Link to Original Source
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I find this concept really interesting and confusing at the same time. Consider that within plasma laboratories, we can observe certain fundamental morphologies that naturally result from the existence of charge density. Plasmas naturally form double layers, which tend to protect a plasma's charge. The double layer leads to the formation of plasma filaments. We see within the laboratory that plasma filaments tend to exhibit long-range attraction and short-range repulsion with one another. This causes the filaments to twist around one another like a braided rope. Within the plasma laboratory, we observe these complex twisted transfer charged particles very efficiently. They are called Birkeland Currents.
We see these braided filament plasma structures in space too, like in the Cygnus Loop
Braided ropelike plasma structures are the fingerprints of electromagnetic activity. When you see plasma behaving this way, you need to make sure that you're not trying to use fluids-based equations to understand/model it.
It's interesting that the same thing can be done with respect to radio waves. I'm actually a little bit confused as to why this works for radio waves. When Birkeland Currents do this, they require the existence of a plasma medium, and the structures do their thing in the lab because of the existence of the ionization. The plasma both responds to magnetic fields and creates its own due to the right-hand rule. But these guys seem to be saying that they can create these structures within the Earth's atmosphere in the absence of a plasma medium (?). With Birkeland Currents, the collimation occurs because the flow of charged particles generates a magnetic field.
I'm not getting something. Any plasma physicists out there??? Is HAARP creating an ionized pathway for the signal through the atmosphere?
I realize that Slashdotters are exceptionally anti-creationist. So am I. But, this site is really quite fascinating. In the same way that you wouldn't put your hand up in a religious person's face, we should still listen to the evidence they point to. Once you read this theory, religion doesn't really have much to do with it at all!
Link to Original Source
I'm quite sure you will see whatever it is you want to see in it. People generally appear to like to confirm their pre-existing beliefs. That's why it's generally a good idea to introduce people to alternative ideas. It provides a more useful context to begin with. In a general sense, the confidence exhibited by Slashdotters on the topic of cosmology is not really shared by a lot of mainstream astrophysicists. Quotes are not hard to come by to demonstrate this fact.
Speculating a little bit, SETI is not receiving signals because ET is most likely inside of the diffuse atmosphere of brown dwarf stars. Planets can orbit within the glow of a brown dwarf. You cannot transmit radio signals through a plasma double layer like that, so ET doesn't even know what stars are inside of this environment. All he can see in his sky is a red glow and possibly vortex-like plasma formations. The perpetual harvest that surrounds him deprives him of any desire to contact us anyways. Why would you try to contact aliens when you are in the Garden of Eden? Brown dwarf atmospheres contain copious amounts of water, which when combined with the perpetual glow from the sky, would cause the entire planet to explode with life.
We have a pretty good idea that this is happening because it appears to be what happened to the Earth as well. Humans were alive to testify to it.
Sounds pretty absurd to you, I'm sure. But when you dig into the details, it's a pretty interesting theory for SETI's failure.
I love how somebody labeled you as "flamebait" for pointing this out. I mean, that's a fairly uncontroversial statement you made there. The Electric Universe is almost entirely based upon the observations of the glow discharge in a plasma laboratory. It shouldn't really be all that controversial.
Once some unambiguous predictions (or even post-dictions) are made which are more comprehensively explained by an Electric Universe theory than by more traditional theory, then perhaps the misunderstandings will be resolved. Until then, expect to work very, very hard at making things understood, and expect more push-back.
The notion that we cannot build a simple, workable cosmology based upon the observed behavior of the glow discharge within a plasma laboratory is quite a stunning allegation once you actually educate yourself on the behavior of glow discharges. We can explain EVERY enigmatic feature of the Sun by just observing glow discharges. Kristian Birkeland used nothing more than plasma in a vacuum chamber 100 years ago to replicate numerous astrophysical observations. Anthony Peratt has demonstrated that galaxies are the natural result of large-scale twisting Birkeland Currents. We plainly see that spiral galaxies are oriented like beads on a string, as if they are connected by transmission lines. The writing is already on the wall. You guys just don't know what is being alleged, so the evidentiary support for the Electric Universe just goes right over your head.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't consider it important to observe the behavior of plasmas within the laboratory when accounting for the behavior of plasmas in space. It's really pretty mind-bending when you consider that the visible matter in space is 99.999% matter in the plasma state. THEMIS has already demonstrated that Birkeland Currents connect the Sun and Earth. The existence of Birkeland Currents clearly violates the premise that space plasmas are magnetized fluids. You can create any cosmology you want by manipulating your models for space plasmas. We have VERY GOOD REASON by now to suspect that the models are extremely flawed.
