Something new under the sun

Perhaps physicists don't yet know all there is to know about gravity yet. It seems that five flyby spacecraft have seen unaccounted for accelerations, and NASA physicists are looking for a new explanation:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080229/sc_space/nasabaffledbyunexplainedforceactingonspaceprobes

Now, you'd think from listening from some of the people on this forum that the scientists that found and are exploring this anomaly would be castigated for going against the established physics here, since that's what happens with their pet theories (see the arguments about the electric sun, for example). The difference between this and, say, the "iron sun hypothesis" is that there is evidence of a break with the established theory, and the possibility is literally being jumped on by physicists. Even those not involved (see the article) are not holding doubts in the face of the evidence.

Contrast and compare.

shadron said:

Now, you'd think from listening from some of the people on this forum that the scientists that found and are exploring this anomaly would be castigated for going against the established physics here, since that's what happens with their pet theories (see the arguments about the electric sun, for example).

Click to expand...

Far from it. From what I understand, the scientific community is all a-twitter with excitement about the Pioneer Anomaly. And the fact that it is the scientific community that is demanding a more detailed analysis of the Pioneer data should speak volumes to the fact that scientists are not afraid of new information that challenges their ideas. In fact, they often embrace these new data.

MattusMaximus said:

... that scientists are not afraid of new information that challenges their ideas. In fact, they often embrace these new data.

Click to expand...

Depends on how emotionally invested they are in their "old" ideas. Doesn't mean that they should de facto accept them either, but instead search for plausible, reproducible and testible theories to explain the observations.

-Dr. Imago

Dr. Imago said:

Depends on how emotionally invested they are in their "old" ideas. Doesn't mean that they should de facto accept them either, but instead search for plausible, reproducible and testible theories to explain the observations.

-Dr. Imago

Click to expand...

All valid points. Thanks for adding these onto mine.

Scientists seem very unwilling to use well established EM forces to account for these observations. Most of these anomalies could likely be solved by applying the forces that would result from the suns E-field. Currently the magnitude of this field is unknown, but you could likely work out the magnitude of the force from the Pioneer data. The pioneer anomaly has had many solutions offered by mainstream astronomers, and most of them are utterly ridiculous. 'Dark matter is acting like a friction medium creating drag', Multi-dimensional space is acting on the probes in ways that are not understood, Dark energy is being observed in its anti-gravitational activity, etc So each solution so far is either made up of something we know absolutely nothing about or something undetectable. So how can we disprove these hypothesis considering they are based entirely on something we know essentially nothing about, and cant detect? For me the only answer can lie in EM forces.


In 2002 electrical theorist, author and speaker Wal Thornhill wrote;

"After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft's voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun's weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal "tug" toward the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation because Pioneer 10 has confirmed the electrical model of Stars!"


Now that sounds like a much more likely solution to me.

It's generally assumed gravity is a fact. It's not. It's a theory, invented by Newton and barely three centuries old.

It's generally assumed gravity is a universal law. It's not. The prominences on the sun don't obey it. Neptune scoffs at it. The stars repudiate it. Galaxies ignore it. Its jurisdiction is pretty much limited to Newton's falling apple at the surface of the Earth. Even there the constant of gravitation refuses to be constant and wiggles around like a plasma in a magnetic field. Newton said, "Gravity steers the universe." Heraclitus said, "The thunderbolt steers the universe." Who're ya gonna believe? Newton knew nothing about electricity. Heraclitus knew nothing about gravity. Newton had seen lightning, and Heraclitus had seen falling apples. But neither thought it was something that needed to be explained.

Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:

...
Now that sounds like a much more likely solution to me.

Click to expand...

Much more likely to be rounding error in the simulation we all believe exist in.

Zeuzzz said:

It's generally assumed gravity is a fact. It's not. It's a theory, invented by Newton and barely three centuries old.

Click to expand...

First off, you really don't know anything about gravity if you think Newton was the last word on it. In fact, Newton's theories are out-dated, since they were superceded by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1916. Sorry pal, but if you're going to criticize physics, at least try to understand what you're criticizing as opposed to making arguments that are irrelevant by almost a century's time.

Secondly, if you really believe that gravity is "just a theory", then I suggest that you take a short walk off a very tall building. Get back to us with the results of your experiment...

Zeuzzz said:

Scientists seem very unwilling to use well established EM forces to account for these observations. Most of these anomalies could likely be solved by applying the forces that would result from the suns E-field. Currently the magnitude of this field is unknown, but you could likely work out the magnitude of the force from the Pioneer data. The pioneer anomaly has had many solutions offered by mainstream astronomers, and most of them are utterly ridiculous. 'Dark matter is acting like a friction medium creating drag', Multi-dimensional space is acting on the probes in ways that are not understood, Dark energy is being observed in its anti-gravitational activity, etc So each solution so far is either made up of something we know absolutely nothing about or something undetectable. So how can we disprove these hypothesis considering they are based entirely on something we know essentially nothing about, and cant detect? For me the only answer can lie in EM forces.

Click to expand...

And what evidence do you have that electromagnetic forces are in fact the cause for these effects? Making an argument from ignorance is very far removed from actually providing a scientifically testable & valid hypothesis. Based upon your logic, the cause could be cosmic leprechauns just as easily as it could be EM-forces.

In 2002 electrical theorist, author and speaker Wal Thornhill wrote;

"After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft's voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings.

