Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!



Twisted Radio Beams Could Untangle the Airwaves

pln2bz This is a fundamental structure of the universe (183 comments)

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?

more than 5 years ago

Impact-powered Rapid Continental Drift Theory

pln2bz I don't like Creationists either, but ... (1 comments)

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!

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:Please re-read TFA (168 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:Regarding SETI (168 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:Interesting thing about the Electric Universe.. (168 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!!! (168 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:Ingnoring the electric field (168 comments)

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?

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:Ingnoring the electric field (168 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:Ingnoring the electric field (168 comments)

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.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:Ingnoring the electric field (168 comments)

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.

Exotic physics

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!

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:pln2bz is a strong proponent of EU theory (168 comments)

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.

Bottom line:

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
Scott, D.E.
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 ... It really kind of boggles my mind a little bit. There is a sort of collective cognitive dissonance going on that people need to be shaken out of.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:intuition isn't enough (168 comments)

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!!!

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:Calling Electric Universe in 3 ... 2 ... 1... (168 comments)

I would also point out that these papers did not detect anything like filaments or braids.

But THEMIS has. And, if you don't just accept as fact the interpretations for astrophysical imagery that you've read countless times, then with a little bit of help, you'd plainly see the filaments and braids in space imagery. They range from ambiguous to absolutely undeniable in form.

And Verschuur has identified local filaments of hydrogen gas that correlate with the CMB.

Filaments are everywhere in space. And so is plasma. What makes plasma filamentary? It's electromagnetic rotation. You might be able to get the math to work in a fluids-based model for plasmas under some situations, but fluids do not create the braided ropelike structures we've seen with THEMIS connecting the Sun with the Earth. Many people will dismiss this, but the fact is that it calls into question our magnetohydrodynamics models. Can we really afford to just assume that the math we use to model space plasmas in correct when plasmas represent 99.999% of all visible matter in space? THEMIS should have caused astrophysicists to blink. But the inertia of pre-existing belief is strong.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:Calling Electric Universe in 3 ... 2 ... 1... (168 comments)

Well, I would add to that that when it comes to the topic of physics, ridicule possesses the power of a psychological weapon. Studies demonstrate that when a spectator observes somebody else being ridiculed, the spectator will be inclined to avoid the same thing happening to him. In this manner, when it comes to the topic of physics, ridicule is perhaps one of the most effective tools available for keeping people from discussing or thinking about controversial subjects. People already fear making an ass of themselves. Public ridicule -- like here on Slashdot -- will tend to raise the cost of speaking up about one's opinions. This creates a society on Slashdot that is generally more close-minded on the topic of cosmology -- or at least arguably more receptive to opinions that tend to dismiss alternative physical paradigms.

When it comes to debunking the Electric Universe, for instance, many people like to throw around URL's by Tim Thompson, Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger. But behind the scenes in discussions with Tom and Leroy, we can plainly see that they lack the understanding of plasma glow discharges that Wal Thornhill possesses (Wal is the primary target of their criticisms). Leroy Ellenberger will in fact say anything so long as it causes David Thomson to look bad. Ellenberger hasn't paid any attention to any of the recent findings by any of our probes -- literally for decades. And yet, people on wikipedia treat him as though he's some sort of expert on the Electric Universe just because he turned coat on Velikovsky decades ago. We've come a long, long way from Velikovsky. The Electric Universe, unlike catastrophism, is based upon laboratory plasma physics principles -- in particular, the behavior of the plasma glow discharge. The Sun is, without much doubt, a glow discharge phenomenon. Getting the math all in order to reflect it will take some time, but much of the work has already been done by people like Hannes Alfven, Ralph Juergens and Wal Thornhill.

btw, I still hold out hope for Tim Thompson. His criticisms are far more targeted and intelligent. But, he oftentimes proposes possible explanations that might work in explaining enigmatic observations for the Standard Model as a rationale for not looking into competing paradigms. Many people already accept as fact that the Standard Model has poorly performed, and are already looking for a new paradigm to be created from scratch. We want something simpler than what we've been offered, and the Electric Universe appears to offer that.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:pln2bz is a strong proponent of EU theory (168 comments)

Khallow, with all due respect, you appear to be refusing to learn about what a drift current is. We already see that charged particles, when subjected to the electric field of an electric discharge, can actually flow upstream of an outflow of positively charged particles being accelerated away. This is what happens when high-voltage DC trolley lines ionize the surrounding air. The transmission line is the anode and the surrounding atmosphere is the virtual cathode. The same thing also happens in a glow discharge. If you are having problems believing it, then you should get your hands on the Cobine book that I liberally referenced. Wal Thornhill has come to see that book as being the most useful book available for understanding glow discharges.

From Wal Thornhill's book "The Electric Universe" ...

When a theoretical model is not working, the logical thing to look for is a trend toward growing anomalies. Below we offer a partial list of solar features that cause problems for mainstream theory but are expected in an electrical model. As the reader will note, the list includes almost all of the prominent attributes of the Sun:

- Solar spectrum. The spectrum of light from the Sun is characteristic of electrical discharging. Thus the leading solar physicist, Giorgio Abetti, uses the terms âelectric arcâ(TM) and âlightning flashâ(TM) when explaining the solar spectrum and solar flares. More recently, micro-flares have been discovered to occur every few minutes on the Sun, comparable to scaled-up thunderstorms on Earth.

- Neutrino deficiency. Solar physicists have acknowledged for decades that the Sunâ(TM)s output of neutrinos, a by-product of nuclear fusion, is about 1/3 of that expected in the standard solar model. Three types or âflavorsâ(TM) of neutrinos have been identified, and recent attempts to solve the problem require unwarranted assumptions about neutrino âchange of flavorâ(TM) en route from the center of the Sun. An electric Sun, however, can generate all flavors of neutrinos in heavy element synthesis at its surface. Therefore, it requires no assumptions about âchanging flavorsâ(TM) to hide the deficit.

- Neutrino variability. The neutrino output varies inversely with the surface sunspot cycle. Were they produced in the nuclear âfurnaceâ(TM) at the center of the Sun, this relationship would be inconceivable, since solar physicists calculate that it takes about 200,000 years for the energy of internal fusion to affect the surface. In the electrical model, more and larger sunspots mean less âlightningâ(TM) at the surface, where the nuclear reactions occur. Thus, the decline in neutrinos with increasing sunspot number is expected.

