Electric universe theories here.

[Zeuzzz]

This is the place for all theories considered part of the 'electric universe' part of the spectrum.

This is not a place for:

A) Plasma Cosmology (ie, things only relevant on cosmoloigical scales)
B) Ad homs or personal jibes
C) Anything to do with any cosmology

It is a place for:

A) "thunderbolts" material,
B) "elecric universe material",
C) Whatever published papers there are to back up the former theories
D) Whatever science articles may back up the former theories
E) Terrestrial (plasma) physics,
F) Stellar (plasma) Physics,
G) In general all (plasma) physics from nanoscales up to the maximum of galaxtic scales.

This is try to reduce the length of the plasma cosmology - woo or not thread. And to enable it to stay more on the topic of cosmological models in future discussion, which attempts up until now have been futile, which is no-ones fault in particular (Infact I kinda started some of the irrelivant material myself a while back)

Go.

And a random post to start it off:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...59#post4782859

Originally Posted by Sol88

If Thunderbolts website is so disliked here, then why does thier articels so closely follow "mainstream" plasma physics?

let's put this into context with my post above on DL's

From TPOD

Quote:

The behavior of active plasma at every point is influenced—or driven—by conditions in the rest of the circuit. Fluctuations are often driven to form double layers (DLs)—thin regions of opposite charge build-up with large voltage drops between them. DLs are electrical phenomena that do not appear in observations of magnetic fields. The electric forces in DLs can be very much stronger than gravitational and mechanical forces. Gas theory modified to encompass “magnetism” will overlook them.

DLs separate plasma into cells and filaments that have different qualities—different temperatures or densities or compositions. These cellular and filamentary structures show up especially in planetary nebulas, but they can be invisible in optical wavelengths and appear in x-ray or radio observations.

DLs are “noisy,” emitting radio waves over a broad band of frequencies. They can sort matter into regions of like composition and condense or rarify it. DLs can accelerate charged particles to cosmic ray energies.

And DLs can explode. Energy from the rest of the circuit flows into the break, and the explosion can release much more energy than is present locally. This effect is seen in flares on the sun and is likely responsible for the outbursts of novas, the so-called “exploding” stars.

The electromagnetic forces in currents squeeze the conducting channels into thin thread-like filaments. These filaments attract each other in pairs, but when they get close, instead of merging, they spiral around each other. Pairs of pairs, and more, may entwine into plasma “cables” that can transmit electrical power over enormous distances. We see these cables as the “jets” that connect Herbig-Haro stars and active galactic nuclei with DLs that may lie many light-years away.

But the “cables” can be invisible, too. These make up the galactic circuits that power the stars, analogs of the power lines , invisible at night, that carry electricity from generating stations to city lights. The “flux tube” that connects Jupiter’s moon Io to the bright spots in Jupiter’s auroras is an invisible plasma cable, undetected until a space probe flew through it.

The new vision of the cosmos connects components at one scale into circuits that are coupled to and driven by circuits at larger scales. This new cosmos is laced with hierarchies of interacting circuits.

You, Tusenfem, have a papers printed on this **** and you still wallow in mainstreams refusal to accept a universe dominated by plasmas and electric currents???

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

And DLs can explode. Energy from the rest of the circuit flows into the break, and the explosion can release much more energy than is present locally. This effect is seen in flares on the sun and is likely responsible for the outbursts of novas, the so-called “exploding” stars.

This is nonsensical. In order to create a double layer (ie, separate charges), you need to pour in energy. If the energy in this double layer is sufficient to explode an entire star, where did this energy come from? Not the double layer itself: that's only a way to temporarily store the energy. Given the enormous energies involved, if you ever had a double layer with that much potential, you would indeed expect it to collapse explosively. But how on earth could you get it to separate in the first place? A double layer will continually bleed off energy as it tries to collapse, and it will collapse unless it's continually driven by some power source to stay separated. If this double layer exists at such huge potentials for an extended period, the energy source problem becomes far worse. Unless you form it suddenly, I don't see how it could possibly work. But in that case, we're now looking for some source of energy which can pump (literally) astronomical amounts of energy into this double layer, and do so incredibly quickly. What possible energy sources are there, and why wouldn't this sources just cause an explosion directly, since it's got the requisite energy and can release it suddenly?

The idea that supernovas are exploding double layers just doesn't make sense.

[tusenfem]

Dear Zeuzzz you could also have copied my reply to the rediculous post by Sol88, which can be read here.

Thundercrap has absolutely nothing of value to offer.

Let's close this thread, before you embarress yourself too much.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Let's close this thread, before you embarress yourself too much.

Dear, Tusenfem.

Just creating to this thread to avoid the derailing of others.

I'm not parcipting in this thread.

...for a while anyway.

Yours Sincerely,

Zeuzz

[Dancing David]

Hmmm, post and run.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Hmmm, post and run.

Well done, your catching on

Its more like post and wait however.

