Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

[quote=paladin17 post_id=4740 time=1615025177 user_id=29470]

A) We observe magnetic fields in space;
B) We observe plasma in space;
C) We observe motion in space;
1) Plasma (B) moving (C) with respect to magnetic fields (A) generates electric fields and currents;
2) Therefore, there are electric fields and currents in space.

Appendix: due to the conservation laws the motion (C) cannot be stopped, therefore currents and electric fields in space (2) are "eternal" as well.

Comment: essentially, one cloud of magnetized plasma moving with respect to the other induces an electric field/current in it, which produces the magnetic field inducing the current in the first cloud again, which changes its magnetic field etc. And this process never stops (guaranteed by conservation laws and the laws of induction) - even more so, it cannot be stopped, unless our laws of electromagnetism somehow break down at astrophysical/cosmological scales.

You may recognize here a clear analogy with the old eco-movement mantra about the wind energy: that "the wind will always exist on Earth", because there will always be differences in pressure. Well, here it's pretty much the same.
[/quote]
That's a helpful contribution! Огромное спасибо.

[quote="JP Michael" post_id=4728 time=1614864607 user_id=30575]
As an aside, has anyone ever measured the electric field of thermal effects? I know fire is a good conductor, being ever so partially ionised. But would a bonfire on the beach conduct, say, telluric current from the sand into the atmosphere, and how would one test if it does so?
[/quote]
There are no electric fields associated with "thermal effects", simply by virtue of thermal effects themselves being chaotic (by definition).
Although, there is a caveat: an expanding [thermally produced] plasma would create its own field near its border. Since the electrons are lighter, given the same temperature as ions they would diffuse into the outside medium quicker, and therefore produce an outside directed electric field (again, we're talking about the boundary between plasma and surrounding medium). This is known to exist even in constrained plasmas (in the lab vessels, I mean), where electrons diffuse into the walls of the chamber and the very same field is consistently observed. There is a negative feedback loop here as well: this field would naturally increase to the point when it would slow the electrons enough to diffuse at the same rate at ions and shut down any further increase.
This is one of the mechanisms of how a current-free double layer in the solar transition zone may be established and provide the solar wind characteristics that we observe.

With regards to the atmosphere, I don't think any global changes would follow from a fire (except perhaps a gigantic state-sized wildfire), because its effects are way too small in comparison to the thickness of the atmosphere. If the atmospheric current involves ~ 80 km of air from the surface to the ionisphere, and the thermal effects of our fire could make a difference at the scales of ~ 100 m (at best), this is like inserting a small piece of wire into the circuit in addition to all the already existing elements: it quite literally does nothing. Yes, it locally increases the conductivity, but the character of a circuit itself does not change from that.

Commenting on the starting post again, I came up with a relatively simple idea of how one can "prove" the existence of electric currents in space. It goes like this (not a strict derivation, as I'm a bit lazy, but the idea is clear, hopefully):
A) We observe magnetic fields in space;
B) We observe plasma in space;
C) We observe motion in space;
1) Plasma (B) moving (C) with respect to magnetic fields (A) generates electric fields and currents;
2) Therefore, there are electric fields and currents in space.
Appendix: due to the conservation laws the motion (C) cannot be stopped, therefore currents and electric fields in space (2) are "eternal" as well.
Comment: essentially, one cloud of magnetized plasma moving with respect to the other induces an electric field/current in it, which produces the magnetic field inducing the current in the first cloud again, which changes its magnetic field etc. And this process never stops (guaranteed by conservation laws and the laws of induction) - even more so, it cannot be stopped, unless our laws of electromagnetism somehow break down at astrophysical/cosmological scales.

You may recognize here a clear analogy with the old eco-movement mantra about the wind energy: that "the wind will always exist on Earth", because there will always be differences in pressure. Well, here it's pretty much the same.

[quote=jackokie post_id=4734 time=1614967529 user_id=1000000111]In terms of proof, however, the statement "99.99999999% of the extant universe exists in the plasma state of matter" caught my attention: How do we know this? Where is the proof? Perhaps that is the place to start with your logical evidence.
[/quote]
I am relying on sources such as [url=https://www.plasma-universe.com/99-999-plasma/]these[/url] (but perhaps I need to delete a few nines!)

