Newcomer's Questions [Plasma / Electric Universe]

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
edcrater
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:57 am
Location: Limerick, Ire.

Newcomer's Questions [Plasma / Electric Universe]

Unread post by edcrater » Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:34 am

I am a new member, edcrater, and I have never used a forum before, and I don't know how to post. The FAQ says 'click the relevant button'. So far, in my ignorance, I have been unable to locate ANY button, let alone a relevant one! I have been studying Plasma /Electric universe for some time and have trouble getting answers to my many questions. I have typed my 'current' questions below. If anyone can answer or give pointers/links, I would be very grateful.
Thanks.
1. What is the source of the intergalactic birkeland currents? [ie what is the source of energy of the universe?]
2. Does the P/E U acknowledge or deny the existence of the core of the sun/stars and fusion processes therein?
3. Where does P/E U say that fusion of elements occurs?
4. How does P/E U explain the sun's corona's temperature?
5. Does P/E U hold that fusion occurs by temperature alone or by some other process or by more than one process?
6. What temperature does it take to fuse the most difficult elements, and which are they?
7. What does the P/E U have to say about the plasma theory of Dr Laszlo Kortvelyessy, e.g. that high-energy plasma is "non-thermal"?
8. What does Anthony Perratt's lab have to say about the plasma theory of Dr Laszlo Kortvelyessy, e.g. that high-energy plasma is "non-thermal"?
9. How come Anthony Perratt's lab is a government institution embracing the P/E U, when other government institutions, eg NASA, are vehemently bigbang?

User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
Contact:

Re: a newcomer's questions [Plasma/Electric Universe

Unread post by davesmith_au » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:34 am

edcrater wrote: 1. What is the source of the intergalactic birkeland currents? [ie what is the source of energy of the universe?]
2. Does the P/E U acknowledge or deny the existence of the core of the sun/stars and fusion processes therein?
3. Where does P/E U say that fusion of elements occurs?
4. How does P/E U explain the sun's corona's temperature?
5. Does P/E U hold that fusion occurs by temperature alone or by some other process or by more than one process?
6. What temperature does it take to fuse the most difficult elements, and which are they?
7. What does the P/E U have to say about the plasma theory of Dr Laszlo Kortvelyessy, e.g. that high-energy plasma is "non-thermal"?
8. What does Anthony Perratt's lab have to say about the plasma theory of Dr Laszlo Kortvelyessy, e.g. that high-energy plasma is "non-thermal"?
9. How come Anthony Perratt's lab is a government institution embracing the P/E U, when other government institutions, eg NASA, are vehemently bigbang?
1. This is not a question anyone of the P/EU crowd are likely to have an answer for. It is akin to asking a big banger "what went bang", or "what made it go bang", or "where did the stuff (nothing) come from which went bang", though many big bangers will offer some answers to some of those questions, EU does not seek to explain that which evidence does not provide answers for. There is plenty of evidence for the Birkeland currents, some of which has been around for more than 100 years. Why they're there or where they came from is not evident, at least at this point in time.

2. There is no evidence that fusion is taking place at the core of the sun. Likening the sun to a big nuclear explosion is the only answer available to gravity-only cosmology. Once the electric nature of space is taken into account, this highly suspect theory is no longer necessary.

3. There are a number of conjectures about this, the most likely candidate at this stage, and I'm no expert on any of this, is that what nuclear reactions that do take place do so at or near the surface of the sun.

4. The best explanation for the high temperature of the sun's corona is the electrical energy which powers the sun from outside. The nuclear furnace explanation is flawed in suggesting you can get warmer the further you are from the fire...

The rest you'll have to ask someone more versed in the particular theories. If you've been studying Plasma/Electric Universe for some time, you should be familiar with both the thunderbolts site and the many hundreds of TPODs, some of which will provide more clarity of what you seek, or Wal Thornhill's holoscience site, where there's a great many News and Views pages to get your teeth stuck into.

You'll find material of Anthony Peratt's at his website. It is also prudent to point out that whilst EU embraces much of Peratt's work, the reverse cannot be said. Peratt's work is independent of EU and is a result of his position with Los Alamos labs and has nothing directly to do with the Electric Universe theory, save EU proponents quoting much of his work in support of their own position.

I hope the above at least helps you in your endeavors. Please don't expect any list of questions to be answered directly by the EU proponents, as they have much to do with their time. It is more productive for you to study the available material at the links above which will cover most of what you have asked.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: a newcomer's questions [Plasma/Electric Universe

Unread post by MGmirkin » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:39 pm

edcrater wrote:I am a new member, edcrater, and I have never used a forum before, and I don't know how to post. The FAQ says 'click the relevant button'. So far, in my ignorance, I have been unable to locate ANY button, let alone a relevant one! I have been studying Plasma /Electric universe for some time and have trouble getting answers to my many questions. I have typed my 'current' questions below. If anyone can answer or give pointers/links, I would be very grateful.
Thanks.
1. What is the source of the intergalactic birkeland currents? [ie what is the source of energy of the universe?]
2. Does the P/E U acknowledge or deny the existence of the core of the sun/stars and fusion processes therein?
3. Where does P/E U say that fusion of elements occurs?
4. How does P/E U explain the sun's corona's temperature?
5. Does P/E U hold that fusion occurs by temperature alone or by some other process or by more than one process?
6. What temperature does it take to fuse the most difficult elements, and which are they?
7. What does the P/E U have to say about the plasma theory of Dr Laszlo Kortvelyessy, e.g. that high-energy plasma is "non-thermal"?
8. What does Anthony Perratt's lab have to say about the plasma theory of Dr Laszlo Kortvelyessy, e.g. that high-energy plasma is "non-thermal"?
9. How come Anthony Perratt's lab is a government institution embracing the P/E U, when other government institutions, eg NASA, are vehemently bigbang?
Quite a few questions... Some have answers, some are currently conjectural.

1) This is the "big question." If there are currents, from whence do they spring? A simple answer would be "charge separation" of universal proportions. The next question then becomes how did charges become separated, or did they start that way? This doesn't have a concrete answer yet, and it's difficult to envisage an answer to this question, partially due to the limits of our technology's ability to observe the universe. IE, how far can we see? What's the range of our telescopes' vision? How big is the the entire universe? If the limit of our vision is say 10^50 light years, but the universe is 10^300 light years in radius (assuming a spherical geometry for ease of example), then our ability to observe is incomplete, and answering such a "big question" may be nigh impossible. Not unlike a water-skipper on the ocean, seeing to the horizon or the edges of the current swell and trying to intuit from that limited view the scope of the entire planet. Unfortunately, this might be unanswered for quite some time.

As Dave Smith, it's much like asking "what came before the Big Bang?" Frankly, nobody knows. Plenty of speculation, but nothing concrete.

2 & 3) There are differing opinions on this. Some people who support the EU model believe that the sun is gaseous, and more-or-less the focus of local galactic discharges, arising from larger discharges in the super-galactic realm in which the galaxy is imbedded. Some supporters, though not necessarily primary contributors, have theories that the sun has a liquid or possibly solid surface below the photosphere, and that anode tufting goes on above that. Thee are a few other sundry ideas. But the fact of the matter is that we generally can't see below the photosphere so there's not a consensus view on the internal fusion issue.

However, with the neutrino issue (which hasn't yet been resolved, despite hand-waving assertions that neutrinos "somehow magically change flavors" at just the right moment between the sun and the Earth to produce the actual abundances we see [and not those predicted / expected]) seems to indicate that there is a lower production rate than expected for the internal fusion model. A number of EU proponents, I believe, think that a surface-fusion model fits the data better and is consistent with what would be expected of the "electric sun" model (wherein fusion occurs, but at the surface and in smaller amounts than in the "internal fusion" model proposed by the standard model / Big Bang camp). There is also the issue of the so-called "temperature inversion" at the photosphere. It's currently believed by the standard model camp that fusion happens internally and heat radiates outward. However, the photosphere / corona temperature profile seems wrong for that. The further from a heat source, the cooler it's supposed to get. The fact that the photosphere is around 4k-6k Kelvin, the chromosphere jumps to several hundred thousand Kelvin and the corona to millions of degrees Kelvin seems to break the "internal heat source" model.

4) For many of the "electric sun" questions, I'd point you to Don Scott's "Electric Cosmos" page:

http://electric-cosmos.org/

Specifically:

("Stellar Evolution" in an Electric Universe)
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

(The "Electric Sun" Hypothesis)
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

(The Solar Neutrino Problem)
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

It might also be helpful to read Tim Thompson's critique of the theory, and Scott's rebuttal.

