Electric Universe thread - the "Table of Contents"

[Nereid]

The Electric Universe model., thread is now closed.

An EU proponent may start a new thread, on one, specific EU topic (per thread), to permit focussed discussion.

The guidelines for the thread starter are:

* State whether the EU idea includes only mainstream physics (e.g. plasma physics, classical electromagnetism), or includes at least some new physics. If in doubt, assume the latter.

* If the EU idea has a (public) history, provide a succinct summary of its antecedents, and where one can read the prior work done on it.

* If the EU idea is chacterised as a theory, or a model (or includes these), provide references to (publicly available) material which details the theory or model (doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed publication, though that would be nice).

* If the EU idea is not quantitative (maths, OOM, numbers, equations, etc), provide a summary of how the idea could be tested, in principle, using today's technology.

To help anyone wishing to quickly find relevant EU material, in the very long Electric Universe model., thread, I have started this thread.

The purpose is to collect link summaries - links to pages, or posts, in the EU thread, where specific topics within the EU idea are discussed, together with a very brief summary of the material.

For example (no particular order; certainly not an exhaustive list):

• magnetic slinky
• Electric Sun (current diagram)
• Electric Sun (neutrinos)
• Electric Sun (HR diagram)
• electric comet (Thornhill's Tempel-1 'predictions')
• Perrat on quasars and radio galaxies
• application of Alfven's work to astronomical observations
• neutron stars

To suit its purpose, this thread should be no longer than 2 pages (60 posts).

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Nereid

• Perrat on quasars and radio galaxies

I would like to suggest that in any further discussions, a clear distinction has to be made between Electric Universe (EU) and Plasma Cosmology (PC). The latter is certainly much more "mainstream" than is the former. Obviously, there is a great deal of commonality. But during the EU discussions I often had the experience of asking a question about EU, and getting an answer about PC. Eventually, the two seem to get so intertwined one cannot distinguish between them.

We know that Perrat is a proponent of the PC, but is he also a proponent of EU? His discussion of quasars & radio galaxies is PC, but is this a point where PC & EU are in concordance? We need to distinguish between PC & EU. We don't need to discuss this now, here in this thread, and probably should not. But in any new thread started as per instructions given here by Nereid, that distinction should be made, to the extent that it can be made.

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

I would like to suggest that in any further discussions, a clear distinction has to be made between Electric Universe (EU) and Plasma Cosmology (PC).

The Electric Universe features these differentiating concepts:

• Electrically powered stars
• Electrical discharge machining of cosmic bodies
• Increased cosmic electrical activity in the past

The Electric Universe fully supports Hannes Alfvén's "Plasma Universe", which:

• Promotes the importance of electricity (as well as magnetism), in cosmic plasmas
• Highlights the importances of (a) Double layers (b) the pinch effect (c) Cellularisation of plasmas (d) Critical ionization velocity (e) Cosmic electric circuits
• Favours an empirical approach
• Promotes a Plasma Cosmology based on the Plasma Universe

Additionally,

• Peratt has never endorsed the Electric Universe approach.
• There are currently no peer-reviewed papers on the Electric Universe, whereas there are many on various aspects of the Plasma Universe
• There may be many aspects of the Plasma Universe that are well accepted in plasma science in certain contexts.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[P.Asmah]

There are more similarities than differences, nonetheless!

Some PC'ers, such as Perratt, support the idea of a more electrically active solar system in the past. See his paper on Petroglyphs -- Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...AntiquityZ.pdf

Alfven also hints at this, although neither go as far as Velikovsky in terms of catastrophic consequences

"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven

"And even if one regards the electric fields as merely another postulate, it has the great advantage that it is the one postulate which, in my view, renders all the others unnecessary." C. E. R Bruce, Electric Fields in Space, Penguin Science, 1968

[VanderL]

I think there were some interesting discussions in the last several pages of the EU thread. More focus is ok, but I have trouble classifying the different parts of the discussions into separate threads, for example these exchanges:

Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,

What to do?

Cheers.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by VanderL

I think there were some interesting discussions in the last several pages of the EU thread. More focus is ok, but I have trouble classifying the different parts of the discussions into separate threads, for example these exchanges:

Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,

What to do?

Cheers.

Maybe a possibility is to re-open the EU thread restricted only to some unresolved discussions?

Cheers.

[upriver]

The purpose is to collect link summaries - links to pages, or posts, in the EU thread, where specific topics within the EU idea are discussed, together with a very brief summary of the material.

So I guess that means rereading(searching) the whole EU thread.
I think that would be good because I bet we might catch something that we missed before.

[upriver]

I want to post this to show what the difference is between EU and mainstream interpetation of jets.

EU thinks that jets are Birkeland currents with the spiral magnetic fields and that they have pinches in them.
We predict they will next have to figure out that the magnetic fields come from plasma motion(current flow).