[edd]

Out of curiosity - how do you have a theory called the 'Electric Universe' that does not involve cosmology?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by edd

Out of curiosity - how do you have a theory called the 'Electric Universe' that does not involve cosmology?

I dont have a clue what the electric universe theory is. Its a vague but interesting collection of alternative models for things in space by people who percieve that mainstream science ignores the electrically dynamic properties of space and plasma, and thus they propose alternative electric and plasma based theories to explain various previously considered mechanical and newtonian phenomena.

Some may overlap and be consistant with plasma cosmology, but most are on much smaller scales than cosmology or the universe at large so aren't really relevant to cosmology at all. So I'm trying to separate them from the cosmologically relevant material. Such as the electric model of comets, pulsars, solar wind acceleration, Z-pinch model of stars, alternative HR diagram, heliospheric current circuits, exploding double layer model of supernovae, etc, etc.

I'm not posting any myself until I see some worthy for scrutiny. Plus I'm busy atm with other things. But others can add what they want, or continue fueds from the plasma cosmology thread about things that weren't really cosmology. Be my guest.

[brantc]

They way I see it you guys are going "know" where until there is a basic agreement.

The agreement revolves around the power source for whatever model you use.
The Standard Cosmology model uses the Big Bang and gravity.

They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang....


The Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology uses a Big Charge Separation instead of a bang.

So who really gives a crap about the starting pace for charge separation!!!
Maybe we live between the plates of a universe sized battery!!!

It is the equivalent argument.

There is plenty of evidence for CS. You cant say that filaments are gravity created because we cant produce a mathematical model of the beginning of CS based on a Big Bang universe.

Once you people come to some sort of agreement on this one issue you might actually get somewhere.

Otherwise Happy "Festival Of Popular Delusions Day". To both sides....

Yes, it certainly is.

[edd]

Originally Posted by brantc

They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang....

Zeuzz asked that this not be discussed here but one can't leave a statement like that unchallenged. What you says is not talked about is - there's just no answer yet. There's no unwritten assumptions and no written assumption involves god.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by brantc

They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang....

Could you have made a more ridiculous strawman? Thats an unwritten assumption that I've never a single competent cosmologist ever making.

Quote:

The Electric Universe or Plasma Cosmology uses a Big Charge Separation instead of a bang.

So who really gives a crap about the starting pace for charge separation!!!
Maybe we live between the plates of a universe sized battery!!!

It is the equivalent argument.

There is plenty of evidence for CS. You cant say that filaments are gravity created because we cant produce a mathematical model of the beginning of CS based on a Big Bang universe.

Once you people come to some sort of agreement on this one issue you might actually get somewhere.

Huh? How is charge separation meant to explain:
the abundance of the elements
Hubbles' law
Olbers' paradox
the CMBR
the Alpha-Lyman forrest.
etc etc.

Quote:

Otherwise Happy "Festival Of Popular Delusions Day". To both sides....

The person who's just said "They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang...." is calling others delusional??? Wow.

[Tubbythin]

Or even the Lyman-alpha forest.

[MattusMaximus]

I see the delusion continues...

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This is nonsensical. In order to create a double layer (ie, separate charges), you need to pour in energy. If the energy in this double layer is sufficient to explode an entire star, where did this energy come from? Not the double layer itself: that's only a way to temporarily store the energy. Given the enormous energies involved, if you ever had a double layer with that much potential, you would indeed expect it to collapse explosively. But how on earth could you get it to separate in the first place? A double layer will continually bleed off energy as it tries to collapse, and it will collapse unless it's continually driven by some power source to stay separated. If this double layer exists at such huge potentials for an extended period, the energy source problem becomes far worse. Unless you form it suddenly, I don't see how it could possibly work. But in that case, we're now looking for some source of energy which can pump (literally) astronomical amounts of energy into this double layer, and do so incredibly quickly. What possible energy sources are there, and why wouldn't this sources just cause an explosion directly, since it's got the requisite energy and can release it suddenly?

The idea that supernovas are exploding double layers just doesn't make sense.

To parse

Quote:

For example, it has made possible the inference that high-energy particles exist in many types of astronomical objects, it has given additional evidence for the existence of extensive magnetic fields, and it has indicated that enormous amounts of energy may indeed be converted, stored, and released in cosmic plasma.

SYNCHROTRON RADIATION

Quote:

Synchrotron radiation is named after the particle accelerators developed in the 1930's and 1940's to produce high-energy electrons. In 1950 Hannes Alfven, Nicolai Herlofson, and Karl Keipenheuer brought this form of plasma radiation to astronomers' attention. Alfven, who later won a Nobel prize in physics for his solar studies, proposed that streams of electrons move at nearly the speed of light along magnetic-field lines not only in Earth's magnetosphere and above the Sun, but also throughout the cosmos.

Quote:

Wherever plasma exist, they produce prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. In particular, X- and gamma rays from beyond the solar system are likely produced by free electrons with energies corresponding to temperatures of more than 1 million degrees—the realm of hot, magnetized plasmas. We call the overall picture obtained from these energetic emissions the plasma universe.

So the very fact DL's do exist should be more than enough evidence for the Electric Universe!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by edd

Out of curiosity - how do you have a theory called the 'Electric Universe' that does not involve cosmology?

You tell me, Edd?

After all the carry on about my EDM cratering on Mercury was not cosmology but was electric UNIVERSE??

And that's why it does the proverbial all over the BB!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

To parse

SYNCHROTRON RADIATION

So the very fact DL's do exist should be more than enough evidence for the Electric Universe!

Hi Sol88
DL existence is no evidence at all for the Electric Universe!
(unless the definition of EU is "standard mainstream space physics")

Quite the contrary- the properties of DL mean that the few tens of Debye lengths between the layers restrict their influence to planetary scales:

1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

You tell me, Edd?

After all the carry on about my EDM cratering on Mercury was not cosmology but was electric UNIVERSE??

And that's why it does the proverbial all over the BB!

There was no "carry on" about your EDM cratering on Mercury. There was an easy debunking of it by showing that there is not enough energy in any electrical discharge (by several orders of magnitude) to create the Spider Crater that you were obsessed about.

As for "does the proverbial all over the BB" - that is merely the result of your absmal ignorance of the match between the BB and actual reality.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

SYNCHROTRON RADIATION

So the very fact DL's do exist should be more than enough evidence for the Electric Universe!

Ah, once more the "discussion technique" of Sol88 just take one piece of text, drop an interesting sounding term, in this case synchrotron radiation, and "link" it to the previous text, although there is no connection whatsoever with the question in text 1 and the explanation in text 2 and then claim the the EU is correct with evidence.

Sol88 you astound me, with every post you show less and less knowledge of plasma physics.

[Sol88]

on Dl's

Quote:

ABSTRACT
Magnetic-field aligned electric fields play an important role in the dynamics of magnetized plasmas. They allow decoupling
of plasma elements by violation of the frozen field condition, breakdown of equipotential mapping, efficient acceleration of
charged particles and rapid release of magnetic energy. In the collisionless plasmas that occupy most of the universe they used to
be assumed nonexistent. A major consequence of the in situ measurements of the space age was the recognition that such electric
fields do exist in the collisionless space plasma in spite of the absence of collisional friction. Indications of their existence came
even from ground observations, but the final proof rests on the overwhelming evidence accumulated by in situ observations. These
include observations of a number of characteristic features of particle distribution functions, various active experiments and direct
measurements of electric fields. A number of mechanisms that can support magnetic field aligned electric fields have been identified.
They include wave turbulence, solitary structures, magnetic mirrors, electric double layers and dynamic trapping. Some of
them have been observationally confirmed to be important in the auroral process, but their relative roles are still not well known.

Quote:

Electric double layers in astrophysics
Electric double layers have also been invoked in astrophysical
applications. Alfvén (1978) suggested that electric
double layers are responsible for the enormous energy release
observed in extragalactic radio sources. In this case the
central galaxy was assumed to act as a unipolar generator
driving a gigantic current system, in which the double layers
were formed. This idea was elaborated by Borovsky (1986),
whose model combines anomalous resistivity and electric
double layers ”in symbiosis”. Beam driven waves on both
sides of the double layer reduce the mobility of charge carriers
(anomalous resistivity) and hold open a density cavity in
which the double layer resides. In the double layer ”electrical
energy is dissipated with 100 % efficiency into high energy
particles, creating conditions optimal for the collective
emission of polarized radio waves.” A comprehensive review
of the physics of the electric double layer and its astrophysical
applications was given by Raadu (1989).
Carlqvist (1995) analysed electric double layers in multicomponent
plasmas and included relativistic effects. One
of his results was that the relativistic electric double layer is
a selective accelerator. This means that the particles accelerated
by the double layer in general have different abundance
ratios than the source plasma. Carlqvist suggested that this
Fig. 7. Contours of constant plasma potential in a steady state
electric double layer observed in the laboratory (Sato 1982).
Magnetic-field aligned electric fields
233
may provide a means of detecting the presence of electric
double layers in cosmical plasmas.

http:Falthamar.pdf

AND

Quote:

On theoretical grounds, magnetic-field aligned electric
fields used to be considered impossible, and space plasma
was believed to obey the idealized magnetohydrodynamics
that assumes their absence. Only when in situ measurements
in the space plasma became possible, was this serious error
exposed. We now know that essential parts of space plasma
dynamics, and in particular auroral acceleration, depend on
magnetic-field aligned electric fields. This illustrates the importance
of theory and experiment going hand in hand. Because
of the complexity of magnetized plasma, theoretical
models can too easily go astray if not checked against empirical
data.

let's bang on about the DeBye length again shall we RC, Tusenfem?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Ah, once more the "discussion technique" of Sol88 just take one piece of text, drop an interesting sounding term, in this case synchrotron radiation, and "link" it to the previous text, although there is no connection whatsoever with the question in text 1 and the explanation in text 2 and then claim the the EU is correct with evidence.

