i really think this site should have a section debunking this crap:

http://electric-cosmos.org/

i haven't read the whole page, but the section on redshifts was nothing short of preposterous.

someone needs to put this guy in his place.

We got into it a little bit on this thread .

See On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis, which I wrote back in 2001 to refute the elctric-sun part of the electric cosmos. It could use a few updates I suppose, but it should still be adequate to the task.

To me, your post was definitely not as you say "adequate to the task".

With respect, you have refuted nothing much at all!

Following on, still within the same theory (ie electric universe hypothesis?)

Can you really believe that the many rilles and circular craters on the moon (and other bodies, including the Earth) were actually caused by nothing other than "impacts"?

Can you explain this "impact theme"?

John

Caravelier,

No disrespect, but have you actually studied the electric universe concept?

You call it "crap".

Based on what?

John

Based on common sense and a knowledge of physics most likely. For example, take the section on "Why doesn't the sun collapse of its own weight?"

The author says that the electrical repulsion of the atoms is 35 orders of magnitude higher than the force of gravity. Not only is this going to keep the sun from collapsing, it's going to keep the sun from forming in the first place.

Unlike what the author claims, (Today's orthodox thermonuclear models fail to explain many observed solar phenomena) the orthodox model has met every single test thrown at it.

The BA posted a response about the electric star model in a different thread, unfortunately I can't remember what the thread was about and don't have time to search though all the search engine hits to find it

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

For good info about plasma cosmology i suggest Anthony Perrat site.
No electric star model there.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

Of course I can believe it. Why not? The explanation is easy. Big rock flies through space. Planet gets in way of big rock. Splat (or maybe boom). Crater. We know there are big rocks out there, we watch them flying around. That they might eventually hit something is hardly a miracle.

Tim - your page is a complete and well referenced exposition on the electric sun concept. I fail to understand how someone could say that it is inadequate. I objectively looked at the plasma models a while back and came to the conclusion that their claims that mainstream astronomers lack an understanding of plasma physics is absolute nonsense.

Thankyou Tim Thompson for your informed reply.

There was I thinking that most of the craters and rilles had an electrical origin.
Now I shall have to re-examine in more detail your refutation of the electric sun hypothesis.


Thankyou also Orion38 for your post.
Actually I have visited Anthony Peratt's website several times.

Further, I am currently studying Anthony's book 'Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology' and Lyman Spitzer's book 'Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters'.
I am merely searching for real answers.

I'll add that crater formation has been experimentally shown to happen. Scientists (like my friend Dan Durda) take a rock, load it into a big gun, and fire it at a platform built like the Moon's surface. They fire at different angles, using different rocks with different compositions, and make the surface have different properties as well. They have found that the craters formed are indeed like those on the Moon. It's pretty conclusive.

I want that job! I don't get to shoot enough rocks into things in my job....

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Heck, you can even test it yourself with any rock you find in your back yard and a bowl of fine powder (like flour).

Step 1: Fill bowl with flour.
Step 2: Drop rock from any distance that allows it to gather some velocity into the bowl.
Step 3: Observe the interesting crater and ejecta pattern.

We did this stuff in 5th grade science class...

__________________
~Brad - Astropaparazzo
http://signaturedigitalimages.com

With respect to crater and rille formation, I accept that firing rocks at a composite lunar surface can and will produce craters of varying shapes and sizes, revealing no doubt many similar features to those craters found on the Moon and other cratered bodies (I too performed this experiment years ago).

B.A. - I do not wish to task you, but I have checked out Dan Durna's website and could not find a direct reference as to the results of the experiments you mentioned.

Do these experiments performed by Dan Durna also reveal various aspects of typical crater morphology such as circularity, central peaks, terraced walls, flat floors and other complex features?

I don't know about Durna, but the features you asked about were all recreated in Laboratory cratering experiments about 40 years ago. See Some Results Deduced from Simulation of Lunar Craters, P.F. Sabaneyev, IAU Symposium 14, The Moon, pp. 419-432, 1962. You can download the paper as a PDF file, or look at the scanned page images. Central peak, terraced slopes, rays, all there. Figure 1, which strikingly resembles the lunar crater Copernicus, is actually a picture of a simulated crater.

There are still journal papers on crater simulation, but very little that discusses these features, since they are "old news". There are some text books I have seen that cover this stuff, but I can't remember specifics at the moment.

Tim Thompson

Many thanks indeed for posting that excellent website (NASA Astrophysics Data System - ADS), revealing experimental data on crater morphology.
No problems with download.

Well, I hardly know what to say, except that much of the information contained within the paper has virtually "blown the wind out of my sails".
I say "virtually", because I need to study the material in much more detail, prior to asserting my final conclusions.