Here is the mainstream view.

"The next question was, what is keeping this outpouring of material confined into narrow jets? Theoreticians suspected magnetic fields, and we now have found the first direct evidence that a magnetic field is confining such a jet," said Wouter Vlemmings, a Marie Curie Fellow working at the Jodrell Bank Observatory of the University of Manchester in England.

"Magnetic fields previously have been detected in jets emitted by quasars and protostars, but the evidence was not conclusive that the magnetic fields were actually confining the jets. These new VLBA observations now make that direct connection for the very first time," Vlemmings added.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19746

Now is this ok to post in this thread?
I liked being able to post EU interpetations of mainstream news.

[P.Asmah]

Originally Posted by spacerf.com

"Magnetic fields previously have been detected in jets emitted by quasars and protostars, but the evidence was not conclusive that the magnetic fields were actually confining the jets. These new VLBA observations now make that direct connection for the very first time," Vlemmings added.

They claim to make the direct connection for the first time! Yeah, right. At least they have caught onto the idea of magnetism playing a role, whereas before they used to talk in terms of 'cosmic hose pipes'.

Have they never heard of Alfven, Bruce, Birkeland, Perratt et al?

They will have to work hard to exclude electric currents (Plasma motions) from their ideas, but I suspect they'll do just that!

"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents." Hannes Alfven

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by upriver

I want to post this to show what the difference is between EU and mainstream interpetation of jets.

EU thinks that jets are Birkeland currents with the spiral magnetic fields and that they have pinches in them.
We predict they will next have to figure out that the magnetic fields come from plasma motion(current flow).

Of course it is also the "Plasma Universe" view, which has peer reviewed paper on the subject in mainstream journals. In turn, it is based in standard plasma physics.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by P.Asmah

They claim to make the direct connection for the first time! Yeah, right. At least they have caught onto the idea of magnetism playing a role, whereas before they used to talk in terms of 'cosmic hose pipes'.

That's a load of B.S., typical of the thoughtless rambling that kills threads like this, where otherwise we might actually be able to have an intelligent conversation. See "Theory of Extragalactic Radio Jets"; Begelman, Blandford & Rees; Reviews of Modern Physics 56(2): 255-351, April 1984. Especially note section IIC Collimation, stability, and dissipation, and part 4 thereunder, Magnetic collimation. Ever since jets were recognized as jets in the early 70's, they have been known to involve magnetic fields. Collimation by magnetic fields has always been a contender for collimation of jets at all scales. We have long since judged that the jets are primarily collimated by magnetic fields close to the source, and more by ambient gas pressure far from the source, where the magnetic fields have become confused, and the pressures are much smaller anyway (as suggested in this 22 year old review).

Talking about 'cosmic hose pipes' is just one more example of the common practice of going out of your way to insult people's intelligence, instead of trying to say something useful.

[tusenfem]

I guess P.Ashma heard about the fire-hose instability which can occur in a collimated jet.

Naturally, some questionable quoting above makes it seem different as what is written in the article about the magnetic confinement. The first two paragraphs are written down, but Upriver forgot to quote what followed, and which sets the paper in a whole different view:

By using the VLBA to study the alignment, or polarization, of radio waves emitted by water molecules in the jets, the scientists were able to determine the strength and orientation of the magnetic field surrounding the jets.

"Our observations support recent theoretical models in which magnetically-confined jets produce the sometimes-complex shapes we see in planetary nebulae," said Philip Diamond, also of Jodrell Bank Observatory.

This clearly shows that "for the first time" is has been possible to exactly measure the magnetic field strength with the VLBA from intensity and polarization of the observed radiation.

It would be nice if the quotations would be truthful now and then.

[P.Asmah]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

That's a load of B.S., typical of the thoughtless rambling that kills threads like this, where otherwise we might actually be able to have an intelligent conversation.

I am not the one claiming the 'first' in relation to magnetism playing a significant role, so I agree, the article referenced from spaceref.com is, er, 'thoughtless rambling'!

Again, Alfven stressed: "In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents."

Thank you for the article which you reference, which is a wink in the direction of the EU from the mainstream:

From the abstract: "Supersonic jets may be collimated along the spin axis of a gas cloud surrounding the source of the lighter jet gas. Magnetic fields may be crucial in collimating jets, especially if they are wrapped around the jet by orbiting gas and can thereby collimate the outflow through the pinch effect. In fact, the spin energy of the black hole could also be extracted by magnetic torques, in which case the jet would contain electrons and positrons and carry a large electromagnetic Poynting flux."

[P.Asmah]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

This clearly shows that "for the first time" is has been possible to exactly measure the magnetic field strength with the VLBA from intensity and polarization of the observed radiation.

Well, if this is the 'first' being claimed, it seems we have no reason to disagree, but I still see it as a nod and a wink at EU/PC ideas. Is that fair?