Click to expand...

Mr. Thornhill doesn't appear to understand the most basic physics of gravity or electromagnetism. He focuses only upon the electrons in his arguments, but what about all the positively charged particles (such as positively charged ions on the "solar wind") that populate interplanetary space? Why doesn't he mention these? If you're talking about EM-forces, you cannot just ignore them, but he does precisely that.

So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun's weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal "tug" toward the positively charged Sun.

Click to expand...

And what evidence do you have that the Sun contains a net charge of any magnitude? Rather than assert it is so, try providing some evidence.

Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant.

Click to expand...

What are you smoking?!

Again, this displays a gross misunderstanding of electromagnetic physics on your part. If there was a net charge on the Sun, as this author claims, then the electric field would not be constant, it would obey an inverse square law due to the approximate spherical symmetry of the Sun. Ever heard of Gauss' Law?

Of course, this assumes we are talking about an electrostatic condition, but I doubt either you or Mr. Thornhill understand why this is even relevant.

In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation because Pioneer 10 has confirmed the electrical model of Stars!"

Click to expand...

If one of my physics students tried to make such arguments they would quite easily flunk my class. Not only is the physics presented in these arguments wrong, it isn't even consistent within the arguments themselves. Not only that, but the author doesn't provide any evidence for their claims, no testable hypotheses, no experiments; rather they are making ad-hoc assertions and arguments from ignorance.

Now that sounds like a much more likely solution to me.

Click to expand...

That's because you have no idea what you're talking about...

MattusMaximus said:

First off, you really don't know anything about gravity if you think Newton was the last word on it. In fact, Newton's theories are out-dated, since they were superceded by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1916.

Click to expand...

Yes, and what a sucess relativity turned out to be. I'm surprised that you have not mentioned MOND, or some of the other more recent ad hoc modifications that have been made to Newtons Cherished theory to make it fit with various observations. Still scientists do not know what causes gravity, how it actually physically works.

Secondly, if you really believe that gravity is "just a theory", then I suggest that you take a short walk off a very tall building. Get back to us with the results of your experiment...

Click to expand...

You are speaking as if you have found the illusive graviton, or as if you have found out why gravity causes mass to attract, no-one knows that. Your statement that gravity is not a theory is exactly what is wrong with modern astronomy. Gravity (or the force that is currently thought to be caused only by the attraction of mass, i should say) is unbelievably weak, which makes testing its exact nature nearly impossible without the other EM forces interfering with the experiment. Maxwell thought that Gravity itself was a leftover Electromagnetic force that arrises from atom gemoetry, something I believe could turn out to be true considering the large array of gravitational anomalies associated with high voltage electrical effects.

The reasoning behind Gravity is highly circular. Gravity is based on mass. What is mass? Mass is based on Gravity, and is hard to define apart from the intuitive idea of how much 'stuff' there is in something. Try to define what gravity is, and you have to use Mass, so both rely on each other in a highly circular relationship.


Newton's Theory of Gravity is one of the most useful mathematical formulae ever devised. This little formula has made space travel and the exploration of the Solar System possible. It made satellites possible. . . . Scientists use this little formula to gain an understanding of galaxies far away, and indeed the behaviour of the universe as a whole. It is now more than 300 years since Newton devised this little formula; and we still do now know what causes gravity.

Newtonian gravity is accurately measured and has been largely proven with the bounds of the solar system. However, Newtonian gravity remains untested in other areas. All we have is a formula. This formula has been used to determine the mass of the Earth. This is based on the concept that for each mass of M inside the Earth, it exerts and attractive force of F. We do not know the valid range for Newtonian gravity. Inside Newton's formula is G. G is the "universal gravitational constant". It is assumed, and assumed is the correct word here, that each mass of M exerts the same force of F regardless of where in the universe it may be placed. How did newton work out this assumption? he certainly could not test it back then. It is also assumed that each mass of M exerts the same force F whether it lies on the surface of a planet or star or whether it be deep inside the body.

This assumption rules out the very real possibility that particles near the surface of a body in space might exert a force greater (or less) than those deep down. Its also rules out the very real possibility that other EM forces that are much stronger than gravity can effect these particles.

The theory of gravity currently stinks of metaphysics, and really needs to be tied down to some form of reality where we can understand the mechanism by which it works.

MattusMaximus said:

And what evidence do you have that electromagnetic forces are in fact the cause for these effects? Making an argument from ignorance is very far removed from actually providing a scientifically testable & valid hypothesis.

Click to expand...

EM forces are known to exist in space. They are unbelieveably stronger than gravity. Pick up a metal object with a magnet, and you have just demonstrated that a small EM attraction is able to overcome the gravitational attraction caused by the entire mass of the earth.

Do have a reason to neglect EM forces playing a role in space? me thinks not.

The days of just applying Newtonian mechanics to the cosmos to explain everything are over. We live in a universe filled with EM forces and highly conducting plasma, which play a far greater role than most astronomers realize. When current gravity models were made this fact was not known, space was thought to be a vacuum. It is incomprehendable this discovery would not radically change how the universe works.

