Electric universe theories here.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by The Man

tusenfem didn't address anything I said or myself, but did address you specifically and repeatedly. Of course it is about the amps, because current density is amps per unit area. Again that such density is low means the jet is general neutral.

Did you miss where tusenfem had pointed out current density before?

.

Still, it’s an ELECTRIC CURRENT spanning Mpc and is implicated by the mainstream in galaxy formation and evolution.

You can hand wave your obviously incorrect assumption on a jet being generally neutral.

Otherwise, mainstream of some ‘splain’n to do.

Quote:

Within the first ∼ 100 pc the majority of the features observed are superluminal and are accelerating.

Quote:

This result has been confirmed (Wardle 2018), and provides firm evidence of a torroidal magnetic field component, which requires a current down the jet of 1017–1018 A.

Blandford.

How does any matter do this let alone your neutral matter contained within in a jet?

How does gas pass en electric current?

[steenkh]

You still seem to struggle to find a definition of gas that does not include plasma.

And you still have not answered Hans’ 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?

Is it that hard? (Yes, we know it is, but it is amusing to see you squirming by changing the subject or trying to ignore it)

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Let’s drag the toilet paper that is the Bridgman “debunking” of galaxy formation due to Electromagnetic effects.

Blandford et al reckon...

What would me ‘ol mate Tom reckon on Blandford think electric currents have a major influence on galaxies.

Should we give a go, tusenfem.

Run Tom’s bit of fluff past Blandford et al outrageous claims n electric currents n galaxies?

Nobody will deny that these AGN Jets have an effect.
As usual your lack of understanding stands in the way of moving on to an actual discussion.
We can try to explain stuff to you, but you will not accept any explanations that are given to you, because of because

[Sol88]

Lack of understanding.

We’ve just gott’n to understand a gas is not a plasma, so.

My understanding is along the lines of Blandford et al and Scott, Thornhill.

Astrophysical Jets are power lines

[Little 10 Toes]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Lack of understanding.

We’ve just gott’n to understand a gas is not a plasma, so.

My understanding is along the lines of Blandford et al and Scott, Thornhill.

Astrophysical Jets are power lines

"We've just got'n".... Heh

Too funny....

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Look sport, I’m not sure you can quite put the right shapes in the right holes. Let me help.

Electric Universe Link

We've been over this before. Peratt's galaxy formation models are bull ****. We can measure the strength of galactic magnetic fields, and they are too small by many orders of magnitude to achieve what he wanted to achieve in regards to galaxy formation. Magnetic forces are a negligible contributor to galaxy rotation. I've crunched the numbers already (again, something EU folks can never do). There is a reason nobody continued his galaxy formation simulation work. Hell, there's a reason he didn't continue it. It's wrong, and I think even he realized that over time.

The best you can do for describing Electric Universe ideas as distinct from mainstream physics is ideas which have already been disproven.

Quote:

So both mob think electrcurrents have a role to play in cosmology.

That's not cosmology. But yes, mainstream astrophysics includes electromagnetism. So why the need for EU nonsense?

Quote:

You have to stop thinking plasma is a gas, it’s not sorry and it led you into the middle of the paddock.

You keep saying this, but it without any basis. This is simply a definitional thing. It's possible to define a gas in such a way that plasmas are not gasses. But
1) Why bother? What advantage does a definition of gas which excludes plasmas actually provide?
2) That's not how mainstream physics actually defines a gas.
3) Which definition we choose won't change any actual physics.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

You got it!


Don Scott

Possible in your physics?

A force free field aligned current... majic stuff for a neutral pressure jet to have.

You ain't got it, nothing there says opposing charges are moving in opposite directions (like in a coaxial cable) thus creating a charge separation.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Lack of understanding.

We’ve just gott’n to understand a gas is not a plasma, so.