(On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis; Tim Thompson's critique)
http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html

(Tim Thompson – A Rebuttal; Don Scott's rejoinder to Tim's critique)
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm

One should probably read all sides and make up one's mind as to which to believe. I, at the minimum, give Scott a point or two for pointing out a legitimate transcription / math error on Thompson's part (apparently a ^ power symbol was left out when converting superscript to normal script, thus skewing Thompson's mathematical outcome). Scott's explanations seem plausible as well. Granted I'm not so well versed in EE principles. But seeing as how he's an electrical engineer and was a professor on the topic for many years, one would assume he knows his stuff.

A few of Scott's papers might also shed some light on certain processes on the sun or elsewhere:

(A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism; IE, double layer(s) at the surface of the sun, give or take)
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_ ... er=4346305

(Solar Surface Transistor Action)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

(Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-Tr ... ug2007.pdf

Thee may be one or two others, I forget. Just a few links I had on hand...

5) I would assume that EU / PC would generally defer to the field of nuclear physics on how fusion itself actually occurs. Though Thornhill might be able to offer more insight, as he seems to have a theory of gravity as a dipolar electric effect, which is predicated upon a certain structure of atoms and possibly even of "elementary particles." Thee might be implications from that model that would apply to things like fusion as well. But I won't speculate.

They might note that the failure to produce sustainable fusion over the last 50 some odd years may end up being an indictment of current theory in that regard as well. It's hard to PRODUCE fusion, if one doesn't UNDERSTAND how / why it works. Plenty of models, but so far not much by the way of working facilities. Granted that's more my opinion than a quote from anyone associated with EU / PC.

6) I don't know that anyone in the EU group has made any specific pronouncements about this issue, and would probably again defer to the current state of the art and current technical understandings in that field of research.

7 & 8) Though Kortvelyessy has a book very similarly titled to the EU / PC paradigm(s), he is not directly affiliated with the group, and I don't know that Thornhill et al have read much of his stuff. But, I might be mistaken? Anyway, I haven't heard any commentary on his work, specifically. I've heard a tiny bit of supportive commentary about Eric Lerner, but even that is a bit "few and far between." I think they're more concerned with waxing philosophic on the implications of their own approach than actively evaluating the myriad similar-but-different theories out there. With a few exceptions. ;)

Likewise, I haven't heard anything about Peratt having read Kortvelyessy's work either. He's basically independent of the Thunderbolts group, despite their quoting a number of his papers that happen to independently support the EU position.

9) Probably because they actually work with plasmas and PIC simulations on a day-to-day basis at LANL, whereas NASA does not. Also, probably because Peratt studied under Alfvén and actually paid attention, whereas NASA apparently didn't? Still too much discussion of "magnetic reconnection" and "frozen-in field lines" in plasma at NASA, THEMIS, Cluster, etc. Not enough talk of the underlying currents that must give rise to the magnetic fields observed in space. Working with plasmas and high end PIC simulations, LANL / Peratt are probably much closer to an actual understanding of how plasmas behave on Earth and in space than people who've perhaps read a few papers on "reconnection," accepted them as fact, and are currently a bit "confused" on a regular basis (every third press release, it seems).

NASA et al really should probably pay a bit more attention to Alfvén and Scott:

(Double layers and circuits in astrophysics)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 013880.pdf

(Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-Tr ... ug2007.pdf

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
Contact:

Re: a newcomer's questions [Plasma/Electric Universe

Unread post by davesmith_au » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:46 pm

Nice rounding out Michael.

Though I take issue with this:
MGmirkin wrote:... (every third press release, it seems).
You're too kind. I'd replace "third" with "single"... ;) :lol:

Cheers, Dave Smith.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: a newcomer's questions [Plasma/Electric Universe

Unread post by MGmirkin » Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:08 am

davesmith_au wrote:Nice rounding out Michael.

Though I take issue with this:
MGmirkin wrote:... (every third press release, it seems).
You're too kind. I'd replace "third" with "single"... ;) :lol:

Cheers, Dave Smith.
I prefer to be on the generous side... ;) Call it a character flaw, if you must!

But, it's neither here nor there.

~Michael
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

rcglinsk
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:06 pm

Re: a newcomer's questions [Plasma/Electric Universe

Unread post by rcglinsk » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:11 pm

edcrater wrote:I am a new member, edcrater, and I have never used a forum before, and I don't know how to post. The FAQ says 'click the relevant button'. So far, in my ignorance, I have been unable to locate ANY button, let alone a relevant one! I have been studying Plasma /Electric universe for some time and have trouble getting answers to my many questions. I have typed my 'current' questions below. If anyone can answer or give pointers/links, I would be very grateful.
Thanks.
1. What is the source of the intergalactic birkeland currents? [ie what is the source of energy of the universe?]
2. Does the P/E U acknowledge or deny the existence of the core of the sun/stars and fusion processes therein?
3. Where does P/E U say that fusion of elements occurs?
4. How does P/E U explain the sun's corona's temperature?
5. Does P/E U hold that fusion occurs by temperature alone or by some other process or by more than one process?
6. What temperature does it take to fuse the most difficult elements, and which are they?
7. What does the P/E U have to say about the plasma theory of Dr Laszlo Kortvelyessy, e.g. that high-energy plasma is "non-thermal"?
8. What does Anthony Perratt's lab have to say about the plasma theory of Dr Laszlo Kortvelyessy, e.g. that high-energy plasma is "non-thermal"?
9. How come Anthony Perratt's lab is a government institution embracing the P/E U, when other government institutions, eg NASA, are vehemently bigbang?
Great questions, I have a couple cents that may differ from above. I like the idea of helping students and hope this will do so:

1. What we call "current" is an observation. There is no friction observed between electrons and ether or empty space. The stuff of this world is already in motion, and it does not appear to be slowing down by any friction against the cosmos or entropy loss to another universe or whatever. In this sense, our concept of "energy" is not about a fundamental rule of the universe, that everything has a first mover, it is a rule of our relationship to the world, in that we can only move something here or place something there by a process that we call expenditure of energy. Current, energy, friction, entropy etc. are all concepts that say there will be a loss of ordered motion and an increase of vibration energy (light) in any case that humans act upon the universe. These do not have to be immutable laws of the universe. The universe could contain current as much as it contains planets and stars. To think that this current is an energy or requires a first mover is to be already delved into a thermodynamic/big bang view of things.

2. The notions about the core of the sun are conjecture as no one's taken a good look. So basically, we're looking at the stuff coming out of a box and trying to guess what's going on inside. The conventional guess is a downright magical process called "the self sustaining dynamo." This is a very wrongheaded notion that violates the second law of thermodynamics. Thousands of people have tried to make these dynamos in laboratories and failed consistently. Below this magic dynamo the guess continues is the dense core of fusing hydrogen and iron ash. The EU proposal of an electric sun http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm is still conjecture, but it's based on things that actually exist, it is baseline plausible.

3. When fusion is created in laboratories it is accomplished by sending organized very high energy current into a shaped chamber filled with halogen plasma. The current flow creates a pair of sheets contained by very strong magnetic forces. Then a feedback process occurs. The sheets fold into the surface of a sphere (roughly) and the overlapping magnetic fields force the surface to be smaller and smaller, and as the surface gets smaller the magnetic forces causing the constraint increase maintaining feedback. Eventually within the shell of current sheets the temperature/density/compression/magnetic field strength (whatever you want to say, at that distance scale it's pretty academic) is high enough to cause fusion. The EU theory generally says that similar conditions can be achieved in plasma sheets near the surface of stars.

4. I'm almost sure one of the above comments nailed this question.

5. Temperature is such a qualitative term. I think you're really talking about a simultaneous notion of temperature/pressure/volume and of course that makes the difference as it pretty much completely describes the important physical macroscopic characteristics of the system.

6. A better question would be "what circumstances have to exist for the following fusion to occur?" I got nothing other than how you can make fusion happen in a lab. It's not just a question of temperature, everything matters. Heck, you can catalyze fusion on the surface of platinum if you made your coil with the right alchemy and put the right kind of current though em (cold fusion experiments being very hit or miss).

7. In my humble opinion temperature is a macroscopic qualitative effect that emerges from E/M interactions, the way the surface of water can emerge from billion molecules. The biggest problem with analyzing plasmas with the notion of temperature is you're really just trying to find a way to describe velocity vector distributions. So, we could model each particle via its charge and E/M interactions, and build up from there a macroscopic view of what's going on. Instead, we try to build the macro view, with our notion of temperature. Then we use the maxwell/boltzman distribution to tell us where all the particles are at the mico level. I find it to be quite bad science because that bell curve distribution only holds at certain conditions that are almost never present in the cosmos.

I hope this helped. With students especially we can save them from ways of looking at the world which make it harder for them to understand modern science.

User avatar
edcrater
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:57 am
Location: Limerick, Ire.

Re: Newcomer's Questions [Plasma / Electric Universe]

Unread post by edcrater » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:22 am

I would just like to say thanks to the three respondents to my 'Newcomer's Questions'. Your extensive replies were much appreciated, and I am investigating the links.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests