• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
MRC_Hans said:
This is getting boring: You don't have a coherent thesis, you just have some scattered ideas, and every time a word pops up that seems to coincide with your ideas, you yell "I was right, I was right". You can't even explain how it fits your ideas.

Well, have a nice sand-box.:rolleyes:

Hans
Click to expand...

13 years since this thread was started and "Electric Universe Theories" have yet to be presented. I seldom look in here because nothing ever changes.
 
or

. Also, ‘kink’ and ‘twist’, which are not quite symmetric about the core, could be the transition points where the inner jets meet the inner dense core edge of the hot X-ray gas which usually surrounds the BCGs and can possibly lead to plasma instabilities causing the observed peculiar features
Click to expand...
Barbell shaped giant radio galaxy with ∼ 100 kpc kink in the jet

Gas = Gas

Plasma = Plasma

You still seem confused?

hang on hang on.... what's this?
The current-driven (CD) ‘kink’ or shear-flow instability can also cause the jets to be unstable and often lead
to brightening in regions of the jets (Chiuderi et al. 1989;Nakamura & Meier 2004). Using three-dimensional MHD simulations, Nakamura & Meier (2004); Nakamura et al.

(2007) have proposed that the main reason for the observed wiggles or ‘kink’ features in jets is due to CD instability. In this type of instability, a helical structure is developed with a relatively low growth rate. Simulation studies by Mizuno et al. (2009, 2012, 2014) have shown that CD instability can stimulate large-scale helical motions in the jets leading to deformation and without complete jet disruption.
Click to expand...
Link above

Question for you Ziggurat, your statement
No, 1 + 1 = double layers, obviously. I mean, just look at it. It LOOKS like double layers.
Click to expand...

Do you Ziggurat, even know what a current driven instability is> What is driving the CURRENT? Could a current driven instability cause a double layer?

I'll wait over here whilst you discuss PLASMA PHYSICS in a PLASMA ENVIRONMENT, using PLASMA MATHS (PIC, Kinetic theory etc)
 
Steve said:
13 years since this thread was started and "Electric Universe Theories" have yet to be presented. I seldom look in here because nothing ever changes.
Click to expand...

Yawn, plenty changes sport, plenty.

anyhoo how "science", especialy nowadays works is as it has allways worked...

The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Click to expand...

Just fun watching the you mob rowing your boat down the river DeNial! :boggled:
 
Sol88 said:
Barbell shaped giant radio galaxy with ∼ 100 kpc kink in the jet
Click to expand...

What’s your point? This has basically **** all to do with anything I said.

Gas = Gas

Plasma = Plasma

You still seem confused?
Click to expand...

Press release for the general public = press release for the general public
Peer reviewed scientific paper = peer reviewed scientific paper

And you are still confused.

Do you Ziggurat, even know what a current driven instability is> What is driving the CURRENT? Could a current driven instability cause a double layer?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with my joke?

I'll wait over here whilst you discuss PLASMA PHYSICS in a PLASMA ENVIRONMENT, using PLASMA MATHS (PIC, Kinetic theory etc)
Click to expand...

Waiting is all you are capable of. God knows you can’t do any math, or actual physics.
 
Sol88 said:
anyhoo how "science", especialy nowadays works is as it has allways worked...
Click to expand...

Velikovsky is long dead, and yet the EU folks can’t move on. Because it’s NOT science. It never progresses, no matter who dies.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Hey Sol88, any evidence yet?
Click to expand...

Evidence?

To confirm the electrical nature of the universe?

Big call, champ.

How about YOU keep investigating this little gem.


The current-driven (CD) ‘kink’ or shear-flow instability

Once you are all read up, you might like to move onto;


List of plasma instabilities


  • Bennett pinch instability (also called the z-pinch instability )
  • Beam acoustic instability
  • Bump-in-tail instability
  • Buneman instability,[1] (same as Farley-Buneman instability?)
  • Cherenkov instability,[2]
  • Chute instability
  • Coalescence instability,[3]
  • Collapse instability
  • Counter-streaming instability

Cyclotron instabilities, including:

  • Alfven cyclotron instability
  • Electron cyclotron instability
  • Electrostatic ion cyclotron Instability
  • Ion cyclotron instability
  • Magnetoacoustic cyclotron instability
  • Proton cyclotron instability
  • Nonresonant Beam-Type cyclotron instability
  • Relativistic ion cyclotron instability
  • Whistler cyclotron instability

