Number of Galaxies: Is It Infinite?

[Hurkyl]

" It is recalled that one of the most fundamental laws of physics leads to the prediction that all matter emits electromagnetic radiation. That radiation, called Planck's radiation, covers an electromagnetic spectrum that is characterized by the absolute temperature of the emitting matter. From astronomical observations we observe that most matter in the universe is in the gas phase at 3 K. Stars of course are much hotter. The characteristic Planck's spectrum, corresponding to 3 K, is actually observed in the universe exactly as required. "

(emphasis mine)

The article says that we observe the matter at 3K, and happily mentions that we observe a 3K spectrum corresponding to the matter at 3K. It does not explain why the matter should be at 3K in the first place...

Now if this matter is in constant bombardment by electromagnetic radiation it is obvious that it is bound to absorb some of this radiation which will raise the absolute temp above absolute zero. So we have slightly thermalized matter emitting Planck radiation characterized by its temp.

The basic laws of heat transfer would also demand that the further a region of space is from a heat source (such as a star), the cooler that region of space has to be.

So the only option I can see that you could be presuming is that the reason the matter is at 3K is because of constant bombardment from the 3K CBR... but the 3K CBR is the reason the matter is at 3K... you've ran into circular reasoning!

Ok first you tell me why on Earth you would expect it to be infinite?

I did. See:

The energy received from a star drops off as the square of the distance from the star... but the number of stars at a particular distance increases as the square of distance.

I'm presuming that you believe in an eternal, infinite, homogeneous universe. (If you don't, please explain the shape of the universe as you believe it to be)

The rate of electromagnetic energy emitted by a star is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from a star. However, due to homogeneity, the number of stars at a particular distance is proportional to the square of the distance. Thus, the energy received from stars at a particular distance is constant; it does not taper off as distance increases. Therefore, if the universe is infinite and eternal, the energy we are receiving right this instant from all of the stars in the universe is infinite.


Anyways, here are some factual errors at electric-cosmos (I'll ignore the historical errors):

The strength of the magnetic field produced by an electric current (e.g., a cosmic sized Birkeland current) falls off inversely as the first power of the distance from the current.

Magnetostatic field strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, just like with electrostatics and classical gravitation.

The author has made an amateur error of confusing the formula for the magnetostatic field from a wire of infinite length with the field generated by source elements.



Anyways, there is a fatal flaw in electromagnetic theories of cosmology; negatively charged bodies react in the opposite way from positively charged bodies, and neutral bodies don't react at all! The site does not seem to address this problem whatsoever.

 

[Hurkyl]

This is the observation that if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus.

Those observations haven't been performed when the neutrons are under the influence of the gravitation of 1.4 solar masses packed into a sphere of radius 10 miles!

In fact, a web search on the word “neutronium” will produce only references to a computer game – not to any real, scientific discussion or description.

Have you tried? I popped "neutronium" into google and I didn't even have to scroll my screen down to find 2 links to the scientific description.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
(emphasis mine)

The article says that we observe the matter at 3K, and happily mentions that we observe a 3K spectrum corresponding to the matter at 3K. It does not explain why the matter should be at 3K in the first place...

The phenomenon is a consequence of BASIC physics. I can help you understand no further. Either you get it or you don't want to.

The basic laws of heat transfer would also demand that the further a region of space is from a heat source (such as a star), the cooler that region of space has to be.

In the vast reaches of space this distance is irrelevant. The 3K radiation is a cumulative effect of the ubiquitous em radiation in the interstellar medium. This medium is quite wide spread and homogenous and is not in contact with a single heat sorce. The heat sorce is the ambient radiation in interstellar space.

So the only option I can see that you could be presuming is that the reason the matter is at 3K is because of constant bombardment from the 3K CBR... but the 3K CBR is the reason the matter is at 3K... you've ran into circular reasoning!

Sorry but I explicitly stated where this radiation comes from and you chose to ignore it.

Magnetostatic field strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, just like with electrostatics and classical gravitation.

The author has made an amateur error of confusing the formula for the magnetostatic field from a wire of infinite length with the field generated by source elements.

Explain to me how this "error" makes a difference in the model? [[ mind you the authors of this theory are electrical engineers. ]]

Anyways, there is a fatal flaw in electromagnetic theories of cosmology; negatively charged bodies react in the opposite way from positively charged bodies, and neutral bodies don't react at all! The site does not seem to address this problem whatsoever.

Please explain your point. What neutral bodies are you talking about?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Those observations haven't been performed when the neutrons are under the influence of the gravitation of 1.4 solar masses packed into a sphere of radius 10 miles!




Have you tried? I popped "neutronium" into google and I didn't even have to scroll my screen down to find 2 links to the scientific description.

Either way neutronium and neutron stars are purely hypothetical entities and the plasma model doesn't require any such hypothetical forms or states of matter.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Have you tried? I popped "neutronium" into google and I didn't even have to scroll my screen down to find 2 links to the scientific description.

Check out this blatant misrepresentation of the facts!

From Wikipedia:
>>
Neutronium is the informal term for an extremely dense phase of matter which occurs only in the intense pressure found in the core of neutron stars. For reasons that will be explained below, it is not often used in the scientific literature of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
<<

"Found in the core of Neutron Stars"? Has anyone ever gone looking in the core of a Neutron Star? Has anyone ever actually even seen a Neutron Star? [[[ The answer is "no" for both of those questions BTW ]]]

This type of confused verbiage is why Physics buffs have such a tough time distinguishing between theory and observational data.

Physics is in a sad state indeed!

 

[Hurkyl]

The phenomenon is a consequence of BASIC physics. I can help you understand no further. Either you get it or you don't want to.

?

What phenomenon?

It is true that matter emits radiation in accordance with it's temperature. I understand that much. What is the mechanism that keeps intergalactic gas at this exact temperature, no more, no less?

The heat sorce is the ambient radiation in interstellar space.

What is the source of this ambient radiation? I've already reasoned that the ambient radiation cannot be emissions from stars and galaxies. I've already demonstrated that presuming it's the CMB leads to a circular argument. So just what is this ambient radiation you like to keep talking about and why should it exist?

Sorry but I explicitly stated where this radiation comes from and you chose to ignore it.[/qutoe]

If that's what you need to believe, so be it.

Explain to me how this "error" makes a difference in the model? [[ mind you the authors of this theory are electrical engineers. ]]

It demonstrates the site is not credible. Like you asked I have ignored all of the blatant errors that weren't directly related to science. Well, they get the science wrong too.

Please explain your point. What neutral bodies are you talking about?

All of them. I don't need to explain basic EM to you, do I?

Either way neutronium and neutron stars are purely hypothetical entities and the plasma model doesn't require any such hypothetical forms or states of matter.

When theory predicts something, derives its properties, and entities are observed in space that have those properties, I tend not to use the word "hypothetical" to describe them.

"Found in the core of Neutron Stars"? Has anyone ever gone looking in the core of a Neutron Star? Has anyone ever actually even seen a Neutron Star? [[[ The answer is "no" for both of those questions BTW ]]]

This type of confused verbiage is why Physics buffs have such a tough time distinguishing between theory and observational data.

Physics is in a sad state indeed!

Are you serious?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
?

It is true that matter emits radiation in accordance with it's temperature. I understand that much. What is the mechanism that keeps intergalactic gas at this exact temperature, no more, no less?

ambient radiation

What is the source of this ambient radiation? I've already reasoned that the ambient radiation cannot be emissions from stars and galaxies.

Your reasoning was faulty.

I've already demonstrated that presuming it's the CMB leads to a circular argument.

It is not circular whatsoever.

It demonstrates the site is not credible. Like you asked I have ignored all of the blatant errors that weren't directly related to science. Well, they get the science wrong too.

That is a cop out for not wanting to get into the meat of the theory. If you can't debunk it just admit it instead of attacking some meaningless detail which is inconsequential to the actual theory.

All of them. I don't need to explain basic EM to you, do I?

The sun is not a neutral body. It is MASSIVELY positively charged. That is what accounts for the fact that the positive ions of the solar wind speed up as they leave the sun. The Standard Model simply has no explanation for that well observed phenomena.

When theory predicts something, derives its properties, and entities are observed in space that have those properties, I tend not to use the word "hypothetical" to describe them.

They are hypothetical nonetheless.

Are you serious?

You are a case in point. You BELIEVE that the BBT and the Standard Model are actually proven without a doubt.

 

[meteor]

The mechanism that plasma cosmology provides for pulsars is absurd: electric discharges between two stars. Electric discharges can't be so regular like the flashes observed in pulsars

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
The mechanism that plasma cosmology provides for pulsars is absurd: electric discharges between two stars. Electric discharges can't be so regular like the flashes observed in pulsars

Please elaborate why they can't be so regular and put it in terms of the Plasma Cosmology model of stars otherwise it does not take the full theory into account. If you mix and match the two theories then of course you are going to end up with a non-functional model. So if we are going to debate it then dig in and learn the plasma model of stars first and debate its flaws once you have learned the model.

 

[Hurkyl]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
What is the source of this ambient radiation? I've already reasoned that the ambient radiation cannot be emissions from stars and galaxies.

Originally posted by Subtillion
Your reasoning was faulty.

How so? If the interstellar gas was being heated by ambient radiation from galaxies, it would require the temperature gradients I discussed. Gas nearer to galaxies would receive more ambient radiation than gas further from galaxies. Basic heat transfer.

[Presuming it is the CMB] is not circular whatsoever.

Ok, then how would you characterize:

Interstellar gas at 3K at is emitting the 3K CMB.
The 3K CMB is heatting the interstellar gas to a temperature of 3K.


You've still avoided saying precisely what you mean by ambient radiation.

That is a cop out for not wanting to get into the meat of the theory.

What meat? All the website has is its credibility... and it doesn't have much of that. Ignoring the misguided blasting of mainstream physics and the blatantly erroneous historical commentary, the website is primarily a list of qualitative guesses as to how things might work. There is not one thing on that website I can look at and say "Hrm, I can test this claim based on the observational information of object X". This is your standard crackpot fare; don't provide anything falsifiable and proclaim triumph when nobody falsifies your theory.

It is MASSIVELY positively charged.

Then why don't negatively charged objects here on Earth fly up towards the sun, and positively charged objects here on Earth fly the other way? After all, the electrostatic force is 35 orders of magnitude greater than that of gravity.

The Standard Model

Just FYI, "The Standard Model" is a particular (successful) theory from quantum physics, it is somewhat confusing to use the phrase the way you have been.

You are a case in point. You BELIEVE that the BBT and the Standard Model are actually proven without a doubt.

[?]

How is this even related to your tirade about the use of the word "found"?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How so? If the interstellar gas was being heated by ambient radiation from galaxies, it would require the temperature gradients I discussed. Gas nearer to galaxies would receive more ambient radiation than gas further from galaxies. Basic heat transfer.

Ok and so there is a higher degree of temperature in those regions that is excluded from the 3K survey. The 3K radiation from behind this galaxy would however be present.

Ok, then how would you characterize:

Interstellar gas at 3K at is emitting the 3K CMB.
The 3K CMB is heatting the interstellar gas to a temperature of 3K.

I would call that your confusion because that is not at all what I said. Also, why wouldn't the 3k CMB, once emitted, contribute to the ambient radiation that is again absorbed and re-emitted? Some processes ARE aptly described as cyclical.

You've still avoided saying precisely what you mean by ambient radiation.

Ambient radiation is the collective radiation from ALL sources including the 3k CMB.

What meat? All the website has is its credibility...

Wrong. These are theories. You have simply not taken the time to learn them and continue to mischaracterize and mis-understand them. Your comments about negative and positive objects only proves that you don't know the theory.

Ignoring the misguided blasting of mainstream physics and the blatantly erroneous historical commentary, the website is primarily a list of qualitative guesses as to how things might work.

You can claim this all you want but you have so far failed to yet understand the theories as is evident in your posts.

If you are going to criticize something it helps to understand it first.

There is not one thing on that website I can look at and say "Hrm, I can test this claim based on the observational information of object X".

And there is not one part of the theory that you have successfully argued against. So why should I simply take your word that you have even understood it yet? Especially when you continue to misunderstand its basics.

This is your standard crackpot fare; don't provide anything falsifiable and proclaim triumph when nobody falsifies your theory.

Another baseless claim.

Then why don't negatively charged objects here on Earth fly up towards the sun, and positively charged objects here on Earth fly the other way? After all, the electrostatic force is 35 orders of magnitude greater than that of gravity.

Did you know that the Earth has its own electric and magnetic field? Did you know that the Earth is much closer to us than the sun is? I wonder if you can figure it out from those simple clues?

Just FYI, "The Standard Model" is a particular (successful) theory from quantum physics, it is somewhat confusing to use the phrase the way you have been.

Having studied physics for fifteen years I do know a bit about the Standard Model, thank you. Having studied the alternative models as well, however, I can see Physics from another perspective too. As Feynman said, any good physicist should understand several models for any given set of data. A different perspective on the matter makes a huge difference on what looks credible and what doesn't.

How is this even related to your tirade about the use of the word "found"?

The whole point was that physics often talks as if its theories are absolutely proven and in this case as if we have actually gone looking inside a neutron star and found neutronium. This leads people like you to assume the same. That is why you refuse to look at the falsifications of the interpretations.

 

[subtillioN]

The following is a list of phenomena that is unexplainable by the fusion model of the sun. All of these phenomena are EASILY explained by the plasma model and in fact they are a natural obvious consequence of the model.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm


1. Missing Neutrinos
A thermonuclear reaction of the type assumed to be powering the Sun must emit a flood of neutrinos. Nowhere near the requisite number of neutrinos have been found after thirty years of searching for them...

2. Convection of Energy Up from the Core
The accepted view of how the sun transports its energy from its central core outward to its surface is the mechanism dubbed "non stationary convection." The granules that are visible on the photosphere are claimed to be the tops of laminar columns that penetrate down toward the core. Supposedly, heat (energy) is smoothly transported outward from the core in this "convection zone" via these tubes. This convection process is said to take hundreds of thousands of years. But then, why do the "granules" change shape and even disappear in a period of hours? There are some additional problems with this idea.


3. Temperature Minimum below the Corona
Any typical source of radiant energy is expected to obey an inverse square law. That is to say, the farther we get away from it, the less energy we receive per unit area. A wood stove is hottest at its core, a bit less on its outside surface, and as we backup away from it, we feel continually less and less radiant energy on each unit area of our body. This analogy was used in the cover article in the Scientific American; June 01, 2001 entitled "THE PARADOX OF THE SUN'S HOT CORONA" by Bhola N. Dwivedi and Kenneth J.H. Phillips to describe the problem of the 2 million Kelvin temperature of the Sun's lower corona: "It is as though you got warmer the farther away you walked from a fireplace."
Near the Sun's surface, its atmosphere is coolest - the photosphere - only about 6000K! (And cooler yet at the deepest part of its sunspots.) But then, as we go farther away from the photospheric surface, the temperature of the atmosphere first begins to rise smoothly and then abruptly jumps wildly to about 2 million K in the tenuous lower corona. If radiant energy is produced at the core and radiated at the tops of those convection columns (as per the fusion model) this wide temperature leap is not easily explained - certainly not without reference to the electric phenomena that are obviously occurring.
...
4. Acceleration of the Solar "Wind" Ions
The positive ions that are the main constituent of what mainstream astronomers euphemistically call the solar "wind" move faster and faster the farther away from the Sun they get. They accelerate! Nothing in the fusion model predicts nor explains this observed phenomenon. One orthodox explanation that has been put forward is that photons collide with the ions and accelerate them. However, as of May 2000, mainstream astronomy still had no real explanation for this observed phenomenon (nor for the temperature minimum):
Dr. Peter T. Gallagher from the Big Bear Solar Observatory presented
a seminar on Observations and Modeling of the Corona and Solar
Wind. "Understanding the physics of coronal heating and solar wind
acceleration remains one of the unsolved problems of solar physics.
It is believed that the corona is heated by either high frequency MHD
waves or by many small scale reconnections, but the exact heating
mechanisms and how they relate to the acceleration of coronal plasma
are still uncertain." [Italics and underlining added]


Figure 2. (b) Solar wind speeds as a function of radial distance from the Sun.

Any student of physics who has heard of electric charge and electric fields, knows that the easiest way to get electrically charged particles to accelerate is to apply an electric field to them. The acceleration of the positively charged solar "wind" particles is clearly an electrical phenomenon. It is accurately predicted by the Electric Sun model.

5. Periodic Fluctuations in the Sun's Output and Size
There is experimental evidence that the Sun vibrates in a way that throws doubt on both the assumed convection process for heat transportation and the thermonuclear reaction itself. Bear in mind that the standard model requires the transportation of energy to take hundreds of thousands of years to go from the core to the surface in those 150,000 mile long columns. But:
There is a fluctuation with a 27 day 43 minute period observed in the stream of particles emanating from the sun. Why?
In the 1970's the Sun was observed to be oscillating in brightness with variable cycles lasting from a few minutes to nearly one hour. How?
Russian investigators found a periodic rise and fall of the entire solar surface, the amplitude of which was 10 kilometers in height. Why and how?
The sun actually expands and contracts in size (diameter) with a periodicity of 160 minutes. This periodicity of two hours and forty minutes is impossible for mainstream theorists of "helioseismology" to explain.
In order to make mathematical models of the Sun's interior tally with experimental data, a lower value for G, Newton's gravitational constant, has to be used. (See: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992814).

The results of "helioseismology" (the study of these pulsations) are also consistent with a model wherein the Sun is an iso-dense sphere of gas that supports, on its outer surface, an electric arc discharge powered externally, electrically.
It should be noted that the science of seismology as practiced here on Earth (e.g., to find underground oil deposits) is an active process. A downward shock is initiated and the reflected sound is analyzed. Solar helioseismology is passive. There is no way to "shock" the Sun. We simply "listen" to the ongoing low frequency variations in the natural electromagnetic radiation that the Sun emits. It is not a "cause and effect" experiment. The analysis of these passive signals is much more open to interpretation than it is in geo-seismology.

[ In May of 1999 the solar wind completely stopped for about two days. There are also periodic variations in the solar wind. The transistor-like mechanism described above is certainly capable of causing these phenomena. The fusion model is at a complete loss to explain them.]

6. Why Does the Sun Rotate Faster at its Equator than at Higher Latitudes?

This is yet another question that the accepted thermonuclear model has no answer for. As we will see, the homopolar motor - generator proposed by Thornhill and indirectly proposed by Alfven predict exactly this kind of behavior.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
The mechanism that plasma cosmology provides for pulsars is absurd: electric discharges between two stars. Electric discharges can't be so regular like the flashes observed in pulsars

You say that "Electric discharges can't be so regular like the flashes observed in pulsars", well that is quite wrong. It is well known that energy tends to be released in quantized bits. Even a lightning bolt is always a series of imperceptibly fast, regular discharges. The text of the article goes on to say this, "Relaxation oscillators with characteristics like this have been known and used by electrical engineers for many years."


"Some pulsars oscillate with periods in the millisecond range. Their radio pulse characteristics are: the "duty cycle" is typically 5% (i.e., the pulsar flashes like a strobe light - the duration of each output pulse is much shorter than the length of time between pulses); some individual pulses are quite variable in intensity; the polarization of the pulse implies the origin has a strong magnetic field; magnetic fields require electrical currents. These characteristics are consistent with an electrical arc (lightning) interaction between two closely spaced binary stars. Relaxation oscillators with characteristics like this have been known and used by electrical engineers for many years. Therefore, I was pleased when I saw the following announcement:

Hubble Space Telescope Observations Reveal Coolest and Oldest White Dwarf Stars in the Galaxy: "Using the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have detected five optical companion stars orbiting millisecond pulsars. Only two other such systems are known. Three of the companions are among the coolest and oldest white dwarf stars known." [Italics added]

It is becoming obvious that pulsars are electrical discharges between members of binary pairs"

 

[meteor]

1. Missing Neutrinos
A thermonuclear reaction of the type assumed to be powering the Sun must emit a flood of neutrinos. Nowhere near the requisite number of neutrinos have been found after thirty years of searching for them...

I'm only going to deal with this by the moment
There are tree flavours of neutrinos: the muonic, the electronic and the tauonic. Detectors here in Earth were prepared to detect only electronic neutrinos
The lack of neutrinos observed have been yet explained: Some of the electronic neutrinos emitted by the sun change its flavour to electronic or tauonic during its voyage to erth. This is why are not detected

 

[Hurkyl]

I would call that your confusion because that is not at all what I said. Also, why wouldn't the 3k CMB, once emitted, contribute to the ambient radiation that is again absorbed and re-emitted? Some processes ARE aptly described as cyclical.

The questions are:

(a) Why should it be there in the first place?
(b) Why is it so uniform?
(c) Why hasn't an eternity of radiation from stars and galaxies warmed interstellar gas beyond 3K?

Your comments about negative and positive objects only proves that you don't know the theory.

You're right, I don't know the theory. The website only gives some qualitative assertions (oh, it explains this! and this too!) and does not make any attempt at presenting a solid foundation for anything. Thus, the only reason I have to believe any of its claims are its credibility.

If you are going to criticize something it helps to understand it first.

I'm criticizing the fact the website does not present a theory to be understood.

Did you know that the Earth has its own electric and magnetic field? Did you know that the Earth is much closer to us than the sun is? I wonder if you can figure it out from those simple clues?

No, I can't. I am having difficulty trying to imagine how Earth's electric field could be structured so it magically cancels out the Sun's electric field every on the Earth's surface, everywhere we've been inside the Earth's surface, everywhere in Earth's atmosphere, everywhere in the space around Earth where we have orbiting satellites, and even along the trajectories of probes we have sent far from the Earth. Even better, not only does the field have to have all of these magical properties, but it has to remain unchanged as the Earth rotates, and as its distance from the sun varies in its orbit!

Sorry, vague implications do not a proof make.

Having studied physics for fifteen years...

You totally missed my point. I'm saying that when you are using the phrase "The Standard Model", you do not seem to be referring to the theory named "The Standard Model", which means that your you're adding unnecessary confusion to your statements.

The whole point was that physics often talks as if its theories are absolutely proven and in this case as if we have actually gone looking inside a neutron star and found neutronium. This leads people like you to assume the same. That is why you refuse to look at the falsifications of the interpretations.

People use the word "found" all the time for things they didn't dig up in their back yard with a shovel. Contrary to your low opinion of me, I am quite aware that physicists don't go digging up neutron stars looking for neutronium.



I'm far from an expert on Solar dynamics, but I do have comments on your posts about it:

1. Missing Neutrinos
A thermonuclear reaction of the type assumed to be powering the Sun must emit a flood of neutrinos. Nowhere near the requisite number of neutrinos have been found after thirty years of searching for them...

Neutrino mixing. Duh. Even the website mentions it. (a.k.a. changing flavour)


Incidentally, I'm curious how the electric sun model generates any neutrinos whatsoever.

The accepted view of how the sun transports its energy from its central core outward to its surface is the mechanism dubbed "non stationary convection." The granules that are visible on the photosphere are claimed to be the tops of laminar columns that penetrate down toward the core. Supposedly, heat (energy) is smoothly transported outward from the core in this "convection zone" via these tubes. This convection process is said to take hundreds of thousands of years. But then, why do the "granules" change shape and even disappear in a period of hours? There are some additional problems with this idea.

Why wouldn't they? I haven't read anything on heliodynamics that suggest physicists think there should be tubes that remain intact for hundreds of thousands of years; it's a turbulent fluid flow.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
The questions are:

(a) Why should it be there in the first place?
(b) Why is it so uniform?
(c) Why hasn't an eternity of radiation from stars and galaxies warmed interstellar gas beyond 3K?

I have already explained it enough. I can waste no more time on it.

You're right, I don't know the theory. The website only gives some qualitative assertions (oh, it explains this! and this too!) and does not make any attempt at presenting a solid foundation for anything. Thus, the only reason I have to believe any of its claims are its credibility.

That is total bogus. It gives the theory right on the website itself. Look again.

I'm criticizing the fact the website does not present a theory to be understood.

Having not read the website your claims are once again empty.

The content of the website contains a theory. If you are claiming that it is not a theory then by all means prove it to all of us. Show us that what purports to be a theory is not actually a theory. This will involve reading theory outside your comfort zone, so beware.

No, I can't. I am having difficulty trying to imagine how Earth's electric field could be structured so it magically cancels out the Sun's electric field every on the Earth's surface, everywhere we've been inside the Earth's surface, everywhere in Earth's atmosphere, everywhere in the space around Earth where we have orbiting satellites, and even along the trajectories of probes we have sent far from the Earth.

Yes you are indeed having difficulty. I suggest you learn a bit more about cosmic electro-dynamics.

Even better, not only does the field have to have all of these magical properties, but it has to remain unchanged as the Earth rotates, and as its distance from the sun varies in its orbit!

Why would it?

Sorry, vague implications do not a proof make.

The theory is FAR from vague, but this requires reading it to actually know such a thing.

You totally missed my point. I'm saying that when you are using the phrase "The Standard Model", you do not seem to be referring to the theory named "The Standard Model", which means that your you're adding unnecessary confusion to your statements.

Confusion for you who only knows one side of the story.

People use the word "found" all the time for things they didn't dig up in their back yard with a shovel. Contrary to your low opinion of me, I am quite aware that physicists don't go digging up neutron stars looking for neutronium.

It was a simple demonstration of the confusing connotations inherent in the language of popular physics. That's all. Don't get so worked up about it.

I'm far from an expert on Solar dynamics, but I do have comments on your posts about it:

Neutrino mixing. Duh. Even the website mentions it. (a.k.a. changing flavour)

Incidentally, I'm curious how the electric sun model generates any neutrinos whatsoever.

Changing flavour is a kludge to fix the missing neutrino problem. No one has ever seen this hypothetical flavour change happen. Whether it happens or not is of no consequence whatsoever to the plasma model.

As to your question, since you refuse to enlighten yourself I guess I will have to spoon-feed it to you bit by bit (though in this format you will not get to see the diagrams. For this reason I recommend you actually read the THEORY for yourself instead of arguing about it based on your ignorance of it... oh well...).

"The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current density (Amps per square meter). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter. The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL.
It is also well known that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.
"

Why wouldn't they? I haven't read anything on heliodynamics that suggest physicists think there should be tubes that remain intact for hundreds of thousands of years; it's a turbulent fluid flow.

The standard model states that the granules are the tops of the convection cells that take hundreds of thousands of years to transport their energy from deep within the core. Is that lengthy time scale of a set of long cells stretching all the way into the core properly considered called "turbulent"? I wouldn't think so. It is theoretically more akin to the Bernard instability cells which are far more stable and rarely change whatsoever.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
I'm only going to deal with this by the moment
There are tree flavours of neutrinos: the muonic, the electronic and the tauonic. Detectors here in Earth were prepared to detect only electronic neutrinos
The lack of neutrinos observed have been yet explained: Some of the electronic neutrinos emitted by the sun change its flavour to electronic or tauonic during its voyage to erth. This is why are not detected

Well that is one explanation, but it is purely hypothetical and is only necessary if one assumes the fusion model of the sun to be accurate. Since the fusion model has so many problems which are easily explainable by the electrical model then why should we stick with the fusion model?

By adopting the plasma model one can discard all of those ad hoc hypotheticals along with the mysteries. Thus the whole stellar process and the entire Hertzsprung-Russell spectrum of stellar bodies becomes easily understandable.

 

[Hurkyl]

That is total bogus. It gives the theory right on the website itself. Look again.

Where on the website does it give the presumed geometry of the universe? Where on the website does it give an explanation of the dynamics of the theory? What is the age of the universe? What is the shape and strength of the sun's electric field? What effects should it have on interplanetary probes? Where is the proof from elementary principles of any of the claims it makes?

Originally posted by Hurkyl

I'm criticizing the fact the website does not present a theory to be understood.

Originally posted by Subtillion
If you are claiming that it is not a theory then by all means prove it to all of us.

Notice I put three more words after "theory"

Changing flavour is a kludge to fix the missing neutrino problem.

If you call "Neutrinos were once presumed massless because we had not found evidence of their mass, but now we're reconsidering that presumption because we know massive neutrinos change flavor in a way that precisely patches up the deficiency in the observed neutrino flux, and we've built detectors to observe the neutrinos of other flavors and have found them, so we now presume neutrinos are massive and thus change flavor) a kludge", then I don't see why you are trying to use the word "kludge" with a negative connotation.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Where on the website does it give the presumed geometry of the universe?

This is not a Big Bang Theory. The entire universe has not been observed thus there is no reason to assume any specific universal geometry.

Where on the website does it give an explanation of the dynamics of the theory?

ALL OVER. Can't you see? It is all dynamics.

What is the age of the universe?

Has anyone observed the birth of the universe? There is no reasn to assume a creation ex nihilo event whatsoever, thus no age is assumed either.

What is the shape and strength of the sun's electric field? What effects should it have on interplanetary probes? Where is the proof from elementary principles of any of the claims it makes?

The proof is spread throughout the website. If you care to explain how the theory is incorrect then you are certainly welcome to do just that, but don't just claim that the data is not there because it is. What isn't there is not part of the theory that we are discussing.

Originally posted by Hurkyl

I'm criticizing the fact the website does not present a theory to be understood.

Notice I put three more words after "theory"

So in other words you do not understand the theory. Is that the extent of your critical evaluation?

If you call "Neutrinos were once presumed massless because we had not found evidence of their mass, but now we're reconsidering that presumption because we know massive neutrinos change flavor in a way that precisely patches up the deficiency in the observed neutrino flux, and we've built detectors to observe the neutrinos of other flavors and have found them, so we now presume neutrinos are massive and thus change flavor) a kludge", then I don't see why you are trying to use the word "kludge" with a negative connotation.

Well maybe "kludge" is not the proper term here. How about --retrofitting the theory to match the un-predicted data through a hypothetical process called "flavour change"? What should we call that?

 

[Hurkyl]

This is not a Big Bang Theory. The entire universe has not been observed thus there is no reason to assume any specific universal geometry.

WMAP observations would disagree...

But ignoring that point...

(a) Classical mechanics DOES assume a specific universal geometry; that the universe is a flat Euclidian three dimensional space, parametrized by a real time parameter.

(b) I didn't even ask for the geometry of the universe as a whole; what about the geometry of the observed universe, or simply the local geometry of the universe?

(Incidentally, the reason to study differential manifolds is because it is the most general model given a specified local geometry. If you think the universe should look like R³ on small scales, then you should model your universe with a riemann manifold. If you think the universe should look like special relativity on small scales, then you use a differentiable manifold with a metric of signature -+++. If you think electromagnetism can be described by a U(1) gauge group, then you tack U(1) onto your differentiable manifold... a.k.a. adding a curled up dimension)

ALL OVER. Can't you see? It is all dynamics.

Does F = ma? What is their law of conservation of mass-energy? Do they use Maxwell's equations? Are there any Lagrangians or Hamiltonians on the website?

The website is entirely qualitative descriptions devoid of any proof, or any dynamics that someone could actually learn and apply.

Has anyone observed the birth of the universe? There is no reasn to assume a creation ex nihilo event whatsoever, thus no age is assumed either.

WMAP observations would disagree (at least they think we can see very near the point where GR loses validity).

But ignoring that, one can certainly give a lower bound on the age of the universe.

The proof is spread throughout the website. If you care to explain how the theory is incorrect then you are certainly welcome to do just that, but don't just claim that the data is not there because it is. What isn't there is not part of the theory that we are discussing.

What is the net electric charge of the sun? What is the ratio of H to H₂ in the universe? What is the strength of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of Earth's orbit... where the Earth isn't? What is the net charge of the Earth? What is the predicted rate of nuclear fusion in the sun?

Well maybe "kludge" is not the proper term here. How about --retrofitting the theory to match the un-predicted data through a hypothetical process called "flavour change"? What should we call that?

Are you saying Scientists should ignore data that points out flaws in their assumptions?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
WMAP observations would disagree...

But ignoring that point...

The visible and known mass and gravity of the universe, as interpreted by BBT, says that the universe has a "negative curvature".

WMAP says that the universe is flat AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL.

If you want to call the WMAP results which show no curvature, a "geometry", then be my guest. I happen to know that it is the human mind that imposes geometry in the very act of measurement.

(a) Classical mechanics DOES assume a specific universal geometry; that the universe is a flat Euclidian three dimensional space, parametrized by a real time parameter.

(b) I didn't even ask for the geometry of the universe as a whole; what about the geometry of the observed universe, or simply the local geometry of the universe?

I don't really care about any universal geometry of the observed or the entire universe at this point. It is irrelevant to Plasma Cosmology. Let's deal with the explanations of stellar structure first and move on from there.

Does F = ma? What is their law of conservation of mass-energy?

? Come on. This theory uses standard physics. Why are we debating such banalities? Do you understand the model of the sun put forth on the website? Let us start there.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Do they use Maxwell's equations? Are there any Lagrangians or Hamiltonians on the website?

Why don't you read it to find out?

Plasma Cosmology is not a replacement for EVERY SINGLE BIT of cosmology. Just use your current knowledge to understand the things that plasma cosmology does not need to deal with.

To properly learn the model you must simply read it with an open mind. If you spend your entire time looking for things that it doesn't talk about, then you will never learn the model. Perhaps that is your point? Are you simply trying to avoid learning? If such is the case then just stop right here. There simply is no point to continue.

The website is entirely qualitative descriptions devoid of any proof, or any dynamics that someone could actually learn and apply.

You cannot read apparently. If you don't want to attempt to debunk the theory that is fine, but don't just claim that the theory is inadequate. If you are going to make such a claim then back it up with quotes and demonstrations of were the theory goes wrong.

But ignoring that, one can certainly give a lower bound on the age of the universe.

One can certainly give any bound one wishes but without any evidence then what is the point?

What is the net electric charge of the sun? What is the ratio of H to H₂ in the universe? What is the strength of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of Earth's orbit... where the Earth isn't? What is the net charge of the Earth? What is the predicted rate of nuclear fusion in the sun?

I am not going to tutor you here. If you wish to debunk it then be my guest.

Are you saying Scientists should ignore data that points out flaws in their assumptions?

I am saying quite the opposite. I am saying that Scientists should pay very close attention to when the theory makes incorrect pre-dictions because this gives important clues that they are on the wrong track.

The predictions of the solar neutrinos were WAAAAY off. And so, once again they fix their incorrect model to fit the data.

Is the model really predictive?? Nope. It has failed test after test. This is called "falsification". It is the only mechanism by which science can learn of important errors in the theory.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't really care about any universal geometry of the observed or the entire universe at this point. It is irrelevant to Plasma Cosmology. Let's deal with the explanations of stellar structure first and move on from there.

I do, and so would any physicist.

? Come on. This theory uses standard physics. Why are we debating such banalities? Do you understand the model of the sun put forth on the website? Let us start there.

It certainly does not use standard physics, because it likes to take every opportunity to try and assert that standard physics is flawed. We are debating these "banalities" because the dynamical foundation for a theory is important.

And it has even come up in one of these threads; you referenced a "proof" that classical mechanics can explain the perihelion shift of Mercury... but it used laws that were quite invalid in classical mechanics (the law of conservation of mass-energy is relativistic; classical mechanics has the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass), and fundamentally breaks the classical picture of the (local) universe by demanding that measurements in different locations use different rods and clocks.

Why don't you read it to find out?

I looked; I didn't find any.

Just use your current knowledge to understand the things that plasma cosmology does not need to deal with.

My current knowledge is strongly inconsistent with the claims of plasma cosmology.

To properly learn the model you must simply read it with an open mind. If you spend your entire time looking for things that it doesn't talk about, then you will never learn the model.

The things that it doesn't talk about are very important, that's why I'm complaining about it.

One can certainly give any bound one wishes but without any evidence then what is the point?

There is evidence. For example, I can certainly find evidence that the universe is at least a few days old; I know the properties behind the timestamps on this form and I can check them.

I am saying quite the opposite. I am saying that Scientists should pay very close attention to when the theory makes incorrect pre-dictions because this gives important clues that they are on the wrong track.

You forget one thing; the model's predictions are mostly correct, and generally only minor corrections of the assumptions need to be made to fix the errors.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I do, and so would any physicist.

Good for you, but I am not debating any universal geometry. You will have to discuss that with someone else.

It certainly does not use standard physics, because it likes to take every opportunity to try and assert that standard physics is flawed.

Is Plasma Physics not standard physics? Please tell me an instance when standard BASIC proven science is rejected by plasma physics?

Plasma Physics is laboratory science. plain and simple.

We are debating these "banalities" because the dynamical foundation for a theory is important.

We have not even got into the dynamical foundation. You are still stuck in the periphery.

And it has even come up in one of these threads; you referenced a "proof" that classical mechanics can explain the perihelion shift of Mercury...

There are other proofs that I also referenced which are quite valid indeed.

but it used laws that were quite invalid in classical mechanics (the law of conservation of mass-energy is relativistic;

E=MC2 can be derived by purely classical means. It is not part of the theory of relativity.

classical mechanics has the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass), and fundamentally breaks the classical picture of the (local) universe by demanding that measurements in different locations use different rods and clocks.

You are wrong here. Relativity is superfluous when understanding e=mc2.

I looked; I didn't find any.

So look somewhere else and give up on Plasma Cosmology. You simply cannot open your mind to anything new.

My current knowledge is strongly inconsistent with the claims of plasma cosmology.

Indeed!

The things that it doesn't talk about are very important, that's why I'm complaining about it.

That is a cop out. It is a tactic for not learning the model. "Let's just debate what it DOESN'T talk about!" Just admit that you cannot even understand the theory.

There is evidence. For example, I can certainly find evidence that the universe is at least a few days old; I know the properties behind the timestamps on this form and I can check them.

Lol. Oh ok. more banalities...

[zz)]

You forget one thing; the model's predictions are mostly correct, and generally only minor corrections of the assumptions need to be made to fix the errors.

The predictions have been incorrect and constantly fixed and retrofitted since day one. They certainly aren't going to tell you this in school however.

You want references? I can give them.

 

[Hurkyl]

Good for you, but I am not debating any universal geometry. You will have to discuss that with someone else.

What about the geometry of the observable universe, or local geometry?

Is Plasma Physics not standard physics? Please tell me an instance when standard BASIC proven science is rejected by plasma physics?

Plasma physics does not assert that, for instance, gravitational lensing is a myth. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm does. If you search for respectable plasma physics sites (instead of the crackpot sites like http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm ), you'll find that they aren't trying to replace any established theories (such as providing an alternative to the fusion model for the sun's power source)... they're working to supplement established theories.


(Note: up until this point, whenever I referred to "plasma cosmology" or similar phrases, I was referring to the crackpot theory expoused by you and sites like http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm , not the actual science of plasma)

So look somewhere else and give up on Plasma Cosmology. You simply cannot open your mind to anything new.

Open mind != believe anything without proof.

The predictions have been incorrect and constantly fixed and retrofitted since day one. They certainly aren't going to tell you this in school however.

You want references? I can give them.

So? That's the cycle of knowledge; formulate a hypothesis that explains known data. Gather more data. Revise the hypothesis to account for any inconsistencies. Gather more data. et cetera.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

Plasma physics does not assert that, for instance, gravitational lensing is a myth. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm does. If you search for respectable plasma physics sites (instead of the crackpot sites like http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm ), you'll find that they aren't trying to replace any established theories (such as providing an alternative to the fusion model for the sun's power source)... they're working to supplement established theories.

So your definition of a crackpot theory is one that is attempting to supplant a faulty theory with a better one?

Open mind != believe anything without proof.

nope. it means understand first, falsify later.

So? That's the cycle of knowledge; formulate a hypothesis that explains known data. Gather more data. Revise the hypothesis to account for any inconsistencies. Gather more data. et cetera.

RETRO-FITTING

How does falsification fit into such a scheme?

Are you aware that this is exactly how the Earth-centered model of the solar-system survived for so long? The retro-fitting in this case was called an epicycle.

 

[Hurkyl]

So your definition of a crackpot theory is one that is attempting to supplant a faulty theory with a better one?

Nope.

How does falsification fit into such a scheme?

When an observation is made that contradicts predictions, you change your assumptions. How else would it fit in?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
When an observation is made that contradicts predictions, you change your assumptions. How else would it fit in?

Really? So when the data comes in that the Doppler interpretation has been falsified what happened? Absolutely nothing. It was ignored and the astronomer who took the pictures was barred from using the telescopes.

The question is which assumptions do you change? You can change them at a superficial level like adding epicycles or hypothetical flavour change or you can dig deeper and search for a more consistent model that solves many problems at once, such as the Plasma model of the plasma sun.

 

[Hurkyl]

The question is which assumptions do you change?

You make changes in which you have the least confidence, and the ones that don't cause the model to fail in areas where it is currently successful.

model that solves many problems at once

You're not getting it; it solves nothing. It is merely a vague theory that gives vague mechanisms for observations, but no concrete, mathematically precise model from which we can make numerical predictions that coincide with observations.

 

[meteor]

If in the electric sun model there's no production of energy at the core of the sun, what prevents the sun from collapse?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
If in the electric sun model there's no production of energy at the core of the sun, what prevents the sun from collapse?

I thought we already discussed this. Try to follow along.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You're not getting it; it solves nothing. It is merely a vague theory that gives vague mechanisms for observations, but no concrete, mathematically precise model from which we can make numerical predictions that coincide with observations.

You still do not know the theory. You are rejecting it in ignorance of it. If you think it is faulty then prove it plain and simple.

 

[meteor]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by meteor
If in the electric sun model there's no production of energy at the core of the sun, what prevents the sun from collapse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I thought we already discussed this. Try to follow along.

Why? Because the sun is positively charged? And why must be the sun positively charged? This is an ad hoc assumption.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
Why? Because the sun is positively charged? And why must be the sun positively charged? This is an ad hoc assumption.

Nuclear energy is simply not needed to prevent collapse. I'll post it again in case you missed it

---

Why Doesn't the Sun Collapse of Its Own Weight?
How can we account for the fact that the Sun has been around for a long time with something like the same luminosity, yet has not collapsed in upon itself? 3 In orthodox theory, a main-sequence star like the sun behaves like a ball of gas, its temperature and pressure both increasing monotonically from the outer surface toward the center. The temperature is needed to sustain the pressure, and the pressure is needed to fend off gravitational forces which, in the absence of sufficient pressure, would lead to collapse. It is hard to understand how in Juergens' theory, with no fusion going on in the core, such a "reverse" temperature gradient can be maintained.
The answer is best stated by physicist Wal Thornhill:
"The electric star model makes the simplest assumption - that nothing is going on inside the Sun. ... So for most of the volume of a star where the gravity is strongest, atoms and molecules will predominate. (In the electric model that applies to the entire star). The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. These dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same density throughout, or isodense."

We should remember, considering a pair of such protons, that the strength of the electrostatic repulsion force between them is something like 35 orders of magnitude greater than the strength of gravitational attraction! (Not 35 TIMES, but 35 Orders Of Magnitude). So the offset of the electron from the nucleus can be truly minuscule and yet produce an extremely strong electrical force to counteract gravitational collapse.

The Sun does not require internally generated heat in order to avoid collapse.

3. The same question ("Why doesn't it collapse due to gravity?") should be asked about globular clusters of stars. The real answer in this case is also electrical in nature. And no "missing matter" or "dark energy" is required.

 

[Hurkyl]

We should remember, considering a pair of such protons, that the strength of the electrostatic repulsion force between them is something like 35 orders of magnitude greater than the strength of gravitational attraction! (Not 35 TIMES, but 35 Orders Of Magnitude). So the offset of the electron from the nucleus can be truly minuscule and yet produce an extremely strong electrical force to counteract gravitational collapse.

(a) How does this change the fact there is still enough pressure in the depths of the sun to ignite fusion? (and thus the generated heat, in combination with the charge, would blow the star apart)

(b) Since you posit that the electrostatic repulsion is so strong, how does gravity manage to overcome repulsion to hold the star together?

(c) What mechanism thwarts the combined effort of the sun's gravity and electrostatic field to suck up enough electrons out of the surrounding space to neutralize the sun's charge?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
(a) How does this change the fact there is still enough pressure in the depths of the sun to ignite fusion?

That is not a fact that is a guess that is unsupported by the evidence.

(b) Since you posit that the electrostatic repulsion is so strong, how does gravity manage to overcome repulsion to hold the star together?

That is quite hilarious. How does the Earth stay together? What a joke!

(c) What mechanism thwarts the combined effort of the sun's gravity and electrostatic field to suck up enough electrons out of the surrounding space to neutralize the sun's charge?

What makes you think there are enough electrons?