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, (1) Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, (2) Office of Research and Development, United States Department of Energy, Washington D.C. - Volume 244, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1996

Contrary to popular and scientific opinion of just a few decades ago, space is not an lsquoemptyrsquo void. It is actually filled with high energy particles, magnetic fields, and highly conducting plasma. The ability of plasmas to produce electric fields, either by instabilities brought about by plasma motion or the movement of magnetic fields, has popularized the term lsquoElectric Spacersquo in recognition of the electric fields systematically discovered and measured in the solar system. Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state and the importance of electromagnetic forces on cosmic plasma cannot be overstated; even in neutral hydrogen regions (sim10^–4 parts ionized), the electromagnetic force to gravitational force ratio is 10⁷.
An early prediction about the morphology of the universe is that it be filamentary (Alfvén, 1950). Plasmas in electric space are energetic (because of electric fields) and they are generally inhomogeneous with constituent parts in motion. Plasmas in relative motion are coupled by the currents they drive in each other and nonequilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. This paper explores the dynamical and radiative consequences of the evolution of galactic-dimensioned filaments in electric space.

Click to expand...

Mr. Thornhill doesn't appear to understand the most basic physics of gravity or electromagnetism. He focuses only upon the electrons in his arguments, but what about all the positively charged particles (such as positively charged ions on the "solar wind") that populate interplanetary space? Why doesn't he mention these? If you're talking about EM-forces, you cannot just ignore them, but he does precisely that.

Click to expand...

So, would you also say that R M Skoug, and his other scientific associates at Los Alamos National Laboratory, does not understand basic physics? because in his recent paper of observations of backstreaming electrons heading towards the sun he did not once mention protons. What sort of warped reasoning is that?

And what evidence do you have that the Sun contains a net charge of any magnitude? Rather than assert it is so, try providing some evidence.

Click to expand...

On the global electrostatic charge of stars - Journal of astronomy and Astrophysics

I should point out that that value they use is likely an underestimate, if the path of pioneer is casued exclusively by the E-field, that would imply this is the case.

If there was a net charge on the Sun, as this author claims, then the electric field would not be constant

Click to expand...

As you travel away, obviosly, just as with gravity, it will obey inverse square. What he meant was the voltage maintaining this E-field stays constant, so the value of the e-field at a set radius from the sun will stay roughly constant.

If one of my physics students tried to make such arguments they would quite easily flunk my class. Not only is the physics presented in these arguments wrong, it isn't even consistent within the arguments themselves. Not only that, but the author doesn't provide any evidence for their claims, no testable hypotheses, no experiments; rather they are making ad-hoc assertions and arguments from ignorance.

Click to expand...

Quite to the contrary, they are using the only force that we know that is available to create this type of motion on bodies, EM forces. Unless another modificataion of gravity is needed (heaven forbid), i would say that that is a logical step to take. Much more logical than many scientists when they say it is caused by Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Hidden dimensions, or other things we know absolutely nothing about and so cant draw any unseful conclusions from anyway.

Zeuzzz said:

The reasoning behind Gravity is highly circular. Gravity is based on mass. What is mass? Mass is based on Gravity, and is hard to define apart from the intuitive idea of how much 'stuff' there is in something.

Click to expand...

It's hard to define if you don't know physics. The definition of mass doesn't need gravity at all. Actually, the rigourous concept of mass arises from the theory of representations of the Poincaré group. This group characterises the symmetry of spacetime in relativistic physics.

But never mind that now. You say mass is ill defined and that EM controls everything. So, tells us the definition of electric charge. And don't be circular...

Zeuzzz said:

Yes, and what a sucess relativity turned out to be. I'm surprised that you have not mentioned MOND, or some of the other more recent ad hoc modifications that have been made to Newtons Cherished theory to make it fit with various observations. Still scientists do not know what causes gravity, how it actually physically works.

Click to expand...

Actually, relativity has turned out to be very useful & successful. Ever hear of particle accelerators (aka "atom smashers"), nuclear power plants, satellite radio, GPS receivers, etc? All of those are using some kind of technology based upon the physics of relativity. So either you're living in a fantasy universe, or relativity is accurately describing what's going on. From what I've read of your posts so far, I'm thinking the former.

As for MOND, I do agree with you that it seems to be another ad-hoc assertion, which is why I don't agree with it. And this fact gives your proposals exactly zero validity.

Again, as I stated already, Newton's ideas on gravity are out-dated. One of the reasons was because Newton's view of gravity couldn't account for observed phenomena such as the precession of Mercury's orbit around the Sun. It took general relativity to do that.

You are speaking as if you have found the illusive graviton, or as if you have found out why gravity causes mass to attract, no-one knows that. Your statement that gravity is not a theory is exactly what is wrong with modern astronomy.

Click to expand...

The graviton is the particle equivalent of another prediction - gravitational radiation or gravity waves. We do have some indirect evidence of gravitational radiation, though I will admit that definitive evidence of the graviton has not yet been discovered.

Again, not having concrete answers to why gravity is attractive, etc in no way, shape or form gives any validity to your claims. You continue to make arguments from ignorance, which are just as valid as my "theory" of cosmic leprechauns.

Gravity (or the force that is currently thought to be caused only by the attraction of mass, i should say) is unbelievably weak, which makes testing its exact nature nearly impossible without the other EM forces interfering with the experiment.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Again, you are displaying a gross misunderstanding not only of gravity but of EM-forces as well. The fundamental fact of electromagnetism that you are neglecting is the polar nature - there are both positive and negative charges involved. The combination of these charges effectively neutralizes the electrical interactions on large size scales.