Diocotron instability,[4] (similar to the Kelvin-Helmholtz fluid instability).
  • Disruptive instability (in tokamaks)
  • Double emission instability
  • Drift wave instability
  • Edge-localised modes [1]
  • Farley-Buneman instability
  • Fan instability
  • Filamentation instability

Firehose instability (also called Hose instability)
  • Flute instability
  • Free electron maser instability
  • Gyrotron instability
  • Helical instability (helix instability)
  • Helical kink instability
  • Hose instability (also called Firehose instability)
  • Interchange instability
  • Ion beam instability
  • Kink instability
  • Lower hybrid (drift) instability (in the Critical ionization velocity mechanism)
  • Magnetic drift instability
  • Magnetic buoyancy instability (Parker instability)
  • Microfilamentation instability (Weibel instability) [5]
  • Modulation instability
  • Non-Abelian instability
  • Non-linear coalescence instability
  • Oscillating two stream instability, see two stream instability
  • Pair instability
  • Parker instability (magnetic buoyancy instability)
  • Pinch instability
  • Sausage instability
  • Slow Drift Instability
  • Tearing mode instability
  • Two stream instability
  • Weak beam instability
  • Weibel instability (microfilamentation instability) [5]
  • z-pinch instability, also called Bennett pinch instability

Then, apply it to a hypothesis (The universe is fundamentally matter in the PLASMA state) and actual OBSERVATIONS using the FULL (to current instrument limitations) ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM.

But if you wont look thru the telescope... Mel Acheson: Gravitating Toward Plasma | Thunderbolts
Plasma encompasses a larger domain of evidence compared to gravity, and explains more phenomena with a comprehensive and unitary theory. It sees more landscape, more features of that landscape, and more relationships among those features.

Gravity, in contrast, sees fewer features and sees them as disparate events, each requiring a separate ad hoc explanation. For example, similar features on different planets have their own theory: impact craters, volcanoes, tidal cracks, floods of disappearing water, lava that runs uphill, and runaway greenhouses
Click to expand...

Yeah, but "evidence", right in front of your eyes!
 
Ziggurat said:
What’s your point? This has basically **** all to do with anything I said.



Press release for the general public = press release for the general public
Peer reviewed scientific paper = peer reviewed scientific paper

And you are still confused.



What does that have to do with my joke?




Waiting is all you are capable of. God knows you can’t do any math, or actual physics.
Click to expand...

Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. Dabhade_BarbellGRG ©ESO 2022
September 28, 2022 a Peer reviewed scientific paper = peer reviewed scientific paper

Barbell shaped giant radio galaxy with ∼ 100 kpc kink in the jet

Now a "Kink" in a flow of PLASMA might be better model using PLASMA physics...

The transverse widths of the radio emission beyond the
‘kink’ and ‘twist’ suggest that these are more likely to be
collimated structures extending the jets to the inner edges
of the lobes. The well-collimated jets (as seen in Fig. 2 and
Fig. 4) are similar to those seen in FRII radio sources, al-
though the outer lobes have no prominent hotspots.
Click to expand...

What could possible collimate PLASMA? :rolleyes:

What is a KINK instability?
It typically develops in a thin plasma column carrying a strong axial current which exceeds the Kruskal–Shafranov limit[1][2][3] and is sometimes known as the Kruskal–Shafranov (kink) instability.
Click to expand...
Whoa whoa whoa, dude! An electric current?

A strong axial current ( my 'ol fave a FORCE FREE FIELD ALIGNED CURRENT)

Go find as much evidence as you'd like. if fact knock yourself out!
 
Ziggurat said:
Of course there can be. I have never suggested otherwise.

Can it be large? No. Nothing you have presented contradicts that.
Click to expand...

Large? Why not?

A 237kpc Birkeland current is quite large even on your big bang scales. Hell, even comet tails are quite large.

Ulysses Feels the Brush of a Comet's Tail


"The fast solar wind helped to maintain the magnetic field signature over such a large distance. If it can persist as far as Ulysses, there's no reason to presume that it wouldn't continue to the edge of the heliosphere (the boundary about 100AU from the Sun between the solar wind and the interstellar medium)," says Jones, "This discovery makes us wonder whether Ulysses or other spacecraft have crossed a comet tail before. So we're going back to look again for other signatures. But it's probably a rare event," says Jones.
Click to expand...

