Debye length

[Michael Mozina]

Clearly Plasma Cosmology in all its variants is a bad theory contradicted by observation; whether it is pseudoscience is a debatable point.

The irony of some of the mainstream comments simply amazes me at times.

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... ?f=3&t=312

The LCDM model is contradicted by *numerous* observations, including a distinct lack of first generation stars in the early/distant universe, massive quasars that defy it's concept of black hole evolution over time, massive and 'mature' galaxies that directly contradict the concept of galaxy evolution over time, and it's internally self conflicted estimates of the Hubble constant. I can't even think of any other cosmology model that fails the observational test so badly. In addition, it's failed tens of *billions* of dollars of experimental tests of dark matter, it's directly at odds with the laws of physics, and directly at odds with the standard model of particle physics. It's got four metaphysical mathematical kludges to hold it together, and it's *still* self conflicted with the respect to the Hubble constant.

There's not even a debate as to whether or not the LCMD model is pseudoscience. It's pure pseudoscience on a stick!

I think it says volumes that the mainstream is reduced to dishonestly lying about the predictions of the EU/PC model, and creating strawman arguments in order to "debunk" it. Contrary to their flat out misrepresentions of the facts, EU/PC solar models do not predict "no neutrinos". No one in the EU/PC community believes that binary stars are held together without the benefit of gravity, or that they have different charges from each other. The mainstream is so unprofessional and so dishonest about it, there can be no doubt at all that they are peddling a giant piece of pseudoscientific junk.

You certainly don't have to "lie" about the LCDM model to "debunk" it. It's a gigantic piece of internally self conflicted junk, and it is in direct conflict with at least a half dozen observations, *real* observations which even the mainstream admits are perplexing and at odds with the model, not stuff that I personally just have to "make up'".

I can understand why some folks privately choose to prefer the LCMD model over the EU/PC model. What I do not understand however is why anyone would go out of their way to flat out lie about the predictions of the EU/PC model to the public in order to try to fool others. That's just unethical as hell. It's pretty damn obvious from this sort of ethically challenged behavior that the mainstream cannot and will not embrace reality, no matter how obviously it is staring them in the face. They'd rather *lie* to their students and lie to the public in order to try to support the LCDM model rather than to do their job as so called 'professionals'. That's just disgusting and immoral behavior.

[Michael Mozina]

Here's a great example of the professional incompetence and/or the complete lack of eithics that plagues astronomy today:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-74982544

There are various plasma cosmology models, the most famous is the Alfven-Klein model.

Ok.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75136620

Plasma Cosmology being a static universe model cannot explain the time dilation and would predict the light curve to be the same as the green curve at all distances.

Here we have another excellent example of the complete professional incompetence of so called "professional" astronomers. sjastro just got through referencing Alfven's own "expansion" model of cosmology as being the most "famous" PC cosmology model, with a link to his paper included in his post. Considering the fact that it's the PC cosmology model that is described in Alfven's book, that's probably a correct assessment. Alfven's model PC cosmology model *assumes* an expansion process so it would necessarily predict the same SN1A light curve as any other expansion model.

Even a "static universe" model can and does explain what sjastro is calling "time dilation" as being caused by signal broadening over time as photons interact with the plasma medium, so sjastro's assertion that PC predicts the light curve that he claims is utterly false. This is what I mean by the gross professional incompetence that we're dealing with. So called "professionals" won't spend five minutes trying to properly understand the plasma cosmology models (plural) that they attempt to criticize, and their comments are both blatantly false and intentionally misleading.

The mainstream is ethically and morally challenged because they actually do "know" better as sjastro's own earlier reference demonstrates, they simply misrepresent the PC model *intentionally*. They *intentionally* attempt to mislead the public and distort the truth. That's just disgusting and immoral behavior.

They do the very same thing with respect to the work of Edwin Hubble. Hubble didn't "prove the universe is expanding" as they falsely assert. Hubble *rejected* the expansion explanation of redshift later in his life in favor of a "tired light" model of redshift.

