Is the Universe Electric?

AC 367835, I check Thunderbolts.info every day, and have for a long time. It's a never-failing source of laughs...but I have yet to see anything there that even remotely resembled scientific discussion.

No, but I can't necessarily say the same for you (see below).



I suppose that was in response to my question about who are, as you put it, "A GREAT MANY EMINENT SCIENTIST".

I have looked up this Birkland on Google, and found Thomas birkland, a professor of public policy; Bruce Birkland, an artist; and Bette-sue birkland, who won a contest called "The Biggest Loser".

Given that your spelling is often questionable, I looked up "Birkeland", and found "Kristian Olaf Birkeland", a Norwegian researcher who appears to have made one of the first determination of the global pattern of electric currents in the polar region from ground magnetic field measurements.

His belief that magnetic fields are endemic throughout the solar system has been borne out, but there is quite a difference between that and the belief (which Birkeland never made) that the Universe is powered by electricity.

Maybe you need to review Dr. Birkeland's work a bit more carefully.



I suppose this is why you can't find any "peer-reviewed papers" that support your assertions, despite your saying that you could provide them.

Oh, well. I can't say that I'm surprised.

DT.P.

I SHALL ATTEMPT TO ILLUMINATE YOUR DENSENESS FOR YOU.

ASSUME COMETS ARE DIRTY SNOWBALLS.

IN THE FAR REACHES OF SPACE THEY ARE FROZEN SOLID JUST LIKE ROCK.

NOW AS THEY APPROACH THE SUN, THEIR SURFACE WILL BE WARMED, AND THE SURFACE WATER WILL BEGIN TO EVAPOURATE, THE RESULTANT VAPOUR BEING DRIVEN BY THE "SOLAR WIND" TO FORM A VISIBLE TAIL POINTING AWAY FROM THE SUN.

CORRECT?

NOW THIS CAN BE CALCULATED WITH EXTREME ACCURACY USING NUMBERS

RIGHT

BUT THAT ABILITY TO CALCULATE DOES NOT PROVE THE IDEA THAT COMETS ARE DIRTY SNOWBALLS.

EVEN WORSE ALL THE OBSERVATIONS INDICATE OTHERWISE AS WELL.

EVEN THE POINT OF VAPOURISATION VARIES.

EVEN THE IDEA OF WATER COMES FROM A FLAWED ASSUMPTION THAT OH (HYDROXIL), DETECTED IN COMET TAILS COMES FROM WATER.

NUMEROLOGY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

ITS LIKE STATING THAT A CLOCK IS TIME.

THE PICTURES SHOW THAT COMETS LOOK LIKE METEORITES. THE DUST COLLECTED IS THE SAME AS METEORITES

AND NEED I SAY IF IT LOOKS LIKE SHIT, SMELLS LIKE SHIT , IT IS SHIT AND THATS AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT.

GL

they need to do a better video that focuses more on lab examples than the drawings from ancient cultures, the video was good but that part was less interesting to me that proving this in a lab which is where it will have to be done, unless those plasma phenomena just happen to appear in the sky again

DUNCAN

WITHIN MOMENTS OF YOUR POST ABOVE, IT WAS SO DIFFICULT TO FIND, I GET THIS

QUOTE.

Peer Review" Makes Mockery of Science

04/13/08

There once was a time when to have a scientific paper published, it had to be - well, - scientific. Not so any more it appears. Peer Review has become more like Snob Review or Mate Review, and the so-called "prestigious" journals are making a mockery of themselves and of science.

Whilst discussing Electric Universe concepts on public forums one often comes across self-appointed xspurts* in cosmology who dismiss EU for its lack of publication in Peer-Reviewed journals. When for example, items published in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science are cited, then the IEEE is not considered "prestigious" enough or sufficiently qualified to comment on cosmological matters. Yet paradoxically cosmologists think themselves qualified to comment on plasma physics. They want to have their cake and eat it too. And they're not willing it seems to share the cake around.

[*x = an unknown quantity, spurt = a drip under pressure...]

Why does this matter to anyone? Because, Joe Average, not only is it your tax dollars which pay for this outrageous elitist regime, but your children are being slowly brainwashed into believing that some of the most inconceivable theories ever devised by man are now established fact. Take the so-called Big Bang for instance, which for all intents and purposes goes something like "Once upon a time, nothing went BANG!". Whilst that may seem a simplistic summary, it is none-the-less how the Fairy-Tale goes. But after years of intelligent people questioning the validity of such a concept, we now have the cosmologists answering "Oh no, it wasn't nothing which went bang, it was another universe which had contracted down to a singular point...". I kid you not.