What is keeping both the "jet" and the comets tail collimated over such LARGE distances?

:rolleyes:

Why does the plasma just not dissipate like your ideal gas (plasma/gas same thing to you) in space? Such as the plasma contained and driven by electric current and the accoated magnetic fields.

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model Donald E. Scott

These results are shown to be consistent with laboratory and astronomical observations
Click to expand...

Same can not be said for gravity. Funny you using gravity to drive "jets".
 
Sol88 said:
Evidence?

To confirm the electrical nature of the universe?

Big call, champ.

How about YOU keep investigating this little gem.
Click to expand...
So, you cannot answer this simple question, and instead ask others to find answers themselves - answers you were obviously unable to find?

Sol88 said:
Then, apply it to a hypothesis (The universe is fundamentally matter in the PLASMA state) and actual OBSERVATIONS using the FULL (to current instrument limitations) ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM.
Click to expand...
Everybody here has been waiting for you to apply all this to your hypothesis. You - and the proponents of the EU hypothesis - actually never did.
Other people actually tried exactly this, and they found out that the EU hypothesis didn't match observations by a large margin.

So, why are you asking others to do what has already been done, and found the hypothesis wrong?

Or maybe you have a demonstration at hand that shows the hypothesis to be correct? In that case, why not just publish the link, instead of handwaving people to unrelated articles, and ask them to redo a work that is already done?

And before you push forward the tired-old argument "yeah, but 'mainstream model' is wrong because it doesn't match 100% of the observations" (this is how just about all of your posts can be summarized to), I'd like to underline two counter-arguments:
- The EU theory doesn't explain 100% of the observations either;
- The EU theory explains much less of the observations than the 'mainstream' theories do.
This would thus lead EU to be rejected and "at least as wrong, and worse, than 'mainstream'".

Thus, the best you would be able to demonstrate so far is that "the mainstream theories are sometimes wrong" - which is something everybody knows, no question about it. But you won't don't demonstrate anything about EU.

Have you anything to offer than random papers and observations followed by a "it explains it all!" ?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Large? Why not?

A 237kpc Birkeland current is quite large even on your big bang scales. Hell, even comet tails are quite large.
Click to expand...

Current is not synonymous with charge separation. And by large, I mean how much charge is separated.

Why does the plasma just not dissipate like your ideal gas (plasma/gas same thing to you) in space?
Click to expand...

Mostly because of gravity. Most of the mass of the solar system is contained in the sun, which is held together by gravity.

Remember when you thought that currents flowing through Io were large, and then I showed that no, they were small? Yeah, that's basically how it always goes.
 
Controlled crash of DART into Dimorphos. No huge spark. So I guess they were at the same electric potential.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Controlled crash of DART into Dimorphos. No huge spark. So I guess they were at the same electric potential.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the large metal object moving trough space moved as if there were no forces acting upon it but gravity.

But that must be the magical electrical field EU espouses. It's at the same time massive enough to fuel stars, create lighting arcs spanning multiple star systems etc, but not strong enough to affect the solar wind or any of our spacecraft or even sensitive instruments designed to measure electrical currents and fields.
 
Ziggurat said:
Current is not synonymous with charge separation. And by large, I mean how much charge is separated.



Mostly because of gravity. Most of the mass of the solar system is contained in the sun, which is held together by gravity.

Remember when you thought that currents flowing through Io were large, and then I showed that no, they were small? Yeah, that's basically how it always goes.
Click to expand...


All of the mass of the sun is 100% PLASMA. Gravity...:rolleyes:

Small current (120000Mw) removing 1 ton of material per second and causing intense aurora on Jupiter.

perhaps you could help me with some basic simple maths, Ziggurat

Now, the material being removed (DUST) @1 ton per second or 86400 tons a day or 31557600 tons a year!

All things being equal, the solar system is 4.568 billion years old.

Now I'm really struggling how much mass has been removed from Io over the age of the solar system?

Is this a lot of mass to lose from a moon? Can gravity add or remove mass?
 
Just keep doing the multiplying you did in paragraph 4 of your post. There's no reason to be afraid of 17, 19, and 22 digit numbers (which is what you'll run in to).
 
Sol88 said:
Is this a lot of mass to lose from a moon?
Click to expand...