Yes, lots of misunderstanding. For example

/ liquid
fluid
\ gas - neutral
\ ionized

Or something else: electric fields are created by charge separation in space plasmas according to you, whereas in the real world electric fields are mainly induced through motions of the magnetic fields. Charge separation only happens seldomly in space plasmas, under specific conditions, for example if the current gets too high in a low density region, then you can have your beloved double layers, which will accelerate the ions/electrons such that the current is kept constant (div(j) = 0).

Or that gravity does not play a part in space plasma physics. If that would be the case then the Sun would quickly empty out in the low density, low pressure region around it (called interplanetary and interstellar space). Or the Earth's atmosphere would quickly flow away from the Earth into that same low pressure region.

And that is just basic (astro)physics 101 that you fail to grasp.

Furthermore, you obsession with simplified mathemajiks, because the math is too difficult. Yes, the math is not easy, doing full kinetic plasma physics. But if I am only interesting the in the big picture, how the whole large scale of the plasma is behaving, I need not concern myself with the gyration of the ions and the electrons around the magnetic field. So, I can use statistical physics methods, and like Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfvén, use magnetohydrodynamics (where I have to keep notice that I am looking at scales that are big enough and time scales that are long enough).

On the other hand, when I look at the generation of waves, for example, ion cyclotron waves, then I need to look at the behaviour of the individual particles and how they gyrate around the magnetic field. And then you use other equations, because you look at small scales.

This is difficult to grasp for people who do not work in this field, because they usually do not have to concern about these things. Okay, if you bake a cake you use teaspoons, when you build a house you use shovels.

Originally Posted by Sol88

My understanding is along the lines of Blandford et al and Scott, Thornhill.

I hardly doubt that you and Scott understand Blandford, especially when you cannot even understand what a metaphore is.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Astrophysical Jets are power lines

Okay, if you are "along the lines of Blandford", then please explain what this means, exactly.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Still, it’s an ELECTRIC CURRENT spanning Mpc and is implicated by the mainstream in galaxy formation and evolution.

You can hand wave your obviously incorrect assumption on a jet being generally neutral.

Otherwise, mainstream of some ‘splain’n to do.

It is not mine nor is it an assumption, it is an observation. Spectral lines of atomic ions have been observed in some jets.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Blandford.

How does any matter do this let alone your neutral matter contained within in a jet?

Well there are some theories but first it should be noted that no one claimed "neutral matter contained within in a jet" just that positive and negative charged particles within the jet tend to balance out making the jet, overall, neutral. Heck, that's how it is with even what one considers neutral matter like say a neutron. Positive and negative charges even out but are not evenly distributed throughout the neutron giving it a magnetic moment. Even the electron has a magnetic moment but that's for quantum mechanical reason and not an internal uneven distribution of charges.

Originally Posted by Sol88

How does gas pass en electric current?

Depends on the gas and happens all the time in lighting and lightning. Heck, just solid conductors like metals are modeled as a positive ion crystal lattice infused with an electron gas.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Yes, lots of misunderstanding. For example

/ liquid
fluid
\ gas - neutral
\ ionized

Or something else: electric fields are created by charge separation in space plasmas according to you, whereas in the real world electric fields are mainly induced through motions of the magnetic fields. Charge separation only happens seldomly in space plasmas, under specific conditions, for example if the current gets too high in a low density region, then you can have your beloved double layers, which will accelerate the ions/electrons such that the current is kept constant (div(j) = 0).

Or that gravity does not play a part in space plasma physics. If that would be the case then the Sun would quickly empty out in the low density, low pressure region around it (called interplanetary and interstellar space). Or the Earth's atmosphere would quickly flow away from the Earth into that same low pressure region.

And that is just basic (astro)physics 101 that you fail to grasp.

Furthermore, you obsession with simplified mathemajiks, because the math is too difficult. Yes, the math is not easy, doing full kinetic plasma physics. But if I am only interesting the in the big picture, how the whole large scale of the plasma is behaving, I need not concern myself with the gyration of the ions and the electrons around the magnetic field. So, I can use statistical physics methods, and like Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfvén, use magnetohydrodynamics (where I have to keep notice that I am looking at scales that are big enough and time scales that are long enough).