Take this recent release from that bastion of all things scientific and true, Physorg.com.

Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?

April 09, 2008
By Lisa Zyga

Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?

The new study suggests that the universe that came before our own universe was its identical twin. Image credit: NASA and ESA.

Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question. General relativity theory just doesn’t go there – at T=0, it spews out zeros, infinities, and errors – and so the question didn’t make sense from a scientific view.

But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged. The theory suggests the possibility of a "quantum bounce," where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. Yet what that previous universe looked like was still beyond answering.

Now, physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario have developed a simplified LQG model that gives an intriguing answer: a pre-Big Bang universe might have looked a lot like ours. Their study will appear in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.

"The significance of this concept is that it answers what happened to the universe before the Big Bang," Singh told PhysOrg.com. "It has remained a mystery, for models that could resolve the Big Bang singularity, whether it is a quantum foam or a classical space-time on the other side. For instance, if it were a quantum foam, we could not speak about a space-time, a notion of time, etc. Our study shows that the universe on the other side is very classical as ours."

[ ... ]

More information: Corichi, Alejandro, and Singh, Parampreet. "Quantum bounce and cosmic recall." Arxiv:0710.4543v2. Accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters.

Did you get that last bit? Accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters. And cosmologists have the cheek to call such tripe science, and a journal which publishes such tripe "prestigious". Whilst sarcasm is often described as the lowest form of wit, sometimes I find it hard to contain myself.

<overt sarcasm>

* "The new study suggests that the universe that came before our own universe was its identical twin." I suggest this study is a waste of our money...

* "Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question." because they had no answers...

* "General relativity theory just doesn’t go there – at T=0, it spews out zeros, infinities, and errors " no wonder it spews...

* "and so the question didn’t make sense from a scientific view." and now it does???...

* "But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged." because people keep pestering us for answers...

* "The theory suggests the possibility of a "quantum bounce," where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe." they actually consider this a possibility ... I guess by modern scientific logic it's also a possibility that the Underpants Gnome is responsible for my boxers going missing - however I still choose to think it is highly unlikely...

* "Yet what that previous universe looked like was still beyond answering." but now we have an answer thanks to the kind donations which made this study possible...

* " ... have developed a simplified LQG model that gives an intriguing answer: a pre-Big Bang universe might have looked a lot like ours." Intriguing? More like nauseating...

* "The significance of this concept is that it answers what happened to the universe before the Big Bang," notice the subtle way they go from a concept to a definitive statement without batting an eyelid...

</overt sarcasm>

You get the picture, I'm sure. I could go right through the whole article and add the same type of commentary, but surely there comes a point when it's just not funny any more. Instead, it's sad. No, make that deplorable. In the end, it's OUR MONEY they constantly waste on these thought experiments in the name of scientific rigor, and it's OUR KIDS who are reaping the rewards, so long as they accept this garbage as legitimate science. For surely if they don't, there's no way they're going to get that PhD... because the peer-review system has become a self-serving and self-supporting joke cloaked in the esteem of "prestigious" scientific journals.

Dave Smith.

UNQOTE

NOW DONT TELL ME THAT THEY ARE NOT

GL

I consider people who have studied math and science for six years at the University level, done experiments under rigorous controls, published their results, then defended them against other people who tried to pick their logic apart -- as "Smart Guys".

People like Velikovsky and McCanney don't fulfil those requirements; they do not have rigorous training in the fields for which they claim expertise; their assertions are not backed by any sort of mathematical evidence; and they never update their hypotheses based on additional information available.

But they write entertainingly, and their ideas, although bogus, seem so romantic and exciting that they rake in well-meaning but scientifically illiterate people who accept their rubbish as gospel.

They are not Smart Guys.

Duncan, there is an important difference between Velikovsky and McCanney. I don't doubt for a moment that Velikovsky sincerely believed every word of his fantasies. (I know, Bob Forrest has shown quite clearly that Velikovsky habitually distorted his sources, but to a crackpot who is absolutely convinced of his delusions, there's nothing wrong with "clarifying" one's sources.) McCanney is as obvious a con man as any TV evangelist.