This is why we use bathroom scales (which, btw, measure a gravitational force) to measure your weight as opposed to screwing around with electrical devices such as electroscopes and electrophori to do it.

Maxwell thought that Gravity itself was a leftover Electromagnetic force that arrises from atom gemoetry, something I believe could turn out to be true considering the large array of gravitational anomalies associated with high voltage electrical effects.

Click to expand...

I'm not certain your claim is even true. But even if it is, Maxwell would have been just as wrong as you are - dropping names from the history books is a poor way to further your supposedly "scientific" arguments.

As for these "large array of gravitational anomalies associated with high voltage electrical effects" try providing some evidence of these effects as opposed to merely asserting them.

The reasoning behind Gravity is highly circular. Gravity is based on mass. What is mass? Mass is based on Gravity, and is hard to define apart from the intuitive idea of how much 'stuff' there is in something. Try to define what gravity is, and you have to use Mass, so both rely on each other in a highly circular relationship.

Click to expand...

Again, you fail to produce an understanding of many areas of physics. This time, you are butchering relativity (again) because we now know that mass is an expression of energy via E = mc². This formula is very well tested and verified, as we have used it to make everything from antimatter to nuclear power plants.

As for the fundamental question of "what is gravity?" I admit that we do not yet have that answer. But again you make the argument from ignorance, implying (without any evidence or experiments to back you up) that your corny ideas have some kind of validity.

Newton's Theory of Gravity is one of the most useful mathematical formulae ever devised. This little formula has made space travel and the exploration of the Solar System possible. It made satellites possible. . . . Scientists use this little formula to gain an understanding of galaxies far away, and indeed the behaviour of the universe as a whole. It is now more than 300 years since Newton devised this little formula; and we still do now know what causes gravity.

Click to expand...

Newton's view is useful for many things, but it doesn't work in all cases. Reference my earlier post about general relativity for more detail.

Newtonian gravity is accurately measured and has been largely proven with the bounds of the solar system.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It clearly doesn't work very close to the Sun. Otherwise, it would have been able to explain the precession of Mercury's orbit, but it didn't. It took general relativity to do that.

However, Newtonian gravity remains untested in other areas. All we have is a formula. This formula has been used to determine the mass of the Earth. This is based on the concept that for each mass of M inside the Earth, it exerts and attractive force of F. We do not know the valid range for Newtonian gravity. Inside Newton's formula is G. G is the "universal gravitational constant". It is assumed, and assumed is the correct word here, that each mass of M exerts the same force of F regardless of where in the universe it may be placed. How did newton work out this assumption? he certainly could not test it back then.

Click to expand...

Lots of errors in this part. First, Newton's formula alone cannot give a measure of the Earth's mass - it must be combined with Kepler's Laws to give a value of the Earth's mass.

Second, the range for Newtonian gravity is infinite - seen easily by anyone who understands the concept of an inverse square law and basic algebra.

Newton never determined the value of G (called the universal gravitational constant) - that came along in 1798 when Lord Henry Cavendish did his famous experiment which measured G. Subsequent experiments have confirmed the validity of G's value to high precision - I have even had students work this out.

It is also assumed that each mass of M exerts the same force F whether it lies on the surface of a planet or star or whether it be deep inside the body.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Newton never claimed this to my knowledge, and modern physicists definitely know better than to say this. In fact, if you apply Gauss' Law (which you can do with gravity - Newtonian gravity, that is) you will find that for a spherical planet that has a uniform mass distribution the strength of the gravitational field inside the planet is proportional to the distance from the center of the planet. This is clearly not the same thing as the inverse square law which is exerted outside the planet.

You are again screwing up all aspects of physics and, now, mathematics involved in your discussion.

This assumption rules out the very real possibility that particles near the surface of a body in space might exert a force greater (or less) than those deep down. Its also rules out the very real possibility that other EM forces that are much stronger than gravity can effect these particles.

Click to expand...

Arrgh... these assertions are just bogus on their face, for the reasons outlined above. Try learning some physics before you try making up crap.

The theory of gravity currently stinks of metaphysics, and really needs to be tied down to some form of reality where we can understand the mechanism by which it works.

Click to expand...

Again, if you think gravity is merely "metaphysics" and not grounded in reality, then by all means take that leap off the nearest cliff.

In fact, your arguments here are highly metaphysical in the sense that you refuse to provide any form of test or experiment. Not only that, but you don't even propose any kind of hypothesis, so why would any self-respecting scientist give your views any kind of validity?

You must think that the meaning of "theory" is "crap that I make up."

You are confusing "Law of gravity" with "understanding how gravity works". Please stop it.

MattusMaximus said:

Of course, this assumes we are talking about an electrostatic condition, but I doubt either you or Mr. Thornhill understand why this is even relevant.

Click to expand...