On the other hand, when I look at the generation of waves, for example, ion cyclotron waves, then I need to look at the behaviour of the individual particles and how they gyrate around the magnetic field. And then you use other equations, because you look at small scales.

This is difficult to grasp for people who do not work in this field, because they usually do not have to concern about these things. Okay, if you bake a cake you use teaspoons, when you build a house you use shovels.



I hardly doubt that you and Scott understand Blandford, especially when you cannot even understand what a metaphore is.



Okay, if you are "along the lines of Blandford", then please explain what this means, exactly.

Seems to be a major factor here and EU in general, ignoring the importance and differences in considering things at different scales. Sure charges tend to be separated at small scales even just in neutral matter let alone a plasma but large scale even in (an undriven) plasma charges tend to balance out. As those small scale charge separations get larger and larger the forces involved tend toward rebalancing. Heck, charge separation at the scales some of this EU stuff appears to require or want, it would rip atoms apart.

[Sol88]

Quote:

Charge separation only happens seldomly in space plasmas, under specific conditions, for example if the current gets too high in a low density region, then you can have your beloved double layers, which will accelerate the ions/electrons such that the current is kept constant (div(j) = 0).

tusenfem

Quote:

4.1. Particle Acceleration

4.1.1. General Principles. Jets, and the double radio sources that they supply, are observed throughout much of the entire seventy octave electromagnetic spectrum and, perhaps, be- yond. Even if a jet is well-modeled at the level of continuum mechanics, we must still explain where and how the emitting relativistic particles are accelerated and how they are transported before they cool.

Blandford

Sounds like you’ve explained FOR Blandford et al, you should drop them a line.

“Hi Roger, super duper space plasma physicist here, have you considered double layers as shocks and acceleration sources?”

Probably work along side the other mainstream jet problem, KNOTS!

Something electric current on a GRAND SCALE

Quote:

But if I am only interesting the in the big picture, how the whole large scale of the plasma is behaving, I need not concern myself with the gyration of the ions and the electrons around the magnetic field. So, I can use statistical physics methods, and like Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfvén, use magnetohydrodynamics (where I have to keep notice that I am looking at scales that are big enough and time scales that are long enough).

I’m also looking at scales big enough and long enough.


Jets are “coaxial cables” in both the literal, metaphorical and as an analogy.

As you said total current is not import, density is.

If, in this current the density fluctuates along the Z axis, what would one expect in a astrophysical plasma? As per current gets too high in a low density region a double may form then you can have your beloved double layers, which will accelerate the ions/electrons such that the current is kept constant (div(j) = 0)

Double layers in astrophysical plasma’s are fascinating, very hard mathematically to describe in BIG and LONG enough timescales but very beautiful to observe none the less.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by The Man

Seems to be a major factor here and EU in general, ignoring the importance and differences in considering things at different scales. Sure charges tend to be separated at small scales even just in neutral matter let alone a plasma but large scale even in (an undriven) plasma charges tend to balance out. As those small scale charge separations get larger and larger the forces involved tend toward rebalancing. Heck, charge separation at the scales some of this EU stuff appears to require or want, it would rip atoms apart.

Scales?

How about the EM’s spectrums 70 octave scale?

Quote:

4.1. Particle Acceleration
4.1.1. General Principles. Jets, and the double radio sources that they supply, are observed throughout much of the entire seventy octave electromagnetic spectrum and, perhaps, be- yond.

Plasma is very very scaleable. We’ve a good handle on scale.

Mainstream on the other hand seem to baulk at charge seperation, in general. (Very special, small scale stuff.) like at comets.

Not too sure why when observational evidence demands you accept this as fact.

But you won’t/can’t.

Pretty sure I can understand why.

Gravity most definitely plays a back ground role. The electric force is more dominant.

