An Electrifying Question

[Acolyte]

Another thought that has been percolating... and seeing Ole Doc Sief's image kind of kicked things along...

Jupiter, & to a lesser extent, Saturn have magnetic fields that should react with the Solar magnetosphere. They also hold nearly all the angular momentum of the solar system. They also orbit within a field of charged aprticles from the Sun.

Does this sound like a generator to anyone else? And given that any reaction happening will be going both ways, doesn't this provide a source for solar effects based on planetary movements? It's late here so I won't go looking for the reference in another thread to Precession and sunspots having similar length cycles, but if there's a dynamo running in our system, I'd see that as a significant factor in determining what occurs in any electrical or magnetic system.

With EM forces being so much stronger than gravity, and the solar system being pretty much awash with charges and fields, it seems to me there could be some rather significant understanding to come from studying the direct & feedback effects.

[kaidaw]

acolyte,
See comment posted on Tilmari's a minute ago.

[npsguy]

Sept 22, 2008 1:04:25 GMT @kaidaw said:

If we come in here browbeating those who don't agree with us, there can be no discourse, no possible good effect.

With all due respect I am not browbeating anyone. The Holoscience website makes a lot of unfounded, unscientific claims to push their theories. It is full of flat out lies. Sorry.

For example look at today's "Pic of the day" off of their home page. www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm They are claiming that arch formations occur because "the Electric Universe hypothesis identifies electricity as the formative agent for these geological configurations"

Well that is a flat out lie. I am sorry I won't mince words. One has only to go to Arches NPS in Moab, Utah to see every stage of arch formation take place. There is no 'electric/plasma' connection here. It is good old fashion erosion. It is what creates arches and it is what also destroys them.

Take another example from www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040705olympus-mons.htm

They say that "Olympus Mons on the planet Mars defies categorization as a "volcano," but bears a striking similarity to a lightning blister. Olympus Mons on the planet Mars is taller than three Mount Everests and about as wide as the entire Hawaiian Island chain. But it¹s almost as flat as a pancake. Its edge is nearly as abrupt as a pancake, too, ending in a scarp up to 6 kilometers (almost 4 miles) high."

That is odd... that is exactly what a shield volcano IS. I have actually worked with planetary geologists before and I have never heard anyone of the say to me "Hey... pssst... that Olympus Mons thing... we don't have a clue what it is."

And even the Grand Canyon? www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060127hole.htm

No offense but saying the Electric Universe hypothesis created the Grand Canyon is on par with the Young Earth Creationist saying it was created by the Great Flood. All the evidence points to erosion of the Colorado Plateau as it is slowly uplifted.

But hey... don't let facts and evidence get in the way of your glorious "Scientific" hypothesis.

Now just read that website and realize EVERYTHING is caused by electrical/plasma discharges. Accidents, craters, arches... I will not be surprised if the next 'press release' from this website says that Lehman Brothers went out of business because a 'lightning blister" shot through Wall Street".

This thread started with the question "Are solar fans by de facto electric fans?" and I posted numerous reasons why it should not be. If your definition of browbeating is pointing out the truth when someone is an obvious liar then yes... I am a browbeater.

I don't like liars, I don't like it when people twist science for their own personal gain, and I don't like people taking advantaged of an uneducated populace to promote their weird agenda.

What I am amazed at is that given what I have posted you would even defend them. What in the hell is this country coming to?

[Acolyte]

Hey, npsguy, calm down a little. I'm not even sure france is defending the Electric Universe stuff - I think she thought you were slagging off about the European Union. I could be wrong of course but I think it's chill pill time.

1. It's no skin off your nose if people want to believe in the EU theory. Beleiving anything without decent evidence isn't wise.

2. Getting upset because someone has a belief allows them (or their belief) to have control over you; to get you to do stuff all they need do is bring up whatever it is upsets you.

3. EU proponents are not necessarily liars. It is quite possible to think something is correct simply because it makes more sense, based on one's own knowledge and history. That may make them wrong, but not liars in the sense you're accusing them. And remember, your own knowledge & history have conditioned you to particular views as well.

As it happens, I agree with you that EU hypothesis seems to over-reach itself, but it is an interesting take on things and just because they go too far doesn't mean there isn't any truth at all in what they say.