To all.
I can say that during my search for answers on the subject of crater formation, nowhere (other than the ADS site) have I found such comprehensive data explaining most of the features as a proven result of precise and careful experiment.

Previously, I had been mostly guided by the following text (which no doubt many of you may be aware of):-

From: "Inversion of crater morphometric data to gain insight on
the cratering process", Robert R. Herrick and Suzanne N. Lyons,
Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33, 131-143 (1998)

"Crater morphometry, the quantitative description of the shape of impact craters, has always played a key role in understanding the cratering process. One of the key arguments used to support the impact origin of lunar craters was that they were morphometrically similar to terrestrial explosion craters (Baldwin, 1949). Complex impact craters, craters with such features as a flat floor, a central peak, and wall terraces, have never been created in common geologic materials in the lab or with large explosions. At present, only the morphometry of impact craters on the solid bodies of the solar system can provide data on how various target and impactor properties affect complex crater formation."

I do not possess the entire paper, so I cannot comment on the context in which the paper or the above statement was presented, but it sounded pretty conclusive to me.

Now (if you will bear with me), just a few points from what I have gleaned, concerning the ADS paper and the electrical cratering concept.

One of the major claims of the electric cratering model is the apparent uniqueness of crater circularity (other than of course several ellipsoidal craters such as Messier and Messier A etc)

On page 423, the ADS paper says (assuming it is permissible to quote the odd passage here and there);

"Only an absolutely perpendicular drop yealds a completely symmetric structure of the cross-section profile of the crater and a uniform orientation of ejections in all directions."
That statement fits with the electrical explanation, whereby huge lightning-bolts that purportedly gouged out the craters, always strike the lunar surface vertically (as in terrestrial lightning).

Further, on page 430 of the ADS paper a similar claim is made:

"The circular form of the craters indicates that the fall of the matter was essentially vertical."

Now, in line with this "verticality", I am thinking "electrically" here, but on the same page a quite reasonable assumption is made in respect of impacts as follows:-

Near the Earth, in the remote past, there existed a large number of small-mass satellites, besides the Moon..."The orbits of these satellites were close to the Moon's orbit, which brought about their infall on the Moon's surface and which caused the formation of craters. The cohesion of these satellites was insignificant. They constituted the planetary embryo."

Now, I can actually buy that assumption, because with a little thought, it makes sense in favour of "impacts" and "circularity".

The formation of central peaks is another issue of the processes of supposed electrical cratering.
In the electrical explanation, central peaks are areas in the centers of craters that are "missed" or avoided by the characteristic of a circular rotating arc (Birkelian), preferentially rotating about the undisturbed central mass and which also in the same process, forms terraced rims, flat floors etc.

With regard to central peaks, on page 425 of the ADS:

"When all experimental conditions remain unchanged, the diameter of the models increases with the decrease in the depth of the ground layer, and their depth decreases. The central peak is formed in all cases; however, with increasing depths of the ground, this peak is insignificant and hardly distinguishable. The dimensions of the peak increase with decreasing depth of the ground and the peak acquires the character of a major structural element of the model."

Now to me, born out of pure experiment, the above statement is really interesting and does offer an explanation of central peaks other than those being caused by rotating electric arcs or indeed "rebound" theories (which is another issue).

Further, a brief explanation is also given for the formation of Rilles (though possibly not intended as rilles, but described as "cracks" within the paper).
It seems to me that whether these rilles or "cracks" are sinuous, arcuate, straight or otherwise, they are shown in the experiment to be also accompanied by small craterlets, possibly levees too and no doubt are capable of following torturous terrain.
This sounds a lot more reasonable than rilles being described as "collapsed lava tubes" or even exploded electrons.

Formation of "rays" are also adequately explained in the paper by impactors, both close-in to the crater and those carried to more remote locations (particularly Maria), way over the horizon.

Alternatively to this theory and very briefly FYI, the electrical explanation are that these rays were formed (in cunning ways) by emerging electrons being energetically ejected from just beneath the surface of the remote lowland areas and then following a steady upward inclination toward highly elevated lunar terrain (for reasons I will not go into here), from all directions, eventually arriving at a "high point" or even a mountainous peak.
These electrons from out-lying lowland areas exploded to the surface enroute, forming numerous small craterlets on the way, until finally arriving at the high-point and focus of maximum electrical intensity, caused by the effect and electrical influence of the presumed close-by body (the electrons themselves forming a leader-stroke toward the external body, say Mars).
As in terrestrial lightning, a "connection" is made between the positive ground and negative leader stroke (but on a much larger scale), causing a huge electrical discharge to occur (ultra mega-lightning bolt) and in the same process forming the crater with its associated morphology, as per a rotating arc.
The discharge event may last from a matter of seconds to several minutes, depending on the intensity of charge.
Interestingly, rayed craters are mostly found in highland areas.
Craters with attendant rilles, are mostly found in lowland areas.