[upriver]

This clearly shows that "for the first time" is has been possible to exactly measure the magnetic field strength with the VLBA from intensity and polarization of the observed radiation.

That is true but nowhere do they say anything about the fact that the magnetic field is caused by moving plasma.


And I think this paper which I think represents the EU view, is beyond the mainstream view.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...306..451B

Am I correct in thinking that?

Let continue here.
I started a new thread on jets.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by upriver

That is true but nowhere do they say anything about the fact that the magnetic field is caused by moving plasma.


And I think this paper which I think represents the EU view, is beyond the mainstream view.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...306..451B

Am I correct in thinking that?

Let continue here.
I started a new thread on jets.

There is nothing beyond the main stream in Borovsky's paper. I as a mainstrean plasmaastrophysicist/spacephysicist have quoted this paper in my PhD thesis. I am a bit rusty on the details, but to quote from section 1.6.3 of my thesis:

Originally Posted by martin volwerk 1993

Borowsky (1988) applies DL to jets ejected by AGNs where they may be the main sources of electron beams leading to bright points in the jets. This does not involve a direct emission mechanism by the DL (which was the topic of my thesis), but an iderect one, where the emitted electron beams, bunched in their gyro phase arund the magnetic field in the jet, procude the intense emissin which is observed as bright spots in the AGN jet.

As I said, I am a little rusty on the details, so I should read the paper again about how he supposes the DLs are created, if he does so at all. Borowsky, although being a great physicist, is know to not really pay attention to the details of his models and calculations. Often, getting his paper out fast is his main driver.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by P.Asmah

Well, if this is the 'first' being claimed, it seems we have no reason to disagree, but I still see it as a nod and a wink at EU/PC ideas. Is that fair?

I see no reason at all, that this measurement should be a "nod and wink" to the EU/PC ideas. I see it as a nice piece of measurement that shows that the electrodynamic theory (as writtend down e.g. in Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson) is a great tool.
As said by Tim Thompson the fact that jets are collimated by magnetic fields and plasma pressure was already accepted in the 80s.
It is in the electromagnetic theory that magnetic fields, when not created by a bar magnet, are created by electric currents. It is not something that physicists keep on repeating. E.g. in my current research field if I write: the interplanetary magnetic field I am not going to diverge on saying: that are created by the electric currents and the alpha and omega dynamo in the sun. My colleagues know that, and it does not need to be stated extra.

edited to add: the last part of this message is more a reply on what Upriver wrote.

[Zero Signal]

What I want to see is, first and foremost, an EU/EC supporter address the problems with the Electric Star "theory" that I've outlined several times before here and at the BABB, most recently several weeks ago here and here in the Electric Universe thread. Nereid has mentioned this briefly several times as well over the last several weeks since my last posts, both in the EU thread and in this thread's OP.

Basically, it boils down to the simple fact that the Electric Star "theory" cannot explain the observed distribution of stars on the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram. This is because of the basic attributes of the ES "theory," which entail that electrically powered stars should show no relation between temperature and luminosity. This means that if stars were electrical phenomena, then we should not see any particular pattern of stars on the HRD. The fact that there is such a pattern is something that the ES "theory is at a loss to explain.

Another problem I've noted are the fact that the observed main sequence mass-luminosity relation is inexplicable in the ES "theory," as there would be no reason to suspect any kind of relationship between a star's mass and luminosity if they were powered by external electrical currents. The main sequence mass-luminosity relation is, however, to be expected if stars were fusion engines like in standard stellar theory.

Even after three years, I still haven't received anything from the EU supporters beyond a couple of passing comments that did not constitute anything remotely like a rebuttal. However, I never really did know when to quit, and I won't be satisfied until the problems I've outlined get some kind of answer.


There are other topics I'd like the EU proponents to address.

First off, what, if anything, does Arp's theories of non-cosmological redshift have to do with the Electric Universe? Many EU proponents have written articles and webpages in support of Arp. However, Arp doesn't even seem to notice the Electric Universe "theory," and if he does know about it, he's never written about it to my knowledge and obviously doesn't support it. So, what's the deal with the EU crowd's fixation on Arp?

Well, time to cut this short. I had some other things, but they'll have to wait for tomorrow. Gotta go.

[Tim Thompson]

You see what's happening? The first post in this thread is an invitation for an EU proponent to start a new thread on a specific EU topic, which can be handled without the "shotgun" approach. But instead, we have the same old EU thread starting again here. I don't think any of the EU proponents are able or willing to support their own idea in a real discussion, which explains all of the irrelevent distractions & invented falsehoods. I like Zero Signal's idea. Somebody from the EU crowd should start a thread explaining why the electric star hypothesis is better than the standard explanation, and why the standard is so bad it has to be replaced.