If you could do even the most basic of math, you'd be able to figure that out for yourself. But you can't do math, so you can't figure it out.

1 ton is about 1,000 kg, or 1x103 kg. There are around 3x107 seconds in a year, so 1 ton/sec is around 3x1010 kg per year. Io has a mass of around 9x1022 kg. So at current mass loss rates, it would take 3x1012 years for Io to disappear, assuming no mass deposit mechanisms (not a justified assumption - much of that material probably does fall back onto Io).

The solar system is around 5x109 years old. So that's about 600 times the age of the solar system.

So no, 1 ton per second is a not lot of mass compared to the size of Io.

Your inability to do even the simplest math problems prevents you from having any grasp of the scale of anything you're talking about. Which is part of why you have no clue about what is and is not even slightly plausible, and why you can't see that Velikovsky and everyone he inspired is just completely nutters.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Just keep doing the multiplying you did in paragraph 4 of your post. There's no reason to be afraid of 17, 19, and 22 digit numbers (which is what you'll run in to).
Click to expand...

A little scientific notation and we don't even need to use a lot of digits even for big numbers.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Not to mention that the large metal object moving trough space moved as if there were no forces acting upon it but gravity.

But that must be the magical electrical field EU espouses. It's at the same time massive enough to fuel stars, create lighting arcs spanning multiple star systems etc, but not strong enough to affect the solar wind or any of our spacecraft or even sensitive instruments designed to measure electrical currents and fields.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's like those psychics who couldn't perform for Randi: disbelief actively interferes with the effect.
 
Ziggurat said:
assuming no mass deposit mechanisms (not a justified assumption - much of that material probably does fall back onto Io).
Click to expand...
After I posted to Sol88 I went to look up how much infall there is on our Moon which is a similar size to Io. It's thought be a little over a ton a day. So Io probably isn't even losing mass overall.

ETA: Oops. Wrong. See next two posts.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
After I posted to Sol88 I went to look up how much infall there is on our Moon which is a similar size to Io. It's thought be a little over a ton a day. So Io probably isn't even losing mass overall.
Click to expand...

In fairness, a ton a day is a lot different than a ton a second. But the material being blown off Io is going into a dust ring around Jupiter. And Io is in the middle of this ring, so we should expect a lot of it to fall back down on Io. Our moon is not in the middle of any such ring. So the mass infall rate is likely to be much higher on Io than our moon's. Maybe not enough to cancel out the mass loss rate, since material may escape that dust ring, but it doesn't need to be either, since the mass loss rate is small even with no infall.
 
Ziggurat said:
In fairness, a ton a day is a lot different than a ton a second. But the material being blown off Io is going into a dust ring around Jupiter. And Io is in the middle of this ring, so we should expect a lot of it to fall back down on Io. Our moon is not in the middle of any such ring. So the mass infall rate is likely to be much higher on Io than our moon's. Maybe not enough to cancel out the mass loss rate, since material may escape that dust ring, but it doesn't need to be either, since the mass loss rate is small even with no infall.
Click to expand...

Plus those calculations assume that Io has been in roughly the same orbit around Jupiter for the entire history of the Solar System, which is ... ridiculous.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Plus those calculations assume that Io has been in roughly the same orbit around Jupiter for the entire history of the Solar System, which is ... ridiculous.

Hans
Click to expand...

Sure, it's grossly simplified. But that's fine, we're only looking for order of magnitude stuff here, to figure out what counts as big and what counts as small.

And this is small.

Sol88 can't figure it out on his own, though. When I calculated the Io orbital decay, I needed to use some calculus, and I took a shortcut by using the virial theorem which I don't expect Sol88 to know. So I can totally understand why he wasn't able to do those calculations. But this was an easy one. No calculus required, only needs two numbers for input, he had one and the other was easy to find online. It was literally just some simple multiplication and keeping track of units. As simple a math problem as you could ever hope for.

And he still couldn't do it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Sure, it's grossly simplified. But that's fine, we're only looking for order of magnitude stuff here, to figure out what counts as big and what counts as small.

And this is small.

Sol88 can't figure it out on his own, though. When I calculated the Io orbital decay, I needed to use some calculus, and I took a shortcut by using the virial theorem which I don't expect Sol88 to know. So I can totally understand why he wasn't able to do those calculations. But this was an easy one. No calculus required, only needs two numbers for input, he had one and the other was easy to find online. It was literally just some simple multiplication and keeping track of units. As simple a math problem as you could ever hope for.

And he still couldn't do it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, but it is the hallmark of people like this that they like to extrapolate various effects over vast time spans, as if every function in the universe was linear (which few are).

Oh, and as far as I can see, he did not elaborate on how EU "theory" would solve the perceived problem.

Hans
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, I know, but it is the hallmark of people like this that they like to extrapolate various effects over vast time spans, as if every function in the universe was linear (which few are).

Oh, and as far as I can see, he did not elaborate on how EU "theory" would solve the perceived problem.

Hans
Click to expand...

Technically, he didn't say there was any problem. He just asked me if that mass loss is big or small, because he has no idea of the scale of anything involved and so can't answer that himself. And when we crunch the numbers (since he can't) we find it's small.
 
Sol88 said:
Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model Donald E. Scott
Click to expand...

A non-peer-reviewed bunch of junk, which is trivially wrong, as shown elsewhere. I think that is the one where he screws up the maths from the get-go. And then lies about the findings of others, and tries to cover it up in the references, by linking to a pop-sci article, rather than the freely available paper. I recall corresponding with the lead author of the paper Scott lied about. Suffice to say that Scott is lucky that he is retired, and not affiliated with an institution.
 
Ziggurat said:
Technically, he didn't say there was any problem. He just asked me if that mass loss is big or small, because he has no idea of the scale of anything involved and so can't answer that himself. And when we crunch the numbers (since he can't) we find it's small.
Click to expand...

Technically? That is because nothing he claims is technical. What he did was imply that there was a problem with paradigm theory and hint that EU theory could solve it ... without understanding either.

One could be nice and charitable here, or one could be realistic.

Hans
 
Ziggurat said:
If you could do even the most basic of math, you'd be able to figure that out for yourself. But you can't do math, so you can't figure it out.

1 ton is about 1,000 kg, or 1x103 kg. There are around 3x107 seconds in a year, so 1 ton/sec is around 3x1010 kg per year. Io has a mass of around 9x1022 kg. So at current mass loss rates, it would take 3x1012 years for Io to disappear, assuming no mass deposit mechanisms (not a justified assumption - much of that material probably does fall back onto Io).

The solar system is around 5x109 years old. So that's about 600 times the age of the solar system.

So no, 1 ton per second is a not lot of mass compared to the size of Io.

Your inability to do even the simplest math problems prevents you from having any grasp of the scale of anything you're talking about. Which is part of why you have no clue about what is and is not even slightly plausible, and why you can't see that Velikovsky and everyone he inspired is just completely nutters.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the calculation, but it will not help.
If you go back a few years you will find that I put in the same calculation.
 
Sol88 said:
So the planets mass would change over time? Is that what your saying?
Click to expand...

That’s what YOU said. I just pointed out how fast, or more accurately, how slow, because you asked me to do calculations because you couldn’t. Even though it was just some multiplication.

Aren’t you embarrassed that you couldn’t even do that much?
 
tusenfem said:
Thanks for the calculation, but it will not help.
If you go back a few years you will find that I put in the same calculation.
Click to expand...

Ahoy me ‘ol mate. Glad you are here.

In the paper about the Kink in the jet the authors mentioned a possible mechanism for its formation, a current driven instability.

I’m interested, as are many others here, on what, how and why’s of a current driven instability.

Are you able to speculate of what powers the current? Why does it stay collimated over kpc’s of distance? Why do CD’s just not dissipate into the vacuum of space? What sets up an instability?
 
Ziggurat said:
That’s what YOU said. I just pointed out how fast, or more accurately, how slow, because you asked me to do calculations because you couldn’t. Even though it was just some multiplication.

Aren’t you embarrassed that you couldn’t even do that much?
Click to expand...

Not really, though I appreciate the time you took to ponder mass loss via EM forces.

:thumbsup:
 
Ziggurat said:
That’s what YOU said. I just pointed out how fast, or more accurately, how slow, because you asked me to do calculations because you couldn’t. Even though it was just some multiplication.

Aren’t you embarrassed that you couldn’t even do that much?
Click to expand...

Are you any good at maths, Ziggurat?

What is the electric field strength required to drive, this kinky jet in particular, over the distances involved?

Couple volts? Few hundred? Just an OOM is fine for now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom