Holes in Space

[MGmirkin]

(Holes in Space; Mar 14, 2008)

In the gravitational model of the universe, "dark matter" attraction pulls galaxies into filaments. Birkeland currents could be a better explanation.

[Read More] ...

[Nereid]

If Acheson, Ransom, Scott, Talbott, and Thornhill are the only electrical theorists (at least those active in the last decade or so), then the primary scientific sources for things like the following must be the papers published by them, in relevant peer-reviewed journals (with conference presentations and posters indicative 'half-way houses', pending publication of papers; links to such papers can be found here and here):

From TPOD Apr 15, 2005 Electric Motor of the Milky Way:

For the electrical theorists, the modern radio and x-ray telescopes are catalysts for the evolution of cosmological ideas. By enabling us to see the Milky Way core in wavelengths not normally visible to the human eye, they reveal the “homopolar motor” that drives the Milky Way.

From TPOD May 19, 2005 Projecting Nuclear Fusion onto the Sun:

Even the shape of the Sun defies the expectations of theory. The revolving Sun should be an oblate sphere. But it is a virtually perfect sphere, as if gravity and inertia have been overruled by something else.
For the electrical theorists, the “something else” should be obvious from the dominant observed features of the Sun (in contrast to things assumed but never seen). The anomalies facing the standard model of the Sun are predictable features of a glow discharge,

From TPOD Feb 13, 2006 A Tornado in Space (2):

Decades of laboratory experiments have shown that a toroidal magnetic field, created by a polar plasma discharge, confines the discharge to a narrow jet. In the vacuum of space, a magnetic field will prevent the hot gases of a discharge from rapidly dispersing and cooling like a wisp of steam. In the same way, plasma experiments have shown that it is electrical energy that creates and lights the bright knots and glowing filaments along the path of the discharge. So the electrical theorists can only scratch their heads when they see exclamations of surprise and bafflement over the “mysteries” of interstellar jets. The new discoveries simply confirm the findings of Alfvén and his colleagues: Experiments in the plasma laboratory are scalable to cosmic dimensions.

From TPOD Mar 09, 2006 A Radio Message from Space:

Plasma cosmologists, together with such electrical theorists as Wallace Thornhill and Don Scott, wonder aloud why anyone would cling to a gravity-only, electrically sterile universe so tenaciously. After all, the galaxy under consideration is distinguished by the presence of gravity-defying jets, emitting radiation that would not be there in the absence electric currents.
While astronomers marvel at the mysterious force that “holds the jets together”, the electrical theorists remind us that the jets are self-confining Birkeland currents in the plasma environment of the galaxy.

From TPOD Jul 21, 2006 “Neutron Star” Refutes Its Own Existence:

Supernova 1987A was the closest supernova event since the invention of the telescope. It was doubly special because the progenitor had been examined before the explosion. Electrical theorists say it was not a coincidence that this “best example” violated all the “rules.” The progenitor was not the expected red supergiant star, but a BLUE supergiant, perhaps 20 times smaller than a red supergiant. Moreover, the structure of Supernova 1987A, with three axially aligned rings and a string of bright beads forming the equatorial ring, has no place in the standard model of supernovae. Everything about this exploding star, however, has direct counterparts in laboratory experiments with high-energy plasma discharge. And plasma cosmologists using electric circuit theory have explained all of the complex features of the pulsing radiation from supernova remnants without the need for a hypothetical "super condensed object" like a neutron star.

From TPOD Dec 01, 2006 Son of M81:

Recent X-ray images from a giant galaxy cluster confirm the expectations of electrical theorists and offer new support for the ejection models proposed by astronomer Halton Arp.

From TPOD Mar 07, 2007 Pinch Yourself!:

Simple experiments can demonstrate the principle of the “z-pinch” that electrical theorists say is the best explanation of the hourglass shape of many bipolar nebulas.

From TPOD Mar 14, 2008 Holes in Space:

As author and EU theorist Wal Thornhill points out:
"If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify? The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation - as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe."

NOTE: I prepared this material to answer davesmith_au's question "And the answers to this little fishing expedition are important why? Exactly?", and Physicist's question "What is [an electrical theorist], exactly?". However, by the time I was ready to post, that thread had been locked.

[Siggy_G]

If Acheson, Ransom, Scott, Talbott, and Thornhill are the only electrical theorists (at least those active in the last decade or so), then the primary scientific sources for things like the following must be the papers published by them, in relevant peer-reviewed journals (...)

If you refer to the usage of the term "(according to) electrical theorists" I would say that would also include those that work with such electrical experiments that can be linked to astrophysics or cosmology. To them, many observed astrophysical phenomena probably wouldn't be that surprising, seen in light of electrical processes - as I read it.

Most of what you have quoted originally refer to plasma experiments or electric engineering principles that occurs to be extrapolated to, and explain, astrophysical observations. The above mentioned names are among the Thunderbolts team which in particular try to see various relevant (and extrapolated) electrical and plasma experiments in light of a coherent cosmological model.

It should be possible to find numerous peer-reviewed papers on any on the fields you quoted in your post:

1) The galactic homopolar motor is a reference to Hannes Alfven's descriptions in one of his published papers of the early 80's. The homopolar motor in its basics refers to Faraday's work.
2) A glow discharge is a common process to certain fields of electric engineering and plasma physics
3) Interstellar jets as explained by Hannes Alfven.
4) "the electrical theorists remind us that the jets are self-confining Birkeland currents in the plasma environment of the galaxy." = Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven, historically, and it is generally recognized both by people who are involved with Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe. *)
5) I believe this refers to descriptions of a supernova as a "Exploding Double Layer" by Hannes Alfven, and also outlines work of plasma physics
6) see my introduction text
7) see my introduction text
8) not sure where the "electric theorist" term is in this last quote, but I like the content of the quote!

*) See also this descriptive article by Norwegian plasma physisists Alv Egeland: "Kristian Birkeland - The First Space Scientist":
http://www.dnva.no/binfil/download.php?tid=44836

[Kristian Birkeland's] most enduring contribution to auroral physics was his recognition that field-aligned currents are needed to couple auroral phenomena in the upper atmosphere to interplanetary space. The existence of field-aligned currents was controversial and disputed vigorously among scientists for more than 50 years. During The Birkeland Symposium in 1967 it was unanimously proposed that field-aligned currents in space should be called ‘‘Birkeland currents’’, which was accepted by the International Union for Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. Today, plasma physicists strongly believe that many significant cosmic phenomena result from streams of Birkeland currents.

[Siggy_G]

Other people, who probably can be termed "electrical theorists" who have tangented the same fields (in relation to astrophysics), is C E R Bruce, Ralph Joergens and James P Hogan - and others that I can't remember on the top of my head. But I don't think they released peer reviewed papers, and some of their writings are early and rough thoughts on the subjects.

Some examples of their writings:

http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0 ... tric-i.htm Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radianet Energy
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/CPG.html The Cosmic Power Grid
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm Succcessful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution

I guess such people could be included among electrical theorists who would be less surprised by otherwize odd or "anomalous" nature of certain astrophysical processes (as seen through the conventional lens).

[davesmith_au]

Nereid's insistence that science can only come from "relevant, peer-reviewed journals" indicates both a lack of self-confidence in the ability to think critically and an undue reverence for peer-reviewed literature. I'm not suggesting there's anything particularly wrong with peer-reviewed literature, but when science is prepared to accept wormholes and parallel universes into such literature, surely we are justified to question it.

Have you, Nereid, ever had an original thought? Or does everything you think you know have to come from a published, peer-reviewed paper in a relevant journal?

Cheers, Dave.

[mharratsc]

I would also suggest that modern day astronomy very much would have you believe that there will be no further grand discoveries from without the discipline. All of the 'mavericks' who made the great discoveries of yesteryear are all long-dead, and all the current 'mavericks' working outside the paradigm (and all the folks who follow their pursuits) are all in need of some good coaching and indoctrination to the cult of Consensus Science.

You know what's funny- my mother used to say that I didn't have the common sense that God gave rocks... but even my inordinately low common-sense levels scream when I look at some of the theoretical nonsense being valued in modern day astronomy.

I don't think modern astronomers and mathematical/theoretical astrophysicists so much get an 'education' as they do an 'indoctrination'... :\

[jjohnson]

Here is an interesting video insight from very-mainstream (and very good at it!) astronomer and astronomy publicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. The gist of it is that sometimes, in exploring outside the realm of what is known and confidently expected or taken for granted, explorers in physics have to make things up.

To me, this type of conjecturing and imagining is the hallmark of human intelligence. To be able to create subtle inferences, to imagine things unseen and winkle out possible explanations between effects and their causes, to have and act upon to critically pursue hunches and intuitions are all a necessary part of progress in science. We term this thinking; it is what scientists are supposed to do!

http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/a ... ns_bridge/

Again, in my observation only, this is precisely the stage at which the set of EU ideas exists, building on nearly two centuries of electromagnetic experimentation, observation and theory, and the slowly maturing fields of plasma physics. Increasingly common are reports like those from NASA/JPL and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory's Dr. Pontus Brandt detailed in Steve Smith's TPOD today, Snap, Crackle and Spark. You need to go to the link ("press release")and see the article and video from NASA concerning Saturn's plasmasphere and how plasma electric currents are periodically driving the strength of its magnetosphere. Of course, the magnetic field lines are not "puffing up" from plasma "explosions" — that's a poor choice of metaphor for the well known increase in magnetic field strength as current strength increases, which moves a given field value farther away radially from its current source.

Food for thought, for thinkers and explorers.

Jim

[Nereid]

I would also suggest that modern day astronomy very much would have you believe that there will be no further grand discoveries from without the discipline.

Here's a contrary opinion: at least one grand discovery will come from without the discipline, possibly two, within the next decade or three. Condensed matter physics, together with geology and the relevant parts of chemistry, will provide exciting constraints on the nature of exoplanets.

[jjohnson]

What types of constraints? I assume you are speaking of physical constraints. And I assume that it is exciting because they are to obtained from observations by the newer, more capable observational instrumentation, and not from mathematical theory or computer simulation? Is that a correct interpretation of your prognosis?

Why is going forward in this now-normal manner, armed with intelligent and well-trained scientists and higher resolution observations and measurements, not simply the expected path in scientific progress, and therefore not particularly exciting in the press's vacuous overuse of that word? Why is that a contrary view — because you expect it not to come from the astronomical community? Aren't planetary-geologists and exo-meteorologists and exo-biologists and the like embedded there in the astronomical community, too, and working toward just what you said?

What would be really exciting (for me, anyway) might be to discover that we aren't the only sentient species.

Maybe a little alarming.

Jim

[mharratsc]

I noticed also not even a hat tip to the electrical engineers/plasma physicists whom have helped get so many missions launched already... no breakthroughs from them outside of our own solar system, do you think? o.O

[Nereid]

Nereid's insistence that science can only come from "relevant, peer-reviewed journals"

I thought I went to quite some lengths to 'insist' nothing of the kind! In this very forum here and here, for example.

but when science is prepared to accept wormholes and parallel universes into such literature, surely we are justified to question it

Again, I thought I'd made it pretty clear that no conclusion - let alone wild ideas based on (pedantic!) application of well-established theories of physics - should be unquestioned.

If I were asked to prioritise my 'insistences', I'd put the quantitative nature of physics and astronomy near the top, closely followed by 'timing gaps'.