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.

Can you gives us a summary or a link about the standard model of galaxy
formation.Does the model imply dark matter?Which flavor ie hot or cold dark matter?

Tim Thompson

Sure, I understand exactly your point when you say "There are no cosmic electrons entering the sun!"

In my view, this is the nub of the entire issue.
No electrons entering the sun (to power the sun), then no electric stars and no electric universe...period!

So where are these mysterious electrons?

(I know you will disagree with what I am about to say, no matter, but I will post this reply anyway)

It appears that the slowing down of the Pioneer spacecraft may offer a measure of explanation as evidence for these mysterious electrons.
When these spacecraft eventually encounter the limit of the sun's influence, the heliopause (which is regarded as the "cathodic drop" region between the sun and interstellar space), further slowing down may occur and may perhaps include other anomalistic behaviour of these spacecraft, as has been predicted by the hypothesis.

To my mind, disregarding all other matters on the subject, the entire concept of the electric star hypothesis is essentially based on the "glow discharge" theory.
The electric star hypothesis claims that the sun is the anode located at the center of a cathodeless discharge, which as I mentioned in a previous post, is also called the "positive column".
Though the glow discharge theory is somewhat complex, in a glow discharge the current is carried through most of the volume, known as the positive column region, by a slow "drift" of electrons superimposed on their higher thermal velocity.
It takes place in a quasi-neutral plasma with a low density of ionization.
So it is only very close to the sun where these electrons are accelerated to relativistic speeds and where arc discharges occur.

Why have these electrons not been detected?

The explanation appears to be that spacecraft such as Soho, Ulysses etc soon become very highly negatively charged with respect to the surrounding space plasma and in addition to being embedded within the "solar wind", the combined effect causes these slow-drifting electrons to remain virtually undetectable.
Charged in this way, the velocity of these spacecraft through the plasma/solar wind would also have little effect in the detection of any accumulated electrons, as the spacecraft are also highly charged.
If it were possible, it seems that only a specially designed spacecraft sent sufficiently close to the sun (perhaps near the corona), could actually detect these incoming electrons.

Alternatively, maybe the Pioneer probes will reveal some unusual anomalies (as predicted) at the other end of the positive column, the cathodic end, where apparently there is a strong radial electric field.
At least if the Pioneer's do further decelerate near the heliopause, or even slowdown quite abruptly (assuming we can still receive data from these spacecraft), then this anomaly will require an explanation.

The "any comments" I was asking about, was concerning the statement made by Martin Rees, where it appears that the electrical force and the gravitational force equalize out at about the mass of Jupiter, afterwhich gravity takes over.

John T

I don't buy it. If Cassini were highly negatively charged, our instrument (INMS - Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer) wouldn't work properly, nor would most of the other plasma and fields instruments. We'd all notice when the voltages on our electronics went out of spec. There is some negative charging due to the solar plasma, but (from what I understand) it is on the order of a few volts. Not enough to push electrons away if they are approaching the sun with any appreciable velocity, which they would have to be (see below).

Also, we are heading straight into this supposed electron flow, but CAPS's ELS (ELectron Spectrometer) doesn't see them. When it looks away from the sun, there is essentially nothing to see. The low energy "glow" is that slight negative charging that the spacecraft has and can be seen no matter where CAPS is looking.
http://nis-www.lanl.gov/nis-projects..._anl_tool.html

And don't expect anything else back from Pioneer: the last signals from 10 and 11 were recieved one and 7 years ago respectively.
http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Sp...er/PNStat.html

And anyway, how would you explain the massive number of electrons leaving the sun? How do these slow moving inbound electrons (to complete the "circuit") get past that, if they can't get past the few volts on a spacecraft? They'd have to be moving quickly, but we don't see them, so that explanation doesn't work.

__________________
"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

parejkoj

Thanks for your input, particularly as you appear to occupy the driving seat concerning spacecraft etc.

As I have mentioned above, Tim Thompson's input on crater morphology (ADS) has given me much food for thought on the question of electrical cratering verses impact.

Perhaps with regard to "electrons entering the sun", you might do the same, because I stand by what I previously said ie:

"No electrons entering the sun (to power the sun), then no electric stars and no electric universe...period!"

In this respect and to answer the questions and the points raised in your post, perhaps it may be better instead to give you a few links (which are freely available on the www), that deal with the subject in a little more detail.

The first link 'A Mystery Solved' deals with the slowing down of the Pioneer spacecraft.
(I was not aware that signals from Pioneer10 had completely ceased).

http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html

The second link contains an article on the 'Summary of Ralph Juergen's Electric Sun Model' which deals with the question;

"Why don't we see a stream of energetic charged particles heading toward the Sun if it is truly electrically powered?

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt

I welcome your comments.

John T

The majority opinion favors cold dark matter, but there are a few who suggest warm dark matter as a solution for some problems, iincluding galacttic angular momentum. But hot dark matter is out, I think, because it's too hard to form structure as soon as we know it formed.

• Galaxy Formation and the Intergalactic Medium Research Group, University of Texas at Austin.
• Galaxy Formation, public pages from the Coamology Group at Cambridge University.
• Galaxy Formation and the Development of Large-Scale Structure: Caption, leads to super-computer developed movies of galaxy formation, and cosmic large scale structure formation. The simulation match observed structure characteristics fairly well, so it's hard to see such a radical solution as the electric cosmos is needed to handle any problems that do exist.

Of course, when I say "galaxy formation is pretty well understood at the basic level", I don't mean that we now know all there is to know, but rather that we understand the basic input from standard physics, and how it will lead to galaxy formation. But this is still an area of active research. Here are a few more or less randomly selected papers of interest.

Hierarchical galaxy formation
S. Cole, et al.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 319(1): 168-204, November 21, 2000.
Abstract: We describe the GALFORM semi-analytic model for calculating the formation and evolution of galaxies in hierarchical clustering cosmologies. It improves upon, and extends, the earlier scheme developed by Cole et al. The model employs a new Monte Carlo algorithm to follow the merging evolution of dark matter haloes with arbitrary mass resolution. It incorporates realistic descriptions of the density profiles of dark matter haloes and the gas they contain; it follows the chemical evolution of gas and stars, and the associated production of dust; and it includes a detailed calculation of the sizes of discs and spheroids. Wherever possible, our prescriptions for modelling individual physical processes are based on results of numerical simulations. They require a number of adjustable parameters, which we fix by reference to a small subset of local galaxy data. This results in a fully specified model of galaxy formation which can be tested against other data. We apply our methods to the Lambda CDM cosmology (Omega (0) = 0.3, Lambda (0) = 0.7), and find good agreement with a wide range of properties of the local galaxy population: the B- and K-band luminosity functions, the distribution of colours for the population as a whole, the ratio of ellipticals to spirals, the distribution of disc sizes, and the current cold gas content of discs. Inspire of the overall success of the model, some interesting discrepancies remain: the colour-magnitude relation for ellipticals in clusters is significantly flatter than observed at bright magnitudes (although the scatter is about right), and the model predicts galaxy circular velocities, at a given luminosity, that are about 30 per cent larger than is observed. It is unclear whether these discrepancies represent fundamental shortcomings of the model, or whether they result from the various approximations and uncertainties inherent in the technique. Our more detailed methods do not change our earlier conclusion that just over half the stars in the Universe are expected to have formed since z less than or similar to 1.5.


The hierarchical origin of galaxy morphologies
M. Steinmetz & J.F. Navarro
New Astronomy 7(4): 155-160, June 2002
Abstract: We report first results from a series of N-body/gasdynamical simulations designed to study the origin of galaxy morphologies in a cold dark matter-dominated universe. The simulations include star formation and feedback and have numerical resolution sufficiently high to allow for a direct investigation of the morphology of simulated galaxies. We find, in agreement with previous theoretical work, that the presence of the main morphological components of galaxies-disks, spheroids, bars-is regulated by the mode of gas accretion and intimately linked to discrete accretion events. In the case we present, disks arise from the smooth deposition of cooled gas at the center of dark halos, spheroids result from the stirring of preexisting disks during mergers, and bars are triggered by tides generated by satellites. This demonstrates that morphology is a transient phenomenon within the lifetime of a galaxy and that the Hubble sequence reflects the varied accretion histories of galaxies in hierarchical formation scenarios. In particular, we demonstrate directly that disk/bulge systems can be built and rebuilt by the smooth accretion of gas onto the remnant of a major merger and that the present-day remnants of late dissipative mergers between disks are spheroidal stellar systems with structure resembling that of field ellipticals. The perplexing variety of galaxy morphologies is thus highly suggestive of-and may actually even demand-a universe where structures have evolved hierarchically.

