Is the Mainstream going Electric Universe?

[Anaconda]

Is the Mainsteam going Electric Universe?

It would seem so:

(Universe Today) New Movie Reveals Birth of Super-Suns, November 16, 2009.

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/11/16 ... uper-suns/

As Dr. Tony Peratt has stated, radio astronomy will open up unseen worlds, and with that vision it's becoming increasingly clear that magnetic fields and their concomitant electric currents are playing "crucial" roles in star formation.

And this is mainstream astronomy, folks:

"We know how these stars die, but not how they are born," said Lincoln Greenhill, a principal investigator for team using radio images a thousand times sharper and more detailed than any previously obtained.

Using the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) as a powerful "zoom lens, astronomers studied a massive young protostar called Source I (pronounced "eye") in Orion. The youthful cluster cannot be seen with traditional telescopes because of the surrounding gas and dust, but this new look shows that massive stars form like their smaller siblings, with disk accretion and magnetic fields playing crucial roles.

Yes, admittedly, "electric currents" are not specifically mentioned by the researchers, but surely those involved must be considering electric currents as the cause of the magnetic fields.

Because as NASA has stated, electric currents cause magnetic fields:

Electric charges, electric fields and electric current are critical to the study of the structure of the Sun, solar wind and the magnetosphere of the Earth. Moreover, electric current causes magnetic fields (see Electromagnetism) that are important to understanding dynamic characteristics of the Sun and how the Sun interacts with the Earth.

http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resourc ... ricity.htm

(Don't give up on NASA yet )

Sure, the NASA statement relates to our own solar system's ongoing dynamics and not necessarily to its formation as such, but star dynamics and star formation most likely are not two seperate and foreign processes with nothing in common (as Electric Universe supporters know full well).

And there is more:

In the case of Source I and other massive protostars, magnetic field lines may extend outward into space, wrapping in a helix that is shaped much like Twizzlers candy. Outflowing gas streams along those field lines.

Readers of this forum know that a "helix" morphology shaped like a "Twizzers candy" is consistent with Birkeland currents and their signature filamentation:

Birkeland currents:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph ... nd_current

Filamentation:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Filamentation

Also, please link the Universe Today article, above, and check out the big image heading the article, forum readers will instantly recognize the Z - pinch:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch

This image is striking in appearance and I'm sure will have "shock" value to those readers at Universe Today who have stood in opposition to Electric Universe ideas

"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, finally it is accepted as self-evident." -- Schopenhauer

It seems we are finally in the age of "self-evident"

[solrey]

When I was reading the UT article I had to double check which site I was at, almost thought it was a TBPOD.

The paper on this is available in pdf too!

A Feature Movie of SiO Emission 20-100 AU from the Massive Young Stellar Object Orion Source I
Here is their conclusion:

Magnetohydrodynamic Winds
Apparent curved and helical trajectories of certain SiO maser features (§3.1.1 & 3.3),
strongly hint that magnetic fields may play a role in shaping the dynamics of the Source I
region. For example, it would seem difficult to explain features such as the streamer emu-
lating from the Western bridge (Fig. 9) in the absence of magnetic fields. While pressure
gradients within the disk might act to bend the paths of outflowing material, the observa-
tions of pronounced curvature at large vertical displacements from the plane would require
that the pressure scale height of the disk is comparable to the observed vertical extent of
the masers. Moreover, we see numerous proper motion trajectories that appear to be linear,
including along the outer edges of the individual arms, contrary to what would be expected
if pressure gradients were important. We therefore suggest that the streamers are more likely
to be comprised of gas clumps constrained to move along a magnetic field lines like “beads
on a wire” (see e.g., Blandford & Payne 1982).
Previous evidence for a magnetic field associated with Source I was provided by polar-
ization measurements of the SiO v = 0, J=1-0 and J=2-1 emission (Tsuboi et al. 1996;
Plambeck et al. 2003). After correcting for Faraday rotation, the position angle for the
polarization vectors derived by Plambeck et al. (57◦ ) is consistent with magnetic field lines
threading roughly perpendicular to the disk defined by the SiO masers and 7-mm continuum
emission and parallel to the outflow direction traced by the SiO v = 0 emission and the H2 O
masers (see Goddi et al. 2009a; Greenhill et al., in preparation).
Assuming a magnetic field is present, a magnetocentrifugal wind (e.g., Blandford &
Payne 1982; K ̈nigl & Pudritz 2000) would be a natural candidate for powering a disk wind
from Source I. In this scenario, gas clumps fragment from the disk, are swept outward along
field lines by hydromagnetic forces (e.g., Emmering et al. 1992), and are induced to excite
maser emission when irradiated, shocked, or heated by collisions. Magnetic phenomena may
also provide an explanation for the elongated emission fronts visible in three of the arms.
For example, tangled magnetic field lines (e.g., Kigure & Shibata 2005; Banerjee & Pudritz
2006) or instabilities within a magnetically-driven flow (e.g., Kim & Ostriker 2000) might
account for the elevated velocity dispersions and rope-like morphologies of these features (see
§ 3.1.1). Doeleman et al. (1999) originally proposed that these elongated structures might
arise at the shocked interfaces of an outflow. However, the observation that the emission
fronts are not preferentially oriented perpendicular to the outflow direction (as expected for
shock fronts) seems to argue against this interpretation.
It is believed that a necessary condition for launching a magnetically-powered wind is
that the vertical magnetic field is close to equipartition (e.g., Ferreira 2007)—i.e., 1 nV 2 = 2
1 2 −1 B μ0 , where n is the gas number density, V is the mean velocity of a gas molecule, B is the
magnetic field strength, and μ0 is the permeability of free space. Assuming n = 1010 cm−3
(§ 3.1.1) and V =14.0 km s−1 (§ 3.3), the implied magnetic field strength for Source I is
∼0.3 G. One possible source for this field might be the original interstellar magnetic field
threading the molecular cloud out of which Source I was born. Based on measurements
of OH 1665-MHz masers across a ∼ 104 AU region surrounding Source I, Cohen et al.
(2006) derived field strengths of 1.8 to 16.3 mG. Since the OH masers are believed to arise
from material with molecular hydrogen density nH2 ∼ 7 × 106 cm−3 (Gray et al. 1992),
and magnetic field strength is expected to scale as the square root of the gas density, it is
plausible that field strengths of order the value predicted by assuming equipartition might
now be present within the denser, SiO-emitting gas.
Direct measurements of the magnetic field strength in the disk of Source I would be of
considerable interest, both for understanding its role during the accretion/outflow process
and for providing new clues on the nature of magnetic fields in B-type stars during later
evolutionary stages. Little is presently known about the range of magnetic field strengths
present in early-type B stars on the main sequence owing to the difficulty of measuring fields
<3 kG in rapidly rotating stars (e.g., Landstreet 1992; Schnerr et al. 2008 and references
therein). Moreover, it has been suggested that magnetic fields with strengths as low as a
few Gauss and originating at the time of the star’s formation might account for the origin
of magnetized neutron stars (Ferrario & Wickramasinghe 2005).
We note that even if magnetohydrodynamic forces are not the main driving mechanism
for the Source I wind, magnetic forces may still play a key role in shaping the outflow,
similar to what has been proposed for planetary nebulae (e.g., Blackman 2008 and references
therein). In addition, magnetic fields may provide a mechanism to enhance the coupling
between gas and dust grains, thereby increasing the efficiency of a possible dust-driven wind
(Hartquist & Havnes 1992).

[jjohnson]

The time-lapse movie is a little sparse, but it does show which end of the jet is red-shifted (pointing at an angle away from our position) and which is blue. The rotationa and expansion out of the pinch are fairly clearly depicted as well, in the radio spectrum. It would be cool if they could have a translucent layer of IR or visible as background against which to see this (but if they don't have observations taken with the same frame size at the same time time they wouldn't be properly registered). Oh, well. I wonder why they say that this is a huge, massive star? A central star should have radiation in the radio band, too and there is no evidence of that in this particular presentation. It might be that it will form a small star - it's hard to say from the observations.

The Standard Explanation of pinched planetary nebulas is that they represent the death throws of a dying star. I argue that they are much more likely to be good visual indicators of the morphology of the pinched current environment in which stars are generated, and not their termination. They just can't get the E word out, can they? I suppose if there had been astronomers on the original board of directors, there would be a large American firm named General Magnetic today...

But, yes; it's possibly a start. Little "lapses" like this will likely start to appear more frequently, each the result of "recent" mainstream discoveries of exciting new explanations that they themselves have discovered thanks to the Generous and Wise Funding from the government. This should lead to the "we thought it might be more like this all along" phase, before you know it.

[Farsight]

Your last paragraph sounds bang on, jj.

[mharratsc]

Couple of comments I'd like to throw out:

First- "General Magnetic"... LOLOL @ Jim!


Second- someone needs to convince those guys to back out the zoom just a tiny bit more so that they can see that their "X" actually looks like:



... on a much smaller scale, of course. And then- someone needs to gently remind them of the scalar nature of plasma physics and patiently wait for the clue to be gotten.


Thirdly, and probably most importantly in the long run- I think that there are probably many, many astronomers (and possibly a few non-mathematician astrophysicists) that are on the fence about EU/PC- if not 'secretly' on the bandwagon.
However- just because they are on the bandwagon doesn't mean that they are foolish enough to start broadcasting their beliefs... and lose them their jobs, positions, and careers.

You don't think for a minute that anyone has forgotten Mr. Arp in astronomy circles, do you?

I think that it is exactly as many have surmised on these boards- being a young astronomer with big ideas in the Mainstream is like being a political science student in Beijing- you don't dare express some of your questions, feelings, or beliefs to the Mainstream at large! You have living examples of what they will do to you for your your beliefs... :\

I also expect to see more and more articles like this one published. After this one, you can expect for a while that Mainstream will attempt to clamp down strongly on any new discoveries being released without them re-writing the information in a more 'acceptable' (read "Censored") verbiage. They can't be everywhere at all times, however- which is probably how this article made it into circulation fast in the first place. Slowly but surely, more information like this will start leaking out. Little proofs of theory for us, all incontrovertible, that will re-awaken the idea of questioning what we think we know about the Universe around us, and emboldening the younger folks out there to perhaps re-visit ideas they were told were "impossible", "unscientific", or "hedge science". Momentum will begin to collect from there, and will be difficult to stop once it's started!

One thing that I think should be a big cue to us is the source of this study. It seems to me that we in the EU/PC corner seem to skip around and grab this observation or that, applying our interpretations, and tossing them out to be mulled over by our peers... and not many others. :\
I think that we need to take extra steps to pay closer attention to the work of the radio astronomers out there, no matter how humdrum or inconsequential their current works might be- because it is going to be the field of radio astronomy that gives the full credence and proof that the Electric Universe needs to come out from the wings and enter the mainstream!
This article was one of those rare discoveries that brought something visible and tangible out from radio astronomy, rather than the more common 'points-on-a-graph' results and a type-written description in scientific jargon. Radio astronomy seriously needs to put forth more articles like this one! It is this kind of tangible experience that awakens peoples interest and makes them want to fund more experiments like it! Optical astronomers can show pretty picture after pretty picture, and even the high wavelength astronomers have figured this little lesson out I think. You almost don't see any X-ray, UV, or IR shots these days that they haven't combined with it's optical wavelength counterpart to make a glorious image that captivates people's minds and makes them stop for a moment of awe and appreciation for the beauty in the Universe.

If the radioastronomy guys could snag some more optical counterpart images to 'spruce up' some of the radio frequency stuff they pull down, I think they will see a whole lot more interest paid to their results, which always (in this field) means more money for even more experiments!

And from our perspective: the more experiments = more opportunities for theoretical proofs! The more proofs = less chance that the guys holding the reins of power in Mainstream communication will be able to keep a lid on things, and the whole Electrical story comes out in an incontrovertible fashion- and from there, the better chance that we as a species can stop devoting so much wasted time and money chasing the fictions of these mathematicians imaginations and start really and truly understanding how things really happen in this amazing Universe around us!

*Gets off the soap box*

Mike H.

[Anaconda]

Well...I spoke too soon

The writer of the article (apparently each writer "moderates" their own stories) deleted my initial comments that had links to NASA, Z - pinch, and Marklund convection. And deleted other comments (mharratsc, I did have a link to the UCLA press release on the double helix at the center of the Milky Way, but that got deleted, too).

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl ... elNum=6903

This magnetic field is strong enough to cause activity that does not occur elsewhere in the galaxy; the magnetic energy near the galactic center is capable of altering the activity of our galactic nucleus and by analogy the nuclei of many galaxies, including quasars, which are among the most luminous objects in the universe. All galaxies that have a well-concentrated galactic center may also have a strong magnetic field at their center, Morris said, but so far, ours is the only galaxy where the view is good enough to study it.

Reviewing the comments that are left, it appears my comments were the only ones deleted even though none of my comments were longer than the actual article, which was the stated reason for deletion of comments at the end of the thread:

Comment by Nancy Atkinson at the end of the comment thread:

Comments are now closed on this article and I've deleted anyone's comments that are longer than the article itself.

And the original justification for deleting my comments made roughly midway through the thread:

Since one of the comment policies is to not promote your personal theories, I'm going to start deleting comments from Anaconda. We've let this go on for awhile, but starting off this post with four straight comments on your personal theory and then going on to insult others is just getting too much."

And my response:

So censorship has arrived:

@ Nancy Atkinson:

These are not "personal" theories.

These theories are supported by Dr. Anthony Peratt and 1970 Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven and many others.

My comments were reasonable interpretation of the posted material.

Is that what it come to?

Censorship?

I respectfully request that you repost those comments.

Curriculum vitae of Dr. Antony Peratt:

http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/ ... eratt.html

It seems that an interpretation that doesn't fit the party-line gets deleted.

The comments were strung together because multiple links get held up in "moderation".

Sad, very sad, indeed.

Two immediate comments: The ideas I expressed were not "personal theories".

And as one can see, even after Atkinson's announcement, insulting comments were still allowed -- if you were on the right side of the issue (my "personal insult" comment was a mirror to another commenter's prior personal insult).

And as one comment that was deleted expressed: I have no problems with the rules. I do have a problem with inconsistent enforcement, i.e., double standards.

So what to make of this?

First, as stated above, I was wrong, the mainstream is not going EU. Second, a violent reaction from both my interlocutors and even the writer/moderator suggests, while there is sullen acceptance of electric currents in the solar system, the line is drawn at the heliosheath.

It appears it was too much to have the initial comments to the article (where casual readers would have to see my rational and links to supporting authority upon clicking the comments) support the Electric Universe interpretation and it was too much of a threat to the world-view of the writer/moderator. And, apparently, the writer is okay with double standards.

But on a positive note, when an opposing side resorts to ad hominem attacks and suppression of ideas (deleting selective comments) -- that is a tacit admission the opposing side can't prevail on the merits.

I share the opinion expressed by other forum members, here, that the evidence will come out piece by piece until denial will become untenable (and it may happen sooner that we think ).

But when a quasi-religious world-view is at stake, expect irrational behavior to defend opinions that increasingly appear to be irrational beliefs.

P.S.

solrey, thank you very much for commenting at the UT thread and presenting the PDF of the paper in question.

Your comments and the evidence you provided put pressure on their belief system which helped push the writer/moderator and commenters over the edge into dishonesty and irrationality.

I'm sorry, solrey, you were subjected to ad hominem personal abuse for your efforts.

I can only wonder and hope casual & open-minded readers recognize the abuse for what it is: An admission of failure. For while a portion of the evidence was deleted, the personal ad hominem abuse is still there for anyone who reads the thread.

[solrey]

No need for sorry's, mate.

I made the choice to jump back in after a bit of a break, but I've been harassed from day one, like you have, so I knew what I was getting into.
I admire your perseverance for continuing to chip away at their dogma in the face of all that abuse.
Like I said, they don't have the guts to look another human being in the eye, face to face, and say the stuff they do. If they were to be that coldhearted, it would just show the lack of humanity that's already evident in their comments.
But according to them, I'm the one picking a fight.
I couldn't look someone in the eye, or even anonymously across the net, and say that stuff and still be OK with myself.
That slight digression, along with a nice surprise, has reminded me to always maintain proper decorum when presenting evidence in support of EU.

It's funny how the personal smears get worse as the corroborating evidence for EU gets stronger.
Tells me we're onto something.

[Anaconda]

solrey,

Thanks again and you're right

[mharratsc]

I know it may be tough, pal- but you gotta really believe what you said about all that hostility sitting there like a big red flag for anyone to see... because eventually people will see it. Maybe even people who haven't quite made up their minds, who might be inquisitive enough to go and try and dig up what information that got the moderators so riled up, and see what it all means for themselves.

Actually, I'm not surprised by the reactions at all. Even if the authors doing the study really believe in EU- if they don't act like a bunch of wet setting hens and spout outrage, they might be afraid that they will be held guilty by quiet acceptance- and they'd never get another project again.

Don't forget that they have to swim in the shark tank every day- if they don't behave in a certain fashion, they are gonna go down on the food chain really fast. :\

Take it all with a grain of salt, buddy- may not be hot and heavy acceptance, but it's still another battle won in getting the message out- you got all that out there to be seen before they flipped out over it all and started slinging mud. When people start trying to find out what it was you said that got them all poopyheaded, they'll have no choice but to come read some of the material for themselves and make up their own minds!

Just for giggles, I'm gonna be trying to count new members here for a couple of weeks I think, just to see if I can see the impact of your words!

Nice work, amigos!

Mike H.

[keeha]

This is a pop music video with the EU as its setting :Meet Me Halfway

Plasma abounds and IMO and decent descriptions of a stream of ejecta above a solar flare or coronal hole and a Nova like event. Or is solar flare ejecta all dust sized and under?
An aether or illumination concept is introduced. 'Conventional' science is mocked.
The entire song itself is presented as a hallucination from a meteor shower induced EMF spike.

Also includes an artistic interpretation of the LCROSS event.