The Universe Is Connected By Birkeland Currents

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmj7 ... structures

“This discovery is quite new and unexpected,” said lead author Joon Hyeop Lee, an astronomer at the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, in an email. “I have never seen any previous report of observations or any prediction from numerical simulations, exactly related to this phenomenon.”

Lee and his colleagues studied 445 galaxies within 400 million light years of Earth, and noticed that many of the ones rotating in a direction toward Earth had neighbors that were moving toward Earth, while those that were rotating in the opposite direction had neighbors moving away from Earth.

“The observed coherence must have some relationship with large-scale structures, because it is impossible that the galaxies separated by six megaparsecs [roughly 20 million light years] directly interact with each other,” Lee said.

The observation that galaxies rotate in unison is complete consistent with Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model. This only demonstrates how obvious it is that we live inside of an electric universe, and how out of touch with reality the mainstream models remain. Nothing in the mainstream models predict this pattern of inter-connectivity.

[Zyxzevn]

Nothing in the mainstream models predict this pattern of inter-connectivity.

Dark unicorns!

Anyway, I only wonder what drives these gigantic electric currents.
While rotation in magnetic field can create currents and
currents can create magnetic fields, these both have a breaking effect
on the rotation of galaxies.
And they both counter each other.
(Something that they omit in astronomy lessons)

I think there must also be an energy generator behind it.

For example, nuclear reactions could send charged particles
over very long distances, we have a current that can drive a whole system.

Or cosmic objects that are called black holes, send out enormous beams
of charged matter into 2 opposing directions.
Whatever the energy-source is, it seems that these could be a powerful
engine behind very strong currents.

[paladin17]

The observation that galaxies rotate in unison is complete consistent with Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model. This only demonstrates how obvious it is that we live inside of an electric universe, and how out of touch with reality the mainstream models remain. Nothing in the mainstream models predict this pattern of inter-connectivity.

It is certainly consistent with the existence of currents, but I don't think it has anything to do with Don Scott's model.

[Michael Mozina]

Nothing in the mainstream models predict this pattern of inter-connectivity.

Dark unicorns!

Anyway, I only wonder what drives these gigantic electric currents.
While rotation in magnetic field can create currents and
currents can create magnetic fields, these both have a breaking effect
on the rotation of galaxies.
And they both counter each other.
(Something that they omit in astronomy lessons)

I think there must also be an energy generator behind it.

For example, nuclear reactions could send charged particles
over very long distances, we have a current that can drive a whole system.

Or cosmic objects that are called black holes, send out enormous beams
of charged matter into 2 opposing directions.
Whatever the energy-source is, it seems that these could be a powerful
engine behind very strong currents.

I suppose that the 'driving force' of the current depends on which solar model one prefers to start with. Birkeland's internally powered cathode solar model presumes that all suns are also electrical generators which are simply wired together. In that scenario there are hundreds of billions of generators in every galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies that are all generating electrical current.

Assuming that half of the *complete* universe is composed of antimatter, it could be that antimatter that is located outside of our visible universe provides at least some of the electrical current, which could then be used to "power" anode suns.

All rotating objects in space are treated as "homopolar generators" in Alfven's cosmology model, so the rotation energy of various bodies is slowly being converted into electrical energy according to Alfven.

It could be a combination of various factors too.

[Michael Mozina]

The observation that galaxies rotate in unison is complete consistent with Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model. This only demonstrates how obvious it is that we live inside of an electric universe, and how out of touch with reality the mainstream models remain. Nothing in the mainstream models predict this pattern of inter-connectivity.

It is certainly consistent with the existence of currents, but I don't think it has anything to do with Don Scott's model.

In the sense that there's no counter-rotation patterns observed (yet), it's more of a "generic" Birkeland current that isn't necessarily limited to Scott's model per se.

[formerlycbragz]

if i may add a speculationto this post...plasma science shows us that plasmas are self-similar through ~49 orders of magnitude ,up and down...my speculation is that our universe,itself,is contained within a birkeland current some orders of magnitude beyond our current(no pun intended) ability to perceive it...just my thought...Mauriora...xc

[paladin17]

It is certainly consistent with the existence of currents, but I don't think it has anything to do with Don Scott's model.

