Magnetism in Space

[Solar]

Where is Harry?

I'd be interested in his take on the plasma oriented electrostatic spacial confinement of fusion via the Farnsworth Fusor in relation to what is cosmologically observed when compared with ongoing non-demonstrable aspects of 'gravity only' fair and the quest to find/verify the mathematical entities of the "particle zoo" normally given credit for such activities. Generally, if any, what aspect(s) of plasma-electro dynamics do you find amenable to explaining some of these observations?

Very broad question yes; but just one or two general examples would be fine.

[junglelord]

All the information I gleamed from Magneto-Dieletric theory was presented with real circuits, real equipment, real test results....not just shop talk and fancy words. Also Magneto-Dieletric properties are ESSENTIAL to wireless cellular technology...its all real, all tested, and reproducable. I submit it is a normal process of the system we call space/time in a EU that must transmitt scalar waves.

He's not questioning this. Relative to the 'introductory' practical aspects of the EU as present via the individuals he cites those aspects of Meyl, Dollard and the like are when incorporated - a 'furtherance' of EU. You can't slap someone new to the EU upside the cranium saying that an impulse magnifying transmitter induces resonant frequencies by way of phase-space conjugation of wave properties producing a four wave mixer commonly referred to as a star and expect them to understand that this is the result of a correlation of the respective pioneers of such work. It would ricochet and you would've just lost someone.

It's fine for the discussion and mixing about amongst some but without proper 'grounding' it will induce a 'short circuit'. Is all. We've discussed the importance of this before.

He clearly understands that relationship whereas, and no offense, you seem to want to 'circumvent' the 'grounding' process and leap right to those things. There is a fine "line" in there that needs attending to in order to make the 'unification' palatable when appropriate. What value all knowledge without the Wisdom to know when and/or how to use it in other words. Thats all. Don't be so defensive about it lad.

My goodness, I was not defensive, its the way it comes across, thats typing.
I know that telling people new information is a process not a deluge.
Been there, done that, DOOH! Dumb mistake.

Course correction noted for public discussion outside our little insiders group....LOL.


I apoligize for trying to rewrite the EU, but sometimes I think the historical passages in the literature they have published showed be more inclusive of Tesla. I will leave it to them to decide if and when that will occur with any further publications or rewrites. The people who are not up to speed, both scientist and none scientist, can only see so far into the paradigm...not everyone has synesthesia events that rock your foundation into Gestalts, without breaking into pieces. This has been mentioned to me by a psychologist. A brilliant mind has its own ability to disassemble and reassemble, jitterbug if you will. Not all minds are functional capable of that level of tensegrity. Let us not forget that tensegrity is a natural property of a EU. Another systems process that is elemental to the system itself, implicit and explicit. Synergetics and the equililbirium matirx, more things that relate, which overload more circuits of those who are taking baby steps....LOL.

[Solar]

My goodness, I was not defensive, its the way it comes across, thats typing.
I know that telling people new information is a process not a deluge.
Been there, done that, DOOH! Dumb mistake.

You have my apology for the error.

Course correction noted for public discussion outside our little insiders group....LOL.

Funny that.

I apoligize for trying to rewrite the EU, but sometimes I think the historical passages in the literature they have published showed be more inclusive of Tesla. I will leave it to them to decide if and when that will occur with any further publications or rewrites.

Come to think of it; the number of Thunderblogs you could've written by now introducing, explaining, correlating some EU+Tesla oriented basics as opposed to 'leaving it up to them' might have proven useful.

You know as well as I that it takes time to cover all of these things. That is the reason that there has been a longstanding open invitation for anyone here to make such contributions. As a result I'd suggest NOT 'leaving up to them' something that you could do yourself. Make no mistake there are standards to be met i.e. consistency, presentation, integration, organization etc and objectivity is an absolute must.

Have you ever considered putting something together and contributing in that manner to solve this?

[Jarvamundo]

No offence taken JL and cheers Solar. Very much enjoy both of your posts... just saw the need to circumvent the confusion brewing.

G'day Jarvamundo

What do you know of Neutron Matter and the phases of nuclear matter?

Can you elaborate on what you are after here...? If you are talking about the hypothetical models to build a neutron star... these are not experimentally verified... and as i mentioned it's WAY WAY off the chart as far as the island of stability is concerned. (This is essentially a map of what types of matter mankind has actually used).