Sol88 you astound me, with every post you show less and less knowledge of plasma physics.

Case you are not aware, Tusenfem, on just what synchrotron radiation is.

Synchrotron radiation is named after the particle accelerators developed in the 1930's and 1940's to produce high-energy electrons.

Can a DL accelerate charged particles?? Whooda thunk that

eg

Quote:

Synchrotron radiation in astronomy
M87's Energetic Jet., HST image. The blue light from the jet emerging from the bright AGN core, towards the lower right, is due to synchrotron radiation.

Synchrotron radiation is also generated by astronomical objects, typically where relativistic electrons spiral (and hence change velocity) through magnetic fields. Two of its characteristics include (1) Non-thermal power-law spectrum, and (2) Polarization.[3]

It was first detected in a jet emitted by M87 in 1956 by Geoffrey R. Burbidge [4], who saw it as confirmation of a prediction by Iosif S. Shklovskii in 1953, but it had been predicted several years earlier by Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson [5] in 1950.

T. K. Breus noted that questions of priority on the history of astrophysical synchrotron radiation is quite complicated, writing:

"In particular, the Russian physicist V.L. Ginsburg broke his relationships with I.S. Shklovsky and did not speak with him for 18 years. In the West, Thomas Gold and Sir Fred Hoyle were in dispute with H. Alfven and N. Herlofson, while K.O. Kiepenheuer and G. Hutchinson were ignored by them."[6]

Booya

[Dancing David]

You just go ahead and make your silly arguments Sol88, I do not think you are making an impression.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

on Dl's

http:Falthamar.pdf

AND

let's bang on about the DeBye length again shall we RC, Tusenfem?

OK
For the totally ignorant like Sol88:
Quite the contrary- the properties of DL mean that the few tens of Debye lengths between the layers restrict their influence to planetary scales:

1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Case you are not aware, Tusenfem, on just what synchrotron radiation is.

Synchrotron radiation is named after the particle accelerators developed in the 1930's and 1940's to produce high-energy electrons.

Can a DL accelerate charged particles?? Whooda thunk that

eg
Booya

Whooda thunk that ?
Anyone involved in plasma physics whooda thunk that !

Anyone who can read whooda thunk that !

Anyone with 2 brain cells whooda thunk that !

Of course double layers accelerate charged particles.

Quote:

Particle acceleration:

Quote:

The potential drop across the double layer will accelerate electrons and positive ions in opposite directions. The magnitude of the potential drop determines the acceleration of the charged particles. In strong double layers, this will result in beams or jets of charged particles.

Continue to demonstrate your total ignorance of science Sol88.

Booya

[brantc]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Could you have made a more ridiculous strawman? Thats an unwritten assumption that I've never a single competent cosmologist ever making.


Huh? How is charge separation meant to explain:
the abundance of the elements
Hubbles' law
Olbers' paradox
the CMBR
the Alpha-Lyman forrest.
etc etc.



The person who's just said "They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang...." is calling others delusional??? Wow.

Fingers of God? The God Particle? Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?

No strawman, just trying to make a point.

We will accept your starting point of the Big Bang if you accept our starting point of charge separation.

I'm sure we can come up with reasons for the aforementioned "observations" that do not rely on a universe expanding from a non physical point.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by brantc

Fingers of God?

And I suppose the study of nebulae has been corrupted by equine and crustacean lovers has it?

Quote:

The God Particle?

Seriously? Is that your argument? The Big Bang singularity assumes Godditit because the editor of some magazine wouldn't let the writer of one of its articles use "that goddamn particle" (which he wanted to use because it was so difficult to find) to describe a fundamental particle in a different branch of physics. Now that is what I call tenuous.

Quote:

Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?

Nope. Not in the slightest. The first real conception came from Alexander Friedmann when he found non-static solutions to the Einstein field equations assuming an isotropic and homogeneous space-time.

Quote:

No strawman, just trying to make a point.

I think you completely failed to make any point whatsoever.

Quote:

We will accept your starting point of the Big Bang if you accept our starting point of charge separation.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

Quote:

I'm sure we can come up with reasons for the aforementioned "observations" that do not rely on a universe expanding from a non physical point.

I'd love to see you try and come up with a consistent set of reasons. There could well be a Nobel prize in it for you. But considering how horrendously you failed in your justification of "They do not talk about the origin of the Big Bang or the unwritten assumption is that God created the Big Bang...." I will not be holding my breath.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by brantc

Fingers of God? The God Particle? Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?

No strawman, just trying to make a point.

We will accept your starting point of the Big Bang if you accept our starting point of charge separation.

I'm sure we can come up with reasons for the aforementioned "observations" that do not rely on a universe expanding from a non physical point.