In the sense that there's no counter-rotation patterns observed (yet), it's more of a "generic" Birkeland current that isn't necessarily limited to Scott's model per se.

Yes. His (= Lundquist's) model is very specific and contains repeating coaxial cylindrical shells, which have not been observed anywhere (to my knowledge).
There are questions about it even at the fundamental level. But that's a separate discussion.

[Michael Mozina]

It is certainly consistent with the existence of currents, but I don't think it has anything to do with Don Scott's model.

In the sense that there's no counter-rotation patterns observed (yet), it's more of a "generic" Birkeland current that isn't necessarily limited to Scott's model per se.

Yes. His (= Lundquist's) model is very specific and contains repeating coaxial cylindrical shells, which have not been observed anywhere (to my knowledge).
There are questions about it even at the fundamental level. But that's a separate discussion.

I would argue that evidence to support concentric shells have been observed in galaxies exhibiting counter-rotating rings, as well as planetary wind patterns around Jupiter. I'd agree with you that we don't yet have evidence of counter-rotation at the largest scales, like the filaments that connect galaxy clusters described in that article, but it wouldn't surprise me if such evidence is eventually found.

The only mathematical or physical objections that I've seen to Scott's model so far were put forth by an individual who had apparently never heard of Beltrami vector fields/flows or the fact they've been used in force free field models for decades. I didn't find their objections to be even remotely convincing or difficult to handle, in fact they were easily debunked with printed papers and books and a WIKI link describing Beltrami vector fields. I'd say that Scott's model has held up pretty well to public scrutiny thus far.

I also believe that Dr. Scott's 'concentric ring" model may have important value when trying to explain counter-rotating galaxies in particular since dark matter models (alone) don't necessarily predict counter-rotation, and Dr. Scott's model predicts that in some cases they might result in very complex counter-rotation processes. The only way to handle counter-rotation in the standard model is to assume that it's a "merger" related phenomenon that would not be likely to produce complex counter-rotation patterns.

In this particular case however, even a simplified Birkeland current model would suffice to explain what we observe.

Keep in mind that the article points to to three specific new observations which are all consistent with a Birkeland current model, yet are not predicted by, or which come into direct conflict with dark matter model predictions. The satellite galaxies being aligned along the equatorial plane are particularly damning to the dark matter model because the DM models predict them to be randomly distributed, not aligned along the equator.

Birkeland's own experiments from a century ago however demonstrated that plasma around his terella tended to concentrate around the equator and it wasn't evenly distributed around the whole sphere. That alone is a major observation in favor of EU/PC theory, and in direct conflict with the LCDM model. On top of that we see alignment patterns of galaxies and quasars that is *not* predicted by LCDM models, but is a direct prediction of a Birkeland current description of the threads of spacetime. That's quite impressive IMO.

[paladin17]

It is certainly consistent with the existence of currents, but I don't think it has anything to do with Don Scott's model.

In the sense that there's no counter-rotation patterns observed (yet), it's more of a "generic" Birkeland current that isn't necessarily limited to Scott's model per se.

Yes. His (= Lundquist's) model is very specific and contains repeating coaxial cylindrical shells, which have not been observed anywhere (to my knowledge).
There are questions about it even at the fundamental level. But that's a separate discussion.

I would argue that evidence to support concentric shells have been observed in galaxies exhibiting counter-rotating rings, as well as planetary wind patterns around Jupiter. I'd agree with you that we don't yet have evidence of counter-rotation at the largest scales, like the filaments that connect galaxy clusters described in that article, but it wouldn't surprise me if such evidence is eventually found.

As far as I know, counter-rotation is only observed at the innermost regions of galaxies. And then again, these are rare themselves.
So no Bessel function fields (repeating shells of rotation/counter-rotation) - no evidence for Scott-Lundquist type of current.
At planets (Mercury, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn - where in situ measurements were made) we don't observe them either - we only see a regular auroral circuit with currents flowing along magnetic field lines from the equatorial region to the polar areas and closing in the ionosphere. No evidence for Scott-Lundquist type of current here too.

