). All of this changed a few thousand years ago, when everthing fell apart and the solar system re-oriented itself into its current order. Since this is rather strongly dis-allowed by convnentional celestial mechanics, Thornhill has decided that our standard reliance on gravity is mistaken. The universe, and the solar system, must be dominated by more powerful, electromagnetic forces. Velikovsky expressed the same idea in his strange and unphysical booklet, "Cosmos Without Gravitation".

Back in the 50's & 60's, cosmology was a pretty open game. The Steady State theory of Hoyle and others, was taken just as seriously as big bang cosmology, or Alfven's plasma cosmology. That was then, this is now. In the intervening decades, big bang cosmology has surged ahead, and the others have fallen behind. This is not because of some need to maintain political correctness, but because that's where the science clearly and obviously points. The electric cosmos folks simply ignore everything that anybody really knows about cosmology, physics, even electromagnetism, and invent spurious arguments, in contravention to known physics, in order to suit their purposes. Indeed, from my point of view, their arguments have nothing at all to do with science, and are purely intended as propaganda to support their view that mythology is the true source for all real knowledge.

And this brings me to VanderL's remark about assuming "evil intent". I don't know that it's "evil", but I think that the assumption VanderL warns against is in some cases, and in particular this case, valid. There is no scientific intent at all behind the electric cosmos hypothesis. They are not interested in science, and will ignore it whenever it suits them. Their focus is mythology, and in bending or breaking science, until it supports the "facts" they believe mythology has demonstrated (such as the Saturn centered solar system). This environmental setting for the electric cosmos needs to be undertstood, I think, and included in the process of deciding whether or not to take the idea seriously.

How many amateur astronomers are professional plasma physicists, or professionals in any area that would make them familiar with the physics of plasmas? Most, I think, are not, and so are unable to scientifically evaluate the hypothesis. Can amateurs "think for themselves"? Of course, but what good is thinking without knowledge, whether one is a professional or an amateur? It's "thinking with knowledge" that everyone should strive for, in my opinion. Such thinking makes short work of the "wacko" ideas, like the electric cosmos, and at the same time reveals the strengths & weaknesses of minority opinions which, while perhaps not "popular" are certainly not "wacko".

Cheers

__________________
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