- Solar atmosphere. As pointed out by astronomer Fred Hoyle, given the strong gravity and 5,800 degree temperature of the Sunâ(TM)s photosphere, a very thin atmospheric âskinâ(TM) should be expected on the Sun, perhaps a few thousand kilometers thick on a sphere 1.4 million kilometers in diameter. Instead, the atmosphere balloons out to 100,000 kilometers, where it heats up to a million degrees or more. From there particles accelerate out among the planets. Thus, it could be said that we orbit inside the Sunâ(TM)s atmosphere! None of this makes any sense for a 5,800-degree body radiating its heat into space. It makes perfect sense in a plasma discharge, with the Sun acting as an anode.

- Neutrinos and solar wind. Neutrino counts have been found to wax and wane with the flux of particles in the solar wind, a predictable effect if the solar wind is part of an electric circuit fueling nuclear fusion on the Sunâ(TM)s surface.

- Heavy elements. It has long been claimed that heavy elements are born in the flashes of supernova explosions and are then scattered into space, to be recycled into the next generation of stars. But there are far too few supernovae to account for the abundance of heavy elements in stars. An electric star, with innumerable plasma discharge vortexes thousands of kilometers long, possesses the natural particle accelerators and high density to produce the heavy elements right near the surface where their signatures appear in the spectrum. Stars generate their own heavy elements. For example, the Sunâ(TM)s explosions throw âstardustâ(TM) into space where some has been captured and shown to have a âoesurprising abundanceâ of heavy elements.

- Differential rotation by latitude. The solar wind carries rotational energy away from the Sun so that, under standard assumptions, the Sun should rotate slower at the equator than at higher latitudes. In fact, this mechanism should have stopped the Sun spinning long ago. But the reverse is the case. In the electric model, external ring currents couple strongly to the lower latitudes and drive the Sunâ(TM)s rotation, much like a giant homopolar electric motorâ"a phenomenon first demonstrated by Michael Faraday.

- Differential rotation by depth. Solar physicists are also puzzled by indications that the surface of the Sun rotates more rapidly than the deeper layers. To appreciate the mystery, imagine a suspended spinning ball lowered into a tub of still water and spinning faster as a result! The solar wind should remove rotational momentum from the Sun, slowing the surface first. That the surface rotates fastest is direct evidence that the Sun is being driven externally, like an electric motor.

- Equatorial plasma torus. In ultraviolet light the Sun features a hot plasma âdonutâ(TM) encircling its equator. The same phenomenon occurs in laboratory plasma discharges to a positively charged, magnetized sphere. Electrical energy is stored in the âdonutâ(TM) and occasionally released in powerful flares and coronal mass ejections. This also implies that the currents flowing in the solar torus couple with the surface plasma to drive the âanomalousâ(TM) equatorial rotation (see also p. 61).

- Sunspots. The standard solar model neither requires nor predicts sunspots, much less their elaborate cyclical behavior. In the laboratory torus experiment noted above, discharges fly from the torus to the mid- to low-latitudes of the sphere. On the scale of the Sun, such discharges will punch holes in the photosphere and deliver current directly to lower depths, thus exposing a view of the cooler interior.

- Sunspot migration. The strange latitudinal migration of sunspots is replicated in the torus experiment by varying the power input. The higher power produces maximum activity near the equator. That sunspots are formed by attractive parallel electric currents, not merely âmagnetic effects,â(TM) is shown by the mutual attraction of spots having
the same magnetic polarity. Like poles of magnets repel!

- Sunspot penumbra. High-resolution images of the rope-like filaments that surround the dark inner umbra of large sunspots show the distinctive characteristics of tornadic charge vortexes. By giving us a peek beneath the tops of the tornadic lightning columns, sunspots enable us to view directly the solar electrical tornadoes that heat and project gases upward into the bright photospheric granules (see information panel p. 55). In plasma laboratories, this granulation is called âanode tufting.â(TM) For the standard solar model, sunspot penumbrae remain a mystery.

- Sunspot cycle. There is no coherent explanation for the approximate eleven-year sunspot cycle. In the electrical model the sunspot cycle is induced by fluctuations in the DC power supply from the local arm of our galaxy, the Milky Way, as the varying current density and magnetic fields of huge Birkeland current filaments slowly rotate past our solar system. The solar magnetic field reversals may be a result of simple âtransformerâ(TM) action ( see left).

- Magnetic field strength. The Sunâ(TM)s interplanetary magnetic field increases in strength with sunspot number. Electrically, the relationship is essential, since the interplanetary magnetic field is generated by the current flow to and from the Sun. As the power increases, sunspot numbers rise (reflecting current input) and the magnetic field strengthens.

- Even magnetic field. The Sun has a generally dipole magnetic field that switches polarity with the sunspot cycle (see top of facing page). Unlike a dipole magnet, which has the field twice as strong at the poles as at the equator, the Sun has a very evenly distributed field strength. This oddity can be explained only if the Sun is the recipient of electric currents flowing radially into it. These magnetic field-aligned currents adjust the contours of the magnetic field by their natural tendency to space themselves evenly over an anode surface. An internal âdynamoâ(TM) will not produce this magnetic field pattern.

- Helioseismology. The Sun ârings like a bellâ(TM) and the oscillations at the surface are measuredâ"in a way similar to the study of earthquakesâ"to determine what is going on deep within the Sun. But what is ringing the bell? If the Sun is a giant ball of lightning the question is answered, since a clap of thunder will rattle the windows more readily than will a boiling kettle. More accurately, stellar double layers form part of an electrical circuit, which can readily cause pulsation and changes in size. Both are observed.

- Solar density. It is highly significant that the dominant âringingâ(TM) mode of the Sun occurs with a rise and fall of the Sunâ(TM)s entire surface through 10 kilometers every 160 minutes. As a few specialists have warned, this implies that the Sun is of uniform density throughout, thus negating the conditions for a thermonuclear furnace in a dense core of the Sun!75 But there is no surprise in the case of an electric star, where internal electrostatic forces tend to offset gravitational compression.

- Changing size. Astronomers are baffled by the discovery that the outer layer (1% of the Sunâ(TM)s radius) changes in depth by about 26 km in anti-phase with the number of sunspots. But this effect is predictable behavior for a thin plasma sheath surrounding the Sun. The sheath responds to increasing electrical stress by shrinking.76

The above list of anomalies for the standard solar model surely underscores the fact that it was formulated before science learned all of these dominant attributes of the Sun. Every listed feature, however, follows logically from an electrical model, a fact with far-reaching implications for theoretical astrophysics as a whole.

As you can see, two can play that game.

The electric star model doesn't explain supernovas (especially the consistent Type 1A supernovas that are in conventional theory thought to be white dwarfs stealing material from a second binary companion star). Why do massive stars suddenly collapse if all the action is on the surface?

Who says they are massively collapsing? Don't you realize the model is nothing more than a best guess, derived specifically for the purpose of agreeing with the Standard Model? Lifted from holoscience (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7hjpuqz9) ...

"We put the theory in the textbooks because it sounds right. But we don't really know it's right, and I think people are beginning to worry," says Robert Kirshner, a supernova researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "We keep saying the same thing, but the evidence for it doesn't get better, and that's a bad sign." Kirshner was among more than 100 experts on stars and their explosions who gathered to discuss their worries last month at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. General agreement emerged that the textbook story "is a little bit of 'the emperor has no clothes,' " as Lars Bildsten, an astrophysicist at the Kavli Institute, put it.

"There's a lot of holes in the story." "I wouldn't say it's a crisis," [Kirschner] said. "But if you ask, 'Are the pieces falling into place?' I'd say the answer is no." Understanding type Ia supernovae has become an urgent issue in cosmology, as they provide the most compelling evidence that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

You claim ...

The electric star model doesn't explain red giants. Red giants should be compact bright bluer objects not huge, relatively dim, redder objects. The density of a red giant is all wrong for an electric star, but quite consistent for a conventional model star that has started to fuse helium and heavier elements in the interior.

Well, again no offense, but now you're just demonstrating that you clearly don't understand what the Electric Star Hypothesis says. You appear to not realize -- and pay close attention here -- that the entire HR stellar diagram can be explained in terms of the operating modes of plasmas as observed within the laboratory. We can do away with ALL of the nonsense about stars aging. In fact, we should, because we've already seen stars become younger, get older and become younger once again. The stellar aging hypothesis has effectively become an untestable hypothesis, because when enigmas are noticed they are swept aside by claims that the star has gained fresh fuel.

Red dwarfs are indeed explained in rather great detail in the Electric Universe. And in fact, if you decide to read on, you'll come to find out that planets can actually orbit within the low-temperature, diffuse glowing plasma atmosphere of the red dwarfs. Since these atmospheres contain abundant amounts of water, it is our theory that planets which would orbit inside of those atmospheres would in fact have no seasons. They would receive equal light across their entire surfaces regardless of their orbits. The ramifications for the search for life should be abundantly clear.

But if you refuse to read what these guys are saying, and just dismiss everything in a knee-jerk fashion, then you'll never get to learn about any of that.

You should pick up a copy of Don Scott's "The Electric Sky".

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:not a debate (168 comments)

Zerkshop, be careful with your open mind. It will get you into trouble in the physics discipline. As you get older, you will come to see that cosmology is unfortunately no place for people with open minds like yourself. The best tactic is to learn your studies as hard as you can, but keep your opinions of "fringe" scientific readings to yourself. I wouldn't even let your professors know that you're reading this stuff. It could very well affect your upward mobility within your field.

(As for psy trance, I would propose that psytrance has largely been killed off by dubstep. A lot of people who used to listen to psytrance have discovered that dubstep is a far more melodic and danceable drum&bass. I highly recommend it!)

What you've noticed with wikipedia is like watching the Hatfield-McCoy family feud through a pinhole in a fence. The theory of the Electric Universe has been barred from wikipedia by the likes of Leroy Ellenberger, scienceapologist and various other BAUT/talk.origins "authorities". These authorities are actually defenders of conventional wisdom. They do not believe in building new cosmological models because they try to tear them all down before any are ever built. Everybody seems to take their cue from the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today website, run by Phil Plait, where people who create new astrophysical paradigms are set before a panel of like 6 or 8 astrophysicists and burned at the stake on every single minute detail imaginable. What that effectively does is spur people to try to develop mathematics-based models. What we need to be doing, however, is questioning our mathematical models. We need to be taking a closer look at our physical fundamentals within the discipline of physics. The EU Theorists are doing this. We need to be asking tough questions about things like galactic rotation, observations of the photosphere, filamentary structures in space, stellar observations that are enigmatic to the Standard Model, etc.

The fact that people cannot go to wikipedia to understand what the theory says makes it pretty damn difficult for people to learn what the theory says and whether or not its wrong. We've been struggling for years now just to be allowed to explain to people what the theory says on wiki. Online vigilantes have worked tirelessly to prevent it, even though they frequently have to violate their own precious wikipedia rules in order to do so. We can in fact point to published literature, some of it by Nobel Physics laureates like Hannes Alfven, and some of it peer-reviewed to support our interpretations for astrophysical imagery. The Electric Universe debunkers spend much of their time trying to use high school electrostatics to disprove that the math can be made to work when modeling the Sun as a glow discharge. But, so long as the prominent features of the two match up, isn't it obvious that the math can be made to work? And why do they think that people are taught plasma physics in high school? Electrostatics can be used to disprove the behavior of a plasma glow discharge in the laboratory. Can we really count on it to help us in cosmology, or in the study of astrophysical plasmas -- which constitute 99.999% of all visible matter in space?

Unfortunately, and not by choice, the only places to understand EU Theory are at http://www.thunderbolts.info, http://www.holoscience.com and in their books "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott, and "The Electric Universe" by Wal Thornhill. I would in particular point to the writings of Wal Thornhill, who is largely self-taught on the subjects of astrophysics and plasma physics. Wal has proven himself to be very well read on the subject of glow discharges -- better than most professional astrophysicists -- and this has been the key in formulating a new plasma-based cosmology. The more you read of Wal Thornhill, the more you will likely come to respect him as I have. He's been playing the role of scientific heretic for a very long time now. He knows ALL of the criticisms dished at him by now, and he's already dealt with ALL of them. His model can in fact be made to work. Ideologues just don't WANT to believe it.

We have to make a distinction in astrophysics these days between the various types of models. In astrophysics, since gravity has been proposed to be the universe's dominant force, experimentation is quite limited and most astrophysicists are actually trying to convince their peers of the validity of their ideas. In the absence of experimentation (Aristotle's favored "empirical" approach), astrophysicists are oftentimes left to deduction (Plato's approach). So long as gravity is proposed as the dominant force, most of the theories will remain highly mathematical and highly deductive.