On a theoretical level, the main objection that I have is improper boundary conditions. As far as I can see, a Bessel function FAC is impossible with finite boundary condition - i.e. the current reversals are actually produced by the fields at infinity. Plus, the total current in such a setting diverges, which is non-physical.

[Michael Mozina]

As far as I know, counter-rotation is only observed at the innermost regions of galaxies. And then again, these are rare themselves. So no Bessel function fields (repeating shells of rotation/counter-rotation) - no evidence for Scott-Lundquist type of current.

I"m not sure I understand the significance of where the counter-rotation might be found in a given galaxy, or it's frequency of observation. I'm not even sure we have studied galaxy movement patterns long enough to fully appreciate their range or frequency of counter-rotation patterns. The number of concentric rings (or lack of concentric rings) in a given galaxy could be related to the complexity (or lack thereof) of the current flow patterns themselves. The fact that we observe the phenomenon at all could be construed as evidence to support his concentric current model. "Dark matter" models of galaxy rotation patterns for instance don't automatically predict counter-rotation patterns in *any* instance. One has to evoke a galaxy collision process to handle counter-rotation in the mainstream model. One must typically assume such a collision process occurred relatively recently as well.

At planets (Mercury, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn - where in situ measurements were made) we don't observe them either - we only see a regular auroral circuit with currents flowing along magnetic field lines from the equatorial region to the polar areas and closing in the ionosphere. No evidence for Scott-Lundquist type of current here too.

https://youtu.be/75RnmfKNiP8?t=37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z69NfO6iY4c

I definitely see what looks to be patterns of rotation and counter-rotation at the poles of both Jupiter and Saturn. Saturn's patterns look pretty simplistic (two areas/rings), compared to the number of concentric rings at Jupiter's poles.

On a theoretical level, the main objection that I have is improper boundary conditions. As far as I can see, a Bessel function FAC is impossible with finite boundary condition - i.e. the current reversals are actually produced by the fields at infinity. Plus, the total current in such a setting diverges, which is non-physical.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not following your argument properly. You might have to try again to explain your point. I would suggest that the *plasma itself* defines the 'boundary" conditions based on the density (and lack thereof) inside the BK, and the magnetic field orientations which are produced by the current flow patterns. It's certainly a 'physical" process.

[paladin17]

As far as I know, counter-rotation is only observed at the innermost regions of galaxies. And then again, these are rare themselves. So no Bessel function fields (repeating shells of rotation/counter-rotation) - no evidence for Scott-Lundquist type of current.

I"m not sure I understand the significance of where the counter-rotation might be found in a given galaxy, or it's frequency of observation. I'm not even sure we have studied galaxy movement patterns long enough to fully appreciate their range or frequency of counter-rotation patterns. The number of concentric rings (or lack of concentric rings) in a given galaxy could be related to the complexity (or lack thereof) of the current flow patterns themselves.

I absolutely agree with the last statement. What I'm saying, however, is that the exact type of current flow pattern proposed by Scott is not observed.

https://youtu.be/75RnmfKNiP8?t=37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z69NfO6iY4c

I definitely see what looks to be patterns of rotation and counter-rotation at the poles of both Jupiter and Saturn. Saturn's patterns look pretty simplistic (two areas/rings), compared to the number of concentric rings at Jupiter's poles.

Regardless, his currents are not there - we've been there and measured that.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not following your argument properly. You might have to try again to explain your point. I would suggest that the *plasma itself* defines the 'boundary" conditions based on the density (and lack thereof) inside the BK, and the magnetic field orientations which are produced by the current flow patterns. It's certainly a 'physical" process.

Well, just read his paper then. See if you can find any boundary (except the one at infinity). Then integrate the current over the whole cross section, get a diverging value (from - infinity to + infinity) and think about how physical is that.

[Michael Mozina]

As far as I know, counter-rotation is only observed at the innermost regions of galaxies. And then again, these are rare themselves. So no Bessel function fields (repeating shells of rotation/counter-rotation) - no evidence for Scott-Lundquist type of current.

I"m not sure I understand the significance of where the counter-rotation might be found in a given galaxy, or it's frequency of observation. I'm not even sure we have studied galaxy movement patterns long enough to fully appreciate their range or frequency of counter-rotation patterns. The number of concentric rings (or lack of concentric rings) in a given galaxy could be related to the complexity (or lack thereof) of the current flow patterns themselves.

I absolutely agree with the last statement. What I'm saying, however, is that the exact type of current flow pattern proposed by Scott is not observed.

https://youtu.be/75RnmfKNiP8?t=37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z69NfO6iY4c

I definitely see what looks to be patterns of rotation and counter-rotation at the poles of both Jupiter and Saturn. Saturn's patterns look pretty simplistic (two areas/rings), compared to the number of concentric rings at Jupiter's poles.

Regardless, his currents are not there - we've been there and measured that.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not following your argument properly. You might have to try again to explain your point. I would suggest that the *plasma itself* defines the 'boundary" conditions based on the density (and lack thereof) inside the BK, and the magnetic field orientations which are produced by the current flow patterns. It's certainly a 'physical" process.

Well, just read his paper then. See if you can find any boundary (except the one at infinity). Then integrate the current over the whole cross section, get a diverging value (from - infinity to + infinity) and think about how physical is that.

If you look at equation 30, and figure 2, the Axial Magnetic Field component Bz, and the Azimuthal Magnetic Field component Bθ follow a sine wave pattern at various radial distances which is what acts to create the concentric rings as various distances. The concentric tube process is certainly a "physical' process with an identified "physical" cause.

[paladin17]

If you look at equation 30, and figure 2, the Axial Magnetic Field component Bz, and the Azimuthal Magnetic Field component Bθ follow a sine wave pattern at various radial distances which is what acts to create the concentric rings as various distances. The concentric tube process is certainly a "physical' process with an identified "physical" cause.

It's not a sine wave, but a cylindrical Bessel function. Regardless, I'd like you to:
1) show that such a pattern can be obtained from Maxwell's equations with finite boundary conditions (e.g. requiring B = 0 at r > b, where b is some arbitrary distance);
2) if 1 is not possible, at least show that the total current/field over infinite cross section (r goes from 0 to infinity, as is required by the paper) is finite.
I claim that both are impossible. And until someone proves otherwise, Scott's model has nothing to do with reality in my books.

[Higgsy]

If you look at equation 30, and figure 2, the Axial Magnetic Field component Bz, and the Azimuthal Magnetic Field component Bθ follow a sine wave pattern at various radial distances which is what acts to create the concentric rings as various distances. The concentric tube process is certainly a "physical' process with an identified "physical" cause.

It's not a sine wave, but a cylindrical Bessel function. Regardless, I'd like you to:
1) show that such a pattern can be obtained from Maxwell's equations with finite boundary conditions (e.g. requiring B = 0 at r > b, where b is some arbitrary distance);
2) if 1 is not possible, at least show that the total current/field over infinite cross section (r goes from 0 to infinity, as is required by the paper) is finite.
I claim that both are impossible. And until someone proves otherwise, Scott's model has nothing to do with reality in my books.

Re 2): I believe that the integral of J_n from zero to r tends to one as r goes to infinity. Are you referring to the integral of the modulus of J_n? Just checking that I understand your position on this.

[paladin17]

It's not a sine wave, but a cylindrical Bessel function. Regardless, I'd like you to:
1) show that such a pattern can be obtained from Maxwell's equations with finite boundary conditions (e.g. requiring B = 0 at r > b, where b is some arbitrary distance);
2) if 1 is not possible, at least show that the total current/field over infinite cross section (r goes from 0 to infinity, as is required by the paper) is finite.
I claim that both are impossible. And until someone proves otherwise, Scott's model has nothing to do with reality in my books.

Re 2): I believe that the integral of J_n from zero to r tends to one as r goes to infinity. Are you referring to the integral of the modulus of J_n? Just checking that I understand your position on this.

This is not a problem per se. The problem is that current density (see (49) in the linked paper) is proportional to J_0. Which, since the area rises as r^2, gives you a divergence of the total current at r = infinity.