Actually the post is full of strawmen since 2/3 of the aforementioned "observations" have anything to do with either the topic or an expanding universe.
Fingers of God are the Doppler effect:

Quote:

Fingers of God is an effect in observational cosmology that causes clusters of galaxies to be elongated in redshift space, with an axis of elongation pointed toward the observer.[1] It is caused by a Doppler shift associated with the peculiar velocities of galaxies in a cluster. The large velocities that lead to this effect are associated with the gravity of the cluster by means of the virial theorem; they change the observed redshifts of the galaxies in the cluster. The deviation from the Hubble's law relationship between distance and redshift is altered, and this leads to inaccurate distance measurements.

The God Particle does not exist. The Higgs boson may exist and is high energy physics not cosmology. The electric universe woo that is the topic of this tread is not high energy physics

"Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?" is just dumb. The Big Bang theory was born out of science. The earliest scientist to propose something like it was Georges Lemaître (his "hypothesis of the primeval atom") and he happened to also be a Roman Catholic priest.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

"Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?" is just dumb. The Big Bang theory was born out of science. The earliest scientist to propose something like it was Georges Lemaître (his "hypothesis of the primeval atom") and he happened to also be a Roman Catholic priest.

I'm pretty sure Friedmann predated him by 3 or 4 years. Regardless, Lemaitre actively promoted the complete separation of science and religion and actually told the Pope off (as near as it may be possible for someone to do so) for trying to link the two.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

I'm pretty sure Friedmann predated him by 3 or 4 years. Regardless, Lemaitre actively promoted the complete separation of science and religion and actually told the Pope off (as near as it may be possible for someone to do so) for trying to link the two.

Alexander Friedmann found the solutions to the general relativity field equations that later became the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric in 1924 (before Lemaitre's meeting with Einstein at the 1927 Solvay Conference).
I tend to think of Lemaitre as the start of the Big Bang theory because he made the connection between the theory and what would be observed to support the theory, e.g. Hubble's law.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Alexander Friedmann found the solutions to the general relativity field equations that later became the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric in 1924 (before Lemaitre's meeting with Einstein at the 1927 Solvay Conference).
I tend to think of Lemaitre as the start of the Big Bang theory because he made the connection between the theory and what would be observed to support the theory, e.g. Hubble's law.

Fair enough. I guess it matters very little. Unless of course you're completely failing to poke holes in the BB with science and need to turn to strawmen. Then it becomes rather significant.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by brantc

Fingers of God? The God Particle? Wasnt The Big Bang born out of theology(a priest)?

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Nope. Not in the slightest. The first real conception came from Alexander Friedmann when he found non-static solutions to the Einstein field equations assuming an isotropic and homogeneous space-time.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Alexander Friedmann found the solutions to the general relativity field equations that later became the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric in 1924 (before Lemaitre's meeting with Einstein at the 1927 Solvay Conference).

Why is it that so many "alternative cosmologists", like the electric universe crowd, are so damn ignorant of everything? What, they can't read the occasional book? Think an intelligent thought once in a while? Aside from being totally ignorant of both the facts & history of cosmology, it is evident that the English language (or probably any other language) is a major weak spot as well. You think that just because somebody uses the phrases "God particle" of "fingers of God" that they literally mean to establish a religious connection between cosmology and God? Have you never in your sheltered life encountered hyperbole?

The Reference to Friedmann is Friedmann, 1924. Lemaitre first mentioned the idea in 1927, but it was first published in English in 1931 (Lemaitre, 1931a), followed by Lemaitre, 1931b & Lemaitre, 1931c. In any case, both Friedmann & Lemaitre realized what Einstein had already realized, namely that general relativity in its original form did not allow static solutions. Einstein modified the theory to allow them, while Friedmann & Lemaitre did not so restrict themselves.

Originally Posted by brantc

No strawman, just trying to make a point.

What point? That you haven't got a clue? All the Friedmann & Lemaitre stuff is well known to anyone who has spent 5 minutes studying the history of general relativity (yes, you can literally learn it all in 5 minutes with google). You can't spend 5 minutes studying cosmology before you declare it to be wrong?

Originally Posted by brantc

We will accept your starting point of the Big Bang if you accept our starting point of charge separation. I'm sure we can come up with reasons for the aforementioned "observations" that do not rely on a universe expanding from a non physical point.

Big Bang cosmology does not "rely on a universe expanding from a non physical point". You think it does because your knowledge is entirely limited to popular discourse, and that's how the initial singularity of the big bang is interpreted in most cases. But its real meaning is "undefined", which means that the initial state of the universe is not just unknown but literally unknowable under any conditions, so long as one is limited to classical general relativity as a theory of space time. But allow for a quantum theory of gravity and the whole idea of a "point" origin of the universe can go out the window entirely. Both loop quantum gravity and string theory readily admit the possibility of pre big bang cosmology. The ideas are speculative, of course, since neither theory is well developed compared to general relativity, but while speculative, there is a lot of quantitative content and real formalism available (i.e., Gasperini & Veneziano, 2003; Gasperini & Veneziano, 2007; Bojowald, 2007; Khoury, et al., 2001).

[Sol88]

Nice history lesson fella's!!