It's too bad so many people are turned off Science and mathematics.

Must be the cost or the teachers. Or has it always been like this?

DUNCAN

HOW COME "SMART GUYS" DONT INVENT ANYTHING?

RHETORICAL QUESTION I KNOW BUT TRUE ALL THE SAME.

BEING BOUGHT UP WITH BLINKERS, BEING BEHOLDEN TO THE ACCEPTED THEORY AND MAKING AN ASS OUT OF YOURSELF IS NOT SMART.

TRUE SCIENCE IS NEITHER DUMB NOR SMART, IT JUST IS.

HOW MANY FLAT EARTHERS THOUGHT THEMSELVES "SMART"

I THIN ONE WOULD BE HARD PUSHED TO FIND A FIELD OF SCIENCE THAT MAKES SO MANY PREDICTIONS, SPENDS SO MUCH MONEY ,ONLY TO FIND THAT EVERY PREDICTION TURNS OUT TO BE FALSE AND THAT TO SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL PREDICTION EVEN MORE SILLY PREDICTIONS MUST BE MADE.

IT REALLY BOGGLES THE MIND, EVEN MORE SO WHEN INTELLIGENT PEOPLE LIKE YOU FALL HOOK LINE AND SINKER FOR IT.

IN THIS WHOLE DISCOURSE YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED A SINGLE THING ONLY RESORTED TO NAME CALLING AND NIT PICKING AND AND MAKING TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED STATEMENTS.

SHAME ON YOU.

GL

Math is tooooo slow, that's why. Thoughts, and feelings are instantaneous, that is the difference in the choice of Universe you make. I told you, it's a choice. It's up to you.

Not surprisingly, you failed to provide a citation. However, don't let it bother you; citations are part of that "science" stuff. No biggie.




Waah!

Waah!

Waah!

Sounds like your boy Dave Smith is ticked off because no one will publish his stuff.

Why not?

Maybe he doesn't have any evidence or math to back up whatever he's trying to push!

Ya think??



New here's Brother Dave getting all hot and bothered bercause something he disapproves of gets written up in a respected journal.

Do you think that maybe -- just maybe -- those researchers had evidence, observations, and math to back up their assertions?

Again, all you have shown is that some "researchers" are crying sour grapes when their pet ideas don't get recognized by folks who want some good sound backing for their assertions.

no efin way!!! its electric boogy woogy woogy

I don't know. I did horribly in math in high school, even though I got A's in biology, chemistry, anat/physio, and physics (that's the algebra-based physics, not the "real" calculus-based physics).

But since I knew you needed a lot of math to be a scientist, and I "knew'' I "just wasn't any good" in math, I took an undergraduate degree in English Lit from the U of Md.

Obviously, someone who tries to make a living based on his expertise of 19th Century British Romantic poets is going to starve. So, I became a tech writer and, around age 36 or 37, thought I'd try math again. Wonder of wonders! It wasn't that hard and I actually managed to slog through Calculus and diffie-Q's, and went on to get another undergrad degree in logistics engineering. (I never used the math, by the way, except for the statistics.)

What's the point of this? Most of the people who don't go into science avoid it for three reasons: (1) it's not "cool" enough; (2) it requires a lot of math and "I know I'm just no good in math"; or (3) I'm a girl and science is for boys.

All three reasons are bogus, of course, and the third is the most insidious.

I believe that we would graduate a lot more scientists and engineers if we integrated math and science into the curriculum starting in first grade, and keeping it integrated and required until the student graduates from High School.

Both of my kids finished one year of the calculus by the time they graduated from high school, and one of them (the journalism major) is not a fan of math per se. I just wish I'd done so myself as a kid.

DUNCAN, STOP BEING DISIGENIOUS, YOU KNOW AND I KNOW THAT GLP IS NOT A PEER REVIWED JOURNAL. IN DEED I SITTING HERE EATING CHEESE BUTTY, LISTENING TO FINE MUSIC AND DRINKING A FEW DRAMS OF FINE RUM.

SO YOU KNOW THE TYPOS AND SPELLING ERRORS ARE PART OF A RAPID AND SPIRITED QUESTION ANSWER SESSION, NOT PURE SCIENCE.