The mainstream's reference to "Doppler shift" as being a justification for "space expansion" is another great example of a "bait and switch" routine that is also intentionally misleading and false. The mainstream is *willfully* misrepresenting the facts to the public on a regular basis. That's the kind of unethical nonsense that keeps us stuck in the literal "dark" ages of astronomy.

They do it *constantly* too, including trying to justify "magnetic reconnection' theory based on MHD theory in spite of the fact that Alfven personally called MRx theory "pseudoscience" till the day he died, and yet this fact is *never* discussed by the mainstream.

Their entire "game" is to distort the truth and hide the truth, and trample all over the truth in a futile effort to save themselves a little short-term embarrassment. All astronomers are ultimately doing is leaving a lasting legacy that reeks of professional incompetence and unethical behavior.

[EtherQuestions]

Here's what I mean about professional incompetence and/or willful misrepresentations of EU/PC theory and of my statements by the mainstream:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75123471

I notice how over at EU central they have decided to rewrite the laws of physics by claiming the electromagnetic force is generated by electric currents in order to get around the Debye length limitation on the range of the electromagnetic force.

Actually, no. Anytime you have a current flowing through a Birkeland current, you have a magnetic field that forms around the current which acts to repel or attract any other magnetic field around any other Birkeland current in space.

Apparently sjastro has never even heard of the "pinch effect" or understands basic electromagnetics. Birkeland currents, means currents which produce a B Field (as observed).

[Michael Mozina]

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

It's widely accepted that "space" does a magic expansion trick which by definition is a violation of the conservation of energy laws, but it's also possible to explain the redshift that we see in terms of ordinary spacetime expansion (moving objects) and time dilation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0275

It's also worth nothing that a static universe model passes the Tolman brightness test as well if not better than an expansion model.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ired_Light

Using data from five FRB's this is tested and a linear relation is seen of the form DM = 1830LN(1 + z). The gradient of the plot from the observed data is within 23% of that predicted by NTL. Recently the Tolman Surface Brightness test has been applied to the HUDF and the results support a static universe whilst the possibility of two differing types of SN Ia whose distribution changes with distances means that tired light models can no longer be ruled out. Using SDF we know the distance to the Atlia galaxy cluster as 1.26 × 10^24 m. With the average electron number density of n = 0.5 m^−3 found from the Dispersion Measures of the FRB's, from first principles, New Tired Light gives a calculated predicted L. Ashmore 513 redshift of 0.0086. This compares well with the value found spectroscopically of 0.0087—a difference of approximately 1%. It is shown that if the energy transferred to a recoiling electron when a UV photon of wavelength λ = 5 × 10^−8 m interacts with it is emitted as a secondary photon that photon will have a wavelength of 2.2 mm— the wavelength at which the CMB curve peaks.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75157080

There is also the issue when EU central present examples of "science" which contradict each other.
A paper is presented which explains cosmological redshift as a relativistic Doppler Shift, yet in the very next post by the same author cosmological redshift is presented as a tired light theory!!!
It shows either abysmal ignorance or it doesn't matter, in which case this is more anti-science than pseudoscience.

This recent post by sjastro is absolutely hilarious. It clearly demonstrates the irrational nature of astronomers today. Apparently it doesn't matter to sjastro that the LCDM model violates the conservation laws of physics, not just once with "space expansion", but does it again with "dark energy", another *gross* contradiction of the laws of physics which simply isn't necessary in the first place. Nevermind the fact that there are contradictory definitions galore of "dark matter" in the LCDM model, and mutually exclusive definitions of inflation in the BB theory.

The only "abysmal ignorance" happening in astronomy is the fact that the mainstream claims that there *must* be only one "explanation" for a specific observation in any *other* model besides their own, and the fact they can't even begin to think outside the metaphysical box when it comes to possible empirical alternatives to their metaphysical crap.

Yes indeed, there are in fact *multiple* empirical alternatives to the gross violations of the laws of physics happening in the LCDM model. Plasma redshift has been *documented* in the lab (see Chen) and redshift has been directly associated with the amount of free electrons in the plasma. Doppler shift is also an *empirical* alternative to the mainstream metaphysical nonsense, and of course it's possible that *both* empirical influences occur in space.

An honest "I'm not sure of the empirical cause" is a a hell of a lot better than making up metaphysical nonsense as astronomers have done for *millennia*. It took them 18 centuries to embrace heliocentrism after Aristarchus of Samos first explained it to them, and it may take them another 18 centuries to embrace electric fields in space at the rate they're going. It's been a full century already since Birkeland explained and empiricallly simulated the heat source of the corona to them in a lab, and they *still* can't figure that one out.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75157159

What can you expect? They don't have just one explanation for any single observed phenomenon. EU central is *REALLY* bad about this.

We're bad about it? LOL! Again, we're supposed to simply ignore the fact that big bang proponents can't make up their mind about the nature of "dark matter" so they literally "made up" numerous categories of "dark matter", all of which are mutually exclusive, and they've proposed a half dozen different models of inflation too. Sheesh. Talk about pure hypocrisy.

The rationalizations by the mainstream are simply bizarre. They propose a model that is 95 percent metaphysical horse manure, and it's *still* self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant, yet every empirical alternative to their metaphysical Frankenstein is dismissed out of hand because of some perceived weakness in any alternative model. Wow. Nothing like blowing up the irony meter.

It's absolutely *hysterical* that the LCDM model is *internally self conflicted*, it's falsified by massive and mature galaxies and quasars at high redshift, and the lack of first generation stars in the distance universe, and the fact that there are numerous empirical alternatives to the LCDM model that offer a better fit to the observed data. This scenario is exactly like the mainstream's emotional attachment to Ptolemy for 18 centuries in spite of the obvious problems with it, and in spite of the proposal of "better" models. Change in astronomy happens at a snails pace. Just ask Aristarchus of Samos, or Kristian Birkeland.

The mainstream is simply professionally incompetent.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75159965

When the pseudoscience fails (usually due to a frontal challenge) they, at EU central or other pits of scientific delusion, will strike out with anti-science backlash like wounded animals. I don't by their pretenses that the love science.

Some of the comments by the mainstream are simply hilarious due to the amount of shear projection they contain.

Hannes Alfven *wrote* MHD theory and he called "magnetic reconnection" pseudoscience till the day he died. Einstein called a "singularity" model the same thing. None of the mainstream metaphysical nonsense actually works in a lab. They cannot even sustain a full sphere solar corona, or generate a working simulation of a planetary aurora using "magnetic reconnection", though it's been done for more than a century based on circuit theory. Dark matter has been a complete disaster in the lab for more than a full decade now, and two decades after first proposing the idea, the mainstream still cannot name a single source of "dark energy". Nothing about the LCDM model matches actual high redshift observations, and it defies the laws of physics *two different ways*!

Instead of taking the time to actually *understand* alternative empirical models, the mainstream constantly misrepresent them, they flat out *lie* about them to the public, and they have the shear audacity to talk about empirical physical alternatives to their metaphysical nonsense as "anti-science", and "pseudosciece". It's pure projection on their part because they're too damn lazy to make any real effort to understand anything properly, and they don't have any logical scientific rebuttals to begin with. Instead they resort to pure trash talk and outright deception. Mainstream astronomy is stuck in the dark ages of physics for a damn good reason. The whole industry is corrupt beyond repair, and it's unprofessional in the extreme.

[paladin17]

I think the core of the issue with Debye shielding which has not yet been mentioned in this topic is the nature of electric fields in space.

The basic assumption of most EU models I've encountered is that electric fields in space are potential (one might also say, electrostatic), i.e. they come from charge separation. Whereas the actual examples of space currents given in this topic - e.g. magnetospheric/heliospheric currents or galactic currents - are produced by non-potential (one might vaguely say, electrodynamic) electric fields, which come from electromagnetic induction.

Indeed, if you start with an electrostatic perspective and e.g. claim that "the Sun is charged with respect to space, and the resulting electric field drives the currents that make it shine/produce energy", you are immediately faced with a problem of depletion of the said charge with time (a rather small time - not even talking about years, but perhaps fractions of a second). AND the problem of Debye shielding. Namely, the charge in plasma would be immediately isolated (on the scales corresponding to Debye length) with a double layer, and it is unlikely to be able to sustain any current through it at all.
These two issues are the main problems with the "electrostatic" electric Sun models (such as anode/cathode etc.) and I'm not sure they can be solved.

However, if we look at the electrodynamic side of things, everything is way easier (not for electric Sun though): one doesn't need separation of charges to produce the electric field, - only a change in magnetic flux is required. And in this case there is no Debye shielding problem. It is simply non-existent, as induced non-potential electric fields exist in any conductors, and plasma is a conductor. This is confirmed by the observations of large-scale currents listed in the previous messages here (and also many others - e.g. currents in coronal loops/solar flares, currents in cometary tails etc.).

Here we might ask a question: what drives these changes in magnetic flux? It might be currents themselves or simply a mechanical motion of a magnetized conductor. In a way, currents and magnetic fields are a chicken and egg kind of phenomena. But that way or another, this is the only way (in my eyes) to get rid of Debye shielding. The point is, however, that the naive view (exemplified by many EU theories) that

charge separation --> electric fields --> electric currents --> magnetic fields

should be changed into

electric currents <---> magnetic fields
(along with the according mechanical motion).

In the first sequence the very first connection is killed by Debye shielding. The second is entirely free of that problem.

[nick c]

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005 ... hballs.htm

The Electric Universe model is based on electrodynamics.

The first step in understanding electricity in space is to set aside theories and to gain empirical familiarity with real plasma behavior. It is a step advocated by the father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfvén, in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

[Michael Mozina]

I think the core of the issue with Debye shielding which has not yet been mentioned in this topic is the nature of electric fields in space.

The basic assumption of most EU models I've encountered is that electric fields in space are potential (one might also say, electrostatic), i.e. they come from charge separation. Whereas the actual examples of space currents given in this topic - e.g. magnetospheric/heliospheric currents or galactic currents - are produced by non-potential (one might vaguely say, electrodynamic) electric fields, which come from electromagnetic induction.

Indeed, if you start with an electrostatic perspective and e.g. claim that "the Sun is charged with respect to space, and the resulting electric field drives the currents that make it shine/produce energy", you are immediately faced with a problem of depletion of the said charge with time (a rather small time - not even talking about years, but perhaps fractions of a second). AND the problem of Debye shielding. Namely, the charge in plasma would be immediately isolated (on the scales corresponding to Debye length) with a double layer, and it is unlikely to be able to sustain any current through it at all.
These two issues are the main problems with the "electrostatic" electric Sun models (such as anode/cathode etc.) and I'm not sure they can be solved.

Well, it probably depends on whether you think the sun is part of a larger circuit, and whether you believe it's internally or externally powered. Birkeland's cathode model was internally powered by fusion (transmutation of elements), and gravitational separation would tend to ensure that electrons would tend to be mass separated toward the surface. "Space" in Birkeland's model is simply continuously positively charged and cosmic rays tend to support that model.

Ultimately however both a positively and negatively charged surface model are also likely to be part of a "larger circuit" that would tend to have at least some feature of a "homopolar generator" model so currents essentially "run through" pretty much any EU/PC solar model. In Birkeland's basic concept of an internally powered , each sun ends up being a net producer of electrical current.

In terms of a Debye length argument, that just seems ridiculous to me because cathode rays (aka "strahl" electrons) are measured at pretty significant distances from the sun, and cosmic rays are constantly bombarding the solar system. Birkeland currents have already been seen traveling many thousands of light years so any suggestion that the Debye length has any influence is space is rather dubious IMO.

[paladin17]

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005 ... hballs.htm

The Electric Universe model is based on electrodynamics.

The first step in understanding electricity in space is to set aside theories and to gain empirical familiarity with real plasma behavior. It is a step advocated by the father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfvén, in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

There's a fantastic statement at the beginning of that article, with which I totally agree. You need to show it to everyone who still believes in the "simplistic electrostatic models" of anode/cathode Sun.

[Michael Mozina]

Here's what I mean about professional incompetence and/or willful misrepresentations of EU/PC theory and of my statements by the mainstream:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75123471

I notice how over at EU central they have decided to rewrite the laws of physics by claiming the electromagnetic force is generated by electric currents in order to get around the Debye length limitation on the range of the electromagnetic force.

Actually, no. Anytime you have a current flowing through a Birkeland current, you have a magnetic field that forms around the current which acts to repel or attract any other magnetic field around any other Birkeland current in space.

Apparently sjastro has never even heard of the "pinch effect" or understands basic electromagnetics. Birkeland currents, means currents which produce a B Field (as observed).

I think the bottom line is that they all refuse to embrace the concept of electricity flowing through the predominantly plasma structures of spacetime. They're doing anything and everything they can think of *except* embrace the obvious.

I think they're going on and on now about how Olber's paradox somehow holds any great significance in 2020. Olber solved it himself in fact.

The next "shell" in the solar shell game would have to contain at least two suns, and if we do it by volume it grows exponentially faster as the shells increase. The problem with that argument is that there aren't two more suns in a 2AU shell, or 9 more in the next 2AU shell, etc. The next closest star to us isn't measured in AU's, it's measured in *light years*. There's simply no way that another sun that is light years away can be as 'bright' as our own sun.

In terms of their argument about brightness, we should be able to resolve with our human eyeballs, from *at least* the hundreds of billions of stars in our own own galaxy and many times more inside of our local galaxy cluster. Instead we can see approximately 10,000 of those other suns with our human eyes at night. The whole concept is simply preposterous at every level. I've destroyed that argument dozens of times for them in different ways too, and yet they still try to use that lame argument. It's just sad to watch.

Sooner or later they'll pick up a book written 100 years ago and read it for themselves. Then maybe they'll finally understand the concept of an 'electric universe', complete with physical experiments and mathematical models of moving charged particles in space.

Instead they pretend to ignore the first fifty years of scientific history.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005 ... hballs.htm

The Electric Universe model is based on electrodynamics.

The first step in understanding electricity in space is to set aside theories and to gain empirical familiarity with real plasma behavior. It is a step advocated by the father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfvén, in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

There's a fantastic statement at the beginning of that article, with which I totally agree. You need to show it to everyone who still believes in the "simplistic electrostatic models" of anode/cathode Sun.

There is one major problem with that article:

But spacecraft have not found any relativistic electrons. And the solar wind seems to be composed of nearly equal numbers of positive ions and negative electrons.

Whether you wish to call it "relativistic" is irrelevant, the sun does indeed emit "cathode rays"/"electron beams" that stream away from the sun.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sune ... trahl.html

That's not the full story however because the "speed" (and direction) of the particles has to be taken into account in order to fully define the 'current' flowing through a plasma shell. The solar wind is essentially the net kinetic energy of those cathode beams slamming into it's upper solar atmosphere. Those beams push lots of particles away from the sun, and Birkeland predicted that the sun would emit protons and electrons and electron beams.

The solar wind is also moving quite a bit "slower" than the electron beams from the sun, and the electron beams are essentially interacting with a constant cosmic ray bombardment from the universe, composed of mostly *positively* charged particles which move at close to the speed of light, and electromagnetically interact with our solar system. Fortunately the sun's "atmosphere", as well as the Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere protect us from this constant stream of electrical energy.

[Cargo]

So anytime I see Debye I can throw it in the trash bin with Plank. Which apparently is the width and length and time of the Big Bang. I'm serious too, that's really what's it supposed to mean. Complete fantasy made-up junk to make the Math work.