Back onto DL's (Double Layers)

First a little background;

Electrodynamics of cosmical plasmas-some basic aspects of cosmological importance Cosmological??? Oh well...

Falthammar, C.-G.
Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990 Page(s):11 - 17

Quote:

Summary: A review is presented of basic electrodynamic properties as revealed by laboratory and space plasma experiments, and their consequences. They include the coupling between magnetic fields and the motion of matter, filamentary and cellular structure, anomalous momentum coupling, and new mechanisms of chemical separation. It is concluded that some of these properties, obviously important for the understanding of the present-day universe, must also have been important in the cosmological evolution of which today's Universe is the result. As some of the crucial properties are still poorly understood, but are being investigated by laboratory and space-plasma experiments, the results of such experiments should also be relevant to the development of cosmology

Ok so they are not really well understood phenomena but they are there and should obviously be included in ANY cosmological view! And since Z as split the threads into PC and EU lets keep going on DL's, shall we?

So the EU mob interpret exploding DL's as novae and supernovae as per

Double Layer Detonation

Quote:

Rather than thermonuclear explosions, supernovae are what Hannes Alfvén called them: exploding double layers.

snip

Quote:

So-called stellar winds from the giant star generated a "wind-blown bubble," according to a report from the Hubble Space Telescope news release archive

Ummm...that would most probably be a DL, all parameters are met for a DL to be formed.

Quote:

It has been a long-standing tenet of astrophysical theories that supernova shock waves are responsible for the formation of other stars when they meet clouds of gas in nearby nebulae. The gases are compressed along the expanding wavefront, acquiring the angular momentum and gravitational boost needed to begin condensing. According to the Nebular Hypothesis, once that condensation reaches a critical point, stars are born.

Which is a fantasy, if no mention of plasma physics or even terms are involved. You know the whole gas Vs Plasma argument that went on plasma is plasma and gas is gas!! Or you try and model an exploding DL on gas laws or even your supernovae gas!

snip

Quote:

The Electric Universe explanation is that we are looking at plasma structures when we look at nebulae or supernovae, and they behave according to the laws of electric discharges and circuits.

Instead of mechanical action and imploding gas, N 63A was created when an influx of electric current exceeded a critical value and was unable to maintain a stable connection with the galactic circuit. The break in the circuit caused the star to short-out and explode, just like an electric circuit here on Earth can suddenly explode when too much current flows through it.

Snip

Quote:

It is electric currents in plasma that makes up what we observe. Rather than an expanding shock-front, the features shown in the Hubble image are lit by electricity passing through dusty plasma. The x-ray radiation is typical of that given off by ions accelerated by an electric discharge.

Maybe even Gamma rays? Hell why not! A Double layer CAN do that! as per Tusenfems Wiki page

across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. To energies up to the maximum we have been able to detect!

such as

Quote:

Extragalactic cosmic rays are very-high-energy particles that flow into our solar system from beyond our galaxy. The energies these particles possess are in excess of 10¹⁵ eV.

and even your garden variety GCR's

Quote:

They are high-energy charged particles composed of protons, electrons, and fully ionized nuclei of light elements and are a strong source for cosmic ray spallation in the atmosphere of the earth.

Lets see the mainstreams explanation;

Quote:

ORIGIN Some are believed to have been accelerated by the shockwaves of supernovae. In the high-energy tail of the distribution, some galactic cosmic rays have energies so high that no known physical process could have created them.

Ummm...... A large strong double layer might do the trick more efficiently than "shockwaves" from supernovae!!!

As we see

Electric Supernovae

Quote:

Both conventional and electric supernovae are exploding stars. But what constitutes a star and what constitutes an explosion are quite different in each case.

snip

Quote:

One characteristic of an exploding DL is that the energy of the entire circuit, not just the energy contained locally in the DL, can flow into the explosion. The energy increase accelerates the expansion of the DL and the particles composing it. This acceleration persists out to many stellar diameters from the visible surface of the star. At the same time, the radiation from the DL climbs into the ultraviolet or x-ray—or even gamma-ray—range, giving off a burst of high-energy “light” that has a time distribution like that of lightning: a sudden onset and exponential decline.

No lets see, we have all the requirements to make ALL of these phenomena happen WITHOUT DM,DE SMBH, Neutron stars et cetera!


And this would be a pretty good visual picture of a DL (exploding) with smaller DL's entrained.



Which would make DL's inside DL's and they WOULD interact electrically!!

[Reality Check]

I see that Sol88 is still dumb enough to quote a book advertisement site!

The woo is strong in you Sol88 !

For the totally ignorant like Sol88:


Quite the contrary- the properties of DL mean that the few tens of Debye lengths between the layers restrict their influence to planetary scales:

1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.


ETA:
Just for a laugh I looked at the Thunderbolt book advertisments site pages that you link to Sol88. What a joke! ROFLOL! etc.

Seriously if the site was not so pitiful it would be a good parody site.

You did notice the lack of a few things on the pages, Sol88?

• No attempt to match their assertions (not even theories!) to observations.
• No citations of published scientific papers.

You did notice this blatent lie, Sol88?
Double Layer Detonation

Quote:

Astronomers have no idea why stars eject clouds of gas and dust that eventually become other stars.

Nova, Supernova, Variable star, etc.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Case you are not aware, Tusenfem, on just what synchrotron radiation is.

Synchrotron radiation is named after the particle accelerators developed in the 1930's and 1940's to produce high-energy electrons.

Can a DL accelerate charged particles?? Whooda thunk that

Oh for crying out loud! Can I kill myself now, before I need to read more nonsense, please, can I, please!!!!!!!

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Sol88

No lets see, we have all the requirements to make ALL of these phenomena happen WITHOUT[i] DM,DE SMBH, Neutron stars et cetera!

Its fantastic to see that you haven't provided us with a single number. And yet you think your theory can explain all these things which are described mathematically. Simply posting pretty pictures doesn't constitute science. At best its art. Now art has a time and a place I'll agree. But this a Science/Technology/Maths forum, not an art forum.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by brantc

We will accept your starting point of the Big Bang if you accept our starting point of charge separation.

brantc, as apparently you are a stern supporter of the PC/PU/EU/ES/EC community, please explain clearly what exactly you mean with your starting point of charge separation. Is that supposed to replace the big bang, or does it have to do with something else?

Can ANY EU proponent come up with a real model, and not just quote and misquote abstracts of papers that sound interesting?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ok so they are not really well understood phenomena but they are there and should obviously be included in ANY cosmological view! And since Z as split the threads into PC and EU lets keep going on DL's, shall we?

That is a 20 year old paper by Karl-Gunne, we have learned more about DLs since then, to be specific, I started my real research in them AFTER this paper was written.

So, what you seem to ignore is all DL research since 1990. It has been found, in lab and in nature that large scale electric fields split up. So called stair-step double layers. That also happens often when in a small region the potential drop gets too big. Look it up, Torven and Axnes did the lab experiments.

Originally Posted by Sol88

So the EU mob interpret exploding DL's as novae and supernovae as per

As already explained to you, a DL is a load in an electrical circuit, so you will have to drive humongous currents to create a supernova exploding DL (if DL would explode, which they do not, that was an idea of Alfvén that just turned out to be incorrect).

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ummm...that would most probably be a DL, all parameters are met for a DL to be formed.

Really, care to explain in detail? Solar and stellar winds are neutral, how can they then have "all parameters" (which exactly??) for DLs to be formed? Apparently, you know nothing about DLs whad you cannot quickly copy and paste.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Which is a fantasy, if no mention of plasma physics or even terms are involved. You know the whole gas Vs Plasma argument that went on plasma is plasma and gas is gas!! Or you try and model an exploding DL on gas laws or even your supernovae gas!

More staggering plasma physical incompetence of Sol88, this is REALLY mind boggling stupidity.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Maybe even Gamma rays? Hell why not! A Double layer CAN do that! as per Tusenfems Wiki page

across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. To energies up to the maximum we have been able to detect!

Note that the bolded part springs from Sol88's twisted mind and does NOT appear on the wiki page on double layers.

But yeah, I did write a paper where electrons were accelerated to relativistic energys, emitting gamma radiation, which again led to pair creation. Unfortunately, due to a change of venue and projects, that model was never fully developed, however interesting.

Originally Posted by Sol88

A large strong double layer might do the trick more efficiently than "shockwaves" from supernovae!!!

A shock wave and a double layer are so different, with different energizations etc. that I cannot even fathom why one would be able to replace the other.

Originally Posted by Sol88

No lets see, we have all the requirements to make ALL of these phenomena happen WITHOUT DM,DE SMBH, Neutron stars et cetera!


And this would be a pretty good visual picture of a DL (exploding) with smaller DL's entrained.

Which would make DL's inside DL's and they WOULD interact electrically!!

DLs inside of DLs, you are kidding right? Done any electrodynamics lately?
Again, rant rant rant, EU is right, thundercrap tells us so. Poor Alfvén, he does not deserve this idiocy.

Sol88 once more you show you have no grasp of plasma physics, let alone a rather difficult topic as the generation of double layers. You seem to think they are a "characteristic" of plasmas, boy are you wrong. They do not just "pop up" like you claimed in the plasmawoo thread. There are specific conditions needed for them to be created.

And by the way, don't forget that the double layers at the boundary of different plasmas do not accelerate particles like current carrying double layers do.

[Sol88]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sol88
So the EU mob interpret exploding DL's as novae and supernovae as per

Tusenfem replied:

Quote:

As already explained to you, a DL is a load in an electrical circuit, so you will have to drive humongous currents to create a supernova exploding DL (if DL would explode, which they do not, that was an idea of Alfvén that just turned out to be incorrect).

To which Carl-Gunne Fälthammar in (Received: March 31, 2002; accepted: August 30, 2002) says

Quote:

Rapid release of magnetically stored energy

Energy stored in a magnetic field is by necessity associated
with an electric current system with an inductance. If
somewhere in the electric circuit there is established an electric
field with the electric vector in the same direction as the
current, the current will for some time continue to flow, driven
by the inductance, and the dissipation of power in the region
of the potential drop can drain the magnetic energy with great
efficiency. This mechanism has been invoked in astrophysical
applications, and the phenomenon is known from laboratory
experiments with ”exploding” electric double layers .

So now I'm confused! So the humongous electric currents are there already sustaining the DL and when a threshold is reached it can release it's stored magnetic energy inductively and depending on your timescale, explosively! like you know exploding double layers

Quote:

A shock wave and a double layer are so different, with different energizations etc. that I cannot even fathom why one would be able to replace the other.

Yeah but the mainstream still do.

Quote:

DLs inside of DLs, you are kidding right? Done any electrodynamics lately?
Again, rant rant rant, EU is right, thundercrap tells us so. Poor Alfvén, he does not deserve this idiocy.

No? Tell us about triple layers, your stair step double layers et cetera

also cos we have not seen RC's DeBye length post for a few post now

Quote:

Strong electric potential double layers (eϕ / kTe≃14) are produced in a triple plasma device. The upper bound to eϕ / kTe reported in earlier experiments is not found. The electron beam which results from acceleration by the double layer maintains its identity with little heating until it reaches the end of the device. Results of a computer simulation are presented which are in qualitative agreement with the experiment and which indicate that the stability of the double layer depends on the length of the system.

Astrophysical "jets"? DeBye length?

Quote:

Sol88 once more you show you have no grasp of plasma physics, let alone a rather difficult topic as the generation of double layers. You seem to think they are a "characteristic" of plasmas, boy are you wrong. They do not just "pop up" like you claimed in the plasmawoo thread. There are specific conditions needed for them to be created.

Meahh

Quote:

And by the way, don't forget that the double layers at the boundary of different plasmas do not accelerate particles like current carrying double layers do.

Tell the lurkers here more Tusenfem great double layer scientist

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

also cos we have not seen RC's DeBye length post for a few post now

Quote:

Strong electric potential double layers (eϕ / kTe≃14) are produced in a triple plasma device. The upper bound to eϕ / kTe reported in earlier experiments is not found. The electron beam which results from acceleration by the double layer maintains its identity with little heating until it reaches the end of the device. Results of a computer simulation are presented which are in qualitative agreement with the experiment and which indicate that the stability of the double layer depends on the length of the system.

Astrophysical "jets"? DeBye length?

It is confirmed! You cannot read Sol88 !
You post a quote from an unknown source about a triple plasma device that produces electron beams in laboratory conditions.
It is not about astrophysics.
It is not about astrophysical jets.
Any one with more than 1 brain cell can see that. All they have to have is the ability to read.
If you can find a triple plasma device floating about in space then you should tell people about it ( ignorance once again from Sol88)!


FYI: The ions that are accelerated by double layers can travel beyond the double layers. The distance that the ions travel is determined by their energy and their interaction with the surrounding medium. Note that the electron beam above stops at the end of the device as expected.


The separation of double layers is limited to a a few tens of Debye lengths. The length of any beams produced by DLs depends on the conditions. IMHO I cannot see them extending more than a few times the separation.

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent (hi Sol88 ) who is currently ignoring basic physics: allow the beams to extend further then the separation by a factor of a 10,000 million (10 billion). What scale would this beam extend over? A few thousand thousand million kilometers rounded up is 10000 billion kilometers. This is ~1 light year and just into interstellar scales.

Massive fail once again Sol88.

And because the simpleminded asked:


The properties of DL mean that the few tens of Debye lengths between the layers restrict their influence to planetary scales:

1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Quote:

And by the way, don't forget that the double layers at the boundary of different plasmas do not accelerate particles like current carrying double layers do.

Tell the lurkers here more Tusenfem great double layer scientist

Sol88 is such a great intellect that he does not even have to read the web pages he links to !

Current-free double layers

Somehow that does not surprise me since that would imply that Sol88 is interested in learning anything rather than just parroting the stuff Sol88 found on a book advertisement web site.

[Sol88]

Quote:

It is not about astrophysics.
It is not about astrophysical jets.

That's were you are wrong!

Quote:

Any one with more than 1 brain cell can see that. All they have to have is the ability to read.
If you can find a triple plasma device floating about in space then you should tell people about it ( ignorance once again from Sol88)!

try Crab Pulsar

Quote:

The outflowing relativistic wind from the neutron star generates synchrotron emission, which produces the bulk of the emission from the nebula, seen from radio waves through to gamma rays. The most dynamic feature in the inner part of the nebula is the point where the pulsar's equatorial wind slams into the surrounding nebula, forming a termination shock. The shape and position of this feature shifts rapidly, with the equatorial wind appearing as a series of wisp-like features that steepen, brighten, then fade as they move away from the pulsar into the main body of the nebula.