Anyway, courtesy of the ADS paper and following this new-found knowledge, I now have to explain how the huge craters on comparatively small bodies such as Saturn's Mimas and Mars' Phobos etc occurred without causing complete annihilation of those bodies.

Also in particular, the cratered grooves on Phobos, which appear to lead towards the huge crater, also require an explanation within impact theory...or, could they indeed be the result of streaming electrical discharges from below the surface as hypothesized in electrical rille and ray formation.
I am not sure at the moment.

Of course, the overall big assumption with all these electrical explanations is whether all planetary bodies, including moons, asteroids, even comets etc actually carry a net negative electrical charge, the intensity of which is presumably dependent on their location within the solar system.

In my view, following the electrical concept, if the planets are electrically charged in this way ie negatively, then the electrical explanation for the current spacing of planetary bodies within the solar system (being dependent perhaps on the electrical force of repulsion), could be a factor that may offer some validity to Bodes law (but disregarding Uranus and Pluto).
Perhaps the "Law" itself is a function of electrostatics (but not so much gravity), existing between the planets.
However, that is another subject.

The ADS paper also offers an explanation for the origin of chondrite-type meteorites, which is very interesting too in the context of once being semi-melted ejecta thrown into space during the formation of craters, depending of course on the state of tectonic conditions in their locality.

I should emphasize here that I am not an official "expert" on the electric universe hypothesis, nor representative of it, but I have read quite extensively on the subject, attended lectures etc., purely out of self-interest.

As suggested by 'caravaliar' on this thread, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a section on this board relating directly to the electric universe concept, now that the "Planet X" saga has diminished to apparent nothingness.

Of course, the suggestion is entirely up to the BA.

John T

wedgebert and all,

You wrote:
"The author says that the electrical repulsion of the atoms is 35 orders of magnitude higher than the force of gravity. Not only is this going to keep the sun from collapsing, it's going to keep the sun from forming in the first place."

You raise a very good point here, because to my mind Prof. Scott on his website does not actually explain in any great detail, conceptually or otherwise, as to how stars actually formed in the first place, other than mentioning the z-pinch effect.

I too have often wondered about this concept and in reply to your post I shall endeavour to explain why stars can form in the electric universe model, bearing in mind the overwhelming force of electrical repulsion (upwards of 10 to the thirty-fifth power of magnitude) at the atomic level.

What Don Scott does write is the following:-

"The Sun is powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. In the Plasma Universe model, these currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to propose that these currents also power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the size of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by a combination of incoming cosmic electrons and outgoing +ions. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower total current and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly."

My understanding, within the electric universe model, is that the entire universe, itself being comprised mostly of plasma, is also able to carry a net electrical charge (negative) due to the ionised properties of plasma and that the plasma is not in itself completely neutral.
Therefore, it is claimed that electric currents can and do flow within plasma.

Also, in this context, "space" has been described as being an infinite electrical medium.
It is electrical in that it is everywhere occupied by a charge, which, when it moves, assumes the character of electrons, that is, “negative” charge.
This movement energizes and carries material into "cavities" (see below) which become and are the stars.

Within this apparently disorganised plasma there are certain areas that are more electron deficient (containing far fewer electrons) and it is into these areas of "electron deficiency" (cavities) where the Birkeland currents tend to flow.
I say "disorganised plasma" because there are billions of stars in our galaxy, therefore billions of electron deficient areas or cavities.

Formations of galaxies seem to occur by the action of huge galactic Birkeland currents that "twist", as computer simulations have demonstrated (by Anthony Peratt).

It was the late Professor of Physics, Earl Milton, who called these areas of electron deficiency, albeit within galaxies, by the name "cavities", or areas of space plasma that contain a much lower negative electrical potential than the surrounding space.

However, I think the above statement by Don Scott essentially refers to an already formed galaxy (which being thus formed, behaves like something akin to the principal of a homopolar engine) and that the spiral arms of the galaxy are essentially huge Birkelian currents with their associated magnetic fields.

So taking this idea one step further, as Don Scott implies, the space within and around these giant Birkeland currents that pervade the spiral arms, also contain areas of "electron deficiences" (or cavities - Earl Milton), which are then subsequently "filled" by the z-pinch effect, thereby forming stars.

