You have a false dichotomy there. I agree that Newtonian physics doesn't have an explanation for filaments. No combination of gravity pulling in, and/or hydrostatic pressure pushing back out, nor the intricacies of fluid dynamics, will produce such filaments. So I agree with the criticisms of the mainstream model.BeAChooser wrote:The mainstream astrophysics community is unable to offer a convincing explanation for the helical winding of these filaments. If disagree, then go ahead, explain to us how that helical structure results from shock, winds and/or turbulence, as the mainstream theorists claim? I just don’t buy that explanation, Bob. It's just handwaving. I’ve not seen one model producing such helical winding in cases like this. So I don’t think you can offer a believable explanation ... whereas I can. I clearly see the interaction of two current carrying Birkeland filaments in that image. To me, that image alone is proof that the EU theorists are right and not the gnome-loving proponents of dark matter and gravity only cosmology.
But that doesn't "prove" that the filaments are electrodynamic, and there is another possibility that needs to be considered: electrostatics. I have demonstrated that filaments are an expected outcome in the conditions in which they are formed (i.e., gas cloud collisions). I have demonstrated the significance of them in star formation (i.e., there is a tensile force running through them that causes them to collapse, like a stretched rubber band). This and much more comes down to electrostatics, and I can show the math for it. And I can find as many problems in the electric current hypothesis as the EU community finds in the mainstream model. One of them is that they have failed to produce quantified models of their assertions. They locked down on a model over 10 years ago, and still haven't produced numeric descriptions. Sooner or later, that's going to draw the charge of hand-waving back on them.
So don't assume that just because the mainstream is wrong, "the" alternative has to be right -- there might be more than one alternative. EM actually yields a wide variety of possible configurations. When gravity, hydrostatics, and fluid dynamics are thrown into the mix, there are a LOT more possible configurations. They can't all be right.