Big bangers and mainstreamers seem to hate it vehemently.

[Sol88]

Quote:

Or that gravity does not play a part in space plasma physics. If that would be the case then the Sun would quickly empty out in the low density, low pressure region around it (called interplanetary and interstellar space). Or the Earth's atmosphere would quickly flow away from the Earth into that same low pressure region.

Sun = Plasma
Earth = Gas

We see certain phenomena on the Sun (plasma physics) that we don’t not see in a neutral atmosphere (fluid and gas physics)

Gravity no doubt plays a role. You have even implicated it in charge seperation wrt the Sun.

Ions are heavier than electrons but the role of gravity in that interaction is minuscule.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by The Man

It is not mine nor is it an assumption, it is an observation. Spectral lines of atomic ions have been observed in some jets.




Well there are some theories but first it should be noted that no one claimed "neutral matter contained within in a jet" just that positive and negative charged particles within the jet tend to balance out making the jet, overall, neutral. Heck, that's how it is with even what one considers neutral matter like say a neutron. Positive and negative charges even out but are not evenly distributed throughout the neutron giving it a magnetic moment. Even the electron has a magnetic moment but that's for quantum mechanical reason and not an internal uneven distribution of charges.



Depends on the gas and happens all the time in lighting and lightning. Heck, just solid conductors like metals are modeled as a positive ion crystal lattice infused with an electron gas.

just that positive and negative charged particles within the jet tend to balance out making the jet, overall, neutral

Well, there’s your problem, positive and negative charged particles within the jet tend to balance out making the jet, overall, neutra

Same as tusenfem big and long enough problem with plasma.

Quote:

But if I am only interesting the in the big picture, how the whole large scale of the plasma is behaving, I need not concern myself with the gyration of the ions and the electrons around the magnetic field. So, I can use statistical physics methods, and like Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfvén, use magnetohydrodynamics (where I have to keep notice that I am looking at scales that are big enough and time scales that are long enough).

And if you are using statistics to prove overall neutrality...badabig badaboom, MHD (ideal).

Have another closer look. I’ll use a metaphor, AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings. sorry, Blandford et al and Don Scott beat me too it.

I just called them big space power cables.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Scales?

How about the EM’s spectrums 70 octave scale?



Plasma is very very scaleable. We’ve a good handle on scale.

Apparently not, if you don't understand large scale neutrality and why.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Mainstream on the other hand seem to baulk at charge seperation, in general. (Very special, small scale stuff.) like at comets.

Not in the least, that electrons and positive ions are freely disassociated is one of the primary mainstream definitions of a plasma. as well as, as mentioned many times before the reason, large scale charge separation tend not to be maintained. As more and more electrons move away from a collection of positive ions they tend to pull those ions along with them.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Not too sure why when observational evidence demands you accept this as fact.

Again the only fact is that such large scale charge separations simply aren't observed and there are multiple reasons for it. As already noted on this thread before as the charge on a object grows larger and larger the tendency come for it to blow itself apart. Such a large scale charge separation would tend to rip other things apart. Also as noted just incongruent with the free disassociation of positive and negative charges that actually helps maintain large scale neutrality.

Originally Posted by Sol88

But you won’t/can’t.

Pretty sure I can understand why.

Gravity most definitely plays a back ground role. The electric force is more dominant.

Big bangers and mainstreamers seem to hate it vehemently.

Then where is it? How strong is it? What can you calculate or experimentally project with it? In order for anyone to hate it, you'd have to demonstrate it first.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

just that positive and negative charged particles within the jet tend to balance out making the jet, overall, neutral

Well, there’s your problem.

Have another closer look. I’ll use a metaphor, AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings. sorry, Blandford et al and Don Scott beat me too it.

I just called them big space power cables.