In other words, once a cavity is "detected", electrons, cosmic rays and other material rush in from all directions to electrically neutralize that area of electron deficient space.
Once in the cavity, the charge and density of the material increases, due to electrical accumulation and chemical binding etc.

As mentioned before, within the galaxy, there have been and no doubt still are, billions of cavities, thus billions of stars.

In respect of positive or negative "signs" Earl Milton et al concluded:

"For a time we, like others before us, considered the solar charge to be of positive sign, because of the gradual acceleration of the proton wind as it moves away from the Sun. However, this same phenomenon can be viewed as a flow of ions towards a surrounding region of negative electrical charge."

and further, Earl Milton wrote:

"Insofar as solar wind electrons have, if any, only trivial aniso-tropy in their motion and since detected cosmic-ray ions - which Juergens (1972) has described as the spent wind from the most luminous stars - outnumber cosmic-ray electrons by at least two orders of magnitude, it is logical to conclude that within the region of the Sun most electrons are occupied with sustaining the transaction tending to eliminate the solar cavity. These electrons are not free: they form a "transactive matrix" enveloping the Solar System."

This "transactive matrix" in my understanding, is the as yet undetected inward "flow" of cosmic electrons that are purported to actually power the sun.

The volume of the heliosphere is also described as being a virtual cathode, or the space in which a "cathodeless discharge" occurs within the "positive column".
The heliopause itself is the periphery of the "cavity".

Thus the sun takes on the role of being the anode (being much less negatively charged than its surrounding environment) and therefore continually attracts and absorbs electrons from space.

Positively charged protons (and accompanying electrons) leave the sun to complete the environmental "circuit" (so to speak) at the highly negatively-charged heliopause.

So the Sun, once formed in this manner, is constantly in the process of achieving an electrical equilibrium within its entire environment, which essentially extends right out to the limits of the heliosphere.
In a sense, space plasma contains "degrees of negativity" that allow Birkeland currents to flow.

Following formation of the Sun, Don Scott writes:

"Positive ions leave the Sun and cosmic electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical laboratories for decades."

To round off, Earl Milton wrote:
"The atom is modeled here as a plenum of charge enveloping a nucleus, which we regard as a massive, dense, compact electrical cavity. Like the cell, the atom exposes to the world a negatively charged perimeter. We therefore chose in this work to avoid speaking of negative and positive ions (say, for example, electrons and protons) being produced when an electron is removed from an atom. Rather we speak of electrons and electron-deficient atoms."

So a "cavity" within the plasma, or the focal point for the initial formation of a star, is described as being primarily "electron deficient".

This electron deficiency therefore takes on a positive role, as within an electrical circuit, thereby attracting incoming cosmic electrons and allowing the star to form.

However, conversely, in the book 'Just Six Numbers', by Martin Rees, he writes (pp 29):

"Gravity starts off on the atomic scale, with a handycap of thirty-six powers of ten; but it gains two powers of ten (in other words 100) for every three powers (factors of 1,000) on mass. So gravity will have caught up for the fifty-fourth object (54 = 36 x 3/2), which has about Jupiter's mass. In any still heavier lump more massive than Jupiter, gravity is so strong that it overwhelms the forces that hold solids together."

So it appears that the electrical force and the gravitational force equalize out at about the mass of Jupiter, afterwhich gravity takes over.

Any comments on this statement?

John T

Quite a few comments, actually, but not much time to make them. Now it's time to go back to the webpage I referenced earlier: On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis. It does not deal much with the cosmological issues, but examines the idea of an "electric star' in much detail. Many of the notions you put forth here are dealt with.

For instance ...

There is a really big problem here: There are no cosmic electrons entering the sun! This is not a guess, it's a cold, hard fact, supported by several decades of in-situ observations of charged particles (electrons, protons, ions, and charged dust) in the heliosphere. Granted, most of those observations have been restricted to the plane of the planets. but Ulysses has travelled the polar regions of the heliosphere more than once now. Those incoming electrons should be just as detctable as the outgoing electrons, but none have been seen. If they were there, they would have been detected by now. The entire hypothesis is emphatically falsified by this fact alone.

Most of the rest of the stuff, like galaxies and Birkeland currents is just a lot of hocus-pocus, words strung together that make no physical sense. Just because one can describe something in words, this does not mandate that it be physically reasonable or even physically possible. Like the proposed solar system currents, there are huge stability issues that Scott, et al., simply ignore. Besides, galaxy formation is pretty well understood at the basic level (but not at the detail level), and there is no real problem that screams out for an "alternative" solution anyway. Certainly not one that weird.