Lets be very clear.... if you are talking about hypothetical models to "hold" neutrons together using gravity cosmology... you are playing with mathematics... and not with anything (on this planet) that you can sit on a table and look at... note: yes you can put a single neutron on a table, maybe 2, maybe 3, but it aint gunna last long (see Island of Stability)... you are still a looooong way from a technique to hold a STAR of them together, using something as weak as gravity.

This is where EU and the plasma stuff that Don Scott, JL and solar are talking about differs. This is based on real verified science. The best way to see this reality is to look at a NASA satellite image of earth at night time... all that "stuff" is coming from the technology, developed from the science, that these guys use in their models.

If you can elaborate a little on what you are after, i can help? In terms of my equation Vs your equation style science... i'd prefer to focus on whats real. I.E. show me a black hole (mini, micro or massive) and i'll pay attention, meanwhile i'm hanging out with the philosophers of nature, of which EU and this place here is a haven for.

What thunderbolts.info is essentially doing is documenting in detail, the verification of the Model that specifically uses only experimentally verified components of science. Otherwise know as a NASA suprize-o-meter.

I hope sorta points out the difference in the papers, ideas you are mentioning and the function of this site.

I hope this clears up this confusion i'm seeing here.

[earls]

The root of the problems are due to the lack of a physical "mechanism" that produces gravity.

It's simply an unbounded variable that can be as small or as large as necessary to produce any desired result without any reference to a physical process. Mass just is, so gravity just is.

We know G from the difference between mass 1 and mass 2 for so for mass N to infinity X will be the result.

How cosmology thinks this unbounded, free-range, mathematical panacea can lead to an accurate description of reality is far beyond my scope of understanding. And I truly believe that's the way they want it.

The LHC was suppose to be the segway to the solution, but at its current pace, we're years from any results, let alone useful ones.

[Harry Costas]

G'day

Hello Solar, I'm moving home so I will be in and out phiscally and mentally.

I posted this logic in another topic.

The classical black hole is very theoretical.

The following logic is mainstream science as extensions to the standard model:

Ultra condensed matter, being densities greater than nuclear matter can create vector fields as trapping horizons preventing light from escaping, but because condensed matter has a spin property it allows for the formation of jets that eject matter out.
The term black hole is contextual. In this case the condensed matter mimics the properties of a black hole.

Try to follow the logic of these links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primakoff_effect
Primakoff effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Dark matter

QUOTE
At present, the most common view is that dark matter is primarily non-baryonic, made of one or more elementary particles other than the usual electrons, protons, neutrons, and known neutrinos. The most commonly proposed particles are axions, sterile neutrinos, and WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, including neutralinos). None of these are part of the standard model of particle physics, but they can arise in extensions to the standard model. Many supersymmetric models naturally give rise to stable dark matter candidates in the form of the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP). Heavy, sterile neutrinos exist in extensions to the standard model that explain the small neutrino mass through the seesaw mechanism.



and this leads to this paper

Dark matter axions
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0949
Authors: P. Sikivie
(Submitted on 4 Sep 2009)

QUOTE
Abstract: The hypothesis of an `invisible' axion was made by Misha Shifman and others, approximately thirty years ago. It has turned out to be an unusually fruitful idea, crossing boundaries between particle physics, astrophysics and cosmology. An axion with mass of order $10^{-5}$ eV (with large uncertainties) is one of the leading candidates for the dark matter of the universe. It was found recently that dark matter axions thermalize and form a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC). Because they form a BEC, axions differ from ordinary cold dark matter (CDM) in the non-linear regime of structure formation and upon entering the horizon. Axion BEC provides a mechanism for the production of net overall rotation in dark matter halos, and for the alignment of cosmic microwave anisotropy multipoles. Because there is evidence for these phenomena, unexplained with ordinary CDM, an argument can be made that the dark matter is axions.



followed by

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0686
Tunneling across dilaton-axion black holes

Authors: Tanwi Ghosh, Soumitra SenGupta
(Submitted on 3 Jun 2009)

QUOTE
Abstract: In this work we study both charged and uncharged particles tunneling across the horizon of spherically symmetric dilaton-axion black holes using Parikh-Wilczek tunneling formalism. Such black hole solutions have much significance in string theory based models. For different choices of the dilaton and axion couplings with the electromagnetic field, we show that the tunneling probability depends on the difference between initial and final entropies of the black hole. Our results, which agrees with similar results obtained for other classes of black holes, further confirm the usefulness of Parikh-Wilczek formalism to understand Hawking radiation. The emission spectrum is shown to agree with a purely thermal spectrum only in the leading order. The modification of the proportionality factor in the area-entropy relation in the Bekenstien-Hawking formula has been determined.

The topics of suppersymmetry and color-superconductor hold the key to electromagnetics and gravity and thus the unification.

As for the production and confinement of an ultra dense matter with several times the density of nucelar matter maybe beyond our ability at this moment.

[nick c]

Harry,
You keep persisting in posting these esoteric mathematical justifications for, such hypothetical entities such as black holes, dark matter, and dark energy. These are things that are not needed in the Electric Universe. The known behaviors of electric currents in plasmas can explain all of the observations that have caused mainstream theorists to venture into fantasy land. All of the papers and mathematical reasoning is for nought because it is based on a cosmology grounded in an a priori, gravity only assumption. Once that assumption is removed and replaced with a plasma based cosmology the need for all of those fantastic entities disappears. There is plenty of EU and plasma cosmology literature available or linked to on this forum, the holoscience site, tpods, thunderblogs, Don Scott's site, etc. etc.
There is no need to revise the definition of a black hole or hypothesize the existence of a heretofore undiscovered particle to explain dark matter, when there is a much more simpler explanation that eliminates the need for their existence all together.
Perhaps you should utilize the New Insights and Mad Ideas or Future of Science boards to start a thread showing how these concepts (or their definitions changed) could be modified to fit into the EU. Keep in mind that the "electric universe" forum is for:

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

It seems to me that instead of "exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes..." you are perpetuating them. Changing definitions and redefining terms does not save those theories. If looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.

Nick

[Solar]

Perhaps he's occupied. I did read the last two of those papers but will reserve posting comments on them and instead recommend something along the order of the well known Voyager detection of a 5 million ampere current between Jupiter and Io many years ago:

Jupiter's Magnetosphere

And an EU/Plasma oriented paper covering that:

The Jupiter-Io Connection: An Alfve´n Engine in Space John W. Belcher

Speaking of which a few thoughts from Alfven still poignantly relevant:

Before we concentrate on our main topic: how the solar system originated, we should make a brief summary of the state of plasma physics. As you know, plasma physics has started along two parallel lines. The first one was the hundred years old investigations in what was called electrical discharges in gases. This approach was to a high degree experimental and phenomenological, and only very slowly reached some degree of theoretical sophistication. Most theoretical physicists locked down on this field, which was complicated and awkward. The plasma exhibited striations and double-layers, the electron distribution was non-Maxwellian, there were all sorts of oscillations and instabilities. In short, it was a field which was not at all suited for mathematically
elegant theories.

The other approach came from the highly developed kinetic theory of ordinary gases. It was thought that with a limited amount of work this field could be extended to include also ionized gases. The theories were mathematically elegant and when drawing the consequences of them it was found that it should be possible to produce a very hot plasma and confine it magnetically. This was the starting point of thermonuclear research.

However, these theories had initially very little contact with experimental plasma physics, and all the awkward and complicated phenomena which had been treated in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected. The result of this was what has been called the thermonuclear crisis some 10 years ago. It taught us that plasma physics is a very difficult field, which can only be developed by a close cooperation between theory and experiments. As H.S.W. Massey once said (in a somewhat different context): « The human brain alone is not able to work out the details and understanding of the inner workings of natural processes. Without laboratory experiment there would be no physical science today. »

The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.

- 1970 HANNES ALFVÉN sec 3. Plasma physics and its applications pg 308 "Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system" Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970

[Jarvamundo]

The plasma exhibited striations and double-layers, the electron distribution was non-Maxwellian, there were all sorts of oscillations and instabilities. In short, it was a field which was not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories.

How would these oscillations and electron distributions be measured? where can i read up more on the "how" this is measured, and his specifics.

Is this described in Alfven's books? which one?

What i'm thinking is... If one was measuring faraday rotation of light through this described "non-Maxwellian" plasma on an interstellar scale, would one be lead to think this medium was extremely turbulent, even though currents flow quite well through it? (As the measurement of electron distribution and alignment is essentially the measurement of a magnetic field).

Anyone here read Alfven? steer me in the right direction?


PS: regarding your jupiter posts...wow... "An electric current of 5 million amperes was detected in the flux tube that flows between Jupiter and Io, five times stronger than predicted. Voyager did not fly through the flux tube, as planned, since the stronger current had twisted the tube 7,000 kilometers (4,300 miles) from the predicted location." ....

cmon nasa say Birkeland Current.... cmon... 1, 2, 3... B B B bir birr ahhhh GREAT TWISTING FLUX TUBES! what is that!... sorry couldn't do it.

[Harry Costas]

G'day Jarva

I did not say that Black holes exist, although we can expalin condensed matter that mimics black hole properties, but not the classical definition of a black hole with a singularity and an event horizon.

As for Dark matter and dark energy this is not along the logic of the BBT.

The sub-atomic particles in question live in the cores of Stars and ultra dense cores that some call Black Holes.

The EU has not resoved issues and properties of theses dense cores and their ability to create electromagnetic fields and filaments that interconnect them. So! I think this is a field that is critical in the explanation and the ongoing of the electric universe. To close a door on a topic of such importance is a big mistake.

D Scott notes are worth reading, although fall short in some aspects particularly with the formation of stars from condensation of clouds.

[nick c]

hi Harry,

D Scott notes are worth reading, although fall short in some aspects particularly with the formation of stars from condensation of clouds.

According to Scott, Thornhill, etc., stars are formed by one of two processes.
1. fissioning into two or more parts due to electrical stress, and thus increasing the surface area of the system and its' ability to handle the electric load
2. The Bennet or z pinch effect of electric currents in the molecular (plasma) clouds compressing the matter to form stars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)
http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/terms. ... age=detail

The EU theory has no need for the various stages of ultra dense matter that has been hypothesized to be at the center of stars or galaxies that give rise to the theories of internal fusion stellar reactors, neutron stars, and black holes. The force of electrostatic repulsion prevents the ultra compression of matter in the interior of stars. There are no such things as black holes or neutron stars, and there is probably not too much going on in the cores of stars. The prodigious output of x rays and other emissions observed in various celestial objects is best explained as the normal result of different scales of plasma discharges, and are not the signatures of objects containing ultra condensed matter. [To paraphrase Thornhill, why wouldn't nature produce x rays in the most efficient way, using electricity? instead of by compressing matter through the, many orders of magnitude, weaker gravitational force? Does your dentist have a black hole in his x ray machine?]
After the star is formed the z pinch continues, powering the star. Any fusion that is taking place on the star is at or near the surface, as the star is the focus of a galactic plasma discharge. If the stresses of this discharge are too great for the star to handle then it might go through a fissioning process and break up into two (or perhaps more) smaller stars, or Jupiter type bodies.

Maybe you will find this article interesting:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7hjpuqz9

Modern astronomy is in a crisis because it is operating under assumptions about the behaviors of plasmas that are wrong. The answers do not lie in the unreality of mathematical fantasies, but rather in laboratory experiments (and mathematical models that are derived from those experiments) and comparing the results to astronomical observations. This is possible because plasma and electrical phenomena are scalable to many orders of magnitude:

In 1970, Hannes Alfvén, the 'father of plasma physics,' warned that cosmology was headed into crisis. He was referring to the treatment of plasma—which makes up about 99.9% of the visible universe—as a magnetizable gas. Alfvén was responsible for the theory, known as 'magnetohydrodynamics' or MHD. But he publicly repudiated its use for space plasma in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

"The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come."
—H. Alfvén, Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970

Such plasma phenomena as birkeland currents, the z pinch, double layers, etc. occurring in the rarefied plasmas of space at a variety of scales can explain all astronomical objects without resorting to the various states of gravitationally induced ultra condensed matter.

Nick

[nick c]

Here is a link to Hannes Alfven's 1970 Nobel lecture:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/phys ... ecture.pdf

[Solar]

Nick C, you beat me to it by minutes I say LOL!!

Harry. In all fairness to the idea of an ultra dense super-fluidic phase of matter possibly constituting the "core" perturbations of which possibly resulting in the production of magnetic and electric fields is an interesting idea. This has been mentioned before a few times on the forum and stems from those pesky "magnetic field lines", when applied, inducing vortices in superfluids the way they induce vortices in super conductors and cosmic plasma despite their specific differences. Information such as:

Vortices in Rotating Superfluids

And the dangerously 'aetheric' "Quantum Vortex Theory of Matter"

... have been cited before for the purpose of the general understanding long ago.

It is though; a bit of a stretch to consider 'discerning' the difference between what can be produced in the lab as opposed to a mathematical hypothesis as constituting a 'failure' when it is simply discerning the difference until as such time as experimentation demonstrates otherwise. Objectively, the hypothetical suggestion of an 'axion BEC fluid' is just that; a hypothetical suggestion.

Jarva. There are useful links to some of Alfven’s papers at the bottom of his Wiki page under External Links.

Also available in limited form is “Cosmic Plasma” via Google Books.

The work of Anthony Peratt is also pertinent and relevant Published Papers available via his website.
Cornell University’s Arxiv.org provides a bevy of work with plasma, terrestrial and cosmic, via the search function therein. An important consideration when perusing such topics as “cosmic plasma” for example is the relationship of so called “shocks”, “shock fronts” et al as the activities of electric double layers as the plasma ‘self-organizes” under the influence of electric forces (E “fields”, “magnetic fields”, magnetic “lines of force”) etc.

Likewise, the work of Irving Langmuir and his development of the Langmuir Probe” (also here). A useful device as relates the seeming ‘forgotten plasma discharge’ science as seen there.

Interesting development as I hopped around on google. There appears to be a photo here of Langmuir along with Steinmetz (!), Einstein, and others (thats pretty ironic LOL!). I was actually looking for writings by Langmuir very similar in character to the above quote from Alfven which I’ve apparently lost.

“Perspectives on Plasma” is just plain bountiful as well!!

On the smaller scale you might enjoy the activities of the electric currents and vortices produced in material by those pesky “magnetic field lines” via the thread “SuperConductivity: Research & Findings & Thoughts”

[Jarvamundo]

Thanks Solar. It would be very handy for this site to have some book reviews on the extended material. Don Scott's electric sky and the EU book serve very well for an introduction... but yes remembering or studying the literature of Alfven etc is probably where i'll find the detail.

Thanks again...

re: Harry: Mate I totally appreciate the "un-learning / re-learning" process that is involved with beginning a study of EU, having had a background in classical astronomy and particle theory. I really suggest reading some books... it took me about 3-4 books before a consistent picture from all the authors leaped off the pages. Here is the order I read:

Tom Van Flandern - Dark Matter, Missing Planets and new comets
Eric Lerner - The big bang never happened (Tom mentioned this as an important up n coming book, in his book above)
Halton Arp - Seeing Red (i picked up from some points in Eric's book)
Donald Scott - Electric Sky (i picked up from looking at the papers presented at CCC2 by halton arp, and came across this community)

There is no particular order that needs to be read, or even that these books that are required, Donald Scott's book outines EU the most elegantly to me, and probably the best start... but hey thats a personal opinion.

My point is... i have a shelf of dark matter, black hole, theoretical particle physics... all the stuff you are talking about.... it took a number of books and a curious mind to gradually start to see that classical astronomy was ignoring some MAJOR components.... not just "little corrections needed"... and all mainstream could offer me was "credibility bashing" with no comments on the science (the continuously propped up dirty snowball model of comets is a shining example! of which the supporting theorists are gradually ageing out). For this EU process to quickly happen, to a well verse mind like yours, in a forum thread is wishful thinking, and doesn't respect ones own mind. Take your time, ask plenty of questions, read lots.

What i have found a good way to find the difference between what EU is talking about is to quickly plug ANY term into wikipedia. If you see the word "hypothetical" in the first paragraph, then you are in the realm of man's mathematical solutions and not nature.

Dark matter - "Is a hypothetical form of matter...."
Neutronium - "Is a hypothetical...." etc etc

Granted hypotheticals have their place... the concern Don Scott has is that modern papers are now propped up on a dangerous level of these hypothetical assumptions.

Enjoy the readings.
There is alot of great information on this site... but i have found when studying on the net, you jump around from paper to paper, theory to theory, and do not get a consistent presentation of an authors mind. A book gives me a week or 2 or 3 of consistent attention. The author usually plans their books and will be able to lead you through more a complex thought process than web browsing could ever hope to do. I believe it takes this process to enlighten a trained mind, which it sounds to me, you have, as I did. I also sense you are chopping n changing bits of one side of theory with others... trying to mix n match... EU requires a broad perspective understanding, before bashing heads on these specifics with the guys on this forum.

(don't throw out those particle/gravity books... they still play their part... you are but adding a good slab of perspective to them.)

[Solar]

... but i have found when studying on the net, you jump around from paper to paper, theory to theory, and do not get a consistent presentation of an authors mind. A book gives me a week or 2 or 3 of consistent attention. The author usually plans their books and will be able to lead you through more a complex thought process than web browsing could ever hope to do.

That is true. I do think that one of the benefits of the approach taken by Scott/Thornhill/Talbott et al is making this particular aspect of science accessible. Just a note; books in greater detail are readily available but they can be expensive. Very expensive for many. I suspect that this may be why the topics are broad in scope - introductory accessibility to "first principles". Nonetheless, you are correct.