SO I OFFER THIS FURTHER FROM THUNDERVOLTS AS I SAID BEFORE

QUOTE

The Overrated "Masters" of the Universe

03/27/08

There are those in our midst who seem to believe that, once again, man is on the thresh-hold of discovering the answers to the final secrets of the Universe. This is undoubtedly an echo from the final years of the nineteenth century but, after that period of premature claims, one might have expected a little more reticence from the modern godfathers of world science.

However, sensibly keeping quiet does not seem a virtue of these people, to the extent that, on two recent Monday evenings on British television, the public has been given the opportunity to participate in the life and achievements of the ‘Master of the Universe’, Stephen Hawking. While no-one can but admire his courage and tenacity in the face of extreme physical handicap, one must question the power and importance of his scientific achievements. Indeed, when it comes to discovering the secrets of the Universe, precisely what are his achievements?

Many will be horrified at these words and the seeming impertinence of this question, but it is a question which must be asked, and answered, not because of Hawking the man, but because of what he represents. He is, in fact, in the eyes of many, the figurehead of that largely faceless body which controls what is, and is not, contained in that body of scientific knowledge which may be termed conventional wisdom; that body of scientific knowledge which is simply not open to question. Many topics are included in this but those of immediate concern here are probably the theories of relativity (both special and general), the theory of the ‘big bang’, the theory of black holes, etc.

As Stephen Crothers has recently pointed out, this final topic should really be a non-starter, based as it is on an incorrect statement of Schwartzschild’s solution of the Einstein field equations. However, again as Stephen has pointed out, even the incorrectly quoted ‘solution’ is included in, and protected by, conventional wisdom. One further surprising aspect of much of conventional wisdom is that the originators of much of this body of knowledge would have welcomed discussion and even criticism, provided that criticism was constructive. In this day and age, however, people who disagree with conventional wisdom do not face discussion and constructive criticism; rather they are either quietly ignored or destroyed. The first of these is possibly the more destructive action occurring in modern science because if something is quietly ignored, it gains no publicity and so remains unknown, except to the favoured few. This brings me directly to the whole idea of an electric universe.
Electric Universe - a natural alternative?

I first encountered the notion when reading the small book Rival Theories of Cosmology, which was published by Oxford University Press in 1960 and contains a ‘symposium and discussion of modern theories of the structure of the universe’. Originally there had been three talks on BBC radio and to these had been added a short discussion of the main points advanced in favour of relativistic theories of the universe (essentially what we now know as the big bang), the steady state theory, and an electric universe. Interestingly, there seemed no major disagreement between the advocates of the latter two theories, but both were at odds with the relativistic theories. To some extent, such is still the case but possibly the divide is increasing.

More recently, I have read The Electric Universe and have been further shocked by what I’ve read. Shocked because I was made even more aware of the power being exercised by the scientific mafia to protect accepted theories; shocked because, although I was aware of the work of Kristian Birkeland through contacts in Scandinavia, I realised that he was totally unknown to colleagues, some of whom work in plasma physics. To me, all this raises grave questions about the conduct of modern science.

However, another point which emerged very forcibly from my reading was the realisation that, although the conventional ‘big bang’ school rules out all interference from outside and demands that everyone describe everything in terms of the gravitational force, the electric universe adherents, while being able to describe so much, so accurately, make no attempt to rule out gravity completely even though it is such a weak force by comparison. This open-mindedness and unwillingness to completely ignore something is surely an indication of the true way of science.

When all is said and done, man produces models to describe something which, whatever else it may be, is certainly not man-made. All these man-made models are approximate. What else could we expect from our relatively puny human intellect? Nevertheless, because of all this, nothing should be thrown away. As someone once said of the conflict between the big bang and steady state theories for the origin of the universe, probably the true answer will involve aspects of both.
The power of math

One further point needs stressing, I think. I was initially trained as a mathematician, although my degree did involve two years of subsidiary physics. Over the years, I have come to realise more and more the power of mathematics but also the fact that that power can be misused. Mathematics is a beautiful subject and can be studied, in its own right, as a highly worthwhile intellectual pursuit. However, mathematics has a second role as the language of physics and, in that rôle, it is simply a tool which must always remain subservient to the physics. If the mathematics throws up a result which does not accord with physical reality, it should be studied carefully but not accepted immediately unless a genuine physical interpretation can be found; the physics must never ever be made to fit the mathematics!

In our modern world, though, the mathematics being used to attempt to describe physical reality is becoming ever more complicated so that only the favoured few can follow. String theory is a perfect example of this, where many of the personnel involved are abstract pure mathematicians with little or no real interest in physics and yet huge claims are made of the advances in physical understanding coming from that area. It seems that many are claiming to be close to establishing a theory of everything.

What is meant by this is not completely clear but presumably it involves a grand unification of the fundamental forces. This I find intriguing since, as yet, no-one even knows exactly what a force is. Newton’s second law of motion is said to define force but actually it only explains what a force does! This is true of all forces; what they do is well known but precisely what they are remains a mystery. No; whatever extreme claims are made, the truth is that there is much to learn and discover and real advances will be made by people working together, rather than competing with one another aggressively.

It seems it is time for all clear thinking true scientists to band together to oppose the present day prostitution of science. The scientific mafia may hold the power of when and where people can, and cannot, publish; they may hold most of the research purse strings; but, in the end, the search for the truth must, and will, triumph!

Jeremy Dunning-Davies.



Editor's Notes: Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies is a Senior Lecturer in Theoretical Physics in the Department of Physics at the University of Hull, England. He is Chairman of both the Santilli - Einstein Academy of Sciences, and the Santilli - Galilei Association on Scientific Truth and is also a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Dr. Dunning-Davies has recently launched a book titled "Exploding a Myth: 'Conventional Wisdom' or Scientific Truth?" and published by Horwood Publishing Limited in England.

Permalink to this article.

Public comment may be made on this article on the Thunderbolts Forum/Thunderblogs (free membership required).

For a highly-acclaimed 60-minute video introduction to the Electric Universe, see Thunderbolts of the Gods on Google Video.


UNQUOTE

NOTE a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.


GL

I agree. Velikovsky was in over his head, thinking that a doctorate in psychiatry somehow provided him insights about things which he knew nothing.

McCanney, on the other hand, has tried his hand as a math instructor (he has a MS, I believe); a masseur; and a con man. I guess his policy is to "keep trying until you get it right".

Either that or the fine rum.



I consider "Thundervolts" to be about the same level of expertise and validity as GLP.

And, speaking of fine music:

:RMBBonstag:

ODD DEBATE DUNCAN

I STUDIED MATHS PHYSICS CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY AT SCHOOL.

I THEN WENT ON TO MASTER IN ASTRONOMY, OCEANOGRAPHY, ENGINEERING, INSTRUMENTATION AND A FEW OTHER THINGS.

THIS LED TO ME RISE TO EQUIVALENT RANK OF ADMIRAL BUT THAT MATTERS REALLY DIDDLY

TAUGHT ME TO NEVER STOP LEARNING.

ENABLED ME TO WHILST PACK PACKING DESIGN A NEW CONVENTIONAL POWER GENERATION SYSTEM, COST IT, SOURCE IT, AND GET A BUILD CONTRACT. ALL WHILST GETTING SUNBURNED AND HAVING FUN.


SEEMS I GAINED SOMETHING FROM MY EDUCATION.

DOES NOT GUARANTEE "FINANCIAL SUCCESS" BUT DOES PROVIDE AN INTERESTING LIFE WHERE I TUG THE FORELOCK TO NOBODY.

WITHOUT BANGING DRUMS, THIS DOES SHOW THAT 6.5 BILLION PEOPLE WILL ON THE WHOLE HAVE 6.5 BILLION DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.

ONE THING THAT I AM SURE, WEN THE THEORY PROVES RIGHT, YOU WILL NOT BE ON MY DOORSTEP WITH AN BOTTLE OF PLONK.


GL

It's just a matter of time before human intellect is rendered as useless to truly fathom the laws that govern the universe. Personally, I believe it's already overrated and keeps the person trapped in their absurd deterministic reality full of contradictions. You'll never learn to appreciate god that way, because you are a slave of the educational system. Maybe next time around you will get it right.

Grey Lensman is really the Incredible Dim Wit! I'd been wondering what had happened to IDW.

DR.P.

CAN I ASSUME THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT MAGNETIC FIELD LINES TOUCH. BOY

QUOTE

Magnetic Reconnection – Reinventing the Wheel

02/16/08

One outstanding characteristic of our modern technological world is the use of ‘standard modules’. For example, suppose you are asked to set up the appointment schedule and billing procedure for a law firm or a doctor’s office. What you need, of course, is a ‘database’ program. There are many good ones available for purchase on the software market. After you buy one and learn how to use it, you can spend your time productively adding and updating clients names and information to this database. It would be wasteful of time and effort to try to construct this entire computer program from scratch using, say, Visual Basic, or some other low-level programming language. Just buy it and add information to it – the hard work of creating the structure of almost any generic data base has already been done.

Similarly if you want to design and build some type of machine tool such as a drill press or table saw, it would be foolish to first build from scratch the electric motor that the device will use. There are many excellent quality electric motors of all sizes and speeds available to you from manufacturers that do nothing but build electric motors. In other words – Don’t ‘reinvent the wheel’.

Doing something unnecessarily from scratch when a major component or module of your design is already available to you ‘off the shelf’ is foolishly counterproductive. The only reason someone might do such a thing is if he were unaware of the work others have already done to produce exactly what he needs.

In other words the problem is caused by ignorance. The word ‘ignorance’ as used here is not inherently derogatory; it simply implies the absence of certain knowledge. However, the reason for this lack of knowledge is usually different in each case. And this reason may indeed deserve our critical evaluation.

It is widely believed that the wheel was invented in Mesopotamia about 7000 years ago. There may have been an independent discovery of the wheel in China around 6800 years ago. (Despite its overwhelming utility, many major cultures failed to discover it – the wheel did not appear in sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, or the Americas until comparatively recent times.) The reason (for the reinvention) in this case was that there was no known communication between the Chinese and Mesopotamian civilizations at that time. The Chinese had no way of knowing about the original invention.

In the case of the observed release of energy from a magnetic field, astrophysicists have no excuse for their ‘reinvention’ of the scientific physical explanation of this process. They cannot credibly claim that nobody has studied this phenomenon. Starting in 1820 with Hans Christian Øersted’s discovery that magnetic fields were caused by electric currents, and progressing through the next century and a half of experimentally verified electrical science, the pioneers of what is now called electrical plasma, have already discovered, quantified, and explained this process in detail.

Hannes Alfvén was an electrical engineer who struggled to understand and eliminate the destructive explosions that occurred on high voltage transmission lines in his native Sweden. He determined that the energy being released so calamitously was originally stored in the magnetic fields that surround the electrical currents being transmitted along the lines. Any abrupt interruption of those currents leads to an explosive energy release. He said:

"In the case of the instability leading to the extinction of the current, it should be remembered that every electric circuit is explosive in the sense that if we try to disrupt the current, a release of the whole inductive energy at the point of disruption will occur." - H. Alfvén, Cosmic Plasma, Reidel, Holland, Boston, 1981, p.27.

Alfvén extrapolated his findings about terrestrial power lines to the study of magnetized cosmic plasma. In the case of the disruption of an electric current within such a plasma, he said, “If the current disruption is caused by an instability in the plasma, the inductive energy in the circuit will be released in the plasma. … The disruption of a current through a plasma is often caused by a double layer becoming unstable.”

Astrophysicists ignore Alfvén’s work. They attempt to arrive at a de novo explanation for the release of such energy by embracing the notion that the motion and interaction of magnetic field lines is its root cause. They expound on the (basically false) idea that magnetic fields are ‘frozen into’ plasma, and by moving and breaking, these lines carry the plasma along and spew it out into space.

Alfvén ridiculed this explanation by saying, “A magnetic field line is by definition a line which is everywhere parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system changes, the shape of the magnetic field line changes but it is meaningless to speak about a translational movement of magnetic field lines.” - Alfvén, op cit, p.12.(Emphasis in original) Despite his warnings about this, astrophysicists persist in the notion that moving and interacting magnetic field lines – independent of any electrical current causality – produce the release of energy and plasma during solar flares. They have named this process ‘ reconnection’.

The standard explanation of reconnection is that magnetic field lines move and eventually come together (‘short-circuit’) at some point. There they change their structure (reconnect) and move apart. But magnetic field lines as such cannot move or touch each other. A compounding error is made in assuming that plasma is ‘attached’ to those lines and will be bulk transported by this movement of the lines. So in coming up with this novel hypothesis they have reinvented the wheel. But not only is this hypothesis an unnecessary ‘reinvention’, it is based on erroneous concepts and has no clarifying value.

Hannes Alfvén was explicit in his condemnation of the reconnecting concept:

"Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. Despite.. this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept.

I was naïve enough to believe that [magnetic reconnection] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: ‘merging’ … seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group."

They have reinvented the wheel and done a bad job of it. If you are going to come up with an alternative explanation for something – at least get one that is defensible scientifically.

If we look closely at the reason for this reinvention, it becomes clear that, having adamantly refused to acknowledge the effects (let alone the existence) of electric currents in space, astrophysicists had to come up with an explanation that avoided mentioning them. Moreover, in giving this explanation a catchy name – “reconnection” – that appears repetitively, they can avoid restating the details of their invented explanation each time they use it and thus avoid having to defend it. We hear “Oh, that is an example of reconnection.” “Yes, another effect of the reconnection process.” Etc., ad nauseum.

In the law, a well known principle is that ‘Ignorance of the law is no defense.’ Similarly in science, intentional ignorance of the work of an entire academy of scholars and researchers that has applicability to the area in which you are involved, is evidence of either incompetence or a lack of ethical behavior. There can be no excuse for astrophysicists ignoring the work of investigators such as Nobel laureates Hannes Alfvén and Irving Langmuir.

In addition to his fundamental discoveries, Alfvén made numerous important contributions to the physics of the magnetosphere, especially auroras and magnetic storms, as well as to solar and interplanetary physics, astrophysics and cosmology. His best known discovery are called Alfvén waves. Hannes Alfvén realized that the magnetic fields observed in sunspots must derive from electric currents in the solar plasma, and that the currents and the magnetic fields together generate forces that affect the motion of this plasma, which in turn can induce electric fields. He formulated this mutual interaction and the resulting waves in mathematical form by 1942. There is no legitimate excuse for astrophysicists to be unaware of his work.

A more detailed dissection of the ‘reconnection process’ makes up the last third of a ‘rejoinder’ I wrote that appears here. This includes an example of how magnetic field lines can be misapplied. Also you might be interested in my presentation of these and other ideas in The Electric Sky – see chapter 12 Open Magnetic Fields and Other Fictions. Lastly, for a more quantified description see my published IEEE paper Real Properties of Magnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos.

Don Scott

UNQUOTE.

NOW THE GLOBAL SCORE SEEMS TO BE

GL 3+ DUNCAN,HELICOPTERS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, KUNZ 0

YOU GUYS JUST CANNOT GET AWAY FROM THE POINTLESS NAME CALLING.

SAD

GL

Perhaps. But the scientific method is something else. And the rest is the history of those that have gone down that route.



Does this mean you're smarter than most?

By the way, do you have a link to that conventional power generation system you mentioned?

BUT GL TYPES IN ALL CAPS, YOU DON'T !!!

Duncan???

I'm confused. Both you and Grey were here when McCanney
rambled on and on about the electric universe. And if I
recall correctly, you were also part of the thread when
McCanney claimed the comet was going to be attacked by the
sun because "the universe is electric". And for days we
all rambled on in the thread and then the big moment came.

And sure enough, just as McCanney predicted the sun lashed
out at the comet. And we all freaked out, even old Kent(god
speed) from what I recall. Then Nasa took away our SOHO and
so on.

So all of that wasn't electric? Just some other effect?

FAR

NO, I DESIGNED IT. CONVENTIONAL BUT WAY OUT ON A LIMB IN TERMS OF CONCEPTS.

BUILDING IN THREE SITES, MALAYDIA, BORNEO AND CHINA, FOR DELIVERY TO SOUTH AMERICA.

WILL I MAKE MONEY, DOUBT IT BUT REALLY WHO CARES.

LIFE IS TOO FULL IF YOU ALLOW IT.

I DID IT BECAUSE I COULD

GL

A COMBINED CYCLE PLANT OF 200 MEGAWATTS WITH ITS OWN BUILT IN FUEL SUPPLY. I WILL SAY NO MORE.

GL

I'm sure you do, in your typical, condescending, pooh-poohing "Debunker King" manner.

But, would you care to actually refute any theories proposed on the "Thunderbolts" site. You know, in a scientific manner, backed up by facts?

Not just airy dismissal?

SEEMS DIM WITS DO WHAT DIMWITS DO.

SIGH

GL

THATS WHAT DUNCAN, HELICOPTERS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, KUNZES DO

SIGH

GL