I suggest that you contact the respected IEEE journal of plasma physics and inform them of their error in publishing much of Thornhills work. I'm sure once they learn that yuou have deduced he knows nothing about electrostatics they will have no choice at all but to remove all his papers they have peer reviewed and accepted

heres a recent one;

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4287093&isnumber=4287017

The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars

This paper appears in: Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Publication Date: Aug. 2007
Volume: 35, Issue: 4, Part 1
On page(s): 832-844

Abstract
Supernova 1987A (SN 1987A) is the closest supernova event since the invention of the telescope. It was first seen in February 1987 in the nearby Large Magellanic Cloud, which is a dwarf companion galaxy of the Milky Way and only 169000 light years from Earth. The Hubble images of the rings of SN 1987A are spectacular and unexpected. The ldquobeaded ringrdquo pattern of brightening is not well explained as an expanding spherical shock front into an earlier stellar ldquowind.rdquo The axial shape of SN 1987A is that of a planetary nebula. It seems that new concepts are required to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae. The new discipline of plasma cosmology provides a precise analog in the form of a Z-pinch plasma discharge. The phenomena match so accurately that the number of bright beads can be accounted for and their behavior predicted. If supernovae are a plasma discharge phenomenon, the theoretical conditions for forming neutron stars and other ldquosupercondensedrdquo objects are not fulfilled, and plasma concepts must be introduced to explain pulsar remnants of supernovae. If the bipolar Z-pinch pattern is introduced to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae, a new electrical theory of stars is required.

Click to expand...

MattusMaximus said:

Actually, relativity has turned out to be very useful & successful.

Click to expand...

well duh. I was not being sarcatsic, relativity really has turned out to be very useful & successful

Yllanes said:

So, tells us the definition of electric charge. And don't be circular...

Click to expand...

Dang, you beat me. Explain gravity; explain charge. These things by their definitions are not explainable at our current level of knowledge; they are observed behaviors about which theories can be concocted which can lead to predictions about our environment.

Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant.

Click to expand...

There is no gradient where a field is constant (the gradient is 0). You predicated a negatively charged spacecraft and a positive sun; those imply a nonzero gradient, and therefore the field is not constant. Even the existence of free electrons with charge implies gradients, small as they may be. You can't do work in zero gradient using a field, in the same way you can't do work from heat when everything is the same temperature.

So then, why do the scientists pursue these tiny accelerations while ignoring your EU? One could say it is because of tradition and hide-boundedness (what Dr. Imago calls "emotional investment"), and I grant that there is certainly some of that out there. Geologists clung to uniformitarianism for far too long and with too much tenaciousness. That doesn't seem to be the case here, though, as many would embrace a correction on Einstein as easily as the correction on Newton by Einstein didn't take very long to become accepted. I think it's mainly a problem with the physics of EU itself, that there are flaws that very few want to champion, and they show no real tendency to be made explainable.

Oh, and that dumb cannard about electromagnetism being "stronger" in some sense than gravity, or vice versa at stellar distances. You're measuring apples and oranges; they are different forces (until and unless some unified theory can bind them together). All you can say about them definitively is that they are different. As an example, consider your magnet picking up some iron - plainly electromagnetism seems to be stronger than gravity. But then consider two rocks, one granite and one limestone. They are not attracted or repelled in any way from each other due to electromagnetism, but they are attracted by gravity.

Zeuzzz said:

EM forces are known to exist in space. They are unbelieveably stronger than gravity. Pick up a metal object with a magnet, and you have just demonstrated that a small EM attraction is able to overcome the gravitational attraction caused by the entire mass of the earth.

Do have a reason to neglect EM forces playing a role in space? me thinks not.

Click to expand...

Duh, of course EM-forces exist in space. That's why we have "solar wind". You still haven't addressed any of my criticisms from my earlier post.

The days of just applying Newtonian mechanics to the cosmos to explain everything are over.

Click to expand...

Again, for reasons I've outlined repeatedly, when dealing with gravitation, the Newtonian view is out-dated. To address these modern questions, we need to use general relativity. You seem to be really hung up on Newton, and you continually ignore everything I'm saying about Einstein and GR. Why is this?

We live in a universe filled with EM forces and highly conducting plasma, which play a far greater role than most astronomers realize. When current gravity models were made this fact was not known, space was thought to be a vacuum. It is incomprehendable this discovery would not radically change how the universe works.

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, (1) Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, (2) Office of Research and Development, United States Department of Energy, Washington D.C. - Volume 244, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1996

Click to expand...

I was wondering how long it was going to take you to bring up the "Plasma Universe" pseudoscience. You obviously didn't realize that you were talking to a physics and astronomy teacher. Wow, talk about a world of woo...

Comparison of the "Plasma Universe" to Mainstream Cosmology

It is also pretty clear that proponents of such a "plasma cosmology" are merely creationists attempting to undo the accepted science of big bang cosmology because it doesn't fit with your religious beliefs. Too bad, but I live in the 21st century, unlike you and your creationist brethren.

So, would you also say that R M Skoug, and his other scientific associates at Los Alamos National Laboratory, does not understand basic physics? because in his recent paper of observations of backstreaming electrons heading towards the sun he did not once mention protons. What sort of warped reasoning is that?

Click to expand...

Yup, he's wrong - that is, if you're even representing his research properly. You're claims aren't even consistent within your own arguments. By definition, a plasma is composed of both negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. And it should be noted that not all positively charged ions are protons - you'd think that someone with an understanding of physics would know this.

Besides, we know there are positively charged particles in the solar wind and other regions of interplanetary space, because we have actually measured them. In fact, there is a satellite dedicated to the study of the solar wind, its composition, and its effects - it is called SOHO.

On the global electrostatic charge of stars - Journal of astronomy and Astrophysics

I should point out that that value they use is likely an underestimate, if the path of pioneer is casued exclusively by the E-field, that would imply this is the case.