So far I have two constructions:

1. [b]99.999% of the known cosmic universe exists in the plasma state of matter.[/b]
2. [b]The plasma state of matter conducts electricity better than copper or gold.[/b]
Ergo: 99.999% of the known cosmic universe conducts electricity better than copper and gold = Electric Universe.

and:

1. [b]99.999% of the known cosmic universe exists in the plasma state of matter.[/b]
2. [b]All cosmic plasma states of matter carry magnetic fields and electric currents.[/b]
Ergo: 99.999% of the known cosmic universe carries magnetic fields and electric currents = Electr(omagnetic) Universe (henceforth EMU -ha! [url=https://amazingsky.net/tag/dark-emu/][Link][/url])

paladin17 wrote:
[quote]This is not true. Thermal ionization can also produce plasma - even a burning candle can.[/quote]

Do flames contain plasma?
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/05/28/do-flames-contain-plasma/

JP Michael:

Anything that reinforces the electrical nature of the universe has merit, although as I am a "true believer" the evidence to me is overwhelming. In terms of proof, however, the statement "99.99999999% of the extant universe exists in the plasma state of matter" caught my attention: How do we know this? Where is the proof? Perhaps that is the place to start with your logical evidence.

A related question: Does "plasma" always require an electric current? Can a collection of charged particles remain stable absent an electric current?

[url=https://www.plasmauniverse.info/downloads/Bostick1986-IEEE-CosmicStructures.pdf]Laboratory produced simulations of galaxies[/url]

[url=https://www.plasma-universe.com/winston-h-bostick/]Winston H Bostick[/url]

[url=https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy-formation/]Galaxy formation
[/url]

If you modify plasma globe and fill plasma globe with hydrogen, helium, particles that can act as dust and various metal vapors (metal nano-particles), etc. while keeping the pressure low inside the plasma globe, you can produce fractal galaxies inside the plasma globe if you get the electromagnetic conditions right with Tesla Coils. Can be a very good lab experimental evidence for electric universe if one succeeds. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=195

Look at the lightning that comes with volcanoes. The magma is massively discharging like Godzilla. Who after all these years has finally been morphed into a plasma focus beam based on the planets electric field. It's almost better proof then magical Neutron Stars and BSH(Black Star Hole) Mergers.

A very old Electrician said to me when I was a little person once, when we figure out how to make cold without making heat, we'll have solved everything.

[quote=paladin17 post_id=4727 time=1614861326 user_id=29470]
This is not true. Thermal ionization can also produce plasma - even a burning candle can.
[/quote]
Thanks Eugene. Hence my reticence to actually add this proposition.

As an aside, has anyone ever measured the electric field of thermal effects? I know fire is a good conductor, being ever so partially ionised. But would a bonfire on the beach conduct, say, telluric current from the sand into the atmosphere, and how would one test if it does so?

[quote="JP Michael" post_id=4709 time=1614742717 user_id=30575]
[b]3. The plasma state of matter can only exist in the presence of electric current or electric fields.[/b] (This is another way of saying, "The plasma state of matter [i]always[/i] conducts electricity.")
[/quote]
This is not true. Thermal ionization can also produce plasma - even a burning candle can.
Generally, there is no "logical" way of "proving" the electric universe paradigm - exactly because it is a paradigm, i.e. simply a [i]way of looking at things[/i]. E.g. there is no logical way of distinguishing between statements "gravitation governs the behavior of matter on large scales" and "electromagnetism governs the behavior of matter on large scales". Logically they are equivalent, because, strictly speaking, they do not depend on any logic in the first place, being set up purely aximatically (paradigmatically).
The only way to "prove" one's paradigm, therefore, is simply having better practical results.

[quote="JP Michael" post_id=4716 time=1614762683 user_id=30575]
Are you able to frame that in a propositional format?
[/quote]

Mathematically or Logically? I hope logically I already did. I'm also agreeing with Gary's response greatly. Well done.

Plasma is the 1st state of matter, and is 99% electric.