I personally see organised religion as a control mechanism, but each of them seem to have a core of knowledge that is good to know & perhaps live by. Just because they go too far in trying to tell everyone how to live, or else, doesn't invalidate the core knowledge.

[npsguy]

Sept 22, 2008 20:45:10 GMT Acolyte said:

Hey, npsguy, calm down a little. I'm not even sure france is defending the Electric Universe stuff -

France, to be clear the topic of this thread is the "Electric Universe" hypothsis, not the European Union nor the LHC at CERN. I think the LHC is great and was rather upset when the US Congress canceled the SSC in Texas. I am all for extending the frontiers of science.

Now... as for calming down I am rather calm. I am simply pointing out that there are a ton of VERY bogus claims on the Holoscience website. Doesn't matter if 'some' of their ideas are true or not, that isn't the point.

And let's face the facts...if their hypothesis is valid why try and back them up with such bogus claims? Olympus Mons and the Grand Canyon and meteor craters all created by 'lightning blisters'??

And they claim scientists do not understand how lightning is generated and that astronomers never take courses in EM theory.

It is all a bunch of really bad lies and half truths.

Anyway don't worry about me. I won't come back and bother anyone here who wishes to talk about "Holoscience" and expound on how plasma and EM fields cause everything from the craters on the moon to acne on adolescent teens.

Hey... it's an Electric Universe...right?

[Acolyte]

On the subject of understanding lighning, there is current debate (I don't think it's been resolved yet) about what role gamma radiation plays in causing lightning.

There is also no easy answer yet for sprites and other lightning phenomena seen above the clouds that generate normal lightning.

And I'm not sure if they have settled on an explanation for sheet & other horizontal lightning either. Path-to-ground explanations don't seem to fit.

[Acolyte]

Sept 22, 2008 15:46:30 GMT @kaidaw said:

pidgey (and acolyte on the EU thread),

There are a variety of things that could constitute the "waves".
First, there is dark matter, only weakly interacting, but generating a lot of heat of annihilation when it does.
Second, there are GCRs, coming steadily, but seen as waves because of a varying intensity of the solar magnetosphere.
Third, there is simply direct effects of the coupling effects of Sol and Earth's magnetospheres.
These first three are more likely, in my mind, than the next two.
Fourth, there is a change in galactic dust density; I just don't see it having enough ummph to mention.
Fifth, there is a change in galactic electric field intensity (a la EU), but a) the inverse squared law says it should not be important, b) such should cause a gross distortion of the whole solar magnetosphere, not just a change in bow shock, and c) such should cause a congruent change in the solar system's many magnetospheres.
At the moment, my money is 80% #3, 20% #2. But this is the time for proposing differing effects that would be seen by each.

DM produces heat? Where do we see DM interacting? Even galactic collision doesn't seem to produce DM interaction, either with normal matter or itself.

This makes me doubt the explanation that galaxy disks are mandated to rotate at a rate non-proportional to the radius from centre because of a DM sphere in which it is embedded. With so little interaction, how would even a sphere of DM force the acceleration needed to make the disk rotate contiguous with the centre?

Another problem arises from images such as that one above - if I understand correctly, we are 'seeing' the DM by a lensing effect. If DM can lens light, why can't it also be a factor in redshifting light from far-off places? It would seem logical that with most DM outside the galaxy, it would ahve little effect within a galaxy, but the further off the light-producing event was, the more DM would be between it and us.

So if we can 'see' DM like this, doesn't that bring redshift into question as being the result of universal expansion?

And just to really throw the cat among the pigeons, Chandra has found a situation that defies the evidence of the Bullet cluster collision. It seem they can't both be correct - or we have something else than the standard DM explanation for what is being seen.

[Kevin VE3EN]

This topic was moved to the Open Forum, as I do not associate this with Solar Cycle 24.

[Acolyte]

Sept 23, 2008 2:57:46 GMT Kevin VE3EN said:

This topic was moved to the Open Forum, as I do not associate this with Solar Cycle 24.

Well... the original intention was to see how an electric or magnetic solar system might relate to SC24 - topic kind of moved away from that area, didn't it? ;D This is a better place for the thread it became...

[Acolyte]

In light of comments about galaxy disk rotation anomalies... From The Sun in Time

Star-disk magnetic fields may form large magnetospheres that lead to star-disk locking and disk-controlled spin rates of the star. Generally, disk-surrounded CTTS rotate relatively slowly, probably due to disk locking, with P = 5–10 d, compared to only a few days for diskless, non-accreting WTTS (Bouvier et al., 1993); if a rotation-induced magnetic dynamo is at work in CTTS, then it may be dampened compared to dynamos in freely (and rapidly) rotating diskless WTTS.

Theory is a magnetosphere can lock-step a disk around a central mass... If it works at stellar level, is there any reason to suppose a similar effect wouldn't work at larger scale?

Note also the terminology used, particularly on the link. From an engineering view, AFAIK, a magnetic dynamo is called a generator... of electric current.

So at galactic level we have what is effectively 100 billion+ electric/magnetic events (stars) rotating around a central plasma-infused mass. Is it too much to imagine that those fields interact & so lock-step the charged 'particles' and so constrain rotation to provide the anomaly we see in galactic disk rotation?

[kaidaw]

acolyte,
First, imagine our solar system as it is. Now, do a mind exercise, and remove the sun's magnetosphere. Newton's Law says the Earth's orbit will be no different from what it is today. Why would the galaxy be different?
Now, imagine the Earth is moving at 149 km/sec around the sun instead of 29.8 km/sec. Do you think the sun's magnetosphere would hold us in our orbit?
And, consider one magnetic field moving through another. The result is DRAG, not anti-drag. Sol is going around galactic central TOO FAST, not too slow.

Then, regarding the Bullet Cluster, consider a two-particle galaxy passing by another two-particle galaxy. In each galaxy, one particle has a mass of a billion, and the other particle has a mass of one. Each of the two systems is traveling at a constant velocity. In each system, the small particle is rotating about the larger. As the two systems pass closely, depending on the relative positions of the particles in each system, it is possible for either system to capture the small particle from the other system, for no capture to take place, for both small particles to break free, for either system to capture the large other particle but not the small one. I can draw diagrams showing each. There is no dilemna. If DM exists and is gravitational bound, no other explanation is necessary; there is no paradox, no violation of known laws... only obsfucation.

[Edit addition: Real galaxies have more objects, but the point holds. When two galaxies pass, it is possible to have several different results in what combines and what gets thrown off, depending on angle of incidence, offset at incidence, rotation, velocity, position at incidence, etc., with gravity as the only active force. The two-particle galaxies I used only make it easy to visualize how any of many different outcomes can result.]

[france]

Sept 22, 2008 23:13:30 GMT npsguy said:

Sept 22, 2008 20:45:10 GMT Acolyte said:

Hey, npsguy, calm down a little. I'm not even sure france is defending the Electric Universe stuff -

France, to be clear the topic of this thread is the "Electric Universe" hypothsis, not the European Union nor the LHC at CERN. I think the LHC is great and was rather upset when the US Congress canceled the SSC in Texas. I am all for extending the frontiers of science.

....

Anyway don't worry about me. I won't come back and bother anyone here who wishes to talk about "Holoscience" and expound on how plasma and EM fields cause everything from the craters on the moon to acne on adolescent teens.

Hey... it's an Electric Universe...right?

Good if you are calm. May be you are younger than all old registered of SC24... and communication is not so perfect. When I was younger I was more fiery we become peacefuler with the age (they are exceptions indeed)

I think it'll be better to speak about "understanding" rather than "extending the frontiers" of the Science. That will keep minds cool and rational. Science it's a latin word that means "knowledge" above all, it's the reason why I make this nuance. So Science must allways be delimited by Knowledge, only the Knowledge nothing else.

You speak about craters on the Moon, I think it's because Moon lost its magnetic field and nothing can stop what's bang on it.

Is it right ? You see one of the most important matter Science has to understand is electric effects that behaves on the magnetic field for example. It'sn't a rubbish subject.

[Acolyte]

Sept 23, 2008 20:03:45 GMT @kaidaw said:

acolyte,
First, imagine our solar system as it is. Now, do a mind exercise, and remove the sun's magnetosphere. Newton's Law says the Earth's orbit will be no different from what it is today. Why would the galaxy be different?
Now, imagine the Earth is moving at 149 km/sec around the sun instead of 29.8 km/sec. Do you think the sun's magnetosphere would hold us in our orbit?
And, consider one magnetic field moving through another. The result is DRAG, not anti-drag. Sol is going around galactic central TOO FAST, not too slow.

Well there's a few points here. One is that any laws we have worked out are based on the system as we know it so if the magnetosphere has an effect, Newton's laws will encapsulate that effect in the formulae. Note I am not saying your thought experiment isn't correct, just that it doesn't really prove the point.

Also, the lock-step of the early solar system is a different environment from the current one; it would seem to me quite feasible for the environment to work one way when there's an accreting magnetic plasma centre surrounded by a slowly coalescing cloud of particles and plasma and for things to change once the planets form and become much more isolated individual magnetospheres.

One thing IS certain AFAIK, nobody has yet nailed down the early history of the solar system. It does seem likely though that the magnetic and electric effects in an ionised plasma would be far more effective than that of gravity, simply because of the different field strengths.

Now, if the galaxy centre has a large magnetosphere, or perhaps has an electrical nature (soryy npsguy ;D) then drag is EXACTLY what could accelerate the Sun & other outer stars. Remember, according to classical physics, the inner bodies should be moving much faster than the outer ones.

If magnetospheres interact, it is possible the strong central field, amplified and extended by the fields of stars and clusters in close, will 'drag' the outer fields forward effectively speeding them up. Over time this would eventually 'lock step' the disk into a fixed speed across the entire width of the disk.

Sept 23, 2008 20:03:45 GMT @kaidaw said:

Then, regarding the Bullet Cluster, consider a two-particle galaxy passing by another two-particle galaxy. In each galaxy, one particle has a mass of a billion, and the other particle has a mass of one. Each of the two systems is traveling at a constant velocity. In each system, the small particle is rotating about the larger. As the two systems pass closely, depending on the relative positions of the particles in each system, it is possible for either system to capture the small particle from the other system, for no capture to take place, for both small particles to break free, for either system to capture the large other particle but not the small one. I can draw diagrams showing each. There is no dilemna. If DM exists and is gravitational bound, no other explanation is necessary; there is no paradox, no violation of known laws... only obsfucation.

Nice epxeriment but it seems to lack a little. We have two scenarios to which I link above - in the Bullet cluster the DM seems to have completely 'missed' interaction with either the normal matter or the other DM. With Abel 520, the DM seems to have done the interacting with the normal matter whizzing about as discrete bodies.

So it would seem we have a puzzle about DM.

Another is the point I made earlier - if DM can interact gravitationally sufficiently to lens light (the way we are seeing the apparent DM in both Bullet and Abel 520) why couldn't it be the cause of redshift?

[kaidaw]

acolyte,

First, I added a paragraph to my prior post.

"Well there's a few points here. One is that any laws we have worked out are based on the system as we know it so if the magnetosphere has an effect, Newton's laws will encapsulate that effect in the formulae. Note I am not saying your thought experiment isn't correct, just that it doesn't really prove the point."
It is mathematically inconceivable that each solar body (with its different mass, different temperature, different materials) just happens to have an electric field that precisely makes the same fractional contribution to attraction as the suggested weaker gravitational force. Further, if this electric attraction did occur, then we would be measuring a different gravitational attraction a) as a function of the energy we put into an electromagnet, and b) as a function of the sun's and earth's varying magnetic field! Think about it!

"Now, if the galaxy centre has a large magnetosphere, or perhaps has an electrical nature (soryy npsguy ;D) then drag is EXACTLY what could accelerate the Sun & other outer stars. Remember, according to classical physics, the inner bodies should be moving much faster than the outer ones."
Only worth discussing if you can overcome the problems in the topic immediately above. But, here is a clue: NO: If the Earth is rotating about the sun at a function X% electrical attraction and Y% gravitational attraction, X and Y also have to apply to Sol and other stars rotating about galactic central. But, there, compared to the solar system, outer bodies are rotating too fast.
And, if you would like to make a counter-argument that this may be due to the fact that electrical forces don't obey the same inverse square law as gravity, then you have to tell me what the law is that they could obey that meets the criteria of what we observe (not in equation form, but qualitatively, as a function of distance).

"
If magnetospheres interact, it is possible the strong central field, amplified and extended by the fields of stars and clusters in close, will 'drag' the outer fields forward effectively speeding them up. Over time this would eventually 'lock step' the disk into a fixed speed across the entire width of the disk."
But, note that the galaxy does not operate in lockstep. Nor do other galaxies. The rotational velocity of stars in the arms is the same, not the relative position. And this type of problem exists in galaxies that are different ages, so this cannot simply be a fluke of the particular time in the transition from not-locked to locked-step.

"Nice exeriment but it seems to lack a little. We have two scenarios to which I link above - in the Bullet cluster the DM seems to have completely 'missed' interaction with either the normal matter or the other DM. With Abel 520, the DM seems to have done the interacting with the normal matter whizzing about as discrete bodies."
OK, without studying the specific system, here is A "natural" explanation for the Bullet cluster result:
A few tens of millions of years ago, one of the galaxies in the bullet cluster came "half-middling-close" to another galaxy, such that the part of that galaxy that had the least inertia (i.e., the dark matter particles were small) got pulled so that the dark matter cloud and the visible matter aggregate were largely slightly separated, but still gravitationally bound. Then this split galaxy passed near another galaxy, such that the visible portion was measurably closer to the intersecting galaxy than the dark matter cloud. The visibly portion arced around the galaxy it was intersecting, and the dark matter cloud (less attracted) was whip-sawed on past. This leaves you with one system containing two galaxies worth of visible matter and one galaxy worth of dark matter, with the second system winds up only as a dark matter cloud moving away by itself.
With Abel 520, same secenario, but the second near-miss involved the dark matter cloud being closer to the intersected galaxy.
Now, I need no exotic solution; I need no different rules for different parts of the universe; and I need no force except plain old gravity.

"Another is the point I made earlier - if DM can interact gravitationally sufficiently to lens light (the way we are seeing the apparent DM in both Bullet and Abel 520) why couldn't it be the cause of redshift?"
Sorry I did not answer ALL your questions before; I can only juggle about 8 things at a time (and need to use big print, so I can't keep the whole conversation on the screen in front of me at the same time).
And, for this, I am truly bemused. Aside from the fact that this question has no meaning unless ALL of your hypotheses above are true i spite of perfectly "normal" explanations, I have never heard that ordinary average galactic densities caused redshifts. While there might be one in the vicinity of a black hole, no one has hypothesized a black hole with a large enough Schwarzchild radius to lens AND redshift a galaxy behind it; and, even if one did, there cannot be enough such beasties to explain all red-shifted galaxies.

Gotta run. Atlanta-style barbecued pork ribs await.

EDIT: Stupid me. There may be a red-shifting of light rising out of a black hole gravity well, but, since it did not come from the black hole itself, by definition, it first had to blue-shift as it fell into the well! Therefore, forget a z=3 shift because of passing by a black hole; and any red-shift/blue-shift/one-shift/two-shift from passing by DM is totally out of the question.
NOW, on to dinner.

[Acolyte]

Another point here that may affect things is that it seems quite likely the Sun (& a few nearby stars) is not actually native to the Milky Way.
From here...

The fact that the Milky Way is seen in the sky at an angle has always puzzled astronomers. If we originated from the Milky Way, we ought to be oriented to the galaxy's ecliptic, with the planets aligned around our Sun in much the same angle as our Sun aligns with the Milky Way. Instead, as first suggested by researcher Matthew Perkins Erwin, the odd angle suggests that our Sun is influenced by some other system. Together with data from the Two-Micron All Sky Survey we now know what it is. We actually belong to the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy.

Now to me this raises a puzzle also... The galactic disk is not a particularly massive thing when the distances are so vast. Mass is spread wide and far. So if astronomers have the situation correctly, something in the disk has accelerated the Sagitarian stars so they are altering their velocities to become part of the Milky Way.

It seems a bit unlikely they all passed close enough to MW stars to be so radically affected by gravity or that their initial velocity would be so close to some limit that the weak gravity field could strip them of just enough velocity that they get captured.

However if there IS a magnetosphere for the galaxy, or even electrical effects that tie together the Milky Way structure, this could be a mechanism which operates to trap anything with a field which approaches or passes through the plane of the disk. This would be the drag effect mentioned above.

EDIT: OK, that's a heck of a lot more than a mouthful to digest. I'm at work and you posted while I had this addition open and was away working.
Thanks for your time and thoughts. To quote Scott... I am just stepping out; I may be gone a while... ;D ie. I'll go chew all that over & come back later...