The entire dominant paradigm demands the overly-simplistic, erroneous application of magnetohydrodynamics models in order to minimize the importance of plasma's electrodynamic properties in astrophysical observations. Hannes Alfven warned the astrophysical community as he was receiving the Nobel Physics prize. Many astrophysicists don't even know what he said in that speech to this day, as if it was never even said. It's quite scandalous.
So long as you imagine that the dominant paradigm is working well, you'll never be motivated to learn about competing paradigms. But you won't ever find any fault in the dominant paradigm if you never actually listen to what the critics are saying. Once you have even a general grasp of what the two paradigms say, it's really rather funny to watch the astrophysicists spin enigmatic observations. They use enigmas to spur interest with the public in the mystery of space. But, the enigmas are never really treated as the predictive failures of the model. They always propose some ad hoc mechanism as a solution, which complicates the model. Our understanding of space is steadily, week after week, becoming more complex. If we were on the right track, we would be seeing a simplification -- not a complexification, if you will. Most of the time, they are actually doing nothing more than binning enigmas into the result of black holes, dark matter or magnetic fields. The public is left with the false impression that progress is being made. But when you dig into concepts like magnetic reconnection, you start to see a willingness to accept metaphysical concepts (that magnetic fields can store and release energy) in order to ignore the more established link between electric currents and magnetic fields.
Most people never investigate deep enough into the issues to even notice the serious problems with our dominant paradigm -- which is rather perplexing for a group of people like Slashdotters. You guys are the engineers of this world. You should put more faith in your ability to understand and critique the astrophysicists. They are saying things that directly violate your own educations -- particularly if you are an electrical engineer. But, you guys appear to accept just about whatever it is they say without question. Somehow, it became acceptable for astrophysicists (whose models tend to be highly deductive and lack experimental basis) to contradict plasma physicists on the behavior of plasmas. It's really quite extraordinary to watch.
This debate will one day eventually explode in the public's awareness and people will go over forums like these in order to understand how all of this could have happened. Astrophysicists will eventually claim that they never actually disagreed that space plasmas could conduct electricity, and that the Electric Universe is still wrong. They will refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong. But we will have the numerous records of EU advocates on forums across the globe to testify to the fact that people were being incredibly lazy in their dismissals of the EU arguments.
Ok, I'll bite. What do you get when you separate the reasonable from the ridiculous claims of Electric Universe? All I get is the nul set.
Let me guess: You don't have a clue about how a glow discharge works, do you?
Sunspots are understood reasonably well in terms of magnetic fields.
Yeah, except for the fact that the sunspots exhibit attraction to one another without apparent combination. By sharp contrast, this is exactly what would be expected if you took a cross-section of two twisted Birkeland Current filaments. They possess long-range attraction and short-range repulsion, meaning that they will dance around one another and yet never fully combine. Think novelty plasma globe.
And Harp's "surveys" have long been known to be statistically invalid. They suffer from selection effects. And there are also some real physical effects that correlate distant objects with foreground objects, such as gravitational lensing.
My understanding is that most, if not all, claims of gravitational lensing require the existence of copious amounts of dark matter in order to even get into the ballpark mass required.
Also, I've seen all sorts of pitiful attempts by ideologues to cast doubt upon Arp's findings. At one point, scientists actually published a paper claiming that Arp's quantization was not observed in raw redshift observations. Those researchers didn't understand what Arp was saying well enough to even realize that the quantization was being proposed for only the intrinsic component of the raw value.
Tom Bridgman has similarly been trying to argue that Arp's quantization is the result of some sort of statistics error. But, why would the recessional component not also demonstrate quantization?
It seems to me that ideologues are very anxious to be done with Arp's observations, which come in a pretty wide array of types of evidence. To this day, however, the idea that redshift must only come in one flavor is pure speculation. The only reason it's never questioned is because it serves as a critical crutch propping up the dominant paradigm.
People will surely argue about Arp for decades to come. The statistics argument is the treatment of last resort for scientific heretics. It's the same thing that was done to Verschuur when he proposed that he was seeing relatively local filaments of hydrogen within the CMB. When people resort to statistics for argumentation, we'd all be wise to keep in mind that there may be politics involved.
Alfven waves are the popular EU mechanism for coronal heating. I have no problem with this, but you'll have to demonstrate how wave heating can deposit energy in the corona rather than simply propagating clean through.
If you spoke correctly here (and I'm not sure that you intended to say "EU" there), I believe that this demonstrates a rather severe misunderstanding of the EU model. The corona is hot for the same reason that an anode in a glow discharge is hot. An electron drift occurs within the heliosphere, from the heliospheric boundary (the cathode) towards the anode. This is pretty basic plasma physics here -- the same thing we see with high-voltage DC transmission lines. They ionize the air around them because their voltage difference with the atmosphere creates an electric field that causes electrons to drift into the transmission line while ions are simultaneously accelerated away. The heat is a natural byproduct of the discharge.
