Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

sol invictus · Feb 15, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
sol invictus:

I have been on the sidelines following this debate for some time now. Sometimes when debating one can take extreme positions that may not otherwise be intended. Do you feel that PC is virtually all unscientific or do you see any aspects that may have some shred of genuine scientific value or speculative interest?

As far as I know there is no such thing as PC, so it's hard to answer that. Astrophysicists study plasmas all the time - it's a major part of the field - because they play central roles in lots of astrophysical processes and phenomena. But cosmology is not one of them.

Most of the ideas expressed in this thread - and just about all the ones that apply to cosmology - are obvious nonsense. Of those that were not, all or almost all are part of standard physics.

Reality Check · Feb 15, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Your list is silly Reality Check. Not all those publications are core areas of PC. Many of them merely act as supporting evidence of one aspect of plasma cosmology. Many of them merely demonstrate that plasma scaling exists, and thus is a valid aspect of plasma cosmology which many of the models are based on. Many of them merely demonstrate the importance of plasma in the the universe, which is often overlooked by BB exclusively gravitationally based theories, but central to plasma cosmology. They are no more core aspects of plasma cosmology than the orbit of Neptune is to the Big Bang.

So, lets have another go. You say we need to give comparisons between PC and BBT to see what they predict differently.

Maybe listening to Lerner and Peratts breif overview here would be a good idea to start with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-4jPllBldM

BBT: The universe is assumed to have a beginning and an end in time.
PC: The universe is assumed infinite in time and constantly evolving.

BBT: The universe originated from a highly homogeneous state and will remain largely so in the future.
PC: The universe is filamentary and clumpy. The large scale structure of the cosmos will not be homogeneous but highly filamentary.

BBT: CMB radiation will be isotropic.
PC: The CMB will not be entirely isotropic, certianly not the extent the Big Bang originally predicted.

BBT: The anisotropy of the CBR will be random, due mainly to the properties of the gravitational field.
PC: The anisotropy of the CBR will show a strong preferred orientation in the sky. Mainly due to magnetic anisotropy which occurs in a plasma, so that its magnetic field is oriented in a preferred direction.

BBT: The universe is nearly entirely electrically neutral and so EM and plasma considerations do not effect any gravitationally based models at all. The large charge separation we notice on Earth and in our local environment is just magic and a special unique event.
PC: Charge separation occurs in outer space due to various complex non linear plasma characteristics.

BBT: Energy can be created instantaneously out of nothing.
PC: Energy can not be created out of nothing, in accordance with conservation of energy.

BBT: The dark energy field can create energy out of nothing.
PC: Bollocks.

BBT: We can abandon common sense and known physics to explain contradictory observations.
PC: We must stick to well known, testable, provable, laboratory based verifiable physics, without adding ptolemaic epicycles to explain observations and conflicting observations.

There probably a few more about primordial elements too, etc. I'll get back to this list in a bit.

Zeuzzz: You have known about this list for how many months?
Previously you agreed with it and even contributed items. Now you do not. What has changed?

I will compare PC to BBT - when you tell me what it is. Give us a cosmology that is a consistent set of theories.
To start off - what is the one and only PC theory that explains the cosmological redshift?

Zeuzzz · Feb 15, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I hate to burst anyone's bubble here, but since Bruce and Alfven used a "standard" solar model, with relatively "minor' modifications (charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere), PC/EU theory is not actually predicated upon the validity of Birkeland's solar model. Keep that in mind during this conversation. Most of the same physics applies to standard theory, not just Birkeland's solar model. Each of them presumes the sun is the primary energy source and there is charge attraction between the 'surface' and the heliosphere. The validity of PC/EU theory is not predicated upon any particular solar model. As long as we are simply combining GR and MHD theory, it still falls under the umbrella of PC/EU theory, and PC/EU theory can be applied to either solar model.

Thanks for all your contributions Mike. I do find all your iron sun theories fascinating, and I think that its originial thinkers like you that astronomy could do with more of. Thinking outside of the box is a trait often ridiculed at first, but all great ideas start off as 'outside the box'.

Brilliant website by the way. http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ You still working with professor O. Manuel? I also like his material a lot.

I'm not sure that a lot of this material belongs in this thread. Maybe a new one should be started to discuss some of these various theories? this thread has meandered far and wide in its contents, so, maybe, we should just keep it all here afterall. But, I dont think that any of this material could be considered relevant to cosmology, maybe not even plasma cosmology. Depends on your definition of both really. To me, its more electric universe and plasma physics. But maybe I am missing some points here that tie it in, I'm not exactly an expert in your material, though do have a brief understanding.

Also, what do you think of Scotts recent publication in Pulsed Plasma Science about the possible solar surface double layer idea? http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

Reality Check · Feb 15, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
BBT: The universe is assumed to have a beginning and an end in time.
PC: The universe is assumed infinite in time and constantly evolving.

You are wrong.
BBT: The physical evidence (redshift, CMB, Lyman-Alpha forest, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning. There is no assumption of an end in time.
PC: Do not address the redshift, CMB, Lyman-Alpha forest, etc. evidence and assume that the universe iinfinite in time and constantly evolving.

Zeuzzz said:
BBT: The universe originated from a highly homogeneous state and will remain largely so in the future.
PC: The universe is filamentary and clumpy. The large scale structure of the cosmos will not be homogeneous but highly filamentary.

BBT: The universe originated from a highly homogeneous state and evolved to a "filamentary and clumpy" state. This is demonstrated by the Lambda-CDM model.
PC: The universe looks as it looks and we have no explanation.

Zeuzzz said:
BBT: CMB radiation will be isotropic.
PC: The CMB will not be entirely isotropic, certianly not the extent the Big Bang originally predicted.

BBT: The anisotropy of the CBR will be random, due mainly to the properties of the gravitational field.
PC: The anisotropy of the CBR will show a strong preferred orientation in the sky. Mainly due to magnetic anisotropy which occurs in a plasma, so that its magnetic field is oriented in a preferred direction.

BBT: The CMB will have a certain temperature and a black body thermal spectrum. The Lamda-CMD model matches its anisotropy.
PC: The CMB does not exist/does not have a black body spectrum/show a strong preferred orientation in the sky (pick your theory).

Zeuzzz said:
BBT: The universe is nearly entirely electrically neutral and so EM and plasma considerations do not effect any gravitationally based models at all. The large charge separation we notice on Earth and in our local environment is just magic and a special unique event.
PC: Charge separation occurs in outer space due to various complex non linear plasma characteristics.

BBT: Almost right: Charge separarations need external forces to be separated, e.g. stars, black holes, etc. The large charge separation we notice on Earth and in our local environment is common and well understood.
PC: Correct.

Zeuzzz said:
BBT: Energy can be created instantaneously out of nothing.
PC: Energy can not be created out of nothing, in accordance with conservation of energy.

BBT: Says nothing about energy being created from nothing.

Zeuzzz said:
BBT: The dark energy field can create energy out of nothing.
PC: Bollocks.

BBT: The dark energy field is energy. It does not have to "create energy out of nothing".
PC: Has no prediction for the observation of dark energy.

Zeuzzz said:
BBT: We can abandon common sense and known physics to explain contradictory observations.
PC: We must stick to well known, testable, provable, laboratory based verifiable physics, without adding ptolemaic epicycles to explain observations and conflicting observations.

BBT: We must never abandon the scientific method.
PC: The scientific method is "Bollocks" (in Zeuzzz's words) and so can be abandoned.

My reply hopefully has fewer errors than your original BBT/PC list.

Zeuzzz · Feb 15, 2009

sol invictus said:
As far as I know there is no such thing as PC, so it's hard to answer that. Astrophysicists study plasmas all the time - it's a major part of the field - because they play central roles in lots of astrophysical processes and phenomena.

The vast majority of this will be modelling Pseudo-plasma. http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pseudo-plasma

Pseudoplasma does certainly give a nice mathematically precise and easily modelled form of plasma, but they will often overlook the much more dynamic and non linear physics involved in real plasma behaviour.

For example, one of plasma many characteristics are instabilities. All of which have very unique and specific laws govening their behaviour. Take a look at just a few of the the many Instabilities here: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_instability They list well over fourty separate plasma instabilities. These will not be accounted for by basic plasma modelling and will be overlooked.

There are also many different characteristics of plasma each with many subsets and interesting phenomenon. These may involve numerous distinct pinch mechanisms, various filamentation mechanisms, various types of plasma double layers, plasma scaling regimes, Types of electric glow discharges, and many more. For exmaple, Peratts galaxy formation idea was utilizing a Bennet Pinch condition retaining a columnar filametary structure. I expect that various different models could be created in the future by using other various plasma characteristics. There are too many to choose from.

Things like this will not pop up in standard models of plasma behaviour. There are too many erratic and unpredictable properties of plasma to factor in. Many of which are still poorly understood. You have to think outside the box first starting with plasma characteristics; not modelling plasma characteristics as a mere byproduct of already existing mechanical functions. You then test your models to see if they are tenable in all circumstances. Some are, some are not.

Zeuzzz · Feb 15, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
If by this you mean (1) inflation, (2) dark energy and (3) dark matter ("3 forms of metaphysics") then you are entirely wrong. All big bang cosmologies absolutely require a thermal shape regardless of the presence of inflation, dark matter or dark energy.

Hi Tim.

I am presuming your are the Tim Thompson I'm thinking of, I would really appreciate you to comment on Scotts responce to your various critisisms (Tim Thompson – A Rebuttal). I have not actually read your original cristisisms, but it seems that Scott does make some valid points, even though his overly confrontational (although quite polite) tone doesn't help matters.

I know he is mistaken about the solar neutrino issue (as pointed out here by Bridgman: The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited), I think they actually did make measurements on each side of the Earth to verify the flavor change that was thought to occur. Though I haven't really looked at this in detail admittedly.

If you have repsonded to Scotts above critisisms elsewhere, a link would be appreciated.

Reality Check · Feb 15, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
I know he is mistaken about the solar neutrino issue (as pointed out here by Bridgman: The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited), I think they actually did make measurements on each side of the Earth to verify the flavor change that was thought to occur. Though I haven't really looked at this in detail admittedly.

Thanks Zeuzzz for reminding my about Bridgeman's review (The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited).
Bridgman's Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy web page on the electric cosmos states:

The Electric Cosmos is a distortion of the more mainstream Plasma Cosmology of Alfven and others. Plasma cosmology enjoyed an upsurge of interest in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a simpler solution to some of the difficulites plaguing cosmology.
Interest dropped after the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) mission confirmed the blackbody nature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to high precision. COBE failed to detect any radio or microwave emission from the large-scale electric currents required in plasma cosmology.
A more radical version of this cosmology goes under the name of "Electric Cosmos". This "science" seems to be a variant of creationism based around a Greco-Roman mythology but many components are based on some of the claims of Immanuel Velikovsky.

As our resident expert on PC, could you comment on the sacale of the " large-scale electric currents required in plasma cosmology".

tusenfem · Feb 15, 2009

brantc said:
As big as your degree is, you did not really refute anything I said.
Especially the part where I got the "flux tubes and reconnection" from the ESA web site.

Flux tubes evolution after multipoint reconnections

Search on Google and go the ESA website since I dont have enough post to link yet.

Never mind the "greatness" of my degree. I showd in my message that you are confused and do not understand or cannot explain how flux tubes work. I am well aware of Philippe Louarn's work (being a close collegue of mine, we worked at the same institute in Paris). However, that is not what you described, heck you just threw in some terms in your description of "twisted flux tubes" not even mentioning in which direction the magnetic field was.

brantc said:
What is a CME???? Particles and all. A coronal loop that explodes. A exploding flux tube.

And from the RHESSI website.

"In the simplest picture, oppositely directed magnetic field lines that are roughly vertical relative to the solar surface pinch together, where they reconnect and form new field lines that snap both upward and downward, away from the reconnection region (see illustration below). The new, upward-moving field lines form a large coronal loop that may become a coronal mass ejection (CME). The new downward-moving field lines form a relatively compact coronal loop or arcade of loops. This compact loop continues to build up, somewhat like adding more and more layers to an onion, as long as the magnetic reconnection continues above it."

A coronal loop does not "explode" although it may be called that in popular language. The loop twists, or somehow the two sides of the loop come together and there where the to parts of the loop come together, where the magnetic field is oppositely directed, reconnection can happen and the top part of the loop gets "converted" to a "bagel" of magnetic field and plasma (and associated currents). However the description above that you copied from the RHESSI page has very little resemblance with the "ideas" that you presented in your first message. Now you are just propagating the mainstream view of reconection, for which I thank you. And here is the RHESSI page about solar loops.

brantc said:
And I'm not even going to argue about electric current causing magnetic fields.

Good! currents create magnetic fields and moving magnetic fields create currents.

brantc said:
From Wiki Birkeland currents. Since I cant link but notice how there are 2 components(vectors) to the magnetic field. One parallel and one perpendicular. And I bet it depends on the electron gyroradius as to which one dominates.
"The complex self-constricting magnetic field lines and current paths in a Birkeland current that may develop in a plasma[12]"
brant

Here is the Birkeland current wiki page which at several points you have to be critical off. Please look at the discussion page where I have put in several comments about errors and/or badly phrased stuff.

I am not sure which figure you are talking about, with the two components of the magnetic field, but I guess you meant the figure in the references section. That indeed is a very simple view of a magnetic flux tube with current flowing along the core magnetic field. The current will create a circulare magnetic field and thus it will create spiral magnetic field lines as seen in that figure.
But first and foremost you claim two times (once to me and once to sol) that there are two components of the magnetic field, but please, you first have to define these two directions.

I am not really sure what you want to claim with this. That a flux tube has a twisted magnetic field (like yarn in a rope)? Well that has been know for ages, thanks for once more supporting mainstream physics (I just discovered such a flux rope in Venus's magnetotail).

And I see all the comments on the merging current tubes in the experiment have been overseen. But never mind. Basically, you are supporting the mainstream view of reconnection, only you do not know how to express it in the right language.

Zeuzzz · Feb 15, 2009

Reality Check said:
Bridgman's Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

Just to comment on this before I address your previous post and your question, Bridgman did actually say that the Electric Sky is not creationism. He spends his time debunking creationist ideas, and so this is what his webpage is called, but he did comment that Scotts book is not really creationism but an "odd mix" of unorthodox ideas. Or something like that. So dont let the context fool you. Scott is not a creationsist, he's a scientist, albeit a rather unorthodox one.

tusenfem · Feb 15, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
For example, one of plasma many characteristics are instabilities. All of which have very unique and specific laws govening their behaviour. Take a look at just a few of the the many Instabilities here: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_instability They list well over fourty separate plasma instabilities. These will not be accounted for by basic plasma modelling and will be overlooked.

Whahahahahahahahahahah, ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

This must be the craziest idea ever!

The modeling of the multitude of plasma instabilities is one of the most important things in space physics. Let's see, I myself have written papers on observations of the following instabilities, which cite papers on numerical modeling of the processes:

kink instability
firehose instability
ion cyclotron instability
sausage instability
mirror mode instability
kelvin-helmholtz instability

only 6 of the 40 (but some are the basically the same just slightly different parameters) and I have not done any others, because of a lack of time.

Dancing David · Feb 15, 2009

brantc said:
Fun to be here!!!

Well since I am from an electrical background I will pick flux tubes. They are most like a wire......

The question is do flux tubes transfer energy between 2 objects, and if so what type of energy...

The predictions are that the magnetic field is caused by a current flow.

The existence of a magnetic field is evidence of a current flow.

Electron gyromotion. These 2 pages describe why I think that both parallel and perpendicular magnetic fields exist, with one dominating depending on plasma conditions, for the case of any flux tube carrying an electrical current.
ttp://books.google.com/books?id=Vyoe88GEVz4C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=Electron+gyroradius+in+a+plasma&source=web&ots=YvhndeyClQ&sig=aznZe66U85QHA3Pyfs_WB71BdjE#PPA146,M1

Um is this not rather standard plasma physics?

How does this relate to either PC of EU?

Now as far as understanding magentic topology it would be beyond me. Thanks, I will take a look.

here is the link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vy...l Q&sig=aznZe66U85QHA3Pyfs_WB71BdjE#PPA146,M1

I looked at it, and what is the deal? Why should this matter, I am a layman after all.

Dancing David · Feb 15, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Maybe listening to Lerner and Peratt's brief overview here would be a good idea to start with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-4jPllBldM

And maybe you should stop pretending that you have a coherent model Zeuzzz, do you remember back when you were posting outdated articles by Perrat that COBE disproved?

How does Lerner explain the gravitational effects at the center of galaxies?

BBT: The universe is assumed to have a beginning and an end in time.
PC: The universe is assumed infinite in time and constantly evolving.

Oh nice red herring, you really just like straw don't you?

The BBT does not say anything about the extent of the universe in time.

It says that it appears that the observable universe appears to have been much smaller and much denser.
the 'end' of the universe is speculation.

You have refused to acknowledge the problems with your infinite universe in any prior threads.

What about the element ratio and existence of black holes for starters.

I like you Zeuzzz but you are very disingenuine!

You have been unable to support most of your claims in the past, you ignore huge holes in your theories, and then you come back and just pretend that they don't exist.

the only person you are lying to is yourself.

I still like you, however.

BBT: The universe originated from a highly homogeneous state and will remain largely so in the future.

Right sure, and Oz never gave nothing to the straw man that he didn't already have.

We have been through this before as well.

Do you like lying to yourself?

PC: The universe is filamentary and clumpy. The large scale structure of the cosmos will not be homogeneous but highly filamentary.

BBT: CMB radiation will be isotropic.
PC: The CMB will not be entirely isotropic, certainly not the extent the Big Bang originally predicted.

BBT: The anisotropy of the CBR will be random, due mainly to the properties of the gravitational field.
PC: The anisotropy of the CBR will show a strong preferred orientation in the sky. Mainly due to magnetic anisotropy which occurs in a plasma, so that its magnetic field is oriented in a preferred direction.

BBT: The universe is nearly entirely electrically neutral and so EM and plasma considerations do not effect any gravitationally based models at all. The large charge separation we notice on Earth and in our local environment is just magic and a special unique event.
PC: Charge separation occurs in outer space due to various complex non linear plasma characteristics.

BBT: Energy can be created instantaneously out of nothing.
PC: Energy can not be created out of nothing, in accordance with conservation of energy.

BBT: The dark energy field can create energy out of nothing.
PC: Bollocks.

BBT: We can abandon common sense and known physics to explain contradictory observations.
PC: We must stick to well known, testable, provable, laboratory based verifiable physics, without adding ptolemaic epicycles to explain observations and conflicting observations.

There probably a few more about primordial elements too, etc. I'll get back to this list in a bit.

Zeus, I ask you this in all seriousness, why do you lie to yourself like this?

You have been discussing these issues for over a year now, you have been shown to be wrong, over and over.

You continue to lie to yourself and you continue this political spinning about your mistaken political agenda and you call it science. I am amazed.

So again I will challenge you and you will refuse the challenge as always, why? because you know you don't have a theory.

1. What model do you have of cosmology or electric star behavior?

2. What quantifiable predictions does this model make?

3. What observations meet these predictions?

that is what makes a model and a theory Zeuzzz, what you have is a fanatic religion of improvable speculation and wishful thinking.

What good is PC Zeuzzz? What can it do, so far you have failed in every attempt to answer my three simple questions?

You have not demonstrated semi-rigid EM fields that make the galaxy the shape it is, you have not demonstrated that the universe in infinite in time (which is NOT a BBE claim either way, the BBE says we don't know what was before the BBE), you have not shown that you can demonstrate a model of the Russel-herzbrung diagram, you have not shown that you can explain the Lerner model so it avoids gravitational collapse of galactic cores.

please what does you model show?

Nothing that I can tell, a god of the gaps argument all the way.

Now, I admire you for trying to make this thing work, I admire your patience in struggling to make it make sense. You really have tried, but maybe, just maybe, you don't have a model and your don't have a theory.

sol invictus · Feb 15, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Things like this will not pop up in standard models of plasma behaviour. There are too many erratic and unpredictable properties of plasma to factor in. Many of which are still poorly understood. You have to think outside the box first starting with plasma characteristics; not modelling plasma characteristics as a mere byproduct of already existing mechanical functions. You then test your models to see if they are tenable in all circumstances. Some are, some are not.

Your uninformed and wrong opinion is really not very interesting.

Astro and space physicists do tons of work modeling and understanding plasma instabilities, including highly non-linear behaviors, magnetohydrodynamics, magnetic reconnection (which by the way is an example of something that would be ignored in the "pseudo-plasma" approximation your link defines), turbulence, shocks, relativistic and ultra-relativistic effects, etc. That work is partly analytical (pencil and paper), partly numerical (on a computer), and partly experimental (studying plasma characteristics in labs). Of those, numerical methods are probably the most useful for cutting-edge problems.

tusenfem · Feb 15, 2009

Dancing David said:
Um is this not rather standard plasma physics?

How does this relate to either PC of EU?

Now as far as understanding magentic topology it would be beyond me. Thanks, I will take a look.

here is the link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vy...l Q&sig=aznZe66U85QHA3Pyfs_WB71BdjE#PPA146,M1

I looked at it, and what is the deal? Why should this matter, I am a layman after all.

Actually, I forgot to look at that when I commented on brantc's message. I have actually no idea what brantc has in mind here. I keep on having the feeling that he thinks that magnetic fields are in the direction of the current or something. The gyro radius of the electrons is rather small compared to the sytems that are looked at.

Parallel and perpendiculare magnetic fields only make sense when you define parallel and perpedicular to what.

In the Earth's magnetotail the electron scale is about 10 km at say 20 nT field. But you will have to be explicit about what kind of system you are looking at. As brantc is talking about Birkeland currents we can assume that he is thinking about the aurora, and thus the field much stronger than mentioned above, say 10.000 nT, reducing the gyro radius by a factor of 500 at same energy of the electrons.

It is just babbling what is being done here, writing down stuff that sounds profound, but if you look a little closer at it, you find out that there is absolutely no substance.

A comment like "flux tubes transport energy" the first question has to be why?? A fluxt tube is just a mathematical entity describing a bunch of magnetic field lines. This flux tube in and by itself does not transport anything.

Now often it is the case that along such a flux tube currents flow. A well known example (also in the EU community) is the Io flux tube, where Io's ionosphere acts as a "circuit maker" and the co-moving electric field generated by the Jovian magnetic field moving by Io will drive a current along the Io flux tube. Then and only then will the flux tube "transport energy".

In this case there is already a magnetic field (the one produced by Jupiter) and the flux tube is defined by the size of the moon Io. The currents that are flowing along this flux tube, and only on a small layer at the outside of the tube, will have an alteration of the magnetic field, naturally. The place where this is clearest is in my paper on the Alfven wings of Europa (which you can find here).

So, I would advise brantc to make himself more clear about what exactly he wants with flux tubes and their being wires, etc.

Predictions that "magnetic fields are generated by currents flows" and that "the presence of magnetic fields is evidence for currents" are preposterous. Why you may ask? Not, because I disagree, on the contrary, but one need not make any of such predictions since the 1870s when Maxwell came up with his famous equations (the basics for plasma physics and apparently also the EU (although from its proponents you would not think so)). However, there needs to be a refinement, like sol invictus wrote, where are the currents in my refrigerator magnet? The second "prediction" or whatever it is, is not absolute.

Tim Thompson · Feb 15, 2009

The One And Only World Famous Tim Thompson

Zeuzzz said:
I am presuming your are the Tim Thompson I'm thinking of, ...

Indeed I am The One & Only World Famous Tim Thompson (or something like that). No, I do not as yet have a response of my own to Scott's rebuttal of me. Scott seems to have nothing to do except his electric universe stuff, but I remain quite distracted despite having retired in November (I am at the moment competing in the U.S. Amateur Team Chess Championship (west) so I can't do much posting for a few days). Once Bridgman had contacted me about his own Electric Sky Short Circuited page, already cited here by others, I put my own efforts lower on the list than several other things I am trying to do.

In any case the "electric universe" is just plain stupid, really, and there is not much more to say than that. It violates just about every law of physics you can think of; it is especially ironic, I think, that people who claim to be such experts on plasma physics & electromagnetism, clearly do not understand either much beyond the level of a good AP high school student.

Just consider the worn out claim that you can only generate magnetic fields with electric currents. That is in fact not true, and it has been known to be not true for 100 years, so you would think somebody in the EU crowd would have figured that out by now. You need moving charged particles to generate a magnetic field, and that is not necessarily a classical electric current, which is a flow of charged particles all of which have the same charge (i.e., a stream of electrons or protons, typically electrons in our daily lives). The bulk motion of a charge neutral plasma will generate a magnetic field, and that's where the magnetic fields in cosmology & astrophysics come from, not from streams of classical electric currents. This has been proven in both theory & practice and is a simple fact of nature. It is just one of many simple facts of nature ignored by EU enthusiasts.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have some chess to play.

Tubbythin · Feb 15, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
We seem to be talking past one another on this point. Let me try to explain it this way....

At worst case PC/EU theory has no legitimate solution to explain this spectrum. So? The mainstream "explanation" of this background involves at least three forms of metaphysics to work "properly", and it failed to "predict" those "dark flows" or those "holes" they found in the universe.

Nope. How many times...?

It's not like I find the mainstream "explanation" of that background to be in any way convincing, anymore than you might be swayed by an argument based on magic. It's not like I find this particular observation to be of such great importance that it becomes the "be-all=end=all" of reasons to select a specific cosmology theory.

The fact is, the BB model predicts that the Universe should be bathed in microwaves with a perfect black body spectrum. Experiment shows that the Universe is bathed in microwaves with a perfect black body spectrum. To me this is pretty good evidence in favour of the BB. However, to say that is the "be-all=end=all" of the theory is either:
a) utterly ignorant
or
b) a blatant lie.

Now I might feel quite differently if the mainstream explanation did not use inflation and dark energy and things they can't demonstrate to exist here and now. Since mainstream theory seems to be resorting to nothing less that "magic" from my perspective, I certainly don't find their explanation of this observation to be "impressive" in any way. I most certainly would therefore put little or no weight on that particular issue when deciding which cosmology theory is most "useful" at making key predictions, specifically key predictions inside our solar system.

You seem to have a strange definition of "cosmology". Please define it.

EU/PC theory "predicts" solar wind. It 'predicts" aurora and solar storms. It "predicts" coronal loops. It "predicts" the existence of "jets' in the solar atmosphere. These have all been "observed" in solar satellite images. The mainstream still finds these things to be "enigmas" and they have no legitimate "explanation" for any of these things, let alone a working model.

This is ironic since you've made it clear you have no working model for your explanations of solar energy generation.
Since we're talking cosmology and not astronomy (or I thought we were), please could you tell us the PC explanations for the Hubble redshift, the temporal distribution of quasars and the Lymann-alpha forest.
Also, do you believe the Universe is infinitely old? If so could you tell us why stars still form?

Perpetual Student · Feb 15, 2009

sol invictus said:
As far as I know there is no such thing as PC, so it's hard to answer that. Astrophysicists study plasmas all the time - it's a major part of the field - because they play central roles in lots of astrophysical processes and phenomena. But cosmology is not one of them.

Most of the ideas expressed in this thread - and just about all the ones that apply to cosmology - are obvious nonsense. Of those that were not, all or almost all are part of standard physics.

OK, thanks. Let me be more specific. A major claim of PC "is the assertion that electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on the largest scales." __from Wikipedia.
Taking this one aspect on its own for the moment, do you think that notion might have any merit? Perhaps, for example, electromagnetic forces may be more important than prevailing models currently hold, even if the PC claim may be significantly exaggerated. Might mainstream cosmology benefit from considering the effects of electromagnetic forces to a greater extent?
Sometimes when "camps" form, extreme positions are taken that do not allow for consideration of opposing views, even to the detriment of good science (There are abundant examples of this in the history of science). Now don't accuse me of harboring PC views -- I do not have the background to do any such thing. This is merely a line of inquiry, that has occurred to me while reading this ongoing debate.
I am well aware of the tenacious nature of science crackpots like Terence Witt, whose elaborate "physics" can scam careless thinkers. However, in this case, there is a respectable Nobel Prize recipient in the mix and there appears to be a logical progression of ideas for those of us with limited physics education. This is quite different than Witt, whose mathematics is patent nonsense and whose physics is wrong even for someone like me with a few courses of undergratuate physics.

Dancing David · Feb 15, 2009

PS. Perhaps these forces are considered in cosmology, but scale is everything is cosmology. And the magnetic field of the galaxy is what it is.

sol invictus · Feb 15, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
OK, thanks. Let me be more specific. A major claim of PC "is the assertion that electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on the largest scales." __from Wikipedia.
Taking this one aspect on its own for the moment, do you think that notion might have any merit?

Well, we have an extremely well-developed theoretically and experimentally unchallenged theory of gravity and electrodynamics (Einstein's general relativity coupled to Maxwell electrodynamics). So the basic laws are not in question, and the issue of the relative strength of gravity versus EM forces for a body in motion (say a star or galaxy) is purely a question of the conditions: the force of gravity is given by the mass of the body times the local gravitational field, and the Lorentz force by its charge times the electric field plus charge times velocity times the magnetic field.

To compare these two, one needs to know the mass and charge of the body and the gravitational and electromagnetic fields in its vicinity. We can compute the gravitational field simply by "adding up" all the mass nearby. Similarly, we can compute the electric and magnetic fields by adding up the charges and currents nearby. It is true that there is considerable uncertainty in both of these calculations. In the gravitational case that's because much of the matter in the universe is dark and uncharged, and so one greatly underestimates the strength of gravity if one counts only visible matter. However charged matter is extremely easy to detect, because it radiates and interacts strongly with light and other forms of EM radiation. The charge of the body itself cannot be very large without having many dramatic and obvious effects (for example if there were a significant net charge on the sun, its surface would explode).

So one can easily get an upper bound on how large the electromagnetic forces could possibly be on (say) a star orbiting a galaxy. Similarly, one can get a lower bound on the gravitational force. Gravity is stronger by something like a factor of a trillion (I forget the exact figure - it might be larger). Anyway, the upshot is it's completely impossible for EM forces to have any effect on the motion of stars - no matter how far off these estimates might be, there is no way they could be so completely and utterly wrong, particularly given how well they work for predicting all sorts of different behaviors observed every day.

A star orbiting a galaxy is not cosmology - one doesn't even need general relativity for that. When you scale up towards the lengths relevant for cosmology - the motions of clusters of galaxies, for example - the discrepancy becomes even more extreme. Basically that's because matter is neutral on average (if it weren't, it would be totally opaque to EM radiation and we would see it easily - not to mention many other independent lines of evidence). So considering larger objects barely increases the total charge. On the other hand gravity is sourced by total mass, which of course grows for larger objects. So on large scales gravity is vastly more powerful.

You can see the opposite effect easily - a magnet can lift a paper clip, even though it's opposed to the entire gravitational mass of the earth. So on small scales, EM is often much stronger than gravity. And in some cases in astrophysics - the motion of diffuse clouds of ionized gas in magnetic fields, for example, or the behavior of supernovae, charged matter accreting on a black hole, or cosmic rays (which are mostly charged particles like protons) passing through magnetic fields - that's true too. But as I said, we understand exactly why and how that is, and it's very easy to calculate what happens in particular cases.

As for spending more time considering EM forces, as I've said before, they are a basic and fundamental part of everyday astrophysics, something that every physicist thinks about all the time. It's hard to see how they could spend more time thinking about them - they're central to just about everything, and nothing would make sense without them. It's just that for some specific aspects of some phenomena they aren't relevant.

So while I agree with you that sometimes debates get heated and people overstate their case, this one is really impossible to overstate - and in any case there is no debate. The Nobel laureate you refer to is dead (and his contributions to science were all made long before his death), and the relevant data has become vastly more precise and varied. There was never a coherent set of ideas which could actually be tested - just a mishmash of intuition and vague similarities to patterns in lab data. There are at most a very few scientists that take these ideas at all seriously - probably fewer than there are biologists that don't believe in evolution - and of those, I'm not sure there are any that are actually astrophysicists.

The whole thing is a fiction in the heads of a few weird physics cranks.

brantc · Feb 15, 2009

sol invictus said:
If those are the predictions, the theory is wrong. Where's the current flow in a beam of light? In a magnet?

I'm sorry. Let me go back to basics.

We are not talking about bar magnets in the sky. We are talking about plasma and flux tubes. Electromagnetism.....

Michael Mozina · Feb 15, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
RHESSI does not observe fusion processes.

Not true.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

All of the gamma rays observed by RHESSI are identifiable as positron annihilation, neutron capture or nuclear de-excitation (mostly the latter). I have seen it suggested that deuteron fusion could take place in hot solar flares, but I am unaware of any observational evidence to support such speculation. But I am aware that there is no evidence for CNO or PP fusion from RHESSI data.

Then you'll have to find the fault in my paper. The neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere in particular would suggest your statements are false. There are very highly energetic events occurring in the solar atmosphere, well into the tens of millions of degree temperatures necessary to induce fusion.

In that case I shall stand corrected, although I cannot at the moment download the PDF document. Every time I try a "network error" ensues and the document fails to transfer. I suspect the server at the other end is unhappy about something.

Let me know when you've read it. He played with all kinds of different configurations and had all sorts of different "control mechanisms" that he used to try different ideas. The "discharge" process is well documented in his solar model, in fact it "predicts' coronal loop activity and high speed jets and "simulates* them as well.

Rather say that Birkeland demonstrated qualitatively that charge separation could be the driver for the process, not that it is the driver for the process.

I suppose that is accurate. He *qualified* the idea based on empirical testing. That has never been done for "magnetic reconnection" by the way. If we accept that "magnetic reconnection", "particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" all describe the same process, then of course Birkeland's work *would* apply to such a theory.

But of course charge separation is an entirely unphysical argument and can be safely ignored.

What? Charge separation shows up in a lab, and it can be shown to accelerate particles from a sphere in a 360 directional way, just as we observe from the sun. When was that ever done with 'magnetic fields"? He did in fact use "magnetic fields' in his experiments, but he showed that it was not the magnetic fields, but the "electrical energy" that did the work, accelerated the solar wind, and generate coronal loop activity.

Magnetic fields, on the other hand, are easy to generate & maintain, and are well known to accelerate charged particles through Faraday's Law (which is the driving mechanism in all particle accelerators, so we know it works).

We know from exactly those same laws that "electricity" works too. We also know that Birkeland was able to simulate solar wind by charging the sphere negative relative to the chamber/heliosphere.

Michael Mozina · Feb 15, 2009

FYI, I'm going to struggle to stay up with this conversation with everything else I have going on at the moment. I'll nibble as these as I get time, but I will keep up with the Lambda-CDM thread.

Zeuzzz · Feb 15, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Indeed I am The One & Only World Famous Tim Thompson

Awesome. Can I have your autograph please? ... sir?

Its a small world. Now scott et al need to show up and we've nearly got a full house, and could maybe resolve any outstanding issues. Though, I've got a feeling he's quite happy making money from his lectures on EU at various colleges/uni's, $150 an hour to learn the whole of astrophysics is wrong aint bad at all by my rates

I dont agree with many of his ideas. Some I do. But I still like him.

Michael Mozina · Feb 15, 2009

tusenfem said:
The magnetic field topology changes and thus if draw field lines (accepted by Alfvén) you will see that they have changed completely.

So what? All that has happened is that the current flow patterns have rearranged themselves and now the magnetic field topology is different. No special energy is released in a unique way that is unique to "magnetic reconnection". It's simply "particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" and the "circuit energy" will determine what happens at the point of "reconnection". No magnetic lines are "disconnecting' or 'reconnecting' to any other magnetic lines!

If you take small time steps you will see that that means some have to "break" and "reconnect" in order to get that new topology. However, the places where the "breaking" takes place coincide with very low magnetic field strengths (going to zero) where the definition of a field line breaks down.

Boloney. There is nowhere in the solar atmosphere where curl B= 0 in magnetic field lingo. There are no NULL points, just "Short circuit" points. A zero energy point has *no* energy, so you aren't going to get anything other than zero from a zero energy point. Get real.

Please show us a model of this "particle reconnection".

Turn on a plasma ball some time. Turn off the switch and you'll watch the "circuit disconnection" process. Turn the switch back on and you watch "circuit connection" take place. If you could get two of these filaments to short circuit, you'd have "circuit reconnection"

Naturally, science has stood still ever since Alfvén invented MHD.

Naturally you're more of an expert on MHD theory than Alfven just because you say so, right?

This has noting to do with my comment about double layers.
Have you read through this whole thread? I don't think so, otherwise you would not have started from scratch asking questions again about things that have been discussed and chewed from months.

I've been through a lot of it, but I don't recall reading anything of yours that addressed my questions.

I have pointed out to you several times now that magnetic lines lack physical substance, and they form as a full and complete continuum. They are physically incapable of "reconnecting". Have also asked you repeatedly now what exactly you believe is physically "reconnecting" at the critical point in question, and you have repeatedly dodged this question. Why?

A change in magnetic topology means nothing. It is not a form of "magnetic reconnection", just a change in current flow. There is no unique form of energy release called 'magnetic reconnection' because they lack the physical capacity to do "disconnect" or "reconnect".

Perpetual Student · Feb 15, 2009

s. i.:

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I seems to me, based on your comments, that the most condemning evidence against PC is the dearth of observational evidence for charged matter, which is so easily detected. I would imagine the PC people have conjured up some rational for this apparent game-ending problem. I wonder what that might be -- Mr. Mozina?

Michael Mozina · Feb 15, 2009

tusenfem said:
A comment like "flux tubes transport energy" the first question has to be why?? A fluxt tube is just a mathematical entity describing a bunch of magnetic field lines. This flux tube in and by itself does not transport anything.

Boloney. A "flux tube" is just your bogus jargon for "current carrying filament". The current flow in the filament is carried through the "flux tube", and that's the part you seem to be utterly oblivious about. It's the 'current flow' that is carried by the "magnetic rope". Alfven described a magnetic rope as a Bennett Pinch.

Now often it is the case that along such a flux tube currents flow.

False again. It is *always the case* that currents flow or you wouldn't have what you are calling a "magnetic line" in the first place. That "tube' is no different that what we observe inside an ordinary plasma ball. It's a "current carrying filament" being 'pinched' by the magnetic field that forms around the current flow.

You guys are oblivious to the *physics* of what's going on. You may understand the "math" just fine, but when it comes to the actual PHYSICS part, you're totally out to lunch. Magnetic fields not not "disconnect" or "reconnect". Only particles and circuits can do that in plasma.

The magnetic field only exists *because* of the current flow inside the tube. You can turn off the plasma ball and watch all the "flux tubes" disappear. You can turn it back on and watch them form again. It's the "current flow" inside that filament that is heating the plasma to millions of degrees! Get real.

Michael Mozina · Feb 15, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
In any case the "electric universe" is just plain stupid, really, and there is not much more to say than that.

This statement is just plain stupid IMO, and it's beneath you too IMO. I've spoken with you enough time over the years to know that in most instances you have a reasonable attitude, but on this issue specifically, you're emotionally attached IMO, and you are clearly out to lunch.

EU/PC theory is "lab tested" Tim. It's not one of those "pie in the sky" ideas that is shy around a lab like inflation or dark energy. It's based on *EVIDENCED* forces/curvatures of nature, not the kind of junk that we find in current theory. Even if it's eventually shown to be wrong, at least it's not "woo in the sky" stuff like we find in current theory.

It violates just about every law of physics you can think of;

Huh? It worked in Birkeland's lab Tim. It doesn't violate any known laws of physics, unlike inflation.

it is especially ironic, I think, that people who claim to be such experts on plasma physics & electromagnetism, clearly do not understand either much beyond the level of a good AP high school student.

It's especially ironic that folks claim to be the worlds foremost EU/PC critics and often they haven't even read Birkeland's material. Have you read Cosmic Plasma, or are you doing all this skeptical review via clairvoyance?

Just consider the worn out claim that you can only generate magnetic fields with electric currents. That is in fact not true, and it has been known to be not true for 100 years, so you would think somebody in the EU crowd would have figured that out by now.

That might be relevant if you we weren't talking about the solar atmosphere where no solids are present and none can show there isn't current flow involved.

Look at it from our perspective too Tim. We *KNOW* that the Earth experiences "electrical discharges' that release gamma rays and x-rays here on Earth. We "know* that large physical bodies experience larger discharges in their atmosphere. The sun's atmosphere is often filled with million degree coronal loops that have been shown by Bruce to be due to electrical discharges. We know magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect. The mainstream is still claiming this stuff is related to magnetic reconnection, when Birkeland showed it was caused by "electricity" over 100 years ago.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have some chess to play.

Good luck on your chess game.

ben m · Feb 15, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Not true.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

It's good practice to note that (a) this paper is by *you*, (b) It's in a fusion journal, not an astro journal, and (c) its *only* citation is from an omnibus 250-page review of neutrino physics which does not discuss this result at all, and most importantly (d) there are dozens of papers explaining the 2.2 MeV flare-associated gamma line, none of which invoke CNO.

Seriously, MM, this is why people call you a crackpot. Not because you have an alternative theory for the Sun; because you promote your alternative theory using standard crackpot midirection and evasiveness.

A non-crackpot, in response to the challenge "RHESSI does not observe fusion processes", might be imagined to respond "RHESSI sees a 2.2 MeV gamma line which I have argued is due to fusion; see (citation) which includes the full discussion." Oh, except your paper doesn't seem to mention the mainstream interpretations at all, does it?

brantc · Feb 15, 2009

tusenfem said:
A coronal loop does not "explode" although it may be called that in popular language. The loop twists, or somehow the two sides of the loop come together and there where the to parts of the loop come together, where the magnetic field is oppositely directed, reconnection can happen and the top part of the loop gets "converted" to a "bagel" of magnetic field and plasma (and associated currents). However the description above that you copied from the RHESSI page has very little resemblance with the "ideas" that you presented in your first message. Now you are just propagating the mainstream view of reconection, for which I thank you. And ttp://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/nuggets/?page=article&article_id=14]here is the RHESSI page about solar loops.

My bold red. I explained that exact process to you. I used mainstream terminology. I have not said anything "woo".

Again. The electron gyro radius in a plasma is much larger than in a solid wire.
The electron is now approaching the motion of an electric current in a SOLENOID. Because of the electrons gyroradius the magnetic field has a parallel component that is visible. Think of the flux tube as a long SOLENOID.
That is where the parallel component/vector comes in.

Conversely as a plasma approaches a solid (wire), the gyroradius becomes almost negligible producing the most extreme case of the right hand rule with almost straight electron travel.

Now if you have 2 filaments next to each other they have some repulsive force.
If there is a fluctuation in the current supply feeding the magnetic field, the repulsive force collapses(attractive force takes over) and the filaments touch.
This causes a short circuit and bang "reconnection". Not magnetic reconnection.
The change is current changing from flowing in 2 parallel strands to flowing across 2 strands. There is also a short lived double layer that forms between the two strands as the current flow switches direction. As the current increases in strength "between" the 2 strands the middle will increase in magnetic field strength ejecting some particles.

And your right, its not really exploding because the magnetic field continuum is ramping up and down(due to inductance) as the current flow changes, leading to an impulsive ejection of particles, generally jets.

2 filaments are reconnecting. The energy comes from the electric current flow.

So no I am not propagating the mainstream viewpoint. I am correcting the mainstream view point in one specific area, and explaining the "somehow" mystery. And in addition, showing how flux tubes are current carriers with a "'parallel" magnetic field.

There is nothing woo about this. Something is making that electromagnetic field, and that is moving electrons. Something is making those electrons move down that flux tube, and that is the electric field across (potential difference) the flux tube. And as such we can say that flux tubes carry electrical current to equalize the potential difference(between objects), no matter the reason for the difference..

From looking at what is going on here, what is lacking is objective causality.
You have to start somewhere. Everything should reduce to one basic idea(ideally). With plasma and magnetic fields that is electric current.
My favorite unit is the eV or electron volt. You can describe most everything in eV....

brantc · Feb 15, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
The bulk motion of a charge neutral plasma will generate a magnetic field, and that's where the magnetic fields in cosmology & astrophysics come from, not from streams of classical electric currents. This has been proven in both theory & practice and is a simple fact of nature. It is just one of many simple facts of nature ignored by EU enthusiasts.

Please point me to that paper......

Tubbythin · Feb 16, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Not true.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

Just to repeat a request, could you talk me through this whole neutron-neutron repulsion business?

Zeuzzz · Feb 16, 2009

Dancing David said:
You have been unable to support most of your claims in the past, you ignore huge holes in your theories, and then you come back and just pretend that they don't exist.

I do not pretend they dont exist. I do take it all in, and I appreciate peoples feedback. I'm just stubborn.

You seriously expect me to admit when I'm wrong? Surely, you know me better than this

Maybe, (as i recall happened before) a certain said substance reduces my intransigency.

But I still hate you all.*

Now, I admire you for trying to make this thing work, I admire your patience in struggling to make it make sense. You really have tried, but maybe, just maybe, you don't have a model and your don't have a theory.

I do have a model. And I do have a theories. They just dont work.

:eye-poppi

....well, some anyway.

Many 'alternative' cosmologists have various theories on par with, or at least strikingly similar in approach, to plasma cosmology. But hey, PC (Lerner [1980-95] + Peratt) is pretty much dead. I spoke with Lerner the other day on his fusion forum, he acknowledged this himself. However, the unique and logical plasma based approach to cosmology/astrophysics/EU is still a perspective that could hold fruit. And not just apples and bannanas, but pinapples and gooseberries. I'm not alone in my various views. I'm in good company

So, meanwhile, I'll just keep picking holes in the silly little thing called BIG BANG. Maybe its more a philosophical quibble than rigourously science based opinion, but hey. When the more definitive alternatve explantions that explain the inflation field and CMB emerge I'll be the first to post it here. Theres no shortage of people looking, and no shortage of potential theories.

Theres a heck of a lot of material to get though, and a hell of a lot of new theories to contemplate http://www.cosmology.info/

*that was a joke**

**an attempt at one anyway

sol invictus · Feb 16, 2009

brantc said:
Please point me to that paper......

Dunno if this is precisely what Tim has in mind, but one of the most basic features of plasmas is that magnetic field lines are almost frozen to the plasma around them. Which means if you start with some B field, no matter how small, you can increase its magnitude tremendously through currents (not electric currents - just ordinary net-neutral flows of particles) which carry the lines with them and tangle them up. Very small seed B fields can get multiplied by huge factors, particularly when the flows are fast and turbulent.

Those basic facts are born out by theory, numerical simulations, and experiments.

Perpetual Student · Feb 16, 2009

A question for CP/EU believers:

Since you are not physicists nor cosmologists, who are you? Are you astronomers? Is this a pastime (hobby)? Is this stuff taught anywhere? How does one become one of you? Does any university teach PC/EU theory? Is it taught anywhere as an alternative theory (like alternative medicine)? Can one get PC/EU credentials? How have any of you obtained your knowledge of PC/EU theory? Is there a PC/EU organization or club?

Michael Mozina · Feb 16, 2009

ben m said:
It's good practice to note that (a) this paper is by *you*,

Well, Duh! It's not like I'm using anything other than my real name here at Jref. It's not just "mine" however, there are others involved in writing this paper.

(b) It's in a fusion journal,

I would expect a fusion journal to know about fusion, wouldn't you?

not an astro journal,

So what?

and (c) its *only* citation is from an omnibus 250-page review of neutrino physics which does not discuss this result at all, and most importantly (d) there are dozens of papers explaining the 2.2 MeV flare-associated gamma line, none of which invoke CNO.

Would you have been happier if I cited Alfven's work or Bruce's work on discharge theory?

Seriously, MM, this is why people call you a crackpot.

The term "crackpot" must be another thing they teach in Lambda-CDM theory. That has to be the most ironic term I've heard coming from a guy that can't get inflation to do squat in a lab and defending that as "science". As me if I even care what you think of me. You guys run from all the real "observations" related to solar theory. You ignore the obvious when it comes to explaining "discharges" in the solar atmosphere, and you're at least 100 years behind Birkeland. I don't much care what your industry thinks of me, because I have zero respect for current cosmology theory. It's pure BS. You guys are the "crackpots" that peddle snake oil. Inflation is mythical mathical nonsense, and the same is true of "dark energy"'. You must made them up or your math doesn't fit right.

Not because you have an alternative theory for the Sun; because you promote your alternative theory using standard crackpot midirection and evasiveness.

Oh don't even get me started about misdirection and evasiveness. None of you folks *ever* address the actual images on my website and you evade all the direct question about these images. You make up nonsense about "magnetic reconnection" when magnetic lines lack physical substance and they only form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end. Don't even think about lecturing me about astronomy and physics. You don't have a leg to stand on.

A non-crackpot, in response to the challenge "RHESSI does not observe fusion processes", might be imagined to respond "RHESSI sees a 2.2 MeV gamma line which I have argued is due to fusion; see (citation) which includes the full discussion." Oh, except your paper doesn't seem to mention the mainstream interpretations at all, does it?

Why would my paper mention your nonsense about "magnetic reconnection" when Alfven called it "pseudoscience". Would you have been happier if I had noted it, and cited Alfven's comments when he called it pseudoscience?

Zeuzzz · Feb 16, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
Since you are not physicists nor cosmologists, who are you?

I am me, surprisingly.

Are you astronomers?

hmmm. No. A physicist with an interest in space physics and plasma behaviour.

Is this a pastime (hobby)?

Suppose so.

Is this stuff taught anywhere?

Yeah, but unlikely to be in any specific curriculum just taught by professors that are adherants to various PC/EU ideas.

How does one become one of you?

Grow a beard, learn the fandango, and publish a paper on cucumbers.

What does this mean?

We are not a 'type' of person. I dont even really know who 'we' would be when I say that.

Does any university teach PC/EU theory?

Certainly aspects, but it will not be recognised as "EU" or "PC" theory, more plasma physics, cosmic electrodynamics or alternative cosmologies. They will not be taught how to apply this knowledge to various PC/EU ideas though, as they are considered 'fringe' by most. Or, rather, wrong.

Is it taught anywhere as an alternative theory (like alternative medicine)?

Many supportera do do lectures to their classes, but there is no specific course for it as far as I am aware.

Can one get PC/EU credentials?

hmmmm. Badgers like marmite in the springtime.

Dunno what this means really... but, I dont think so.

How have any of you obtained your knowledge of PC/EU theory?

From my university physics course, where the library had a copy of Alfvens amazingly interesting book "Cosmic Plasma", which still remains pertinent, correct, and largely ignored by standard astronomers to this day.

Searching journals also. The IEEE plasma science journal does a "special edition" on cosmic plasma every year or so with PC material. Also various other journals contain PC material, though often not actually under the specific title of plasma cosmology. Birkelands work is also very central, as is Bruce and Bostiks material.

Is there a PC/EU organization or club?

Na. Maybe the 'alternative cosmology group' comes closest, but they rather just show issues with BBT rather than proposing plasma cosmology models.

There is also the far more unorthodox "thunderbolts" group, which certainly is not *totally* without merit, involving people such as Wallace Thornhill, Don Scott, and a few others. Nothing to do with Veliskovsky and various catasrophism ideas, though people often try to link him to them to discredit people.

I hope this all makes sense. Tis been a long day, and I'm off to bed now.

Michael Mozina · Feb 16, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
A question for CP/EU believers:

Since you are not physicists nor cosmologists, who are you? Are you astronomers? Is this a pastime (hobby)?

I am a programmer by trade, a businessman, husband, and father of two children in my late 40's. I've been interested in astronomy since I was a kid and first watched men walk on the moon. I've studied solar satellite images since the Yohkoh days. Mostly it's a hobby since it's not a paying gig. I wouldn't have the same freedom to criticize this industry today if I was employed in the industry, so frankly I'm glad I'm on the outside looking in.

Is this stuff taught anywhere?

Sure, it is taught in Birkeland's book in terms of real empirical lab work, which I cited for Tim, and also in the work of Alfven, Bruce, Peratt and many others.

How does one become one of you?

There is a secret handshake required, but I can't tell you about it yet.

As far as I know, you simply "join" of your own free will. We'll let you.

Does any university teach PC/EU theory?

Not to my knowledge. Currently only bogus nonsense is being taught at the college/university level. Birkeland's work is typically glossed over, and MHD theory has been "cludged" beyond recognition by the mainstream while Alfven's actual cosmology theories have been stuffed into a closet.

You'll have to "discover' EU/PC theory on your own without a lot of help from the "educational institutions" at the moment. They're busy peddling pure metaphysical dogma at the moment and ignorantly fighting against empirical physics. "Electricity" is the one "unmentionable" in astronomy today.

Is it taught anywhere as an alternative theory (like alternative medicine)?

It's written about in books and papers by Alfven and Peratt and Bruce and others which you can access via the internet, or purchase over the internet.

Can one get PC/EU credentials?

You can only get your EU credentials by being able to stand here in cyberspace with the "big boys" of astronomy and being able to "slug it out" with them if necessary. They'll resent you of course for doing it, so don't ever expect to get a paying job in astronomy if you get your EU credentials.

How have any of you obtained your knowledge of PC/EU theory?

I personally believe your best bet is to study Birkeland's work first which is freely accessible over the internet, and then Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma". Peratt's book is also excellent (better IMO), but it is out of print, and beyond the financial reach of most folks.

Is there a PC/EU organization or club?

No, and they don't even serve free coffee and donuts. The only satisfaction you'll get is "empirical knowledge" once you finally "get it". IMO it's worth it too.

Tim Thompson · Feb 16, 2009

Magnetic Reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
He *qualified* the idea based on empirical testing. That has never been done for "magnetic reconnection" by the way.

Magnetic reconnection certainly has been empirically tested. Evidently you missed my earlier post with the details: Comments on magnetic Reconnection.

Michael Mozina · Feb 16, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Magnetic reconnection certainly has been empirically tested. Evidently you missed my earlier post with the details: Comments on magnetic Reconnection.

The term "magnetic reconnection" is not simply an argument about semantics Tim, and no one has done what Birkeland had done with "electricity" in a lab, namely use "magnetic reconnection" to generate whole sphere discharges and coronal loops, jets, etc. I'll start off tomorrow "debunking" the PPPL paper for you since I've already been through that paper at space.com. We'll go though them one by one if you like, but each and every one of the most likely used "current flow" to get their party started, and to generate these events in plasma.

The magnetic lines lack physical substance, and they are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic field line. These are simply "particle/circuit reconnection" events, not "magnetic reconnection" events. It simply "current sheet acceleration", nothing more. It's late tonight, and all start on your papers tomorrow, but I did upload a PDF of Birkeland's work to my website so you have at least two download locations:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

sol invictus · Feb 16, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
No magnetic lines are "disconnecting' or 'reconnecting' to any other magnetic lines!
<snip>
I have pointed out to you several times now that magnetic lines lack physical substance, and they form as a full and complete continuum. They are physically incapable of "reconnecting".
<snip>
There is no unique form of energy release called 'magnetic reconnection' because they lack the physical capacity to do "disconnect" or "reconnect".

Along with two decades and more of laboratory experiments that falsify the silly nonsense I quoted above, here's a movie showing the results of a numerical simulation of Maxwell's equations in plasmas (click on the orange image). It speaks for itself.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Illuminator

Muse

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Muse

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Unregistered

Muse

Muse

Illuminator

Banned

Philosopher

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Muse

Banned

Philosopher