Click to expand...

You know, the funny thing about providing references is that people can actually read them. That is what I just did (I read over the paper - it's brief), and I can easily conclude that you are not representing this paper accurately.

While it does argue for the existence of a net charge on the Sun, it concedes that it is only discussing the situation in terms of electrostatics and not electrodynamics. Also, in the middle of the second page of that paper, the authors state:

"We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two idealized stars charged with the electrostatic charges, derived here, is extremely weak compared to gravity. The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10⁻³⁶ of the magnitude of gravity. However, if we study the dynamics of an electrically charged elementary particle or ion, with mass mx and charge qx, then the electrostatic force acting between this particle and charge Qr is −qx(mp−me)=(2qmx) multiple of gravitational force. Thus, the magnitude of the force represents about 50% of the magnitude of gravity, if the star acts on proton, and it is about 918 times more intensive than gravity, if the star acts on electron."

So, in a nutshell, they state in their own paper that these electrostatic effects are only significant when dealing with individual protons, electrons, and ions in the solar wind. Objects such as the Pioneer space probes do not contain a net charge, so any effects of such an E-field are negated. And, I should note, they actually point out the existence of positive charges in the solar wind - something which you seem to continually ignore.

There is another point here, if you actually knew anything about electromagnetism, you'd know that a changing magnetic field can induce electrical fields. Since the magnetic field of the Sun is in constant flux, it can easily induce powerful electrical fields. But these induced E-fields are not static, as you claimed earlier, because they are dependent upon the strength of the magnetic fields. So, as the magnetic fields change, so to do the E-fields.

Having said all this, I fail to see how an attempt on your part to cherry-pick info from this paper yields any validity for your arguments.

As you travel away, obviosly, just as with gravity, it will obey inverse square. What he meant was the voltage maintaining this E-field stays constant, so the value of the e-field at a set radius from the sun will stay roughly constant.

Click to expand...

You are contradicting your earlier claims - which is it? Is the electric field strength constant or does it obey an inverse square law? You have to at least take the time to get your b.s. arguments in order pal.

Quite to the contrary, they are using the only force that we know that is available to create this type of motion on bodies, EM forces. Unless another modificataion of gravity is needed (heaven forbid), i would say that that is a logical step to take. Much more logical than many scientists when they say it is caused by Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Hidden dimensions, or other things we know absolutely nothing about and so cant draw any unseful conclusions from anyway.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you've clearly showed that you make "logical" arguments

Zeuzzz said:

well duh. I was not being sarcatsic, relativity really has turned out to be very useful & successful

Click to expand...

Yup, just like how general relativity predicted the expanding universe from a big bang singularity and was later verified by experiment & observation, right?

Zeuzzz said:

I suggest that you contact the respected IEEE journal of plasma physics and inform them of their error in publishing much of Thornhills work. I'm sure once they learn that yuou have deduced he knows nothing about electrostatics they will have no choice at all but to remove all his papers they have peer reviewed and accepted

Click to expand...

Fine, I shall amend my earlier statement: YOU are the idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Happy now?

MattusMaximus said:

It is also pretty clear that proponents of such a "plasma cosmology" are merely creationists attempting to undo the accepted science of big bang cosmology because it doesn't fit with your religious beliefs. Too bad, but I live in the 21st century, unlike you and your creationist brethren.

Click to expand...

wow! where did that come from? Could you show me any evidence at all that plasma cosmology proponents are creationists? or is that just word-salad?

heres a few plasma cosmologists, maybe you should check if they are creationists. I very much doubt it.

*Hannes Alfven. Recieved a Nobel prize for his work
*Anthony Peratt. Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy
*Timothy E. Eastman. Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups
*Gerrit L. Verschuur. PhD, University of Manchester, presently at the Physics Department, University of Memphis. He is the author of "Interstellar matters : essays on curiosity and astronomical discovery"

Yup, he's wrong - that is, if you're even representing his research properly. You're claims aren't even consistent within your own arguments. By definition, a plasma is composed of both negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. And it should be noted that not all positively charged ions are protons - you'd think that someone with an understanding of physics would know this.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the very nature of the solar wind being a plasma mean that these positively and negatively charged particles can, and do, separate into currents and filaments.

There is even evidence of these incoming currents of particles in the ISM, flowing between stars.

Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular clouds - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science

Filamentary structures in molecular clouds and the existence of subfilaments of sinusoidal shape and also of helixlike structures are investigated. For two dark clouds, the Lynds 204 complex and the Sandqvist 187-188 complex, such shapes and the possible existence of helices wound around the main filaments are studied. All these features suggest the existence of electric currents and magnetic fields in these clouds. On the basis of a generalization of the Bennett pinch model, the magnitudes of the currents expected to flow in the filaments are derived. Values of column densities, magnetic field strengths, and direction of the fields are derived from observations.

Click to expand...

Scientists seem to be inadvertantly confirming what plasma cosmology proponents have been saying for years. The flow of electric currents observed in the interstellar medium is a direct consequence of the electric model, but has no place in standard models.

As close as i've got is so far is some sources suggesting that interstellar medium includes ionized interstellar gas (ie. plasma) at temperatures up to 5 x 10⁵K (1), whose magnetic fields are generated by electric currents (2), and that it may form its own current sheet (3), and that even the molecular clouds show these electric currents themselves (4).

(1) The Interstellar Medium By James Lequeux (academic book) http://books.google.com/books?id=Io...nized&sig=ZLgucerNwozysa_V6TSB_52ShNQ#PPT1,M1

(2) The Interstellar Medium By James Lequeux (academic book) http://books.google.com/books?id=Io...nized&sig=ZLgucerNwozysa_V6TSB_52ShNQ#PPT1,M1

(3) Current Sheet Formation in the Interstellar Medium Zweibel, Ellen G. Brandenburg, Astrophysical Journal v.478, p.563 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...478..563Z

(4) Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular clouds Carlqvist, Per; Gahm, Gosta F. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ITPS...20..867C

Zeuzzz said:

wow! where did that come from? Could you show me any evidence at all that plasma cosmology proponents are creationists? or is that just word-salad?

Click to expand...

Oops... I assumed that you were a creationist because whenever I'd heard people make such arguments in the past, they were doing so with the express desire to tear down big bang cosmology as a way of pushing creationism.

Okay, so you're not a creationist? Well then, good for you. You're still a moron, but not a Bible-thumping one at least.

Get back to me once you've actually learned something about physics and have the intellectual integrity to not misrepresent the papers authored by real scientists.

Until then, I leave you with this thought...

Zeuzzz said:

On the global electrostatic charge of stars - Journal of astronomy and Astrophysics

Click to expand...

They say the sun should have about 77 Coulombs. That's tiny. How big a force do you think that should be exerting on a spaceship? Can you even estimate it? Or are you just going to wave your hands?

I should point out that that value they use is likely an underestimate,

Click to expand...

Based on what? I've asked you that before. You have never provided an answer. I am left to conclude that it's because you want it to be so.

if the path of pioneer is casued exclusively by the E-field,

Click to expand...

But we have no reason to think that is the case, and you have not shown that the E-field is or even can be anywhere near large enough. Try to do a calculation for once. If you can.

Don't ask for math, math can mean anythin!

MattusMaximus said:

I was wondering how long it was going to take you to bring up the "Plasma Universe" pseudoscience. You obviously didn't realize that you were talking to a physics and astronomy teacher. Wow, talk about a world of woo...

Comparison of the "Plasma Universe" to Mainstream Cosmology

Click to expand...

Linking to wikipedia to back up your claims? you trust wiki? I dont. If you want to see a version of wikipedia that is not closely moderated by people not experts in that particular field, it looks a lot different. http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Special:Allpages nearly every paper cited is peer reviewed.

So, i can either believe a small section on a wikipedia page, or the hundreds of peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers. I wonder which i am more likely to believe?

If you have any scientific refutations of plamsa cosmology, preffereably peer reviewed, then please post them, they would make for interesting reading.

Zeuzzz said:

Linking to wikipedia to back up your claims? you trust wiki? I dont. If you want to see a version of wikipedia that is not closely moderated by people not experts in that particular field, it looks a lot different. http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Special:Allpages nearly every paper cited is peer reviewed.

So, i can either believe a small section on a wikipedia page, or the hundreds of peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers. I wonder which i am more likely to believe?

If you have any scientific refutations of plamsa cosmology, preffereably peer reviewed, then please post them, they would make for interesting reading.

Click to expand...

Hiya Zeuzz,

You seem to actualy want to talk and learn , as opposed to the wave and shout technique. You are using a ploy here. If you want to maintain credibility it is better to debate and critique the ideas of the wiki article. That way you will demonstrate your critical thinking skills and not just seem to be a radical on a soap box with a sign that says "The End is Near"..

Take it or leave it, the gauntlet is down, if you respond to the points and present evidence then you strenthen your case and we have better debate.

MattusMaximus said:

YOU are the idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. [..]
You're still a moron, but not a Bible-thumping one at least.

Click to expand...

.
Name calling is very weak argument.

MattusMaximus said:

Comparison of the "Plasma Universe" to Mainstream Cosmology

Click to expand...

.
You'll note that not one of the citations provided (in this section) actually mentions the Plasma Universe, nor are any page numbers provided. I suspect that whoever wrote this section was providing their own personal opinions as the citations do not corroborate them. The Wiki article is also full of errors.

• I am not aware of any source that described Plasma Cosmology as a "non-standard cosmology", and certainly not the proponent claimed in the citation.
• "His most famous cosmological proposal was that the universe was an equal mixture of ionized matter and anti-matter " is actually attributed to Oscar Klein, and is called "Klein-Alfvén Cosmology"
• The reference does not support the claim that "electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on the largest scales."
• It is rubbish to suggest that "Alfvén came to this conclusion by extrapolating plasma phenomena from small scales to large scales"
• It is rubbish that "Afvén's models do not provide any predictions that can account for any cosmological observations". See "Alfven's programme in solar system physics", Brush, Stephen G., IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 577-589. He wrote: "Alfvén’s approach to science follows the prediction-testing method [.. and] should have acquired credit by their successful predictions"
• "Examples of the highly speculative nature of Alfvén's conclusions include factually inaccurate explanations for star formation using Birkeland currents". The citation never says it is "factually inaccurate", nor does it suggest star formation using Birkeland currents, but due to an "instability .. of `dust' triggering off a gravitationally assisted accretion."

And so it goes on.

MattusMaximus said:

By definition, a plasma is composed of both negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. And it should be noted that not all positively charged ions are protons - you'd think that someone with an understanding of physics would know this.

Click to expand...

.
Excluding, of course, charged particle beams which may consist of just one kind of charged particle (eg. electron beams, proton beams and ion beams) (ref)

And of course, while all plasmas include charged particles, not all collections of charged particles are plasmas. And indeed the definition of a plasma is more complicated than this, resulting in, for example, clouds of neutral H I hydrogen gas being classified as a cold plasma, because it's low degree of ionization (less than 10^-4) is sufficient to give it certain characteristics of a plasma.

iantresman said:

.
Excluding, of course, charged particle beams which may consist of just one kind of charged particle (eg. electron beams, proton beams and ion beams) (ref)

Click to expand...

A charged particle beam consisting of only one kind of particle is not a plasma. By definition a plasma is quasineutral.

shadron said:

Perhaps physicists don't yet know all there is to know about gravity yet. It seems that five flyby spacecraft have seen unaccounted for accelerations, and NASA physicists are looking for a new explanation:

Click to expand...

Without a doubt, "physicists don't yet know all there is to know about gravity." No-one claims they do. If they did, there wouldn't be any work for them, would there?
Physical science is a process. That process has produced a large body of information which has led to hypotheses which have proven to be useful in technological application. There is no dogma, there's just what works. No "scientific belief," just accumulated experience, systematically studied.

As to possible causes of the spacecraft deviating from predicted course- I suspect that anyone having something serious to contribute would not be posting here, but posting on a physicist's discussion site. For most of us, all we can put forth is our own beliefs. I prefer the hypothesis that demons from an alternative universe are messing with us. Like most of the postings on this site, this is not falsifiable.

That demons from another Universe thing actually has some supporters.

The problem with the peer-review process is that, if one is a fool, one's peers are fools.

Zeuzzz is merely another in a long line of people who have taken the easy, anti-intellectual, beyond-reality path and yearn for some attention, however dismissive.

Zeuzzz is woo and is not worth another moment of anyone's time.

Yllanes said:

A charged particle beam consisting of only one kind of particle is not a plasma. By definition a plasma is quasineutral.

Click to expand...

.
From Physics of the Plasma Universe, published 1992 by Springer-Verlag, section Ι. Cosmic Plasma Fundamental, section 1 .1 Plasma.


A beam in a fully ionized plasma no longer becomes a non-plasma. It will still have the tendency to become neutralized, even if it is not able to do so instantaneously. Likewise electric double layers produced two charge separation regions, both of which also violate quasi-neutrality; but each charged region is still considered a plasma.

As far as I know, quasi-neutrality is a characteristic of plasmas, not a requirement, and the factors that do define a plasma (a) the plasma approximation (b) bulk interactions (c) plasma frequency, do not depend on quasi-neutrality.

However, it may well be that certain specialist areas do not consider charged particle beams to be "quasi-neutral" plasmas, and differentiate them accordingly.

Zeuzzz said:

It's generally assumed gravity is a fact. It's not. It's a theory, invented by Newton and barely three centuries old.

Click to expand...

shadron said:

Now, you'd think from listening from some of the people on this forum that the scientists that found and are exploring this anomaly would be castigated for going against the established physics here, since that's what happens with their pet theories (see the arguments about the electric sun, for example). The difference between this and, say, the "iron sun hypothesis" is that there is evidence of a break with the established theory, and the possibility is literally being jumped on by physicists. Even those not involved (see the article) are not holding doubts in the face of the evidence.

Contrast and compare.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. When there's interesting observational data that might indicate something wrong with the standard paradigm people jump on it immediately. If someone can figure out why this is happening, and if the reason is actually something interesting (which remains to be seen), whoever gets it will become very, very famous.

The electric sun is just some idiotic idea that totally conflicts with data (not to mention Aristotelian logic). It's not comparable at all.

You do have to bear in mind that (at least in the case of the Pioneer anomaly) there were a lot of possible boring prosaic explanations for the data. Some of them do involve electromagnetic forces (kind of) - for example some effect related to our poor understanding of the solar wind/interstellar medium interface. However that doesn't work for this more recent data.

Based on lots of experience, scientists know that when something that looks new and exciting comes along it's probably not really exciting and new, so they tend to be skeptical (and rightly so - you have to be selective about the topics you choose to pursue, or you'd never get anything done).

Complexity said:

The problem with the peer-review process is that, if one is a fool, one's peers are fools.

Zeuzzz is merely another in a long line of people who have taken the easy, anti-intellectual, beyond-reality path and yearn for some attention, however dismissive.

Zeuzzz is woo and is not worth another moment of anyone's time.

Click to expand...

If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
Carl Gustav Jung

iantresman said:

If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
Carl Gustav Jung

Click to expand...

That explains a lot.

iantresman said:

If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.
Carl Gustav Jung

Click to expand...

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
- Carl Sagan

I cannot claim I understand Zeuzzz, nor do I especially care to. I can state, however, that he's got no clue about physics. I do not need to understand him in order to determine that much of what he says is simply wrong.

I don't understand half of what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make you a fool.

robinson said:

I don't understand half of what you are trying to say

Click to expand...

Well there's a surprise.

The thing is, I do understand the claims Zeuzzz is making. I don't know why he makes such claims, but I understand the claims themselves. And I understand that they're wrong, and why they are wrong. Can you say as much?