Astronomers Need Electric Theory Training

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Reading Stephen Smith's Picture of the Day today on the Thunderbolts website, I was struck by a point that he made:


Since plasma is a charged substance, with a small percentage of its particles being ionized, it does not tend to obey the laws of kinetic motion. Rather, plasma is more strongly influenced by electromagnetism than it is by any other force, including gravity.

A principle of physics underlying all aspects of Electric Universe theory is that plasma makes up 99.99% of the Universe. . . .

When unusual characteristics are observed, no matter what scale, the fact of plasma’s behavior should be given first priority in any attempt to resolve the question. . . .

Astronomers have no requirement for training in electric theory. Maxwell’s equations might as well be classical Greek poetry to most astronomers. They have far too much to do without getting involved in topics that are irrelevant to their work. Gravity is the foundation for the majority of scientific thought about the cosmos, so electrodynamic formulae are rarely consulted, if at all.

www.thunderbolts.info...


It seems obvious that electric theory should be incorporated as part of the science of astronomy. There is need for a change.



+2 more 
posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
Reading Stephen Smith's Picture of the Day today on the Thunderbolts website, I was struck by a point that he made:


Since plasma is a charged substance, with a small percentage of its particles being ionized, it does not tend to obey the laws of kinetic motion. Rather, plasma is more strongly influenced by electromagnetism than it is by any other force, including gravity.

A principle of physics underlying all aspects of Electric Universe theory is that plasma makes up 99.99% of the Universe. . . .

When unusual characteristics are observed, no matter what scale, the fact of plasma’s behavior should be given first priority in any attempt to resolve the question. . . .

Astronomers have no requirement for training in electric theory. Maxwell’s equations might as well be classical Greek poetry to most astronomers. They have far too much to do without getting involved in topics that are irrelevant to their work. Gravity is the foundation for the majority of scientific thought about the cosmos, so electrodynamic formulae are rarely consulted, if at all.

www.thunderbolts.info...


It seems obvious that electric theory should be incorporated as part of the science of astronomy. There is need for a change.


Funny, but I seem to remember using Maxwells equations to solve electrical network questions as part of my basic university physics (things like resistances, currents, voltages, inductances, capacitances, work & power factors; etc, everything up to field equations). We even did practical labs to prove out the mathematics.

Perhaps the nature of university education has changed since then but I doubt it.

I suspect that very few of those who propose electric universe theories have, themselves, done actual calculations to see if their theories produce numbers that support their 'mental-image-visualisation' based hypotheses.

Or perhaps what was being referred to was amateur Astronomy.

Some common astrophysical objects that are defined as plasma effects by astronomers:
The Sun and other stars (plasmas heated by nuclear fusion)
The solar wind
The interplanetary medium (space between planets)
The interstellar medium (space between star systems)
The Intergalactic medium (space between galaxies)
The Io-Jupiter flux tube
Accretion discs
Interstellar nebulae
Cometary ion tail

Perhaps the Thunderbolts website has a particular theoretical slant to what it proposes? Here's some text from the 'About' link on the site: "Its prime mission is to explore the Electric Universe paradigm."

What most Astronomers would call empty space or some electrically conductive matter, these theorists call a plasma, which explains why they feel justified in saying "plasma makes up 99.99% of the Universe".

By strict definition, they are right as there is no set lower bound on where a plasma stops and where a vacuum begins, or similarly, an upper bound where a plasma ends and a conductor begins (The free electrons in a metal may be considered an electron plasma).

edit on 2/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose



It seems obvious that electric theory should be incorporated as part of the science of astronomy. There is need for a change.


What parts of the current curriculum do you find are lacking though, specifically?



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Any scientific paper you would suggest universities to include?



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Have you contacted NASA to let them know of their shortcomings?



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Proponents of the Electric Universe theory point to the works of Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfvén - works from the past that have not been given due consideration. That is what the problem is: Ideas from the past need reconsideration and inclusion.

Modern day plasma physicists also need to be brought in to the conversation.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

I'll check these names out, thanks for the info mate!



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Hm, no small names.

Kristian Birkeland solved the mystery behind aurura boralis, he invented the coilgun (uses electromagnetism to propel a bullet), and was nominated seven times for Nobel Prize.

As for Hannes Alfvén, he described Earth's Van Allen Belts, worked on Magnetohydrodynamics, and received an actual Nobel Prize for the latter. He did complain about the review process imposed on his papers:


When I describe the [plasma phenomena] according to this formulism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals.



edit on 2-6-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Did either of them think that stars are powered by electricity rather than nuclear fusion?
edit on 6/3/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
It's funny to hear Birkeland cited in support of the idea since in 1916 he made a prediction about the solar wind which turned out to be true, and it poses a huge problem for the electric sun idea (from swanne's link)


In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that the solar wind behaves as do all charged particles in an electric field: "From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds". In other words, the Solar Wind consists of both negative electrons and positive ions.


If the sun had a positive voltage of billions of volts as electric sun proponents claim, wouldn't it attract electrons?

Who needs training in electricity? Seems to me like it's the people claiming that the sun has a positive voltage of billions of volts yet cite Birkeland in support of EU, who claimed, correctly, that electrons were leaving the sun, not entering it. This isn't even an advanced concept, it's high school physics. Here's the EU site:

electric-cosmos.org...