Call them florescent light bulbs, rivers of particles, the downtown train to EU land, whatever you want. It doesn't change the observations or the lack of any evident large scale charge separation.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Sun = Plasma
Earth = Gas

We see certain phenomena on the Sun (plasma physics) that we don’t not see in a neutral atmosphere (fluid and gas physics)

Gravity no doubt plays a role. You have even implicated it in charge seperation wrt the Sun.

Ions are heavier than electrons but the role of gravity in that interaction is minuscule.

Heaviness is only a function of gravity, that interaction is gravity. Perhaps you meant 'Ions are more massive than electrons' in that case such a differential need not involve gravity.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Mainstream on the other hand seem to baulk at charge seperation, in general. (Very special, small scale stuff.) like at comets.

You mean mainstream plasma physicists. And they are the only kind. Who do you suggest we listen to? Retired EEs? Retired computer salesmen?

Quote:

Big bangers and mainstreamers seem to hate it vehemently.

You mean plasma physicists. You don't have any. There is a reason for that.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

The Electric Universe

Give that a quick flick thru, see if you can use that immense brain of your to see if any “issues” that arise in this paper my be better understood if they read the above paper.

For you to recognise plasma is not a gas is a start.

Lol. Mae-Wan Ho! A biochemist! Haven't you people got a single plasma physicist? Or anyone who even understands the basics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

"Ho was a co-founder and director of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS), an interest group which published fringe articles about climate change, GMOs, homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, and water memory. In reviewing the organisation, David Colquhoun accused the ISIS of promoting pseudoscience and specifically criticised Ho's understanding of homeopathy.[7]

The institute is on the Quackwatch list of questionable organizations.[11]"

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Don Scott

A clueless ex-EE who is so ignorant of plasma in general, and astrophysical plasmas in particular, that the fool thinks electrons can dawdle in, at half-rat power, to power the Sun, against a magnetic field moving in the opposite direction at ~ 400 km/s!
Who also thinks that fusion can occur on the solar surface, in an environment where such fusion is impossible. Which would produce obvious line emission in gamma. The same gamma that would have long since rendered this planet uninhabitable.

Pray tell - why should we listen to anything that clown has to say? You might as well reference flat earthers or creationists.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

A clueless ex-EE who is so ignorant of plasma in general, and astrophysical plasmas in particular, that the fool thinks electrons can dawdle in, at half-rat power, to power the Sun, against a magnetic field moving in the opposite direction at ~ 400 km/s!
Who also thinks that fusion can occur on the solar surface, in an environment where such fusion is impossible. Which would produce obvious line emission in gamma. The same gamma that would have long since rendered this planet uninhabitable.

Pray tell - why should we listen to anything that clown has to say? You might as well reference flat earthers or creationists.

(Pssst - don't give him anymore loony ideas)

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Steve

(Pssst - don't give him anymore loony ideas)

Actually, one of the more recent videos on their woo channel is promoting creationism. The presenter calls it 'intelligent design', but we all know that is just creationism by another name!

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ziggurat, do you think galactic‐scale field‐aligned Birkeland currents are possible?

Any role for an electric current in galaxy formation and evolution according to the mainstream paper by Blandford et al?

That is a misinterpretation of what Blandford et al are saying. You think these currents are heading ever outward? Not according to Blandford. From the paper linked by Sol;

Quote:

Ultimately, at large enough cylindrical radius, r_out there will be a return current and the outward magnetic stress must be balanced by gas pressure.

And here is a screenshot from a previous paper involving Blandford;


ScreenHunter_42 Nov. 15 02.22.jpg
Click to enlarge.

Theory of extragalactic radio sources
Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D. & Rees, M. J.
https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstrac...ModPhys.56.255 (1984)
(Paywalled)

[jonesdave116]

And, from the Begelman et al paper I referenced above, we have;

Quote:

Jets are also believed to be basically charge-neutral, the electrons and the ions (or positrons) which neutralize them flowing outward with similar densities and speeds. This contrasts with the situation in most laboratory or terrestrial beams (e.g., Bekefi et al., 1980). When large-scale magnetic stresses become dynamically important, MHD rather than gas dynamics is the relevant theoretical tool.