The plasma universe paradigm proposes instead that electromagnetism is fundamental, and that the way to understand the universe is to study the behavior of its primary constituent, plasma, within the laboratory. The Electric Universe is therefore an inherently testable paradigm because it proposes that plasmas scale over 16 orders of magnitude. We can actually create little earths, little comets, little suns, little galaxies and so on within vacuum chambers that will almost perfectly mimic the behavior of those we see in the sky. In fact, Kristian Birkeland already did quite a bit of this 100 years ago with his terrella ("little earth"). To give you a feel for how well it was received, Hannes Alfven would notoriously later attempt to reproduce Birkeland's terrella for Sydney Chapman. Sydney Chapman was convinced that the magnetosphere was a self-contained system, whereas Birkeland was trying to convince Britain's Royal Society that the aurora were in fact the result of the Sun sending "pencil-like" cathode rays of charged particles at the Earth (Birkeland's theory was finally completely validated recently with the THEMIS observation of Birkeland Currents). Well, when Alfven tried to show this terrella to Chapman, Chapman actually refused to look at the experiment. We have a very similar thing going on in astrophysics to this very day: a small group of plasmas physicists, some of them being highly credentialed, are trying to teach the astrophysicists about plasmas -- and the astrophysicists are acting all huffy and puffy like nobody has any authority to teach them anything. Lost in their whole attitude is the fact that they spend all of their time trying to convince their peers of their ideas. They're not performing laboratory experimentation, and they need to be listening to those who are. It's far too easy to convince yourself of whatever you want about plasmas by just assuming a simplistic magnetohydrodynamics model for plasmas.

The more you read about the Electric Universe, the more you will come to see all of the opportunities that were missed by astrophysicists to identify the role of electricity in space. You might be surprised to learn that the first magnetic fields were not observed in space until 1986! Up until that point, astrophysicists adamantly claimed that there was no evidence of electric or magnetic fields in space. Since the discovery, they've switched to denying the importance of the study of the behavior of laboratory plasmas for their magnetohydrodynamics models. It's actually impossible to talk about electricity in space as the cause for all of the magnetic fields in space in astrophysical research papers -- even though the link is acknowledged in every other discipline. The paper will be rejected. IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Physics has become one of the few safe havens where plasma cosmology papers can be published. But -- big surprise! -- astrophysicists tend not to read that journal.

People on Slashdot oftentimes take comfort in the idea that the EU is some sock puppet of a paradigm. But, one independent researcher who is taking the EU seriously enough to dedicate his free time to performing research on it, is Anthony Peratt, who is a former adviser to the Department of Energy and a plasma physicist who works on the z-machine, perhaps the world's most sophisticated plasma laboratory. Peratt has found that stickman drawings that appear on rocks all over the world correspond precisely to plasma morphologies that he's seen within the laboratory. These weren't mindless drawings. They appear to be notes left behind by eyewitnesses to intense auroral activity once observed in the sky. Peratt has been using a supercomputer to try to identify the 3-dimensional structure of the aurora, based upon the hundreds or thousands of stickman drawings he's cataloged across the planet. He's having GREAT success, and can now claim with some amount of confidence that at least one discharge occurred over the South Pole. This amazing research is actively being obstructed by Leroy Ellenberger, one of wikipedia's contributors and one of the people who refuse to admit the Electric Universe onto wikipedia. Leroy has actually been writing letters to those people who watch over Peratt's supercomputers, in an attempt to put an end to Peratt's simulations. He'd prefer that we not know the answers!

If you only knew of the things happening behind the scenes in the world of astrophysics, you'd probably get a bit angry. You might even feel that you'd been lied to.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:pln2bz is a strong proponent of EU theory (168 comments)

"the scientists"? Are they programmable lemmings? Or are people permitted to formulate their own opinions on these sorts of things?

You know, when a new paradigm comes in, it will only be interesting to people if it simplifies our current understanding of our relationship with the universe. When you defer to authority, you ignore this simple fact. What we have here is a situation where the plasma glow discharge behaves strikingly like a miniature Sun. If you look at some of the most perplexing problems of the Sun's behavior, you see that these things are naturally explained by the plasma glow discharge. We really need to pursue this research vigorously to examine if a new paradigm can be quantified. I'm quite certain that it can be based upon what I've read. The only thing stopping it, in fact, are all of the people who simply like the dominant paradigm so much that they don't see the point in creating more models.

That's not science. That's personal preference. We won't know which model is the best until they both exist. That means that we have to create the competing models before we can evaluate them. And that means that we have to spur interest in quantitating them.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:pln2bz is a strong proponent of EU theory (168 comments)

Okay, your posting is full of errors here. If you care to see why, please read on. Otherwise, I would advise not posting on the subject until you learn more about glow discharges ...

The Sun being externally powered would be easily observable from Earth. In fact, we would see similar inflow of energy into our atmosphere, dramatically heating up the surface of the Earth and by our space probes. We would observe the plasma flowing in onto the Sun. The fact is we don't observe these effects. Hence, we can discard that prediction of the theory, assuming someone ever gets bold enough to make it.

To your own credit, you have actually read more than most. The problem is that you're listening to the likes of Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger, who collectively know absolutely nothing about plasma physics.

A typical quote from Leroy Ellenberger goes something like this:

"The REAL point is that I do not have to pick one issue when the entire EU model is based on Juergens' uncorrected misunderstandings of science and physics, and the model is falsified by many observations, including the presence of convection in the photosphere and absence of x-rays in coronal holes."

Let's dissect in detail why this is wrong. First of all, Wal Thornhill's and Don Scott's "Electric Sun" hypothesis was originally inspired by Ralph Juergens, but later amended by Wal (as evident in the chapter on the Sun in the book, The Electric Universe). Don Scott added further scientific perspective, in his book, The Electric Sky.
Leroy's all too typical statement above, about "Juergens' uncorrected misunderstandings of science and physics," fails to touch the real issue at all. The question is: in what way did Wal amend Juergens' model?

Much of what follows is based on a page on Wal's Holoscience website:


In a paper published in 1982, Juergens wrote:

"Transmission lines carrying high-voltage direct current - electric trolley wires, for example - discharge almost continuously to the surrounding air. In the case of a positive (anode) wire electrons ever present in the Earth's atmosphere drift toward the wire, attracted by its positive charge. As they penetrate the increasingly intense electric field close to the wire, the electrons gain energy from the field and are accelerated to energies great enough to initiate electron avalanches as they collide with and ionize air molecules. The avalanching electrons, in turn, intensify the ionization immediately surrounding the wire. Positive ions, formed in the process, drift away from the wire in the electric field. In this way, a more or less steady discharge is maintained, although there is no tangible object other than the surrounding air that can be considered a cathode."

Electric Discharge As The Source Of Solar Radiant Energy, KRONOS Vol 8 No. 1, Fall 1982.

In the second instalment (KRONOS Vol 8 No. 2.), Juergens amplified his supposition about the region of the anode function in an electric sun:

"the postulated discharge â" though focused on a central solar anode - would appear to embrace a vast region of space, most of it devoted to cathode mechanisms. The solar corona, and its extension through interplanetary space and beyond, finds an analog in the "negative glow" region of a glow discharge. The chromosphere we shall interpret as the inner limit of this negative glow. Only the photosphere, at the inner limit of the vast discharge cavity, will be assigned an anode function in this model."

After giving these citations, Wal presents an illustration of his revision, based on the classical study of glow discharge published in J.D Cobine's book Gaseous Conductors.

Wal's own caption to the illustration reads:

Diagram showing the important features of a glow discharge. Note that in a spherically symmetrical corona discharge the cathode glows are absent because the energy is spread through a huge volume. On the other hand the anode, because of its small size relative to the entire heliosphere, is likely to be stressed and exhibit complex discharge phenomena to relieve that stress. The Sun exhibits the features of a stressed anode. Top diagram from J. D. Cobine, Gaseous Conductors, p. 213.

And here is Wal's punchline:

The 'negative glow' region can be seen to have a strong electric field. People objected to Juergens'' model because we don''t find relativistic electrons, accelerated by a strong radial field in interplanetary space, rushing toward the Sun. But plasma phenomena in a glow discharge are complex, so appeals to simplistic models based on electrostatics are irrelevant. Instead, I propose that Juergens' model BE MODIFIED [emphasis mine] and that interplanetary space is the extensive 'positive column' region of a glow discharge. Cobine writes, "The positive column is a region of almost equal concentrations of positive ions and electrons and is characterized by a very low voltage gradient."

In Wal's model, then, the planets orbit within the positive column of the Sun's discharge, which reaches to the Sun's outer boundary or plasmasphere, the double layer of the "heliosphere." The heliosphere is the virtual cathode. The vast plasma domain within the heliosphere will be quasi-neutral, which is the nature of the positive column of a glow discharge. It will have a "VERY LOW VOLTAGE GRADIENT" (Cobine's words). The plasma medium provided by the solar wind is not "neutralizing" the Sun through an electrostatic discharge, it is a conducting medium allowing for the completion of solar system circuitry.

Unlike electrostatic discharge, the glow discharge thus maintains a weak but constant radial electric field--i.e., it is not diminishing with distance squared (electrostatic behavior). Electrons drift toward the Sun under the influence of this radial field, which is also responsible for the acceleration of protons away from the Sun, with the most energetic events occurring extremely close to the Sun.

Since Leroy is still imagining the Juergens model, he understands none of this. If he did, he wouldn't be endlessly repeating his mantra about the "absence of x-rays in coronal holes," which one might look for if the Sun were subjected to a blizzard of electrons accelerated to relativistic velocities by a STRONG electric field within the heliosphere. As Wal puts it:

"So looking for excess relativistic electrons rushing toward the Sun is no more sensible than looking at a current-carrying wire and asking where are all the excess electrons rushing from one end of the wire to the other."

On the applicability of the glow discharge, you can find the details you need in Cobine, beginning on pages 214 and 215, with the diagram on page 213.

"..if the electrodes are placed in a very large vessel instead of in a tube the positive column disappears and the current is carried
throughout the entire volume by a relatively low density of ionization." This is precisely the situation in interplanetary space where we have the thin plasma of the solar wind.

"The positive column is a region of almost equal concentrations of positive ions and electrons and is characterized by a very low voltage gradient."

On page 233:

"..the conductance of the [positive] column is maintained by relatively slow electrons." This is what is meant by a
"drift" current in interplanetary space. The drift is superimposed on the electrons' much higher thermal (random) velocities. "The
[positive] column is a typical plasma having equal concentrations of positive ions and of electrons, each with its own maxwellian velocity
distribution and characteristic temperature.. The temperature of the positive ions is higher than the gas temperature, and the electron temperature is very high."

Page 248:

"The boundary of this anode glow is a double-layer sheath.." The double layer is where electrons are suddenly accelerated toward the Sun and protons accelerated away from the Sun in the form of the solar wind. EXTREMELY INTERESTING: "A certain amount of heat is given to the anode by the discharge.. most of this heat comes from the electrons that bombard the surface of the anode."

In Cobine, you'll also find pages of mathematical analysis and experimental results accompanying the few snippets noted here.

Analogies are always limited in their applicability, but in envisioning a drift current I've used the analogy of a house with a 650 cfm fan at one end of it in a room window. If all of the other windows are closed in the house except for one on the opposite side, do you think that you'll necessarily feel the flow of air rushing past you in the middle of the house? Or, more likely, will local turbulent flows make that difficult? It's the same situation with drift currents.

In space, at earth's distance from the Sun, perhaps the net electron drift comes to INCHES per hour. That's a long way from relativistic velocities.

In space, one would have to stretch a mighty long wire to measure a voltage differential. But of course, across the immense volume of space within the heliosphere, an immeasurably weak potential across short distances would translate into immense potential within the Sun's plasma domain, a potential sufficient to power the Sun. The volume of the heliosphere is unimaginably huge. Tom Van Flandern points out that you could fit all the 200 billion stars in the galaxy inside Pluto's orbit. The heliosphere is more than 8 times larger. That's a lot of room for storing electric potential! The fact that the potential may not be obvious cannot obscure the fact that all of the defining attributes of the Sun DO present the predictable features of a glow discharge.

The best means of identifying electric field strength is surely to observe the acceleration of charged particles, most of which occurs extremely close to the Sun, as the electric model would predict. The best measure of electric currents, in turn, will be the magnetic fields that necessarily result.

Understanding a drift current and glow discharge requires one to abandon electrostatic discharge concepts once and for all--an inescapable fact that eliminates virtually all of the "refutations" of the Electric Sun hypothesis ever cited by Leroy.

And lastly, let me repeat the admonition to mathematicians tempted to shoot first (with irrelevant electrostatic analyses) and ask questions later. By definition, these analyses overlook the proven behavior of electrified plasma, the obvious underlying condition assumed by the Electric Sun hypothesis.

Equations used to predict plasma behavior must successfully predict: plasma filamentation, Birkeland Currents and associated magnetic fields, cellular structures (Langmuir sheaths) around charged bodies in plasma, relatively strong electric fields across the boundaries or "double layers" of the sheaths, weak or quasi neutral fields between an outer sheath and a sheath close to the surface of the charged object, a very strong electric field across the latter sheath, and the inherently "chaotic" nature of plasma instabilities--all documented in plasma laboratory experiments and more recently in 3-dimensional supercomputer simulations. When plasma cosmologists and Electric Universe theorists tear their hair over gross calculations of electrostatic forces, they are simply responding in frustration to a misunderstanding all too common amongst astrophysicists and astronomers.

In an electrostatic analysis, the charged object would simply be neutralized. That's because the analysis will ignore the contribution of electric circuits. It will not take into account the currents snaking along the galactic arms (as Alfvén himself observed), or the plasma z-pinch associated with the currents from which, in the electric model, the stars themselves are born. Nor will it take into account the so-called "open" magnetic field lines converging on the Sun. In the electric model these are not "OPEN" [an impossibility] but simply the pathways of the field-aligned galactic currents that the model REQUIRES.

You go on ...

Also the "electric sun" model doesn't explain the extraordinary amount of energy coming from the Sun

The glow discharge model explains all of the most important features of the Sun. This is very important when building a model.

, the mass of the Sun

Actually, mass is better defined within the Electric Universe than in the standard paradigm. You guys haven't even locked onto a useful meaning for the word "mass" yet.

, presence of fusion products in the Sun's photosphere

Fusion occurs where it is noticed to occur -- at the top of the photosphere. We see the neutrino flux correlate with sunspot activity. This doesn't make any sense with regards to the Standard Model, which posits a 150,000 year gap between the generation of neutrinos and activities we observe on the Sun's surface.

(nor any elements heavier than helium in the Solar System)

Fusion is postulated to occur just the same in the Electric Sun hypothesis. It just doesn't occur in the Sun's interior.

, and doesn't explain the neutrino influx.

Counting neutrinos has traditionally been a nasty problem for the Standard Model. It's not something that you guys should brag about.

It doesn't explain why Jupiter doesn't look like the Sun.

Jupiter is not the anode in the heliosphere's glow discharge.

We get the usual dog and pony show about plasmas, Birkeland currents, etc. It's junk. Obviously there are some complex EM phenomena going on, but that isn't the power source for the Sun.

If you say so!

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:Calling Electric Universe in 3 ... 2 ... 1... (168 comments)

Yes, you are right. The Electric Universe paradigm extends plasma cosmology. On the core fundamentals, however, they are both in agreement.

more than 5 years ago

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

pln2bz Re:not a debate (168 comments)

Cosmology is the search for answers in the universe. We aren't going to find those answers without ever questioning our magnetohydrodynamics models. That's what's happening here. *YOUR* paradigm was evolved before it was even discovered that space was filled with charged particles. That you guys didn't imagine that this should have any serious impact upon the paradigm was a major mistake. As you know, the plasma state of matter is very different from gas.

Quasi-neutrality is oftentimes misunderstood by people like yourself to mean that electricity in space doesn't do anything. But, quasi-neutrality is the state of the positive column between the anode and cathode of a plasma glow discharge. Despite the quasi-neutrality of the column, positive charged particles are accelerated away from the anode and electrons drift in towards the anode. The Electric Universe merely proposes the same behavior for the Sun.

The glow discharge model can accommodate some of the Sun's most perplexing characteristics -- features that the thermonuclear model for the Sun never predicted, and struggles to explain to this day. For instance, the Standard Model fails to naturally explain the inverse temperature of the corona. How is the Sun's atmosphere heated to 100x the surface temperature without raising the surface temperature? To explain this, magnetic reconnection has been proposed as one possible mechanism. But, this is pretty much standard practice in astrophysics for dismissing an enigma: when in doubt, blame either magnetic fields, black holes or dark matter. In this particular case, they look to the activity of magnetic field lines -- as if magnetic fields can store and release energy. This confers a metaphysical status to magnetic fields that I don't necessarily disagree with, but which is very reminiscent of an aether. In other disciplines of science, magnetic fields are acknowledged to be the side-effect of an electric current. Astrophysicists have also taken the unusual stance that field lines can actually "connect". To plasma physicists and electrical engineers, these notions about magnetic fields are rather silly. And if explained exactly what is being claimed, they will unanimously agree that the astrophysicists are really forging their own deductive pathway.

The Standard Model has also had a very hard time explaining the fact that the solar wind fails to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the orbits of the planets. It's as if little rocket ships are propelling them forward against the force of gravity -- as if, (gasp!) gravity is not controlling the charged particles. Well, it wouldn't be the first time! For God's sake.

What exotic mechanism will be postulated for this acceleration, which mostly happens near the Sun, but in fact slightly continues throughout the entire heliosphere? Needless to say, we see the exact same behavior in the laboratory with glow discharges. There exists a weak electric field within the positive column of the glow discharge that accounts for this continued acceleration.

Look at the supposed convection cells on the Sun's photosphere ...


Explain to me this: Why are the cells denser and hotter at the edges than in the middle? Is there any other convection that you can point to that has ever been observed by man to be like that? Those cells are better described as tornadic because they are densest at their edges (not the centers). Their rotation is most likely electrodynamic in nature.

People like yourself claim with so much certainty that our magnetohydrodynamic models for space plasmas are accurately modeling the plasmas as magnetized fluids. And they do this in spite of the direct observation of Birkeland Currents connecting the Sun to the Earth by THEMIS!


Braided ropelike structures of plasmas can ONLY be modeled as electrodynamic behavior. They have NOTHING to do with fluids. You guys are not paying attention to modern observations of space plasmas. You should be listening to the critics, but so long as you ignore and dismiss them, you fail to see that they are making very good points.

Advocates for conventional theories on Slashdot tend to be far more gung-ho about their dominant paradigm than the actual people who do the research. Many of the actual researchers will freely admit the problems with their discipline. For instance, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm ...

"The origin of magnetic fields in galaxies is still a mystery to astronomers. Popular theories suggest continual strengthening over billions of years. The latest results from Simon Lilly's group, however, contradict this assumption and reveal that young galaxies also have strong magnetic fields.

"There is an astronomer joke that goes 'to understand the universe, we examine galaxies for radiation, gases, temperatures, chemical constitution and much more. Anything we can't explain after that we attribute to the magnetic fields'", explains Simon Lilly, Professor at the Institute of Astronomy at ETH Zurich. The creations of the magnetic fields in galaxies remain a badly researched mystery."

To an engineer, it doesn't make any sense that astrophysicists would be so against the idea of electric currents in space while simultaneously admitting that magnetic fields are a great, unresolved mystery. In every other discipline, the two are inextricably bound. How in the world would we see electric currents in space? We'd look for the magnetic fields they would presumably generate.

This sort of thing happens across the board in the discipline of astrophysics. You have advocates for the Standard Model on the Slashdot forums sending out condescending remarks to advocates for alternative paradigms, and yet the scientists themselves who are creating the theories will freely admit that the current models really should only be thought of as best guesses. For instance, on the subject of supernova ...

"We put the theory in the textbooks because it sounds right. But we don't really know it's right, and I think people are beginning to worry," says Robert Kirshner, a supernova researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "We keep saying the same thing, but the evidence for it doesn't get better, and that's a bad sign." Kirshner was among more than 100 experts on stars and their explosions who gathered to discuss their worries last month at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. General agreement emerged that the textbook story "is a little bit of 'the emperor has no clothes,' " as Lars Bildsten, an astrophysicist at the Kavli Institute, put it.

"There's a lot of holes in the story." "I wouldn't say it's a crisis," [Kirschner] said. "But if you ask, 'Are the pieces falling into place?' I'd say the answer is no." Understanding type Ia supernovae has become an urgent issue in cosmology, as they provide the most compelling evidence that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

(lifted from Wal Thornhill's site, http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7hjpuqz9)

When it comes to the constancy of G, we see something similar. People everywhere talk as though the gravitational constant is a constant. But not even astrophysicists treat it that way ...

From http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2814 ...

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.

Exotic physics

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.

When all is said and done, you guys are still going to have to eventually figure out what is going on with magnetic fields, black holes and dark matter. To keep blaming unexpected observations on those things does not actually move us forward in the long term.

This idealistic view of science, where textbooks are always right.

What really concerns me about you Slashdot vigilantes is that you are inspiring people to not think. You are actually causing people to turn their brains off and treat science as though it is devoid of controversy. Well, I say keep the controversy in science. You want to program the masses so that everybody agrees with another, even when your own paradigm can't account for massive portions of the universe? What's the point? I thought we were on a search for truth, and what I got here on Slashdot was somebody's idealogy shoved down my throat.

Slashdot should collectively shun people like yourself. You mean well, but you actually cause great harm. Hopefully, you'll live long enough to realize it one day. But unfortunately, you'll never get to take it back.

more than 5 years ago



Observation of Electric Fields in Space Revives an

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 2 years ago

pln2bz (449850) writes "Hannes Alfven used his 1970 Nobel Physics acceptance speech as an opportunity to suggest that our models for cosmic plasmas — the very reason for his award — were being misapplied by astrophysicists. In particular, he was adamant that cosmic plasmas can exhibit electric fields. Recent observations from the ESA's CLUSTER spacecraft suggest Alfven was right: "Strong electric fields turned up in unexpected regions of space. And as the spacecraft rotated, measurements of the electric field didn't fluctuate in the smoothly changing manner that Andre expected." Is it time to have a more thoughtful discussion about our cosmic plasma models? What would maintain the cosmic E-fields?"
Link to Original Source

Electron Behavior Suggests Possible Structure

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 4 years ago

pln2bz (449850) writes "Scientists are spinning the recent observation of electrons' inherent rotational properties in the absence of a magnetic field as a breakthrough towards the eventual creation of a quantum computer. That may be the case, but it's worth noting also the works of Wal Thornhill and Ralph Sansbury, who have suggested a theory that can explain gravity, magnetism and light on the basis of an internal structure for electrons, called subtrons. Their theory appears to predict these latest observations: "Simply stated, all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle. These smaller electric charges he calls 'subtrons.' ... In this model, the electron cannot be treated like a fundamental, point-like particle. It must have structure to have angular momentum and a preferred magnetic orientation, known vaguely as 'spin.' There must be orbital motion of subtrons within the electron to generate a magnetic dipole. The transfer of energy between the subtrons in their orbits within the classical electron radius must be resonant and near instantaneous for the electron to be a stable particle. The same argument applies to the proton, the neutron, and, as we shall see — the neutrino." If Thornhill and Sansbury are right, then the speed of subtrons would be on the order of 2.5 million light-years per second — so fast, in fact, that they could travel to the other side of Andromeda within just one second. Not only might this elegantly explain why many quantum effects appear to us as instantaneous, but their combined works also clarify some prior anti-gravity claims."
Link to Original Source

Impact-powered Rapid Continental Drift Theory

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 5 years ago

pln2bz writes "Although it's always a bad idea to intentionally mix religion and science, scientific claims should nevertheless always be evaluated on the basis of their merits. In many cases, religion actually has little to do with the science in the first place, and can be easily removed. Compared to plate tectonics, the theory of Shock Dynamics is born out of modern-day observations that the upper 100 kilometers of rock really looks like a fluid in GPS maps of surface motion. Shock Dynamics uses simple fluid dynamics to explain many enigmatic features that plate tectonics struggles with, including the locations of our planet's mountain ranges, the enigmatic Bowers Ridge, the chaotic Tonga-New Hebrides region and the existence of the world's cratons, from which much of the world's diamonds are thought to originate."
Link to Original Source

Spiraling Magnetic Coil Signal Shows up in the CMB

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 5 years ago

pln2bz writes "Astronomers looking for confirmation for emissions from early stellar formation in the CMB instead found a signal indicating large amounts of unaccounted for spiraling magnetic fields in space (NYTimes reg required), but without any accompanying infrared emissions. The discovery possibly dredges up the claims of plasma cosmologists like Eric Lerner, who claim that the intergalactic medium is a strong absorber of the CMB with the absorption occurring in a fog of narrow filaments. These filaments are the result of plasma's natural tendency, as observed within the plasma laboratory and in novelty plasma globes, to form braided, ropelike structures which are collimated by coiled magnetic fields."
Link to Original Source

Mathematician Claims Black Holes Don't Add Up

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 5 years ago

pln2bz writes "Mathematician Stephen J Crothers has dedicated the last five years of his life to understanding the mathematics of black hole theory. According to Crothers, the proof for black holes requires setting Einstein's energy-momentum tensor to zero. This mathematical assumption is problematic because the energy-momentum tensor describes matter causing Einstein's alleged "curvature of spacetime." Setting it to zero basically means removing all matter/mass from the associated spacetime. In essence, Ric=0 (the Ricci curvature tensor set to zero), from which the mathematical notion of black holes were derived, describes an empty universe. Needless to say, our universe is not empty."

Two Decay Rates Correlate with Earth-Sun Distance

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 5 years ago

pln2bz (449850) writes "A new paper reveals that measurements at the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany of the alpha-decay rate of Ra-226 (half-life ~ 1600 years) over the period of 1983-1998 and at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in the New York of the beta-decay rate of Si-32 (half-life ~ 650 years) over the period of 1981-1985 reveal correlated changes in the decay rates of Ra-226 and Si-32. Furthermore, both decay rates appear to follow changes in the Earth-Sun distance. The finding mirrors a similar prior conclusion by Simon Shnoll that the "distribution of fluctuations in the momentary rates of radioactivity measured in a sample ... are somehow controlled or at least strongly influenced by an astrophysical factor""

Scientists Propose Sputtering for Mercury's OH

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 5 years ago

pln2bz (449850) writes "The recent surprising observation of copious amounts of water-related ions in Mercury's thin atmosphere has led some scientists to speculate that it could result from a sputtering process when energetic particles from the solar wind impact Mercury's surface. The problem is that Wallace Thornhill's identical interpretation for cometary data has been ridiculed and ignored for many years now even though the process served as the basis for his accurate Deep Impact prediction of at least two separate flashes. If sputtering is good enough for Mercury, then why have scientists not also considered it to explain similar water-related ions for comets?"

Eric Lerner's Focus Fusion Device Gets Funded

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 5 years ago

pln2bz (449850) writes "Eric Lerner, author of The Big Bang Never Happened , has received $600k in funding, and a promise of phased payments of $10 million if scientific feasibility can be demonstrated to productize Lerner's focus fusion energy production device. Unlike the Tokamak, focus fusion does not require the plasma to be stable, does not produce significant amounts of dangerous radiation, directly injects electrons into the power grid without the need for turbines and would only cost around $300k to manufacture a generator. Lerner's inspiration for the technology is based upon an interpretation for astrophysical Herbig-Haro jets that agrees with the Electric Universe explanation."

Electric Universe website doubling BAUT Forum

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 6 years ago

pln2bz (449850) writes "Slashdot readers might be a bit surprised to learn that the www.thunderbolts.info Electric Universe site has recently experienced a dramatic surge in unique site visitors. As of December, the Thunderbolts site now pulls more than double the unique visitors to the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today (BAUT) Forum. But that's not all. BAUT shows a significantly higher percentage with no college education than Thunderbolts. And Thunderbolts beats BAUT in both college and graduate school. For Thunderbolts, the largest percentage of visitors have graduate work, and the percentage is almost 25% higher than is the case for BAUT. Considering the dramatic allegations being made by the Electric Universe point of view (which is not yet a real "theory"), one has to wonder if we are on the verge of witnessing a dramatic paradigm change within the sciences."

'98 Quietly Loses Title as Warmest Year Ever in US

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 6 years ago

pln2bz writes "NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies is in the process of adjusting its United States temperature data, which could impact the worldwide temperature data. Four of the top 10 warmest years in the US are now from the 1930's: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only three of the top 10 are from the last 10 years: 1998, 2006 and 1999. Somewhat alarmingly, there has so far not been any announcement of the change."

Victoria Crater's "Sand Dunes" will be Ful

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 6 years ago

pln2bz writes "If everything goes correctly for NASA in July, one of the Martian Rovers will descend into Victoria Crater and discover that the unusual features at the bottom are not sand dunes, as NASA believes, but are instead fulgarites — glassified sand resulting from a lightning strike. Although attempts will almost surely be made to explain this discovery as somehow validating the existence of water on Mars, the truth is that this finding will validate the Electric Universe model that says that many craters are the result of electric arcing between bodies in space. Although the credit for this prediction will go to Wallace Thornhill, who also accurately predicted nearly all of the results of the Deep Impact mission, few mainstream scientists will subsequently recognize his successful prediction and the Slashdot community will continue to ridicule EU Theory as if it never happened."

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 6 years ago

pln2bz (449850) writes "Detailed images of massive Martian Dust Storms demonstrate undeniable filaments that bear an uncanny resemblance to dust devils. Considering that previous images of dust devils demonstrated that some dust devils are so electrical that they contain lightning bolts at their centers and burn the ground as they move across it, this appears to support the notion that dust storms on Mars could have electrical causes."

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 6 years ago

pln2bz (449850) writes "This past weekend, Slashdot permitted an article that suggested that Electric Universe Theory might have some basis in reality, and a total meltdown on Slashdot's forum ensued. In the past, many Slashdot forum contributors have pointed to Tim Thompson's rebuttal to Don Scott's Electric Sun Hypothesis as a compelling argument against EU Theory. However, just this week, Don Scott has published his own response to Tim Thompson's rebuttal that everybody should take note of. Whether you like it or not, it doesn't appear that Electric Universe Theory is going away any time soon."

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  about 7 years ago

pln2bz (449850) writes "The Winston Cone device used to measure the cosmic microwave background, which is in turn used to support the Big Bang Theory, is not a conventional electromagnetic horn antenna. Bibhas De investigates the problems with this measuring device and demonstrates how easy it is to manipulate the data so that it produces a perfect black body spectrum."

pln2bz pln2bz writes  |  more than 7 years ago

pln2bz (449850) writes "Results from the Stardust mission to retrieve samples from Comet Wild 2 cast further doubt upon the assumption that comets are merely dirty snowballs that form in the outer regions of space. The samples include grains that can only have formed under high temperatures and a rare mineral seen only in some meteorites. Adding to the unexpected results of the Deep Impact mission in July of 2005, scientists are now "thinking about their original views"."


pln2bz has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account