The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of several billion volts.
Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun.
That says electrons enter the sun, but that's not what Birkeland predicted about electrons leaving the sun, and Birkeland's prediction was subsequently proven.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




That says electrons enter the sun, but that's not what Birkeland predicted about electrons leaving the sun, and Birkeland's prediction was subsequently proven.

Yeah.
But...

um...



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Good question. Lemme check... Hm, not that I can read of. Neither of them seem to have speculated about stars' inner working.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

In astrophysics the problem how the stars generate their energy could not be solved until nuclear physics was developed so that the fusion processes were understood.

adsabs.harvard.edu...



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Hannes Alfvén says the sun is powered by fusion, and doesn't dispute it or claim the sun is powered by electricity. Electric sun proponents say electrons enter the sun, Birkeland says electrons exit the sun.


originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: swanne

Proponents of the Electric Universe theory point to the works of Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfvén - works from the past that have not been given due consideration.
I fail to see how either of these names support the idea of an electric sun, when in fact they contradict it.

However their stories do show that fringe ideas can become mainstream science when evidence supporting the fringe ideas is presented, at which case they are no longer fringe. However this doesn't mean all fringe ideas become mainstream science, and probably more than 95% do NOT, because evidence doesn't support them, which is still the case with electric sun and other EU ideas.
edit on 3-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Indeed.

Your point being??



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Phage

What would interest me (more than an electric sun, which has been disproved countless times) would be any data on the electric charge of black holes. I hear they carry electrical charges but Wikipedia doesn't specify if it's positive or negative, and the magnitude of the charge.

Any data on this phenomenon yet?

edit on 4-6-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: swanne

In astrophysics the problem how the stars generate their energy could not be solved until nuclear physics was developed so that the fusion processes were understood.

adsabs.harvard.edu...


Alfven said a lot of things over the course of a very long life.

He made the statement you quoted back in 1967.

Alfven may not have fully developed an all-electric solar model, but he obviously didn't think it was outside the realm of possibility.

By 1978, he was saying things like:


From Kirkhoff's law we conclude that this current flowing towards the Sun must be closed by currents leaving the Sun, which means that there must be high latitude outwards currents which, in case of symmetry, are 1.5x10^9 amps in each hemisphere. How close to the axis these currents flow is unknown, but it is likely that the 'polar plumes' in the solar corona mark their foot print.


In the paper, Alfven offers a simple model of the heliographic current system with the Sun acting as a unipolar motor. Alfven makes quite a few predictions about the existence of double layers powering the solar circuit, and that the circuit extends beyond the range observed by spacecraft of the day. He notes that the DLs may reside very high above and below the sun and that they should be detectable by observing accelerated particles.

By 1986, he was saying things like:


As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory.

A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources. Application to the heliographic current system leads to the prediction of two double layers on the Sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth.

Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object (one example is the double radio sources). It is tentatively suggested that x-ray and gamma ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers (although annihilation is an alternative energy source).

M. Azar has studied how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts like double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects and circuits. He has found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these, in spite of the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century [e.g., double layers (Langmuir, 1929) and pinch effect (Bennett, 1934)].

The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of the astrophysicists. The billion-dollar telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modem plasma theory. At least by volume the universe consists of more than 99 percent of plasma, and electromagnetic forces are 10^39 times stronger than gravitation.


Key point here:

Application to the heliographic current system leads to the prediction of two double layers on the Sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth.

The DLs should be responsible for accelerating so-called "cosmic ray" particles, which will result in cosmic ray anisotropy. Note the fifth image down:
inspirehep.net...

It's much easier to see the current pinch when looking at stars outside our Sun though. This image is one of the best because the plasma carrying currents are lit up in a glow mode discharge so you can see everything. The DLs are the knots which are visible mid way down the plasma sheath at each end. From this image, we can see that the DLs reside very high above and below the star. The magnetic fields in between will result in distortion of the cosmic ray origin points, but will not negate their anistropy.

Here's a few more examples where the DL component of the pinch is visible:
example 1
example 2
example 3

It is interesting to note that mainstream astrophysicists still have no clue why cosmic rays are coming from preferential directions.

It is also interesting to note that the hourglass shaped pinch effect is a common feature observed in space. Just google "hourglass nebula" to see a variety of examples of this.

Now take a look at this:


Further reading on this subject:
www.holoscience.com...

edit on 6/4/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
Ok. Thanks for Alfven's quotes.
Where does he say that solar energy is a result of electricity rather than nuclear fusion? When did he change his mind about that? It's sort of a big deal. Seems to be something he would have written about if he thought it was the case.
edit on 6/5/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

I haven't heard that black holes have a charge, I have no idea why they would.

But even if they did there would be no way to determine what it was. No information is available from beyond the event horizon. So I guess you can say whatever you want about it and be pretty safe from being shown to be wrong.

edit on 6/5/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Not all black holes would have charge but according to some, electric charge is not impossible. Additionally,


These properties are special because they are visible from outside a black hole. For example, a charged black hole repels other like charges just like any other charged object. Similarly, the total mass inside a sphere containing a black hole can be found by using the gravitational analog of Gauss's law, the ADM mass, far away from the black hole.


source: en.wikipedia.org...





top topics
 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join