The halo occupation distribution and the physics of galaxy formation
A.A. Berlind AA, et al.
Astrophysical journal 593(1): 1-25, Part 1, August 10 2003.
Abstract: The halo occupation distribution ( HOD) describes the bias between galaxies and dark matter by specifying (1) the probability P(dN/M) that a halo of virial mass M contains N galaxies of a particular class and (2) the relative spatial and velocity distributions of galaxies and dark matter within halos. We calculate and compare the HODs predicted by a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulation of a LambdaCDM cosmological model (cold dark matter with a cosmological constant) and by a semianalytic galaxy formation model applied to the same cosmology. Although the two methods predict different galaxy mass functions, their HOD predictions for samples of the same space density agree remarkably well. In a sample defined by a baryonic mass threshold, the mean occupation function [N](M) exhibits a sharp cutoff at low halo masses, a slowly rising plateau in which [N] climbs from 1 to 2 over nearly a decade in halo mass, and a more steeply rising high-occupancy regime at high halo mass. In the low-occupancy regime, the factorial moments [N(N - 1)] and [N(N-1)(N - 2)] are well below the values of [N](2) and [N](3) expected for Poisson statistics, with important consequences for the small-scale behavior of the two- and three-point correlation functions. The HOD depends strongly on galaxy age, with high-mass halos populated mainly by old galaxies and low-mass halos by young galaxies. The distribution of galaxies within SPH halos supports the assumptions usually made in semianalytic calculations: the most massive galaxy lies close to the halo center and moves near the halo's mean velocity, while the remaining, satellite galaxies have the same radial profile and velocity dispersion as the dark matter. The mean occupation at fixed halo mass in the SPH simulation is independent of the halo's larger scale environment, supporting both the merger tree approach of the semianalytic method and the claim that the HOD provides a complete statistical characterization of galaxy bias. We discuss the connections between the predicted HODs and the galaxy formation physics incorporated in the SPH and semianalytic approaches. These predictions offer useful guidance to theoretical models of galaxy clustering, and they will be tested empirically by ongoing analyses of galaxy redshift surveys. By applying the HODs to a large-volume N-body simulation, we show that both methods predict slight departures from a power-law galaxy correlation function, similar to features detected in recent observational analyses.

And a few other noteworthy efforts:

• Simulations of Galaxy Formation in a Lambda CDM Universe III: The Dissipative Formation of an Elliptical Galaxy
• Simulations of Galaxy Formation in a Lambda CDM Universe II: The Fine Structure of Simulated Galactic Disks
• Simulations of Galaxy Formation in a Lambda CDM Universe I: Dynamical and Photometric Properties of a Simulated Disk Galaxy
• The Properties of Spiral Galaxies: Confronting Hierarchical Galaxy Formation Models with Observations

On the matter of the electrons allegedly powering the sun, I would like to add the comment that it is the velocity of the electrons with respect to the spacecraft, and not to the sun, which affects the detection or detectability of said electrons. With that in mind, aside from the fact that we know already that spacecraft do not carry a net charge sufficient to drive off even wimpy electrons, add in the fact that all of these spacecraft are traveling at fairly high velocities relative to the sun, and therefore also at high velocities relative to the "drift" electrons. But such electrons would be faster & more energetic than solar wind electrons, and be that much easier to detect. We don't detect them at all, and that is a significant indication that they are not there.

Also note that there is a large, but ignored physical problem, also brought up by parejkoj. If you try to run two currents through each other, they will not do so smoothly, and may not do so at all. An incoming stream of slow electrons will never reach the sun, and could not possibly ever reach the sun, because it would be stopped cold by the far more numerous electrons streaming out from the sun, or defelected by the protons (which might even capture slow electrons to form neutral hydrogen atoms). This basic fact of electromagnetism creates an intolerable conflict with the notion that the incoming electrons are "slow"; either there are no such electrons, or the physics of electromagnetism is entirely wrong. Since the latter shows no sign of being true, it seems the former is more likely to be true, and that there are no such electrons. And do keep in mind that we do see interstellar neutrals moving through the solar system, from the right direction. So we know where & how to look for such electrons.

It is interesting that the conversation moves always towards slow, drift electrons. If we follow the link suggested by John T (THOTH, vol III, no. 6, March 31, 1999), and go most of the way to the bottom, and follow the question Why don't we see a stream of energetic charged particles heading toward the Sun if it is truly electrically powered?, we make an interesting find. The elctrons are not at all slow, but are rather proposed to be highly relativistic, with energies up to 10 Gev (10 billion electron volts). An electron at that energy will be travellingat a large fraction of the speed of light, far faster than the few hundred km/sec speeds of the solar wind electrons. Electrons at that energy should smash hard into spacecraft, making themselves very obvious. They should also emit X-ray continuum radiation as they move through the solar wind, but we don't see that either. The absence of X-rays, and the absence of highly energetic electron collisions is a significant indication that the proposed current is not there.

And if you look about halfway on that webpage, to the start of the section on Juergen's model, you will see, in the 1st paragraph, a reference to Eddington's The Internal Constitution of the Stars. It is important to know that when Eddington wrote, it was not known that nuclear fusion was even possible at all. It was a mere speculation in the 1920's, and if you look at Eddington's book, you will see that it is in fact much more qualitative than quantitative.

A better choice for the starting point for the modern theory of steller interiors is Chandrasekhar's An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure (University of Chicago Press, 1939). Chandrasekhar worked out all of the physics that Eddington could not work out, especially the hydrodynamics and radiative transfer. While Chandrasekhar did not know for sure that fusion could happen, the 13 year interval since Eddington's 1926 book saw an enormous increase in the knowledge of nuclear physics (a discipline which did not really exist at all in 1926). But, like Eddington, Chandrasekhar could only propose nuclear fusion as the likely source, with little quantitative support, save the difference in nuclear masses.

The big step of introducing nuclear fusion in quantitative detail was taken by Martin Schwarzschild, in his book Structure and Evolution of the Stars (Princeton University Press, 1958). This was the first book to take advantage of the WWII "boom" in nuclear physics research, including the practical application of nuclear fusion in the post WWII era. By using the known fusion rates, Schwarzschild was able to show that nuclear fusion does work quite well as the internal energy source.

But all the electric cosmos folks can come up with is a lame excuse: "Almost all of the efforts by theorists since then has been to gloss over the 'fatal' objections (note that the use of quotes in the original seems to imply that the objections are not fatal)" And note once again that the "original" here is Eddington, who was the one in the worst position to understand fusion as a stellar energy source. In fact, a study of Chandrasekhar, Schwarzschild, and those who came after, shows that there was no "glossing over", as the Thothites would say, but exactly the opposite. The construction of a cohesive theory of stellar internal structure.

And right after that we find: "The worst fatality is that the neutrinos that we should expect, if the sun's engine is ticking over as advertised, do not exist in anywhere near the numbers required." This appears in the March 1999 newsletter, even though neutrino oscillations had already been studied since 1979, and it had already been shown by the early 90's that quantum mechanically allowed oscillations would in all liklihood solve the solar neutrino problem. Since then, the newer results have strikingly confirmed the oscillation model, which does away with the neutrino problem as voiced in Thoth. So their favorite "fatal" flaw is not only not fatal, it's not a "flaw" at all.

The other big physics problem is that stars have to have a large internal energy source to exist, and the "electric star" explanation, of internal electrostatic repulsion is a sham argument that strongly violates the fundamentals of physics. Like charges repel, unlike charges attract. If you mix them together, without heat, the unlike charges glom onto each other, the gas neutralizes and collapses (fast). If you mix them together with heat, the heat convects & radiates away, the gas becomes cold, the like charges glom onto each other, the gas neutralizes and collpases (fast). For a mass the size & temperature of the sun, this will happen in 500,000 to 1,000,000 years, but the sun will shrink systematically as it cools. We should be able to measure the shrinking & cooling, but see neither, which implies that it is not happening. Only a continuous energy source will keep the sun the way it is, electric or not. So the internal energy source problem does not go away, even with an "electric" star.

The truth is that the electric universe & electric star hypotheses violate so many simple & fundamental considerations of physics that it's hard to count them all, so it's hard to understand why anyone whould choose to take it seriously.

I conclude with a shameless list of my own webpages, all written with the intention of being relevant to the electric universe hypothesis.

• On the Matter of the Electric Star Hypothesis, Thompson responds to Thornhill, May, 1998.
• On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis, a detailed analysis of the propsed "electric" nature of the sun & stars, arguing strongly against the "electric sun" hypothesis.
• Geodynamo Theory, and the matter of the Electric Universe Hypothesis, May, 1998, a response to the claim of the electric universe hypothesis that the Earth's magnetic field cannot be dynamo generated.
• Hertzsprung Russell Diagram And Stellar Evolution, originally a response to the electric universe, I have now removed references to that hypothesis and simply present that standard theory of stellar evolution, and show how it is compatible with even small details in the color-magnitude diagram. This is a strength of standard theory, and a weakness of the eletric universe hypothesis.
• Solar Fusion & Neutrinos, an introduction to the fusion processes inside the sun, and to the solar neutrino problem.

There is a simple way to show that the electric sun model is false. Consider the quote Tim provided from Thoth:

"The electrons are not at all slow, but are rather proposed to be highly relativistic, with energies up to 10 Gev (10 billion electron volts)."

If such electrons existed, then the energy imparted to a target body would depend on the surface area of the body. Since the volume of a body increases as a cube and surface area as a square then the surface area to volume ratio is greater for smaller bodies. That means the energy imparted to a smaller body, like the Earth, would be greater - per unit volume - than the energy imparted to the Sun.

Consequently, the Earth should be at least as hot as the Sun.

It is a simple matter to show that it is not.

Hello "rastro", Tim Thompson and all,

I have been away of recent times, however to answer "rastro" (and all):

I take what you say by your recent post, but I just cannot understand your mathematical assumptions and reasoning, with regard to "unit volume and surface area" within the context of which we are discussing.

With regard to simplicity itself, as if using this idea as a sort of construct, no problem at all, but we have now developed this discussion from the prospect of electrical cratering to electrical stars (courtesy - Tim Thompson).

Your explanation is very interesting for sure, but in relation to incoming electrons (to power the sun), which is what this discussion has now developed towards, the purported electrons are indeed undetectable within the current instrumentation and technology aboard the various spacecraft.

With this fact I agree, the spacecraft were not designed for that purpose.

Such conventional spacecraft are designed to measure, amongst many other factors (in my understanding), the physical "output" of the sun, not any purported "input", which at the distance of the the Earth, according to the hypothesis, is grossly inadequate for detection anyway (which is why the Earth does not glow as the sun).

In like manner and in "conventional" terms, so are the detection of the
apparently "flavoured" neutrinos that purportedly emanate from the sun, also seriously in question.

These "missing" neutrinos, perhaps to save a theory, surely must be proven to exist...and please, not on paper, or any wonderful theoretical constructs.

So, how can we measure these neutrinos, to prove or at least substantiate the "theory"?

Yet more theories and speculation?

Maybe we should place a few ultra well-designed spacecraft between the sun and the Earth (of which such spacecraft are also technically outside of today's current technology), in order to measure the change in neutrino flux from the sun.

In this way, perhaps these mysterious changing neutrinos can actually be observed to change their form enroute from one flavour to another, as theorized, so that these mass or mass-less particles, or perhaps no real particles at all, can actually be measured on their approach to the Earth.

Surely, therein may lie the desired "proof" of these mysterious neutrino "flavours".

Similarly, maybe we should place a few equally and specially designed spacecraft to measure the possibility of "incoming" electrons (that purportedly power the sun), at the distances of our Earth, Saturn, Neptune and much further beyond.
Indeed right out to the limits of the sun's heliosphere (Pioneer 10 is actually slowing down, but nobody knows why).

This, in my understanding, is just one aspect that the electrical universe theory demands as a measure of proof.

Only in this way can the theory (hypothesis?) or indeed any "theory" be substantially verified (but there are other ways, which are outside the scope for this discussion).

More to all this, is the understanding of "glow discharge theory", which is one of the governing properties and reasons for an electric sun, as opposed to a "gravitational" sun.

Further, I just cannot believe and nor do I accept, that 'Birkeland Currents' existing in space is "hocus pocus" (to quote Tim Thompson on a recent post during this thread).

Nor do I accept that even despite the wonderful experiments carried out, re - the ADS cratering experiments of forty-odd years ago, are absolutely representative and conclusive by impact theory alone.

I have studied these experimental crater forms etc and to me, there are too many anomalies that just cannot be explained by impact theory, despite "experimental proof".

In my understanding, what we see over the entire surface of the Moon does not equate with "impacts" at all (other than perhaps the odd ellipsoidal craters such as Messier and Messier A and a few others).

In short, if there are actually neutrinos that somehow change their "flavours" on the way from the sun to the earth, indeed proven beyond doubt (physically, not mathematically), then the electric universe concept must be wrong.

Then there is other evidence which needs (and indeed requires) explanation, but that is another story, which in my experience, mostly depends on a matter of opinion and the generalised adoption of common sense.

Regards

John T

I will make such reply now, as limited time permits.

On the matter of the volume & surface area of Earth, for simplicity sake, just consider the areas. the surface area of Earth is 8.375x10^-5 of the surface area of the sun. So one might reasonably guess that Earth should be receiving that same fraction of the incoming energy as the sun. And since Earth is in thermal equilibrium with its surrounding, it should shine with that same fraction of the sun's energy. That translates into an expected radiation temperature of 552.7 Kelvins, as compared with it's known radiation temperature of 254.3 Kelvins. So this does leave open the obvious question: Why does Earth not receive energy from the same electrons as does the sun?

Incorrect. The purported electrons are extremely detectable, and have been since the very first spacecraft went out to study the interplanetary environment, in the early 60's I guess. All of the electron detectors are omnidirectional, and always have been. They detect both the energy & direction of the electrons, protons & ions. The purported electrons should have been detected long ago, and it is hard to explain why they have not been.

Already done, as described on my webpage: Solar Fusion & Neutrinos (see the Note added July 2002). The earlier neutrino experiments, the one's that saw a "deficit" were sensitive only to electron neutrinos, since the sun only produces electron neutrinos. Newer experiments, which measure all three neutrino flavors (electron, muon & tau), detect the same total number of neutrinos as theory predicts the sun to emit, and consistent with "flavor" oscillation from electron to muon or tau. In short, the neutrinos you ask about detecting, have been detected, and in the number anticipated by standard theory.

There are Birkeland Currents all over the place. What's "hocus pocus" about it (and I will stand by those words) is the way they are described and applied by the electric cosmos proponents. They invent currents where there are none, and ignore the currents that are really there. And that's about as hocus as pocus gets.

Later.

From John T:
"Maybe we should place a few ultra well-designed spacecraft between the sun and the Earth (of which such spacecraft are also technically outside of today's current technology), in order to measure the change in neutrino flux from the sun. "

I think we will need a few more design iterations before that becomes possible. The neutrino detectors in use at Fermilab (for example) weigh in at 5,400 metric tons....

As to experiments to detect the flavor oscillations, check out these web pages from Fermilab.

http://www-numi.fnal.gov/public/minosexperiment.html
http://www-numi.fnal.gov/public/oscillations.html
http://www-numi.fnal.gov/forscientists.html

I must say, thankyou indeed for your good postings of recent, ie Tim Thompson and "rastro" etc.

Whereas I am studying your responses, I am still not fully convinced by what you have to say.

I have previously spoken about the electrical formation of craters (on the moon), including sinuous rilles etc and I am studying the extremely good laboratory descriptions and interpretations of these craters, kindly posted by Tim Thompson with regard to the ADS archives.

In my tentative conclusions thus far, I am not fully convinced by the impact theory of crater formation.

In my examination of the photos, there is too much "missing" from the resultant aggregates and various accumulations of the dispersed material, that apparently result from these impacts.

Never mind stones or other objects thrown into specially prepared and assumed lunar landscapes etc., (using flour etc) in the laboratory, this is easily done, but there is something in the topography and geological make-up of lunar craters, that for me does not speak of an "impact"

Also, the formation of "rilles" are not fully explained at all on the ADS experiments.
(The currently accepted theory of "collapsed lava tubes etc" is a rather tenuous and very weak explanation, in my opinion)

Regarding these apparent impacts, even on our humble Earth, the Tunguska incident was apparently not an impact at all.

In fact it is currently accepted, even within astronomical circles, that the "object", whatever it was, exploded around eight miles above ground level.
Was this "explosion" due to speed, chemical composition of the object and resultant friction within the upper atmosphere etc that caused this atmospheric explosion, or perhaps some other means?

Also, the formation of rayed craters (Copernicus, Tycho etc) where the rays disappear way over the horizon, are also not fully explained.

Indeed, why are the "rayed" craters predominently located in the "highland" areas on the moon and not the "lowland" Maria areas.

Why do some of these "rays" end abruptly at the transition between these two levels?

Impacts?

Then, during the discussion, the topic entered another aspect.

"Electrons entering the sun"

Sure, electrons entering the sun (to power the sun) have not been detected, nor is the equipment on the various satellites designed to detect these most elusive electrons (if indeed they are there).

Maybe there might be a need for a more definitive understanding of "glow discharge theory" that might explain their existence, within the confines of an electrically dominated universe.

There are also many other factors to consider, which for this brief post, are too numerous to mention.

Regards

I wonder, could anyone post more information on this subject.

I wrote:

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.

Surely, would not this statement disprove the electric universe question once and for all?

Anything beyond the size of Jupiter, at least mass-wise, would be seriously disproven.

Comments!


[/quote]