Electric universe theories here. - Page 74

Sol88 · 8th November 2022, 03:32 PM

Let’s just ask a plasma expert.

Can there be charge seperation and a flow of current in space plasma, not gas but PLASMA, tusenfem

Are astrophysical jets “electric currents”, tusenfem?

What would be the best analogy or metaphor to describe to the layman and astrophysical jet?

Sol88 · 8th November 2022, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by The Man

High light added. I a gas "intermolecular forces" don't "dominate" that's exactly why in can "fill the volume of it container" unlike say a lesser volume of a liquid. There intermolecular forces still allow a liquid to flow but not to freely expand to fill a container.

Hope that helps.

I’ll see your intermolecular forces and raise you electric fields!

Quote:

A plasma with a significant excess of charge density, or, in the extreme case, is composed of a single species, is called a non-neutral plasma. In such a plasma, electric fields play a dominant role. Examples are charged particle beams, an electron cloud in a Penning trap and positron plasmas.[30]

And it seems astrophysical jets!

Gas as fluids

when we are actually talking a completely different state of matter, kiddie stuff. Plasma and non-neutral ones at that.

Are astrophysical jets gas containers governed by intermolecular forces or a plasma (charges seperated and current conducting)?

As per observations.

Ziggurat · 8th November 2022, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

Stop avoiding this, Sol88.

Sol88 · 8th November 2022, 03:55 PM

Quote:

4.3.4. Knots in M87. Important clues concerning general jet dynamics and radiation prop- erties have have been drawn from a few well-resolved X-ray and optical jets (Sec. 2.4). The six M87 knots have been interpreted as strong, particle-accelerating shocks which would in- dicate that β �� 1 (Biretta et al. 1999). They have also been interpreted as places where the jet velocity turns towards us (Bicknell & Begelman 1996). Given the successful observing campaign involving HST-1 it may be possible to extend this to the innermost knots.

How does gas accelerate particles?

Mainstream stuff,brus,

Sol88 · 8th November 2022, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Stop avoiding this, Sol88.

Well...there's one.

We call them double layers but you seem confused and call the, 4.3.4. Knots in M87.

Quote:

Important clues concerning general jet dynamics and radiation prop- erties have have been drawn from a few well-resolved X-ray and optical jets (Sec. 2.4). The six M87 knots have been interpreted as strong, particle-accelerating

Important clues?

Ummmm... it’s a plasma not a gas most definitely not quasi neutral!

Mainstream electric universe stuff and important clue that the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE mob have been onto for some time now.

Ziggurat · 8th November 2022, 05:46 PM

That isn't actually an answer.

lauwenmark · 8th November 2022, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well...there's one.

We call them double layers but you seem confused and call the, 4.3.4. Knots in M87.

Important clues?

Ummmm... it’s a plasma not a gas most definitely not quasi neutral!

Mainstream electric universe stuff and important clue that the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE mob have been onto for some time now.

How is this gibberish any kind of answer to Hans's questions? All you did above was typing a few random words, quoted parts of a paper that's not related to EU theory, and then say it is an 'important clue'.

Why do you keep not answering those questions?

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

Is that because you actually don't know what EU is or says? People here should really stop answering your questions until you - for once - answer ours!

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Is that because you actually don't know what EU is or says? People here should really stop answering your questions until you - for once - answer ours!

Mainstream EU nonsense right in front of your eyes!

Quote:

nderstand if the sustenance of magnetic field near a black hole, which determines whether an AGN is radio-loud or radio-quiet is due to physical processes near the black hole or is controlled by the infalling gas

Space GAS!

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 12:38 AM

Is that the best you have? Will yo start calling me names as well? or are you willing to discuss a mainstream paper that will challenge your paradigm? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.06025.pdf

Quote:

Is that because you actually don't know what EU is or says? People here should really stop answering your questions until you - for once - answer ours!

Mainstream EU nonsense right in front of your eyes!

Quote:

FUTURE ISSUES

Understand if the sustenance of magnetic field near a black hole, which determines whether an AGN is radio-loud or radio-quiet is due to physical processes near the black hole or is controlled by the infalling gas

Infalling Space GAS!

Seems you cant even begin to understand PLASMA if you still PLASMA a GAS.

If it's a GAS you'll be consistently surprised by these unusual behavior if it's a plasma...electric fields, charge separation, instabilities, filamentation, bubbles and cells, double layers....on and on.

Including, and get this, MAINSTREAM EU stuff like...

Quote:

Understanding the content, power, electrical current and duty cycles of AGN jets will help quantify their role in galaxy formation and evolution.

LINK

Galaxy formation and evolution not dominated by gravity? Electromagnetic has a major role to play in the formation and evolution of galaxies?

Is this standard mainstream theory for galaxy formation and evolution?

What about infinite gravity? You know your classic math howler of division by ZERO!

Roger Blandford, a mainstream scientist, says jets are great bi electric currents!

Do yo agree or disagree?

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by The Man

It is my, admittedly rather limited understanding that the jets are electrically neutral (contain the same number of positive as well as negative charges overall). Since there is no net charge through a point, plane volume or whatever over time it wouldn't classify as a current. Perhaps within some very specific and limited constraints of time and space but only for that as the charge imbalance is not maintained.

At least the Man was kind enough to engage.