My bolding.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Sounds like you’ve explained FOR Blandford et al, you should drop them a line.

I am sure Blandford et al. are clever enough and don't need my help.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Something electric current on a GRAND SCALE
I’m also looking at scales big enough and long enough.

You are looking how to cherry pick on a GRAND SCALE

Originally Posted by Sol88

Jets are “coaxial cables” in both the literal, metaphorical and as an analogy.

And what does that even mean? Are you ever going to explain it to us how they work? (answer: no)

Originally Posted by Sol88

As you said total current is not import, density is.

If, in this current the density fluctuates along the Z axis, what would one expect in a astrophysical plasma? As per current gets too high in a low density region a double may form then you can have your beloved double layers, which will accelerate the ions/electrons such that the current is kept constant (div(j) = 0)

You could assume that, but you will have to find evidence that it is like that. Just because something happens e.g. in the acceleration region of the Earth's aurora region, does not mean this happens on a great scale in a jet.
And what is a "double"?

Originally Posted by Sol88

Double layers in astrophysical plasma’s are fascinating, very hard mathematically to describe in BIG and LONG enough timescales but very beautiful to observe none the less.

No, they are not "very hard", maybe for you, but then all plasma physics, when it does not deal with quote mining and press releases is very hard for you.

And how do you think you can "observe" these "very beautiful" double layers?

Ah let's make this discussion even more incomprehensible and add Joe Borovsky's "phase bunching" paper in the Astrophysical Journal. Then, at least, you have your beloved double layers in a jet.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

I’ll use a metaphor, AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings. sorry, Blandford et al and Don Scott beat me too it.

I just called them big space power cables.

You can "phore" what ever you want and call them chickens.

Now, please explain in full detail this model.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

And, from the Begelman et al paper I referenced above, we have;



My bolding.

but but but, now he is simplifying gas dynamics by fake MHD, just because he cannot do the maths!

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Theory of extragalactic radio sources
Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D. & Rees, M. J.
https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstrac...ModPhys.56.255 (1984)
(Paywalled)

Ay Caramba! 105 pages!
Glad that we could top that with our 120 page cometary plasma physics review :-)

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Ay Caramba! 105 pages!
Glad that we could top that with our 120 page cometary plasma physics review :-)

Yes, more of a novella, really. And 263 references!

Also worth noting that Rees is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, no less!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Have another closer look. I’ll use a metaphor, AGN jets are lossy and glowing, coaxial cables that ultimately heat their surroundings. sorry, Blandford et al and Don Scott beat me too it.

I just called them big space power cables.

Your metaphor is not valid. Jets are not cables, coaxial or otherwise. A cable consists of at least two conductors, through which a current can flow if it is connected into a circuit. The currents will flow on opposite directions in the two conductors. In a coaxial cable, the centres of the conductors coincide, making it neutral EM-wise.

A jet is a concentrated stream of matter, moving in one direction. There is no cable, and there is no circuit.

Hans

[lauwenmark]

Blah blah blah... Notice how Sol88's "answers" during the past few days match exactly my predictions?

And, of course, no answer for the Four Questions(tm), that were:

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

We maybe got an answer for question 1, with Peratt - but as was already said, his ideas didn't work.
So, will you finally answer those simple questions?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Glad that we could top that with our 120 page cometary plasma physics review :-)

Which paper was that, BTW? Not sure if I have it.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by lauwenmark

Blah blah blah... Notice how Sol88's "answers" during the past few days match exactly my predictions?

And, of course, no answer for the Four Questions(tm), that were:



We maybe got an answer for question 1, with Peratt - but as was already said, his ideas didn't work.
So, will you finally answer those simple questions?

Well, by definition, EU ideas are not mainstream. Even Peratt has called them 'anti-science', and a 'cult'. IMHO he is being somewhat hypocritical.
The interaction between EU and Peratt is a very murky place to go.
However, I love murky places. I was born in Manchester!