Should we just assume that it is pure coincidence that all of the Sun's most prominent features correspond precisely to the glow discharge? Only if we are being biased about it.
I'm no solar physicist, but I'd wager that coronal heating draws upon both waves *and* reconnection. Has anyone looked at coronal temperatures at various altitudes/depths through a whole solar cycle?
Spoken like Plato. It's fun to deduce the operation of the universe, eh? Deduction, however, isn't even necessary when we can study plasmas within the laboratory, and plainly see that our magnetohydrodynamics models are completely archaic.
EM phenomena in the sun are well understood. Please don't stir up a fake aura of mystery around solar EM. "Electric Universe" theories are junk science. If you want those theories to be taken seriously, get rid of the junk.
Um, you guys should get your own house in order before criticizing others. From http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2814-earths-magnetic-field-boosts-gravity.html
The values of G measured so far seem to fit with that idea. But the researchers say the best way to test their theory would be to take accurate measurements of G at locations such as the magnetic poles and particular longitudes on the equator, and then check those values against the predictions.
Studies of the Sun also support the theory. To make mathematical models of the star's interior tally with experimental data, physicists have to use a lower value of G than is traditionally agreed. Mbelek says his calculations predict that electromagnetism would not boost gravity as much at higher temperatures, so you would expect G to be lower inside the Sun.
But other researchers are not convinced. Clifford Will, a gravity theorist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, believes improvements in terrestrial experiments will eventually do away with the need for explanations that rely on such exotic physics.
"In many ways it's a scandal that we don't have an agreed value for G, but if you look at the experiments, the values have been converging," he says. "In five years or so, we'll have an agreed value."
But Mbelek does not think so. Although the precision of individual measurements is improving, he says, the values are not converging.
I smell junk!
Actually no I don't see that the electric universe star theory is capable of playing that game. There are two key observations the electric star theory cannot explain. First, it can't explain the absence of intergalactic energy flows into the Sun. It requires them. We see that they aren't there.
You know, when you permit yourself to develop an opinion on the matter prematurely, you will not pay attention to the evidence that supports competing paradigms. For instance, a quick search on "spiral galaxies aligned" will lead to the following article. From http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4215
Astronomers have known since the early 1990s that galaxies cluster in filaments and sheets surrounding vast voids in space. Now, an international team of astronomers has found that spiral galaxies, like the Milky Way, line up like beads on a string, with their spin axes aligned with the filaments that outline voids.
Also, you should look carefully at the shape of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. They are not at all circular morphologies. That whole system fully supports Anthony Peratt's supercomputer simulations that demonstrate that spiral galaxies can be created by twisting together two large plasma filaments.
You will see braided ropelike plasma structures all over nebulas. We're supposed to believe that these structures are shock fronts, but that assumes that plasmas can be modeled as magnetized fluids. Unfortunately, plasmas are not as easy to model as astrophysicists would like to believe. If I may quote a private conversation with Don Scott
Suppose there is a fairly straight B-field (magnetic field) within a plasma. Shoot a stream of charge (an electric current) into this. Suppose the velocity vector (the direction and speed) of the injected current is at some angle to the axis of the B-field. The current will begin to spiral. (A spiral is a combination of a circular motion in a plane at right angles to the B-field plus a straight-line motion parallel to the B-field). Thus we get a spiral (vortex / helix) of current.
BUT this is just the first step. We know that any current will produce its own B-field surrounding it (right-hand rule) and so the spiral current is surrounded by what you might visualize as a fat spiraling worm of B-field (whose intensity decreases with distance from the spiralling current.
So now we have two B-fields in the same space (the original straight one, and the worm-like shaped new one). They add together to make a total overall B-field. The current stream at this point says, "Oops, I'm not exactly following the new total B-field path - and adjusts its direction to accomplish this. Alfven wrote about the wierd effects observed at this point in the process. Sometimes the current bends in the opposite direction from what looks proper.
As a result we have an altered current shape, and a newly altered total B-field, and so it goes on and on.
So the point is you can't solve this problem in a single step of vector algebra. You need to do an iterative process that goes through the steps and then goes back and does them over and over, each time recognizing you have a different shaped current and a different shaped B-field. (For you old computer buffs: We need to use a 'Do-Loop' algorithm). There is another complication too - the vector sum of the original B-field and the new (just generated) B-field is not simple if the medium (the plasma) is non-linear. And Boy! is plasma non-linear.
Algebraic solutions are almost certainly doomed to failure in cases like this. Lab experiments (and properly done simulations) are the only hope we really have of seeing what happens. This is the big error made by plasma 'theoreticians' as opposed to experimentalists.
The idea that plasmas can be modeled as fluids is rather archaic.
Second, it can't explain why the power output from the Sun appears to come from a deep level. There are various symptoms, for example, the near constant power output of the Sun. If the power for the Sun were coming from the top layers, we would see much greater fluctations in output. We would see far greater surface variations than we do. We would see a lot of raw fusion gamma rays in the Sun's spectra.
I believe that you've been looking for these
From the first link:
A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
Massachusetts Univ., Amherst;
This paper appears in: Plasma Science, 2007. ICOPS 2007. IEEE 34th International Conference on
Publication Date: 17-22 June 2007
On page(s): 999-999
Summary form only given. Observational evidence suggests the presence of a plasma double layer (DL) above the surface of the Sun. Such a DL, together with a single charge layer (SL) directly below it, provides a straight-forward explanation for the existence of the temperature minimum in the lower corona, the X-ray emissions observed above sunspots, and the variations observed in the intensity of the solar wind. This plasma sheath is arguably a generic feature, in varying degree, surrounding all stars. Thus, this mechanism would affect stellar physics and plasma cosmology at their most fundamental level. These three charge layers constitute a pnp junction transistor-like mechanism. The action produced by this morphology controls (varies) and even cuts-off the solar wind. Acceleration of solar wind ions within the DL causes the observed temperature inversion. The failure of the invention of magnetic reconnection to explain these several observed solar phenomena is clear. A three-layer charge density structure, similar to the SL, DL anode tufting combination that is familiar to plasma engineers is a hypothesis that offers a reasonable explanation without the invention of "new science".
There was a mention in the news recently about plasma physicists actually productizing plasma transistors for the first time. You might have seen it.
There's a lot we don't know about the Sun and about particle physics. The differences in differential rotation, neutrinos, etc. But we have a pretty good idea of fusion and what conditions it requires. The interior of the Sun simply is hot and dense enough for fusion to occur. It explains the power output we see. For all the observations and problems you list above, there's nothing there that actually contradicts the standard model of stars. What it tells us is that the standard model fails to describe the internal structure of a star.
I read through the theory. It simply doesn't fit the evidence. There is nothing more to be said unless you can adapt the theory to observed evidence. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't give the theory the effort it deserved.
Well, I think you are underestimating the amount of diligence required to formulate an honest assessment. You really have to spend a couple of years learning about all of this stuff before you should try to argue against it. You really have to follow the arguments on both sides several layers deep, and on each topic. I've found it necessary to pass arguments back and forth between both camps. If you do this, you develop a much higher appreciation of the amount of thought that has gone into the Electric Universe. The large majority of the criticisms are in fact wrong. The real problem is that very few people actually understand what a plasma really is, or what behavior they tend to exhibit within the laboratory. Very few astrophysicists can actually comment on the validity of their magnetohydrodynamics models. Most just assume that the models are right. They're not trained to even question them. It's a real big problem. If you are modeling space plasmas incorrectly as fluids, and in spite of the observation of behavior that is specifically electromagnetic, then sure, you can get your model to say that gravity is dominant. But, you'll also end up with a never-ending slew of surprises as you stare at the sky. When you ignore the intrinsic link between electric current and magnetic fields, in particular, magnetic fields will take on a devilishly complex, almost magical, appearance. That people like yourself will accept the existence of invisible dark matter and yet strenuously object to the existence of electric currents causing the magnetic fields we observe in space
You're using YOUR paradigm to judge somebody ELSE's. Sheesh! I believe that Anthony Peratt's view is that plasmas are scalable over 16 orders of magnitude. And in this alternative paradigm, fusion is a byproduct of the action of an anode within a glow discharge. It occurs up near the surface of the Sun, which is why sunspots are observed to anti-correlate with neutrino production. That observation is one of many enigmatic observations within the dominant paradigm.
You shouldn't accept it until you can at least rattle off all the key characteristics of stellar equilibrium, stellar fusion, helioseismology, spectroscopy, stellar dynamics in aggregate, and from the looks of things basic thermodynamics as well (you can't have that much hydrogen in one place and expect it not to fuse!).
Well, that's convenient. You seem to have reduced the total number of people who can legitimately interpret astrophysical imagery to those who are already trained to believe in the dominant paradigm.
Oh, and by the way, helioseismology is the most speculative garbage that has ever been called science in the history of science. You cannot look into the Sun. Get over it!!!