Quote:

Evidence is presented that:
• AGN jets are formed when the black hole spins and the accretion
disk is strongly magnetized, perhaps on account of gas accreting
at high latitude beyond the black hole sphere of influence.
• AGN jets are collimated close to the black hole by magnetic stress
associated with a disk wind.
• Higher power jets can emerge from their galactic nuclei in a
relativistic, supersonic and proton-dominated state and they
terminate in strong, hot spot shocks; lower power jets are degraded
to buoyant plumes and bubbles.
• Jets may accelerate protons to EeV energies which contribute to
the cosmic ray spectrum and which may initiate pair cascades
that can efficiently radiate synchrotron gamma rays.
• Jets were far more common when the universe was a few billion
years old and black holes and massive galaxies were growing rapidly.
• Jets can have a major influence on their environments, stimulating
and limiting the growth of galaxies.

Mainstream ELECTRIC UNIVERSE stuff

tusenfem · 9th November 2022, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ok ok, I’ll play.
Worth playing with ya reckon tusenfem?

I don't want to "play". I want a real discussion and this does not bode well.

If you would actually read and understand the paper by Blandford et al., then you would maybe get a bit of a grip on all this. But then you would have to understand plasma physics and what metaphores mean.

Just in quick words, very basically, how are jets generated:

Mass is added to an accretion disk around a black hole from some source
The accretion disk is hot and turbulent and contains plasma, and through the turbulent motion magnetic fields are generated
The gas/plasma is transported towards the innermost stable orbit and when it passes that location it will start to fall towards the black hole
Because of the presence of a magnetic field which would be connected to the plasma blob falling to the black hole and to the accretion disk, which leads to tension in the field
This makes that there will be a twisted magnetosphere around the black hole
The tension in the field and reconnection will lead to acceleration of plasma away from the black hole
The only direction in which this stuff can escape is along the rotation axis of the black hole, in other directions it is blocked
This will give a twisted bundle of magnetic field and plasma flowing out along the rotational axis of the black hole
And thus we have jets

Originally Posted by Sol88

In operation? Like plugged in and turned on? Like electrical power to make the whole shebang go?
Gas can also apparently according to mainstream, generate electrical energy.

You can read up on how a plasma lamp works on wiki.

Gas (where gas is plasma) can act like a generator, why would you be surprised about that? The Sun would be an excellent example of this.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Something black holes n membranes or some such drivel.

Just because you cannot grasp the beauty of the membrane paradigm does not mean it is drivel. But you will probably never understand it.

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 01:46 AM

Invoke the membrane paradigm?

Why not invoke standard plasma physics?

No need for any invocations.

Magnetic field lines connecting the event horizon and the division by zero error. You be in trouble with that thinking.

And thus you have yourself an ELECTRIC CURRENT.

So still happy with gas as a pretty useless approximation?

tusenfem · 9th November 2022, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Did you even read the paper?

Do you actually understand what a METAPHORE is?

tusenfem · 9th November 2022, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Can there be charge seperation and a flow of current in space plasma, not gas but PLASMA, tusenfem

Charge separation only occurs very very seldomly in natural plasmas.
Electric current can flow in a natural plasma but is basically never created by a charge separation.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Are astrophysical jets “electric currents”, tusenfem?

From observations of the toroidal magnetic field (see Blandford et al. 2019, and Wardle, 2018) there can be a current of 10¹⁷ to 10¹⁸ A. This sounds like a lot, but like I have explained before, what is really important is the current density, so we would have to divide that by the cross section of the jet. With an opening angle of 1 degrees (or 0.017 rad) and say a distance of 1 ly, the diameter is easy to calculate as 1 ly * sin(0.017) = 0.017 ly = 1.6e14 m, so the current density is minute, 18E18/10E28 = 0.1 nA/m².
You can try to calculate how many accelerated particles are creating something like this.

Originally Posted by Sol88

What would be the best analogy or metaphor to describe to the layman and astrophysical jet?

You don't need a metaphor, you just need a simple explanation, like I gave in a previous post.
See, that is the problem with EU proponents, doing "science" with press releases and not understanding how metaphors work and how simplifications (like MHD or circuit theory) work and when they are valid.

tusenfem · 9th November 2022, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

We call them double layers but you seem confused and call the, 4.3.4. Knots in M87.

Quote:

Important clues concerning general jet dynamics and radiation prop- erties have have been drawn from a few well-resolved X-ray and optical jets (Sec. 2.4). The six M87 knots have been interpreted as strong, particle-accelerating SHOCKS

fixed that for you, you missed a word in your quote.

Another typical EU proponent behaviour.

Double layers not shocks are.

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 03:31 AM

Quote:

The accretion disk is hot and turbulent and contains plasma, and through the turbulent motion magnetic fields are generated

Nonsensical gishgallop...

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Charge separation only occurs very very seldomly in natural plasmas.
Electric current can flow in a natural plasma but is basically never created by a charge separation.

From observations of the toroidal magnetic field (see Blandford et al. 2019, and Wardle, 2018) there can be a current of 10¹⁷ to 10¹⁸ A. This sounds like a lot, but like I have explained before, what is really important is the current density, so we would have to divide that by the cross section of the jet. With an opening angle of 1 degrees (or 0.017 rad) and say a distance of 1 ly, the diameter is easy to calculate as 1 ly * sin(0.017) = 0.017 ly = 1.6e14 m, so the current density is minute, 18E18/10E28 = 0.1 nA/m².
You can try to calculate how many accelerated particles are creating something like this.

You don't need a metaphor, you just need a simple explanation, like I gave in a previous post.
See, that is the problem with EU proponents, doing "science" with press releases and not understanding how metaphors work and how simplifications (like MHD or circuit theory) work and when they are valid.

What was the electric field strength did you say?

lauwenmark · 9th November 2022, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Mainstream EU nonsense right in front of your eyes!
Space GAS!

The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model".
None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Is that the best you have? Will yo start calling me names as well? or are you willing to discuss a mainstream paper that will challenge your paradigm?

The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model".
None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Mainstream EU nonsense right in front of your eyes!
Infalling Space GAS!

The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model".
None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Seems you cant even begin to understand PLASMA if you still PLASMA a GAS.

If it's a GAS you'll be consistently surprised by these unusual behavior if it's a plasma...electric fields, charge separation, instabilities, filamentation, bubbles and cells, double layers....on and on.

Including, and get this, MAINSTREAM EU stuff like...

The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model".
None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Galaxy formation and evolution not dominated by gravity? Electromagnetic has a major role to play in the formation and evolution of galaxies?

Is this standard mainstream theory for galaxy formation and evolution?

What about infinite gravity? You know your classic math howler of division by ZERO!

Roger Blandford, a mainstream scientist, says jets are great bi electric currents!

Do yo agree or disagree?

The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model".
None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans.

Originally Posted by Sol88

At least the Man was kind enough to engage.
(...)
Mainstream ELECTRIC UNIVERSE stuff

The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model".
None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans.

Do I sound like a broken record? Yes, definitely. That's because you keep avoiding talking about the EU theory (which is the Title of this thread), and you also avoid answering any of the four fundamental questions asked by Hans, quoting them here again as a reminder:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 04:34 AM

Umm...read the paper. It’s all there for you.

Not sure I’m really able to help you unfortunately. Plasma is a subset of gas....and charge seperation can not occur and electric fields exist in space but don’t do anything, kinda thinking.

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by tusenfem

fixed that for you, you missed a word in your quote.

Another typical EU proponent behaviour.

Double layers not shocks are.

Shocks are particle accelerators though, same as electric fields.

As we all know all double layers are electric fields but not all electric fields are double layers...

Still, an electric filed you say? Electric currents of quite some power (electrical energy), you say?

Well that would require a curcuit and as Blandford states; Understanding the content, power, electrical current and duty cycles of AGN jets will help quantify their role in galaxy formation and evolution.

Seems import from a Big Bang black hole paradigm.

lauwenmark · 9th November 2022, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Umm...read the paper. It’s all there for you.

Not sure I’m really able to help you unfortunately. Plasma is a subset of gas....and charge seperation can not occur and electric fields exist in space but don’t do anything, kinda thinking.

It may surprize you, but I actually read (or at least browse) the papers you keep linking.

But none of those you linked answer the four questions (I may start writing The Four Questions(tm)

). And besides, I'm not interested on what papers are claiming (especially mainstream science papers, as you'd call them). What I and others want are Sol88's vision and thoughts; what I and others want are answers that do not solely consist of the all-too predictable "mainstream is wrong", but instead looks like "EU is right, and here is how I can prove it".

That's the aim of those Hans Four Questions(tm) : to get what EU is, not using a negative definition of mainstream science, but using a positive definition based on a clean-sheet line of thoughts.

Let's repeat the - still unanswered - Four Questions(tm) :

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

I think Hans is totally right above: if you cannot answer those, what's left to discuss? Keep pointing at what current "mainstream science" fails to predict accurately? That just proves that science keeps evolving, and is far from being able to explain everything. But it won't demonstrate what you so deeply want: show that EU is the right proposal.

So, will you now seriously start exposing what your EU Theory is, and provide sound arguments for it, by answering those Four Questions(tm)?

Steve · 9th November 2022, 05:16 AM

Electric universe theories? None presented here in the 13 1/2 year life of this thread. It has become quite apparent that such things do not exist. And every poster in this thread knows this. Pathetic trolling of the topic with inane and (willfully?) ignorant comments that have convinced absolutely no one, on the other hand, is alive and well with no signs of ever diminishing.

Such threads do have the educational benefit of providing lots of real science that is so, so easy to separate from the bs and learn from. So thanks to the actual scientists in this thread who persist in providing actual evidence to fight and correct the ignorance.

tusenfem · 9th November 2022, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Nonsensical gishgallop...

Well, if you already back out at normal dynamo theory which happens in turbulent plasmas, I guess we can just stop any discussion about jets.

tusenfem · 9th November 2022, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

What was the electric field strength did you say?

what electric field???????

tusenfem · 9th November 2022, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Umm...read the paper. It’s all there for you.

Not sure I’m really able to help you unfortunately. Plasma is a subset of gas....and charge seperation can not occur and electric fields exist in space but don’t do anything, kinda thinking.

And again you are projecting your own insufficiencies on mainstream plasma physics. sad

tusenfem · 9th November 2022, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Shocks are particle accelerators though, same as electric fields.

Yes, but shocks are not electric fields *sigh*

Originally Posted by Sol88

As we all know all double layers are electric fields but not all electric fields are double layers...

Well, all plasma physicists know this, only you will not accept it for some mysterious reason.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Still, an electric filed you say? Electric currents of quite some power (electrical energy), you say?

Not that I recall, I guess you cannot really read what I say.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well that would require a curcuit and as Blandford states; Understanding the content, power, electrical current and duty cycles of AGN jets will help quantify their role in galaxy formation and evolution.

You can put it in the terms that Blandford et al. use, yes, but apparently you are unable to take the next step, which is that you move away from the analogy and get into the nitty-gritty of plasma physics.

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by tusenfem

what electric field???????

You said somedrivel about turbulence in a hot gas near a rotating gravity source making magnetic fields.

Better said as “Once upon a time...”

For a start, where are the electric field in this fantasy of yours?

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 03:01 PM

Got some hot gas here (in a container, funnily enough) I’m turbulently mixing and agitating, still no magnetic field generation?

Plasmas of different properties and relative motions, I could see generating EM fields that would most probably do exactly what you’ve described above.

This would mean, of course, things like electric currents, double layers, charge seperation...

It would even appear to Blandford et al, that it is very important in the Big Bang theory.

Mainstream gravity centric doctrine.

Any electric fields generated in your description of the DYNAMO THEORY?

lauwenmark · 9th November 2022, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

For a start, where are the electric field in this fantasy of yours?

Pretty easy to answer: he found them in one of your own posts just above:

Originally Posted by Sol88

What was the electric field strength did you say?

Now, I guess we can ask you the same: where did you find that electric field in that fantasy of yours?

In any case, the title of this topic isn't Tusenfem's Fantasies, but Electric Universe theories here. For which, an answer to The Four Questions(tm) is still pending...

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

lauwenmark · 9th November 2022, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Got (...)

Mainstream gravity centric doctrine.

This thread is not about the mainstream theories, it is about EU theories.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Any electric fields generated in your description of the DYNAMO THEORY?

This thread is not about DYNAMO THEORY (You seem to entertain all-caps words, is it supposed to make them stunning?). It is about EU theories. But maybe DYNAMO THEORY is part of it?

It is hard to say, because you never made clear what your EU theories were made of. A good starting point would be to answer Hans's Four Questions(tm), for example:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

Sol88 · 9th November 2022, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Yes, but shocks are not electric fields *sigh*

Well, all plasma physicists know this, only you will not accept it for some mysterious reason.

Not that I recall, I guess you cannot really read what I say.

You can put it in the terms that Blandford et al. use, yes, but apparently you are unable to take the next step, which is that you move away from the analogy and get into the nitty-gritty of plasma physics.

Nitty gritty? We are still using hot turbulent gas in your world making magnetic fields?

Would the plasma doing the same make an electric field?

That’s pretty nitty gritty...

Ziggurat · 9th November 2022, 06:18 PM

Still no actual description of what Electric Universe theory even is.

MRC_Hans · 10th November 2022, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Got some hot gas here (in a container, funnily enough) I’m turbulently mixing and agitating, still no magnetic field generation?

How do you know? How do you measure that?

What's that obsession with containers?

Hans

Steve · 10th November 2022, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

How do you know? How do you measure that?

What's that obsession with containers?

Hans

Just another in a long list of obfuscations and red herrings. You know, what a person does when they have no coherent narrative, but still desperately want to appear intelligent.

Ziggurat · 10th November 2022, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

What's that obsession with containers?

He somehow thinks they can prove that plasmas are not gases, which will magically invalidate standard physics. That's what you get when you can read the words but don't actually understand the concepts.

steenkh · 10th November 2022, 06:54 AM

He also refuses to understand that gravity and electrical forces can contain plasma in free space.

tusenfem · 10th November 2022, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

You said somedrivel about turbulence in a hot gas near a rotating gravity source making magnetic fields.

No, I said: The accretion disk is hot and turbulent and contains plasma, and through the turbulent motion magnetic fields are generated

Originally Posted by Sol88

Better said as “Once upon a time...”

I am not here for your bedtime stories, ask your mum to read you to sleep.

Originally Posted by Sol88

For a start, where are the electric field in this fantasy of yours?

Why would I need an electric field?

tusenfem · 10th November 2022, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

This would mean, of course, things like electric currents, double layers, charge seperation...

No

tusenfem · 10th November 2022, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Sol88

Nitty gritty? We are still using hot turbulent gas in your world making magnetic fields?

Would the plasma doing the same make an electric field?

That’s pretty nitty gritty...

Hopeless trolling

lauwenmark · 10th November 2022, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Still no actual description of what Electric Universe theory even is.

The reader will notice how Sol88 carefully avoided answering my post... He's the first to complain when we aren't kind enough to engage, though.

I guess that Sol88 just cannot admit typing "I don't know". But let's remind him of The Four Questions(tm) (just in case he forgot !) :

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

8th November 2022, 03:32 PM	#2921
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Let’s just ask a plasma expert. Can there be charge seperation and a flow of current in space plasma, not gas but PLASMA, tusenfem Are astrophysical jets “electric currents”, tusenfem? What would be the best analogy or metaphor to describe to the layman and astrophysical jet?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

8th November 2022, 03:47 PM	#2922
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Originally Posted by The Man High light added. I a gas "intermolecular forces" don't "dominate" that's exactly why in can "fill the volume of it container" unlike say a lesser volume of a liquid. There intermolecular forces still allow a liquid to flow but not to freely expand to fill a container. Hope that helps. I’ll see your intermolecular forces and raise you electric fields! Quote: A plasma with a significant excess of charge density, or, in the extreme case, is composed of a single species, is called a non-neutral plasma. In such a plasma, electric fields play a dominant role. Examples are charged particle beams, an electron cloud in a Penning trap and positron plasmas.[30] And it seems astrophysical jets! Gas as fluids when we are actually talking a completely different state of matter, kiddie stuff. Plasma and non-neutral ones at that. Are astrophysical jets gas containers governed by intermolecular forces or a plasma (charges seperated and current conducting)? As per observations.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator Last edited by Sol88; 8th November 2022 at 03:51 PM.

