Magnetic Fields and Electro-Gravity at UniverseToday.com

[David Talbott]

Ultra vires, you're missing the whole point. The only anti-science in question here is that of John Voisey, He's the one who, with his article, turned Universe Today into a joke with his statement about thunderbolts.info, followed by a goon squad response in the comments section. After Dave Smith objected, every attempt to correct Voisey's silly and uninformed comments was excluded.

Do you get the fact yet, that electric currents across interstellar and intergalactic distances were dogmatically denied for decades, or that in the past 15 years the only significant public call for sanity on the matter came from electric universe proponents? Why can't we just start with a little honesty on the subject? Electric currents on the cosmic scale now verified, contributing directly to galactic structure, are the greatest "shock to the system" in at least a half-cemtury. Do you not see the absurdity of admitting that the currents exist, but then saying that, "Well, the thunderbolts.info group never 'quantified' their claims"? When did science decide that seeing what is actually happening doesn't count for anything?

[Ultra Vires]

Ultra vires, you're missing the whole point. The only anti-science in question here is that of John Voisey, He's the one who, with his article, turned Universe Today into a joke with his statement about thunderbolts.info, followed by a goon squad response in the comments section. After Dave Smith objected, every attempt to correct Voisey's silly and uninformed comments was excluded.?

That is not quite true. The event(s) of quantauniverse's response(s) here happen well before this, and Jon response was to another different story. Several of his posts were deleted; being either "personal theory" (which he claimed himself) or disgusting foul language (which I strongly object too.)

I came here because I wanted to see what he had said here (First post this thread commented.) What he says here It is not true and is deceptive. He was bitter only because his contributions were soon deleted and that he wasn't "allowed to voice his views." He came to Thunderbolts.Info to let out his frustration, probably in a veiled attempt to get some support and sympathy. Indeed. One of the people who put him on to Thunderbolts.Info was one of the detractors that you seem so determined and hell-bend to want to punish for not agreeing with you.

In the end, whilst you might think what Jon says might be right or wrong, it still doesn't fail in the fact of the disgusting language had to be dealt with. If you don't agree, then so be it.

I came to this site only to set the record straight, and make sure this transgressor wasn't to get away with his gross distortion of the truth in this matter. Indeed. This individual has done more damage to Thunderbolts.Info by dragging you all into the fray, and has made Universe Today more like a Facebook or Tweet-feast site whose opinions and bias make it worthless to comment on.

All this guy is interested in is to blab and sell his own crazy and distorted views. He couldn't give a toss about what damage done (he is probably rejoicing, actually), and dreams of new ways to pedal his illegitimate wares.

I think quantauniverse words did far more damage than Voisey's words. It doesn't matter now anyway, as the plate has been broken, and the path once followed moves along a different course that cannot be changed.

That is all I want to say on the matter. I am not really very interested in debating the esoteric nature of your seemingly strong issues with Voisey's comments.

Dictum sapienti sat est. Bella gerant alii, ad infinitum.

Note: If I were you, I'd be more concerned with EU/PC Exterminator, who first requested that all EU/PC be deleted from the site. Universe Today is now continuing doing this to the letter of their comment laws. It is also odd that Jon Voisey has not posted a single story since the changes AFTER this story you seem so offended by. Maybe it was his final swan song, so speaking his mind had little consequence by changing how Universe Today reacts to invited comments.

[Ultra Vires]

Do you get the fact yet, that electric currents across interstellar and intergalactic distances were dogmatically denied for decades, or that in the past 15 years the only significant public call for sanity on the matter came from electric universe proponents? Why can't we just start with a little honesty on the subject. Electric currents on the cosmic scale now verified, contributing directly to galactic structure, are the greatest "shock to the system" in at least a half-cemtury. Do you not see the absurdity of admitting that the currents exist, but then saying that, "Well, the thunderbolts.info group never 'quantified' their claims"? When did science decide that seeing what is actually happening doesn't count for anything?

I mostly disagree with this. Saying, for example, "Do you get the fact yet, that electric currents across interstellar and intergalactic distances were dogmatically denied for decades,…" is plainly quite wrong.

Nearly everyone knows they are incoherent field lines of low density and of very minuscule gauss/ teslas strengths. Like the empty spaces between the galaxies, they are nothing like the Earth or Sun fields in nature. (This one fact has been known for fifty years, and it is unlikely to change anytime soon.) This is what he meant when he said; "Well, the thunderbolts.info group never 'quantified' their claims"? I.e. The strength of the field determines the nature of the phenomena. (You can't say because there is little observational evidence to back this idea up [admittedly, just as yet])

The existence of the fields are inconsequential compared to how strong they are in the intergalactic or galactic environment. If they happen to be weak or very weak, than most of wild EU/PC predictions of the 1980s (or pre-1980s) just fall flat on their face.

From my knowledge and what I read and experienced first-hand, the present views and observations do (and have) suggest the fields are there, but they do not influence things very much on a very large scale. Sine qua non — that is not likely to change anytime soon.

Disagree you may.

(Note: I'll won't debate this, as I cannot be bothered with the ensuing claptrap. My opinion. Leave it as that. Thanks.)

[David Talbott]

Ulta Vires, I hope you're not going to start spreading a myth about astronomers always having recognized electric current on a macrocosmic scale.

Also, what is the meaning of commenting on the minuscule strength of magnetic fields in intergalactic space, without noting as well the VOLUME of space involved, an unfathomable reservoir of stored charge that we now see acting on galaxies. That's the whole point of present data on radio galaxies, galactic jets, synchrotron radiation and so much more. Against the backdrop of intergalactic space, galaxies are nearly empty fluff balls. They are not generating these spectacular energies from some absurdly tiny "black hole" hidden in their centers.

[Ultra Vires]

Also, what is the meaning of commenting on the minuscule strength of magnetic fields in intergalactic space, without noting as well the VOLUME of space involved, an unfathomable reservoir of stored charge that we now see acting on galaxies. That's the whole point of present data on radio galaxies, galactic jets, synchrotron radiation and so much more. Against the backdrop of intergalactic space, galaxies are nearly empty fluff balls.

Yet again you avoid giving any numbers or even approximate values. A theory is supposed to predict values, average or range of field strength (Voisey's point actually.) When observed or verified they then assert the veracity of said theory. Hence are;

• - If the average field is around 1 gauss (or more), then the effects are really significant.
  
  - If, as some have measured by radio telescopes and polarimetry just recently, any field of about 10-6 gauss or so isn''t really going to have a highly dramatic effect on astronomical bodies like galaxies nor effect their structures very much.
  
  - If the field were ~10-16 to 10-19 gauss in intergalactic space, as some general references state (and expect), the field would be unable to retain its coherence (let alone the field at the pitiful two particles per cubic metre). Also even retain the energy of the plasma from being lost is a huge problem. [Basically there is nowhere for the current to flow.] Fields of these strength will have no effect on structure, as gravitation easily overwhelms these fields over the aeons.

Clearly these are not anything like the strong 3000+ gauss fields of the sun.

As we have little to no real observational evidence of these alleged fields — then we have to rely on theory and what it predicts. According to the general EU/PC mantra, these fields are supposedly scaleable.

So could you please tell me, what are the EU/PC roughly predicted strength / average strength / range of these intergalactic and/or galactic fields in gauss?

These are the essential facts of the matter that really need to be answered, and put to the test. If you can't answer them, you need to do some homework, else no one will believe you. [Scout's honour!]

Note 1: At ~10-16 to 10-19 gauss, you can very easily calculate the volume and overall strength of such fields. (The answer is pretty low, to let you know.)
Clearly this is the main reason why nearly every single astronomers and astrophysicist reject the role of electric or magnetic fields in the wide mostly empty spaces across the universe. This is why astrophysical theory rejects notions like this because such field strengths are quite insignificant in the scheme of things. (of course this is different than extreme and rather uncommon astrophysical phenomena that you mention; like radio galaxies, galactic jets, synchrotron radiation etc.)

Note 2: You should really rethink your strategies and doctrine here, because in the next decade when these fields are to be identified and measured I.e. An operational SKA, your views (and Alfen and Peratt) are going to be under real scrutiny. If they find <10-10 to 10-12 gauss, all your cosmological tenets are really going to be in serious trouble.

[Siggy_G]

Ultra Vires, in terms of numbers, what is the gravitational field strength in intergalactic space? So small that gravity should be neglected as well?

As an analogy to astrophysical plasma, wouldn't you say that the processes that form and transport thin clouds within the atmosphere, before they become denser (and eventually rainy), is of high significance for where it ends up raining? Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe underline the importance of formation processes in astrophysical and dusty plasma, and it is no where reasonable that gravity is the dominating force/process in these scanarios. It is electromagnetism. Over a certain condensation and mass threshold, gravity takes over (then again, what is gravity?). But at that point, the initial positioning, chemical separation, condensation and bulk movement is defined by electromagnetic processes.

The electromagnetic pinching effect does also illustrate that immense volumes of particles (even if sparse) can be concentrated into denser filaments and furthermore into stellarspheres, that eventually "feeds" the central grain (called a star) with electric energy - according to the Electric Sun hypothesis and very briefly put. Is it really unreasonable to have this as an additional approach for figuring out what's going on, until we can determine anything for a fact?

[David Talbott]

So could you please tell me, what are the EU/PC roughly predicted strength / average strength / range of these intergalactic and/or galactic fields in gauss?

It seems we have a dead giveaway here.

Your analysis of static particles sitting at average, "ineffective" distances from each other is so far from the hypothesized electrical conditions in intergalactic space that I would not ask anyone, mathematician or otherwise in our circle, to take five minutes to respond.

Comparing an imagined magnetic field strength in intergalactic space to the field strength of the Sun, as if that could mean something, is a further dead giveaway.

If you'll take a break to read up on the electrical hypothesis so that you can identify the observational tests properly, we might find something further to talk about. Ignoring the VOLUME of intergalactic space and the implied electric currents that observation tells us are acting on galaxies is not a good start. Do you understand how synchrotron radiation is generated? Perhaps, if you'd like to participate further, you can return with a proposal as to how gravity will do that.

[PersianPaladin]

When mainstream astrophysicists see magnetic fields in space, they usually resort to a particular interpretation of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) which presupposes (without outright saying it) that space plasmas are perfect conductors and have "frozen-in" magnetic fields. Nature tends not to make perfect conductors, and the presence of weak longitudinal electric fields and double-layers and filaments in space plasma points in the direction of an electric universe that is connecting with everything else, as opposed to the current fractured picture of space. Electric currents in intergalactic space are being avoided because astrophysicists do not listen to electrical engineers who have made such proposals. They isolate themselves in their own field, and as a result - they reinvent the wheel with misleading concepts and then tag on entities such as "black holes", "dark matter", "dark energy" and other hypotheticals as even gravity can't drive much of their cosmological model.

[Osmosis]

Mainstream astrophysicists have their self-inflicted double-layers. We have to figure how to short-circuit them

[Goldminer]

Ultra Vires means "above the law." 'Nuff said!

I have this strange idea that forums are specifically for various people to express their own ideas, so that others may comment on them. The problem arises when those people are not interested in the comments upon their ideas. I find most participants here at TBF are very interested in the comments of others, being open minded and humble.

Extra galactic space is an unknown. Even the CBR (cosmic background radiation) is speculation.
Re: COBE: A Radiological Analysis:

Pierre-Marie Robitaille is respected world wide as an expert in the propagation and reception of microwaves. Take some time to at least read the introduction and conclusion to the article linked above.

Despite popular belief to the contrary, COBE has not proven that the microwave background originates from the universe and represents the remnants of creation.

"Cosmology holds that the monopole signal [1] represents a remnant of creation. Conversely, I maintain, along with my colleagues [5, 7], that it is being produced by the oceans of the Earth. Through this work, it is my hope that others will begin to see that there are legitimate issues with the FIRAS and DMR results on COBE. The thermal emission of water, in the microwave and far infrared, remains incompletely characterized. Our planet has never been eliminated as the source of the microwave background. In the end, the PLANCK satellite [86] should reveal that the Penzias and Wilson monopole [1] was never present in the depth of the Cosmos. The Cobe signal belongs to the Earth."

This article has never been refuted with hard facts and logic, only with ad homenim attacks and nonsense.

Cobe is a farce. Naturally (regarding galactic filaments in the COBE analysis) if the signals are from Earth, they won't show Galactic filaments, which are confirmed from cosmic surveys across the spectrum in radio, and frequencies above ultraviolet.

.

[David Talbott]

A personal note. The thing that has been most encouraging to me is that the TB Forum has attracted so many individuals who sincerely want to know. The Forum becomes one of the learning tools for them, as they themselves progressively move toward becoming effective teachers on these subjects. I could give a couple dozen names as examples, but then I'd leave out too many people that would deserve to be mentioned as well.

The number of intelligent folks taking these issues seriously is a very good sign, and it's definitely being noticed by the gatekeepers of orthodoxy.

[Ultra Vires]

Ultra Vires means "above the law." 'Nuff said!

Actually it means "beyond the power", which is appropriate in a site like this I'd of thought….
The Latin word for law is 'lex'

[Goldminer]

Here: Ultra vires is a Latin phrase meaning literally "beyond the powers", although its standard legal translation and substitute is "beyond power". If an act requires legal authority and it is done with such authority, it is characterised in law as intra vires (literally "within the powers"; standard legal translation and substitute, "within power"). If it is done without such authority, it is ultra vires. Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid" and those that are ultra vires "invalid".

Touché: I had the above sense in mind when I posted the thought. So, you admit to proceeding without authority? Your thoughts are invalid? Just say'n . . .

.

[Ultra Vires]

So could you please tell me, what are the EU/PC roughly predicted strength / average strength / range of these intergalactic and/or galactic fields in gauss?

It seems we have a dead giveaway here.

Your analysis of static particles sitting at average, "ineffective" distances from each other is so far from the hypothesized electrical conditions in intergalactic space that I would not ask anyone, mathematician or otherwise in our circle, to take five minutes to respond.

Comparing an imagined magnetic field strength in intergalactic space to the field strength of the Sun, as if that could mean something, is a further dead giveaway.

If you'll take a break to read up on the electrical hypothesis so that you can identify the observational tests properly, we might find something further to talk about. Ignoring the VOLUME of intergalactic space and the implied electric currents that observation tells us are acting on galaxies is not a good start. Do you understand how synchrotron radiation is generated? Perhaps, if you'd like to participate further, you can return with a proposal as to how gravity will do that.

…and still no guess nor estimation of field strengths!!

A gauss is a measure of a unit of magnetic flux density equal to 1 maxwell per square centimetre... so it already accounts for a volume, doesn't it?

Sorry. This reply is a bit condescending, isn't it? (I've not even mentioned synchrotron radiation or about gravity here. i thought you talk in terms of electric or magnetic fields here? I've only assumed you wish me to reveal my cards with this comment.)

Your just avoiding a reasonable question I think.

The volume here inconsequential to the general field strength, especially when I'm really talking in terms of field flux.

Let me make it simpler for you. We know that the average turbulence of the intergalactic medium is roughly about 10nG, with the coherence length of being about 100 to 300 h−1.kpc in observed filaments. This means in empty voids, the average fields strengths must be around ~10-16 to 10-19 gauss. On the other hand, in the Coma cluster, the revealed strength in the intergalactic medium is in order of about μG (10-6G) for the coherent length of about 10 kpc; being perhaps 5-10μG.

Simply. What is the EU/PC prediction of this average field strength in rough numbers of the intergalactic medium? (As general field flux would be just as useful)

In volume, a ~10-16G to 10-19G would have little influence on galaxy evolution or fields influencing the evolution of the universe. As EU/PC says differently, then how much difference? I.e. Does 10-12G sound about right, say?

So, please, give me a ballpark number, and we might have a general playing field (sic) to discuss aspects of EU/PC regarding the intergalactic medium (IGMF.)

[Ultra Vires]

So, you admit to proceeding without authority? Your thoughts are invalid? Just say'n . . . .

Well yes. I'm just a contributor here and not here as an authority on EU/PC. In this regard, my views could be invalid.
I'd of thought it quite logical, ne pensez-vous pas?