A couple questions

[Kitty]

I'm sorry if this has already been brought up but I wanted a quick answer and skimming through the threads already here might take a while. I know I probably shouldn't debate too much about the subject since I only have a very basic understanding of it, but on other sites because no one really knew much about it and wasn't jumping at the chance of learning more, I figured I would learn more about the subject if I got people to argue with me about it. Probably should have joined this place first but better late than never! Anyway, someone finally came up with a legitimate argument against it, as far as I can tell. This is exactly what they said,

electromagnetism is stronger between close objects but decreases in strength exponentially at a distance.

this is the reason that gravity is more powerful amongst massive objects (planets) with relatively weak magnetic fields (we are standing on the planet and barely notice its field aside from a floating compass) that are extremely far away from each other.

the equations that describe GENERAL RELATIVITY (gravity...... ) are what are used to accurately determine gravitational forces..... IF electro magnetism played a substantial role in controlling the orbit of planets then the equation would be dramatically different.

I've seen some mention about the two on various sites, but I find it lacking in information. I want details, and so does this person.

Thank you for your help in advance.

[Shrike]

we are standing on the planet and barely notice its field aside from a floating compass

This is not true at all if wasn't for magnetism we would be bathing in so called cosmic radiation !
Hows so barely noticeable ??
how about all those radio waves and haarp using ionosphere to bounce of electric fields.

And what about the heliosphere it so much active encompassing the whole solar system !
Without it even more cosmic radiation.
Hows so barely noticeable ??

[Kitty]

Sorry again, and I could have attempted to respond to this myself although probably wouldn't be able to a great job at it, but he's requesting that someone here respond instead. Thanks again in advance if you respond, or not.

lets take the atom as a model of a solar system.

run completely on electromagnetism ( since you did not focus on the issue in your last response I will clarify for completeness so that you dont have another strawman to build. there are both strong and weak nuclear forces at work as well, but we are focusing on the force which maintains orbits, electromagnetism)

gravity has very little effect.

this is because of the tight proximity and the relative strength of electromagnetism VS gravity when dealing with STRONG electrically charged particles (to clarify, the charge in relation to the mass is large)



now, lets scale this up to planets.

no, lets not scale this up to styrofoam balls that can be levitated using only static electricity (or whatever model they decided to use)....... lets get real and go actual full size..... PLANET size.

the electrical charge on a planet like earth is MINUSCULE (hence, it is hardly capable of moving a metal pin floating on water) compared to the gravitational forces it exerts on objects.



THIS is where the electric universe theory fails.


your copy pasting of the very basic principal of earths electromagnetic field deflecting radiation has nothing to do with orbits.

you failed to address in any way the question I posed (that being how come our equations for gravity predict EXACTLY the actions of planets)

and THEN YOU built up the straw man by insinuating that I claimed elecromagnetism has little effect on ANYTHING in the universe when the issue is the control of orbits.

it is you who is building strawmen and not necessarily by design, quite easily by accident due to an apparent lack of knowledge in the field of physics.

so since you are clearly just a vessel, nothing more then a communication devise between me and the other forum you joined, why dont you copy paste the following and get a direct answer from them.





"how does the electric universe theory explain the extreme accuracy with which general relativity has been able to model the universe?

specifically orbits.

why is it that using general relativity we can determine with 100% accuracy that we do not live in a binary solar system with stars that follow 50 000 year orbits?

wouldent the addition of a second MORE powerful force be easily seen in our mathematical modeling?"

I am honestly interested in seeing how they explain this.

not you..... they.

[Siggy_G]

Ok, I'll start with this one:

"how does the electric universe theory explain the extreme accuracy with which general relativity has been able to model the universe?

How on Earth can anyone verify the extreme accuracy of this modelling? Which scenario and parameters did they start with for the extrapolation to match the observed structures? What we do know of the large scale structure of the universe, consisting of matter practically only in the plasma state, is that matter is distributed in a filamentary manner with large pockets of sparse space in between. Such structures can be expected from electromagnetic forces affecting matter within a plasma, whilst gravity does not primary predict such structures. Electric currents flow within the plasma, affecting matter within it. Cellular structures such as magnetosphere and helio(stellar)spheres are also a signature of electromagnetic forces.

Plasma Cosmology [the foundation of the Electric Universe structure] describes how astrophysical plasma is distributed and affected by electromagnetism, and how matter can condense due to [electromagnetic] pinching and Marklund convection within the provided filamentary structures. That explains why galaxies and stars seem to form along (filamentary) strings.

The basis for "knowing" the amount of matter in any given volume of the universe, is usually based on so-called gravitational lensing and distances of objects determined by the questionable redshift interpretation. In mathematical modelling or simulations, one adds the amount of central mass (within the given volume) needed to cause such theoretical bending of light rays from radiant objects of (uncertain) distance... Then, allegedly, that is taken as some sort of accurate confirmation of the real/physical universe. The other odd thing of this extreme accurate modelling of the universe is of course that most of the mass is explained to come from matter of the unobservable and hypothetical type. Not to mention that evidendece for the universe NOT going through an expansion has been numerous the last centure. The current methods for modelling of the universe appears a bit like cheating, insisting and inventing ones own rules at the same time.

[Siggy_G]

"how does the electric universe theory explain the extreme accuracy with which general relativity has been able to model the universe? specifically orbits.

Within the solar and stellar systems, planetary orbits are for the majority of the time in stable orbits because systems tend to reach an equilibrium and continue a balanced dynamic process. If anything external were to influence the solar system, such as an approach of another star with its magnetic field and [according to the electric sun hypothesis] incoming electric currents, electric and magnetic fields would reconfigure within the systems, with orbits being affected. How can anyone be so certain that planetary orbits have been stable forever? We have numerous indications that earlier human civilizations have experienced encounters of incoming and bypassing celestial bodies as well as tremendous atmospheric effects [read Anthony Perrat's papers on atmospheric plasma effects and rock art + David Talbott's comparative mythology articles].

Gravity is not constant, not on Earth and not in the universe. The Electric Universe model attempts to research and explain an electric principal of mass and gravity. Here continoues reasons to expect that gravity and charge are linked, and I believe Einstein based much of his formulas on Maxwell's. Gravity may possibly be a secondary left-over force of the electromagnetic one.

[Siggy_G]

wouldent the addition of a second MORE powerful force be easily seen in our mathematical modeling?

Of course. However, our knowledge of planetary mass were derived from planetary orbits and the following verifying calculation of orbits is then based on the forementioned mass (i.e. circular reasoning). If planets were to consist of less gravitational mass and in addition were charged, resulting in a given orbit, how could anyone tell the ratio of mass and charge (from today's mathematical modelling that only includes mass, gravity, distance and a constant)? The amount of gravitational mass around in the universe is derived from observed lensing effects and questionable distance interpretations (redshift). If anyone were to include "a second more powerfull force" one would have to know at least some representative electric fields, magnetic fields and currents at work – which we currently don't to an extensive degree (as far as I know). On top of that, we currently don't have a very good understanding of what 'mass' and 'gravity' really are.

Einstein came up with a suggestion to model the effectof gravity as a distorted coordinate system, as if space is a coordinate system that objects are dollied to and mass can sculpt it. The inverse square law of a spherical force field is there regardless, independant of how you model it or how one juggles with the terms 'forces' and 'coordinate systems' to achieve the observed effect. It's not very true to the fundamental principals of physics anyhow.

[Siggy_G]

I'd like to ask the challenger a couple of questions as well:

Wasn't the reason for Einstein's space-time modelling, that light rays did bend around the Sun as a result of gravity, a force only affecting objects of mass, whilst light (photons) has no mass?

If light (photons) in fact are measured to have momentum and relativistic mass as they travel at the speed of light, then what is the reason for including a time-space explanation of gravity? The photon, with its relativistic mass, seems to have a classical mass-related reason to be affected by gravity as a force. Even if it didn't, perhaps gravity has a net attraction even on objects of sole electromagnetism. A warping coordinate system should be the last of physical explanations.

If photons have relativistic mass, but zero rest mass, how does that make mathematical sense? Can you multiply zero to become any value?

For a gravity-only model, wouldn't one expect the large scale structures of the universe to be exponentially clustering? A filament or string of matter wouldn't remain for long – it would cluster towards the central mass of that string. Yet, what we see in the universe are countless strings and filaments of matter, as well as stars and galaxies apparently arranged along threads. Plasma Cosmology and The Electric Universe predicts such structures.

Please also point the challenger to this video by Wallace Thornhill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhyHCj_cVKk9b Debunking Misconceptions About The Electric Universe

[mharratsc]

I will take a shot at this guy regarding his ridiculous claim that the Earth has little charge:

the electrical charge on a planet like earth is MINUSCULE (hence, it is hardly capable of moving a metal pin floating on water) compared to the gravitational forces it exerts on objects.

How about rather that the electric current (due to charge differential between the Sun and the Earth, as well as the other planets) is great enough to fully ionize atmospheric gases into a glowing plasma, thus creating the various auroras found throughout the solar system?

New Finding Shows Super-Huge Space Tornados Power the Auroras

If you think tornadoes on Earth are scary, newly found “space tornadoes” sound downright horrifying. But they are likely the power source behind the beautiful Northern and Southern Lights. A new finding by a cluster of five space probes – the THEMIS, or Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms show that electrical funnels which span a volume as large as Earth produce electrical currents exceeding 100,000 amperes. THEMIS recorded the extent and power of these electrical funnels as the probes passed through them during their orbit of Earth. Ground measurements showed that the space tornadoes channel the electrical current into the ionosphere to spark bright and colorful auroras on Earth.
Space tornadoes are rotating plasmas of hot, ionized gas flowing at speeds of more than a million miles per hour, far faster than the 200 m.p.h. winds of terrestrial tornadoes, according to Andreas Keiling, a research space physicist at the University of California, Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory.

Keiling works on THEMIS, which was built and is now operated by UC Berkeley. The five space probes were launched by NASA in February 2007 to solve a decades-long mystery about the origin of magnetic storms that power the Northern and Southern Lights.


Electric currents in the funnels power auroras. Credit: Keiling, Glassmeier, and Amm

Both terrestrial and space tornadoes consist of funnel-shaped structures. Space tornadoes, however, generate huge amounts of electrical currents inside the funnel. These currents flow along twisted magnetic field lines from space into the ionosphere where they power several processes, most notably bright auroras such as the Northern Lights, Keiling said.
While these intense currents do not cause any direct harm to humans, on the ground they can damage man-made structures, such as power transformers.

The THEMIS spacecraft observed these tornadoes, or “flow vortices,” at a distance of about 40,000 miles from Earth. Simultaneous measurements by THEMIS ground observatories confirmed the tornadoes’ connection to the ionosphere.

Keiling’s colleagues include Karl-Heinz Glassmeier of the Institute for Geophysics and Extraterrestrial Physics (IGEP, TU) in Braunschweig, Germany, and Olaf Amm of the Finnish Meteorological Institute.

The findings were presented today at the general assembly of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) in Vienna, Austria.

Source: EGU

(highlight mine)

So you see- the person you're arguing with is completely ignorant of the electrodynamic relationship planets have with our native star, and probably isn't going to get you anywhere arguing with him, since he is arguing from his faith in the specialist training he received which completely excludes electrodynamics.
I doubt that anything you say will be convincing to him, because he has been trained to believe otherwise. :\