JP Michael:
[quote]Under what conditions does "light" ionise matter? I haven't researched this at all.[/quote]

Photoionisation begins with the hydrogen atom, a single electron atom, and is the source of the Lyman Alpha UV spectral line. Multi-electron atoms and molecules can be ionised to various degrees depending on the light energy, going all the way up to gamma radiation. The Lyman Alpha line is at the start of what is referred to as the Vacuum UV wavelengths.
[quote]
Third, does light maintain ionisation of a plasma without an electric current or electric field present?[/quote]
Light can be the initiator of the electric and magnetic fields. I think of light, electricity and magnetism as being the Trinity, and I'll one day be continuing my old EM Universe from V2 NIAMI as the OEM, Opto-Elecro-Magnetic Universe. We don't really know what each of these things are, even though we understand their behaviours and effects well enough to do some pretty amazing things with them.
The idea of energy bundles is being looked at, that goes into string and super-string theory, some pretty heavy stuff, so for me I just go with the idea of Aether configurations, motions and relationships. There comes a point where I don't think we will ever or can ever understand the ultimate basic structure of the Universe from a purely scientific, physics standpoint, it gets into metaphysics, the Creators realm. When we get into the hard Gamma 'light' region then mater creation is possible through the pair production phenomena, the proton/anti-proton being produced at GeV energies.

Above certain energies the light can defy the inverse square law, the vacuum itself becomes a non-linear optical medium, and the light will self focus, maybe to infinite distances, so it would be possible for planets or lesser objects, which always have an atmosphere or exosphere containing hydrogen, to have ionised atmospheres even at very great distances from the source.

This article is one of the reasons I decided to proceed with my OEM universe thread:

The Sun Is Stranger Than Astrophysicists Imagined

[quote]It’s amazing that we were so spectacularly wrong about something we should understand really well: the sun,” said Brian Fields, a particle astrophysicist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.[/quote]

[quote]We just kept finding surprising things,” said Annika Peter of Ohio State University, a co-author of a recent white paper summarizing several years of findings about the solar gamma-ray signal. “It’s definitely the most surprising thing I’ve ever worked on.[/quote]
https://www.quantamagazine.org/gamma-ray-data-reveal-surprises-about-the-sun-20190501/

The Sun emits far more Gamma rays than previously believed. I won't mention Horace Winfield Webster here ;-) but it's looking to me as though he was on the right track after all. And of course the closer we get to the Sun then the more higher energy gamma rays we would likely find, as they have been attenuated less.
The closer you look into all this, the deeper the rabbit hole gets. I don't think we will ever see the bottom of it. I like Einsteins quote,
[quote]The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.[/quote]
The physics and mathematics involved with attempting to understand the universe gets to be too much for my rational mind to comprehend, I'm hoping for an intuitive understanding one day.

[quote=GaryN post_id=4720 time=1614800104 user_id=170]
What about light ionising matter?
[/quote]
Under what conditions does "light" ionise matter? I haven't researched this at all.

When you say "light", do you mean simply the visible portion of the EM spectrum, or the whole spectrum of EMF radiation, or something else? The fact that "light" is electromagnetic is our first clue, anyway. Second, one would need to demonstrate that the conditions by which "light" may form plasmas are applicable in "the 99.99999999% plasma universe", rather than by specific application of human technologies in laboratory conditions (thinking lasers are somehow involved in this proposition). Third, does light [i]maintain[/i] ionisation of a plasma without an electric current or electric field present?

Lovely premise, JP. This especially strikes one:

[quote="JP Michael" post_id=4709 time=1614742717 user_id=30575]
But this argument now seems circular: 99.99999999% of the universe is plasma which can conduct electricity, but plasmas cannot form unless there is electricity to start with.[/quote]

Could you not trace that question back into the Big Bang too, asking where [i]it[/i] developed this apparently circular mechanism?

Since fundamentally [i]neither[/i] model can account for the phenomenon, I'm not sure the question needs an answer. Or: obviously the circular problem doesn't bother standard modelers in the least.

[quote]3. Plasma state of matter can only exist in the presence of electric currents/electric fields.[/quote]

What about light ionising matter?