8th November 2022, 03:53 PM	#2923
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans 1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"? 2) How do they differ from the current paradigm? 3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm? 4) What evidence exists to support them? If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss. Hans Stop avoiding this, Sol88.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

8th November 2022, 03:55 PM	#2924
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Quote: 4.3.4. Knots in M87. Important clues concerning general jet dynamics and radiation prop- erties have have been drawn from a few well-resolved X-ray and optical jets (Sec. 2.4). The six M87 knots have been interpreted as strong, particle-accelerating shocks which would in- dicate that β �� 1 (Biretta et al. 1999). They have also been interpreted as places where the jet velocity turns towards us (Bicknell & Begelman 1996). Given the successful observing campaign involving HST-1 it may be possible to extend this to the innermost knots. How does gas accelerate particles? Mainstream stuff,brus,
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

8th November 2022, 03:59 PM	#2925
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Stop avoiding this, Sol88. Well...there's one. We call them double layers but you seem confused and call the, 4.3.4. Knots in M87. Quote: Important clues concerning general jet dynamics and radiation prop- erties have have been drawn from a few well-resolved X-ray and optical jets (Sec. 2.4). The six M87 knots have been interpreted as strong, particle-accelerating Important clues? Ummmm... it’s a plasma not a gas most definitely not quasi neutral! Mainstream electric universe stuff and important clue that the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE mob have been onto for some time now.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator Last edited by Sol88; 8th November 2022 at 04:35 PM.

8th November 2022, 05:46 PM	#2926
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001	That isn't actually an answer.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

8th November 2022, 11:25 PM	#2927
lauwenmark Scholar Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 102	Originally Posted by Sol88 Well...there's one. We call them double layers but you seem confused and call the, 4.3.4. Knots in M87. Important clues? Ummmm... it’s a plasma not a gas most definitely not quasi neutral! Mainstream electric universe stuff and important clue that the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE mob have been onto for some time now. How is this gibberish any kind of answer to Hans's questions? All you did above was typing a few random words, quoted parts of a paper that's not related to EU theory, and then say it is an 'important clue'. Why do you keep not answering those questions? Originally Posted by MRC_Hans 1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"? 2) How do they differ from the current paradigm? 3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm? 4) What evidence exists to support them? If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss. Hans Is that because you actually don't know what EU is or says? People here should really stop answering your questions until you - for once - answer ours!
lauwenmark Scholar Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 102	Last edited by lauwenmark; 8th November 2022 at 11:27 PM.

9th November 2022, 12:16 AM	#2928
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Quote: Is that because you actually don't know what EU is or says? People here should really stop answering your questions until you - for once - answer ours! Mainstream EU nonsense right in front of your eyes! Quote: nderstand if the sustenance of magnetic field near a black hole, which determines whether an AGN is radio-loud or radio-quiet is due to physical processes near the black hole or is controlled by the infalling gas Space GAS!
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator Last edited by Sol88; 9th November 2022 at 12:38 AM.

9th November 2022, 12:38 AM	#2929
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Is that the best you have? Will yo start calling me names as well? or are you willing to discuss a mainstream paper that will challenge your paradigm? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.06025.pdf Quote: Is that because you actually don't know what EU is or says? People here should really stop answering your questions until you - for once - answer ours! Mainstream EU nonsense right in front of your eyes! Quote: FUTURE ISSUES Understand if the sustenance of magnetic field near a black hole, which determines whether an AGN is radio-loud or radio-quiet is due to physical processes near the black hole or is controlled by the infalling gas Infalling Space GAS! Seems you cant even begin to understand PLASMA if you still PLASMA a GAS. If it's a GAS you'll be consistently surprised by these unusual behavior if it's a plasma...electric fields, charge separation, instabilities, filamentation, bubbles and cells, double layers....on and on. Including, and get this, MAINSTREAM EU stuff like... Quote: Understanding the content, power, electrical current and duty cycles of AGN jets will help quantify their role in galaxy formation and evolution. LINK Galaxy formation and evolution not dominated by gravity? Electromagnetic has a major role to play in the formation and evolution of galaxies? Is this standard mainstream theory for galaxy formation and evolution? What about infinite gravity? You know your classic math howler of division by ZERO! Roger Blandford, a mainstream scientist, says jets are great bi electric currents! Do yo agree or disagree?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator Last edited by Sol88; 9th November 2022 at 12:40 AM.

9th November 2022, 12:55 AM	#2930
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Originally Posted by The Man It is my, admittedly rather limited understanding that the jets are electrically neutral (contain the same number of positive as well as negative charges overall). Since there is no net charge through a point, plane volume or whatever over time it wouldn't classify as a current. Perhaps within some very specific and limited constraints of time and space but only for that as the charge imbalance is not maintained. At least the Man was kind enough to engage. Quote: Evidence is presented that: • AGN jets are formed when the black hole spins and the accretion disk is strongly magnetized, perhaps on account of gas accreting at high latitude beyond the black hole sphere of influence. • AGN jets are collimated close to the black hole by magnetic stress associated with a disk wind. • Higher power jets can emerge from their galactic nuclei in a relativistic, supersonic and proton-dominated state and they terminate in strong, hot spot shocks; lower power jets are degraded to buoyant plumes and bubbles. • Jets may accelerate protons to EeV energies which contribute to the cosmic ray spectrum and which may initiate pair cascades that can efficiently radiate synchrotron gamma rays. • Jets were far more common when the universe was a few billion years old and black holes and massive galaxies were growing rapidly. • Jets can have a major influence on their environments, stimulating and limiting the growth of galaxies. Mainstream ELECTRIC UNIVERSE stuff
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator Last edited by Sol88; 9th November 2022 at 01:00 AM.

9th November 2022, 01:33 AM	#2931
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Sol88 Ok ok, I’ll play. Worth playing with ya reckon tusenfem? I don't want to "play". I want a real discussion and this does not bode well. If you would actually read and understand the paper by Blandford et al., then you would maybe get a bit of a grip on all this. But then you would have to understand plasma physics and what metaphores mean. Just in quick words, very basically, how are jets generated: Mass is added to an accretion disk around a black hole from some source The accretion disk is hot and turbulent and contains plasma, and through the turbulent motion magnetic fields are generated The gas/plasma is transported towards the innermost stable orbit and when it passes that location it will start to fall towards the black hole Because of the presence of a magnetic field which would be connected to the plasma blob falling to the black hole and to the accretion disk, which leads to tension in the field This makes that there will be a twisted magnetosphere around the black hole The tension in the field and reconnection will lead to acceleration of plasma away from the black hole The only direction in which this stuff can escape is along the rotation axis of the black hole, in other directions it is blocked This will give a twisted bundle of magnetic field and plasma flowing out along the rotational axis of the black hole And thus we have jets Originally Posted by Sol88 In operation? Like plugged in and turned on? Like electrical power to make the whole shebang go? Gas can also apparently according to mainstream, generate electrical energy. You can read up on how a plasma lamp works on wiki. Gas (where gas is plasma) can act like a generator, why would you be surprised about that? The Sun would be an excellent example of this. Originally Posted by Sol88 Something black holes n membranes or some such drivel. Just because you cannot grasp the beauty of the membrane paradigm does not mean it is drivel. But you will probably never understand it.
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

9th November 2022, 01:46 AM	#2932
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Invoke the membrane paradigm? Why not invoke standard plasma physics? No need for any invocations. Magnetic field lines connecting the event horizon and the division by zero error. You be in trouble with that thinking. And thus you have yourself an ELECTRIC CURRENT. So still happy with gas as a pretty useless approximation?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

9th November 2022, 02:00 AM	#2933
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Sol88 Did you even read the paper? Do you actually understand what a METAPHORE is?
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

9th November 2022, 02:45 AM	#2934
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Sol88 Can there be charge seperation and a flow of current in space plasma, not gas but PLASMA, tusenfem Charge separation only occurs very very seldomly in natural plasmas. Electric current can flow in a natural plasma but is basically never created by a charge separation. Originally Posted by Sol88 Are astrophysical jets “electric currents”, tusenfem? From observations of the toroidal magnetic field (see Blandford et al. 2019, and Wardle, 2018) there can be a current of 10¹⁷ to 10¹⁸ A. This sounds like a lot, but like I have explained before, what is really important is the current density, so we would have to divide that by the cross section of the jet. With an opening angle of 1 degrees (or 0.017 rad) and say a distance of 1 ly, the diameter is easy to calculate as 1 ly * sin(0.017) = 0.017 ly = 1.6e14 m, so the current density is minute, 18E18/10E28 = 0.1 nA/m². You can try to calculate how many accelerated particles are creating something like this. Originally Posted by Sol88 What would be the best analogy or metaphor to describe to the layman and astrophysical jet? You don't need a metaphor, you just need a simple explanation, like I gave in a previous post. See, that is the problem with EU proponents, doing "science" with press releases and not understanding how metaphors work and how simplifications (like MHD or circuit theory) work and when they are valid.
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

9th November 2022, 02:49 AM	#2935
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Sol88 We call them double layers but you seem confused and call the, 4.3.4. Knots in M87. Quote: Important clues concerning general jet dynamics and radiation prop- erties have have been drawn from a few well-resolved X-ray and optical jets (Sec. 2.4). The six M87 knots have been interpreted as strong, particle-accelerating SHOCKS fixed that for you, you missed a word in your quote. Another typical EU proponent behaviour. Double layers not shocks are.
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

9th November 2022, 03:31 AM	#2936
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Quote: The accretion disk is hot and turbulent and contains plasma, and through the turbulent motion magnetic fields are generated Nonsensical gishgallop...
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

9th November 2022, 03:31 AM	#2937
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Originally Posted by tusenfem Charge separation only occurs very very seldomly in natural plasmas. Electric current can flow in a natural plasma but is basically never created by a charge separation. From observations of the toroidal magnetic field (see Blandford et al. 2019, and Wardle, 2018) there can be a current of 10¹⁷ to 10¹⁸ A. This sounds like a lot, but like I have explained before, what is really important is the current density, so we would have to divide that by the cross section of the jet. With an opening angle of 1 degrees (or 0.017 rad) and say a distance of 1 ly, the diameter is easy to calculate as 1 ly * sin(0.017) = 0.017 ly = 1.6e14 m, so the current density is minute, 18E18/10E28 = 0.1 nA/m². You can try to calculate how many accelerated particles are creating something like this. You don't need a metaphor, you just need a simple explanation, like I gave in a previous post. See, that is the problem with EU proponents, doing "science" with press releases and not understanding how metaphors work and how simplifications (like MHD or circuit theory) work and when they are valid. What was the electric field strength did you say?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

9th November 2022, 04:03 AM	#2938
lauwenmark Scholar Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 102	Originally Posted by Sol88 Mainstream EU nonsense right in front of your eyes! Space GAS! The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model". None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans. Originally Posted by Sol88 Is that the best you have? Will yo start calling me names as well? or are you willing to discuss a mainstream paper that will challenge your paradigm? The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model". None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans. Originally Posted by Sol88 Mainstream EU nonsense right in front of your eyes! Infalling Space GAS! The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model". None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans. Originally Posted by Sol88 Seems you cant even begin to understand PLASMA if you still PLASMA a GAS. If it's a GAS you'll be consistently surprised by these unusual behavior if it's a plasma...electric fields, charge separation, instabilities, filamentation, bubbles and cells, double layers....on and on. Including, and get this, MAINSTREAM EU stuff like... The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model". None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans. Originally Posted by Sol88 Galaxy formation and evolution not dominated by gravity? Electromagnetic has a major role to play in the formation and evolution of galaxies? Is this standard mainstream theory for galaxy formation and evolution? What about infinite gravity? You know your classic math howler of division by ZERO! Roger Blandford, a mainstream scientist, says jets are great bi electric currents! Do yo agree or disagree? The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model". None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans. Originally Posted by Sol88 At least the Man was kind enough to engage. (...) Mainstream ELECTRIC UNIVERSE stuff The topic of this thread is "Electric Universe theories here". It isn't "Challenging the mainstream model". None of that content answers any of the four questions asked by Hans. Do I sound like a broken record? Yes, definitely. That's because you keep avoiding talking about the EU theory (which is the Title of this thread), and you also avoid answering any of the four fundamental questions asked by Hans, quoting them here again as a reminder: Originally Posted by MRC_Hans 1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"? 2) How do they differ from the current paradigm? 3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm? 4) What evidence exists to support them? If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss. Hans
lauwenmark Scholar Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 102

9th November 2022, 04:34 AM	#2939
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Umm...read the paper. It’s all there for you. Not sure I’m really able to help you unfortunately. Plasma is a subset of gas....and charge seperation can not occur and electric fields exist in space but don’t do anything, kinda thinking.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

9th November 2022, 04:49 AM	#2940
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Originally Posted by tusenfem fixed that for you, you missed a word in your quote. Another typical EU proponent behaviour. Double layers not shocks are. Shocks are particle accelerators though, same as electric fields. As we all know all double layers are electric fields but not all electric fields are double layers... Still, an electric filed you say? Electric currents of quite some power (electrical energy), you say? Well that would require a curcuit and as Blandford states; Understanding the content, power, electrical current and duty cycles of AGN jets will help quantify their role in galaxy formation and evolution. Seems import from a Big Bang black hole paradigm.
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

9th November 2022, 05:05 AM	#2941
lauwenmark Scholar Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 102	Originally Posted by Sol88 Umm...read the paper. It’s all there for you. Not sure I’m really able to help you unfortunately. Plasma is a subset of gas....and charge seperation can not occur and electric fields exist in space but don’t do anything, kinda thinking. It may surprize you, but I actually read (or at least browse) the papers you keep linking. But none of those you linked answer the four questions (I may start writing The Four Questions(tm) ). And besides, I'm not interested on what papers are claiming (especially mainstream science papers, as you'd call them). What I and others want are Sol88's vision and thoughts; what I and others want are answers that do not solely consist of the all-too predictable "mainstream is wrong", but instead looks like "EU is right, and here is how I can prove it". That's the aim of those Hans Four Questions(tm) : to get what EU is, not using a negative definition of mainstream science, but using a positive definition based on a clean-sheet line of thoughts. Let's repeat the - still unanswered - Four Questions(tm) : Originally Posted by MRC_Hans 1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"? 2) How do they differ from the current paradigm? 3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm? 4) What evidence exists to support them? If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss. Hans I think Hans is totally right above: if you cannot answer those, what's left to discuss? Keep pointing at what current "mainstream science" fails to predict accurately? That just proves that science keeps evolving, and is far from being able to explain everything. But it won't demonstrate what you so deeply want: show that EU is the right proposal. So, will you now seriously start exposing what your EU Theory is, and provide sound arguments for it, by answering those Four Questions(tm)?
lauwenmark Scholar Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 102

9th November 2022, 05:16 AM	#2942
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,006	Electric universe theories? None presented here in the 13 1/2 year life of this thread. It has become quite apparent that such things do not exist. And every poster in this thread knows this. Pathetic trolling of the topic with inane and (willfully?) ignorant comments that have convinced absolutely no one, on the other hand, is alive and well with no signs of ever diminishing. Such threads do have the educational benefit of providing lots of real science that is so, so easy to separate from the bs and learn from. So thanks to the actual scientists in this thread who persist in providing actual evidence to fight and correct the ignorance.
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

9th November 2022, 06:55 AM	#2943
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Sol88 Nonsensical gishgallop... Well, if you already back out at normal dynamo theory which happens in turbulent plasmas, I guess we can just stop any discussion about jets.
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

9th November 2022, 06:55 AM	#2944
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Sol88 What was the electric field strength did you say? what electric field???????
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

9th November 2022, 06:56 AM	#2945
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Sol88 Umm...read the paper. It’s all there for you. Not sure I’m really able to help you unfortunately. Plasma is a subset of gas....and charge seperation can not occur and electric fields exist in space but don’t do anything, kinda thinking. And again you are projecting your own insufficiencies on mainstream plasma physics. sad
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

9th November 2022, 07:01 AM	#2946
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Sol88 Shocks are particle accelerators though, same as electric fields. Yes, but shocks are not electric fields sigh Originally Posted by Sol88 As we all know all double layers are electric fields but not all electric fields are double layers... Well, all plasma physicists know this, only you will not accept it for some mysterious reason. Originally Posted by Sol88 Still, an electric filed you say? Electric currents of quite some power (electrical energy), you say? Not that I recall, I guess you cannot really read what I say. Originally Posted by Sol88 Well that would require a curcuit and as Blandford states; Understanding the content, power, electrical current and duty cycles of AGN jets will help quantify their role in galaxy formation and evolution. You can put it in the terms that Blandford et al. use, yes, but apparently you are unable to take the next step, which is that you move away from the analogy and get into the nitty-gritty of plasma physics.
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

9th November 2022, 02:54 PM	#2947
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Originally Posted by tusenfem what electric field??????? You said somedrivel about turbulence in a hot gas near a rotating gravity source making magnetic fields. Better said as “Once upon a time...” For a start, where are the electric field in this fantasy of yours?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

9th November 2022, 03:01 PM	#2948
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Got some hot gas here (in a container, funnily enough) I’m turbulently mixing and agitating, still no magnetic field generation? Plasmas of different properties and relative motions, I could see generating EM fields that would most probably do exactly what you’ve described above. This would mean, of course, things like electric currents, double layers, charge seperation... It would even appear to Blandford et al, that it is very important in the Big Bang theory. Mainstream gravity centric doctrine. Any electric fields generated in your description of the DYNAMO THEORY?
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

9th November 2022, 03:10 PM	#2949
lauwenmark Scholar Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 102	Originally Posted by Sol88 For a start, where are the electric field in this fantasy of yours? Pretty easy to answer: he found them in one of your own posts just above: Originally Posted by Sol88 What was the electric field strength did you say? Now, I guess we can ask you the same: where did you find that electric field in that fantasy of yours? In any case, the title of this topic isn't Tusenfem's Fantasies, but Electric Universe theories here. For which, an answer to The Four Questions(tm) is still pending... Originally Posted by MRC_Hans 1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"? 2) How do they differ from the current paradigm? 3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm? 4) What evidence exists to support them? If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss. Hans
lauwenmark Scholar Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 102

9th November 2022, 03:15 PM	#2950
lauwenmark Scholar Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 102	Originally Posted by Sol88 Got (...) Mainstream gravity centric doctrine. This thread is not about the mainstream theories, it is about EU theories. Originally Posted by Sol88 Any electric fields generated in your description of the DYNAMO THEORY? This thread is not about DYNAMO THEORY (You seem to entertain all-caps words, is it supposed to make them stunning?). It is about EU theories. But maybe DYNAMO THEORY is part of it? It is hard to say, because you never made clear what your EU theories were made of. A good starting point would be to answer Hans's Four Questions(tm), for example: Originally Posted by MRC_Hans 1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"? 2) How do they differ from the current paradigm? 3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm? 4) What evidence exists to support them? If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss. Hans
lauwenmark Scholar Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 102

9th November 2022, 03:31 PM	#2951
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	Originally Posted by tusenfem Yes, but shocks are not electric fields sigh Well, all plasma physicists know this, only you will not accept it for some mysterious reason. Not that I recall, I guess you cannot really read what I say. You can put it in the terms that Blandford et al. use, yes, but apparently you are unable to take the next step, which is that you move away from the analogy and get into the nitty-gritty of plasma physics. Nitty gritty? We are still using hot turbulent gas in your world making magnetic fields? Would the plasma doing the same make an electric field? That’s pretty nitty gritty...
Sol88 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,165	__________________ “No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116. “The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator Last edited by Sol88; 9th November 2022 at 05:09 PM.

9th November 2022, 06:18 PM	#2952
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001	Still no actual description of what Electric Universe theory even is.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th November 2022, 01:39 AM	#2953
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 24,277	Originally Posted by Sol88 Got some hot gas here (in a container, funnily enough) I’m turbulently mixing and agitating, still no magnetic field generation? How do you know? How do you measure that? What's that obsession with containers? Hans
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

10th November 2022, 05:03 AM	#2954
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,006	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans How do you know? How do you measure that? What's that obsession with containers? Hans Just another in a long list of obfuscations and red herrings. You know, what a person does when they have no coherent narrative, but still desperately want to appear intelligent.
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

10th November 2022, 06:31 AM	#2955
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans What's that obsession with containers? He somehow thinks they can prove that plasmas are not gases, which will magically invalidate standard physics. That's what you get when you can read the words but don't actually understand the concepts.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law