Peratt, and his son, were in receipt of a shed load of money from the same Velikovskian charity that pays the likes of David Talbott, co-founder of the EU cult. They also fronted up the cash for the 'SAFIRE' scam.

Peratt's plasma rock art woo was partially funded by said Velikovskian charity. Peratt and the EU obviously fell out at some point. He used the preface of his 2015 reprint of his book 'Physics of the Plasma Universe' (PotPU) to call out the EUists as a cult.

However, when Peratt was in receipt of that funding, and was still a big wheel at IEEE, EU 'papers' were getting 'published' in IEEE rags.

Tusenfem seems to think most of the plasma physics in the aforementioned PotPU is legitimate, and some even interesting. Other than the woo stuff about plasma cosmology, of course. In the 2nd edition he added his plasma rock art woo. Which is utter bollocks.

Whatever went on between Peratt and EU obviously didn't end well. Was Peratt naive? Stupid? Greedy? Did he get sick of clowns like Thornhill using him for 'false endorsement' of their woo? Who knows?

So, EU using Peratt as an endorsement for their woo is not a goer. At least according to Peratt.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Which paper was that, BTW? Not sure if I have it.

The Plasma Environment of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Goetz et al. (Open Access)

[Sol88]

Oh Dear...

Team analyzes interactions between black hole-dominated galactic nucleus and surrounding star-forming regions

Quote:

They have conducted the most detailed analysis yet of the interactions between an active galactic nucleus dominated by a supermassive black hole and the star-forming galaxy regions surrounding it.

Quote:

"Viewing this galaxy face-on, we are able to see not only winds from the supermassive black hole blowing in our direction but also 'shock heating' of the gas induced by said winds very close to the central active galactic nucleus, which is something we had not expected to be able to discern so clearly."

Winds n Gas

Oh deary me.

43 matches for gas 0 for plasma.

[Sol88]

Quote:

You could assume that, but you will have to find evidence that it is like that. Just because something happens e.g. in the acceleration region of the Earth's aurora region, does not mean this happens on a great scale in a jet.

We see shocks everywhere...and GAS!

I assume plasma and plasma double layers. You are still using gas and shocks.

Quote:

Molecular and ionized gas distributions and kinematics at a resolution of ∼100 pc over the 4.9 − 7.6μm region are examined to study gas dynamics influenced by the central AGN.

Jets too big for MHD?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Oh Dear...

Team analyzes interactions between black hole-dominated galactic nucleus and surrounding star-forming regions





Winds n Gas

Oh deary me.

43 matches for gas 0 for plasma.

Ah well, you can also try to (learn to) READ:

Quote:

Molecular and ionized gas distributions and kinematics at a resolution of ∼100 pc over the 4.9 − 7.6µm region are examined to study gas dynamics influenced by the central AGN.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

We see shocks everywhere...and GAS!

I assume plasma and plasma double layers. You are still using gas and shocks.

so now shocks and double layers are the same?
strange universe the electric one is.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Jets too big for MHD?

Whatever are you babbling about? Did you actually read the paper? Do you actually understand what they are modeling? Did you notice that most of the lines they use in Table 1 are neutral? (except for FeII)

Answer: no

[Ziggurat]

Sol88 also seems to think double layers are magical, and that they can be the drivers of all sorts of phenomena. But that's backwards. The creation of double layers is driven by something OTHER than electric fields. Something else is driving the electrons and ions differently. Double layers form as a result, and what they primarily do is limit further movement of electrons and ions. So for example, gravity separates electrons and ions since ions are heavier, and double layers form and halt further charge separation.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Look sport, I’m not sure you can quite put the right shapes in the right holes. Let me help.

Electric Universe Link

Oh look, more crankery from a dead crank with no training in, or knowledge of, physics who promulgated crank nonsense for a group of cranks.
How utterly typical of EUers...