Global Eruption Rocks the Sun

The Solar Dynamics Observatory insignia. It re...

Image via Wikipedia

I should point out that thanks to the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), we can see things that we’ve never seen before. So while this event is unprecedented in the history of science, it is likely “business as usual” for old Sol. h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard.  – Anthony

From NASA Science News: On August 1, 2010, an entire hemisphere of the sun erupted. Filaments of magnetism snapped and exploded, shock waves raced across the stellar surface, billion-ton clouds of hot gas billowed into space. Astronomers knew they had witnessed something big.

It was so big, it may have shattered old ideas about solar activity.

“The August 1st event really opened our eyes,” says Karel Schrijver of Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Lab in Palo Alto, CA. “We see that solar storms can be global events, playing out on scales we scarcely imagined before.”

Global Eruption (movie_strip, 550px)

Click to play an extreme ultraviolet movie of the August 1st global eruption. Different colors represent different plasma temperatures in the range 1.0 to 2.2 million K. Credit: Solar Dynamics Observatory.

For the past three months, Schrijver has been working with fellow Lockheed-Martin solar physicist Alan Title to understand what happened during the “Great Eruption.” They had plenty of data: The event was recorded in unprecedented detail by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory and twin STEREO spacecraft. With several colleagues present to offer commentary, they outlined their findings at a press conference today at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

Explosions on the sun are not localized or isolated events, they announced. Instead, solar activity is interconnected by magnetism over breathtaking distances. Solar flares, tsunamis, coronal mass ejections–they can go off all at once, hundreds of thousands of miles apart, in a dizzyingly-complex concert of mayhem.

Global Eruption (STEREO2, 200px)

NASA’s twin STEREO spacecraft surround the sun. [STEREO home page]

“To predict eruptions we can no longer focus on the magnetic fields of isolated active regions,” says Title, “we have to know the surface magnetic field of practically the entire sun.”

This revelation increases the work load for space weather forecasters, but it also increases the potential accuracy of their forecasts.

“The whole-sun approach could lead to breakthroughs in predicting solar activity,” commented Rodney Viereck of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, CO. “This in turn would provide improved forecasts to our customers such as electric power grid operators and commercial airlines, who could take action to protect their systems and ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

In a paper they prepared for the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR), Schrijver and Title broke down the Great Eruption into more than a dozen significant shock waves, flares, filament eruptions, and CMEs spanning 180 degrees of solar longitude and 28 hours of time. At first it seemed to be a cacophony of disorder until they plotted the events on a map of the sun’s magnetic field.

Title describes the Eureka! moment: “We saw that all the events of substantial coronal activity were connected by a wide-ranging system of separatrices, separators, and quasi-separatrix layers.” A “separatrix” is a magnetic fault zone where small changes in surrounding plasma currents can set off big electromagnetic storms.

Global Eruption (locations, 550px)

Locations of key events are labeled in this extreme ultraviolet image of the sun, obtained by the Solar Dynamics Observatory during the Great Eruption of August 1st. White lines trace the sun’s magnetic field. Credit: K Schrijver & A. Title. [larger image]

Researchers have long suspected this kind of magnetic connection was possible. “The notion of ‘sympathetic’ flares goes back at least three quarters of a century,” they wrote in their JGR paper. Sometimes observers would see flares going off one after another–like popcorn–but it was impossible to prove a link between them. Arguments in favor of cause and effect were statistical and often full of doubt.

“For this kind of work, SDO and STEREO are game-changers,” says Lika Guhathakurta, NASA’s Living with a Star Program Scientist. “Together, the three spacecraft monitor 97% of the sun, allowing researchers to see connections that they could only guess at in the past.”

Global Eruption (SDO, 200px)

An artist’s concept of the Solar Dynamics Observatory. [SDO home page]

To wit, barely two-thirds of the August event was visible from Earth, yet all of it could be seen by the SDO-STEREO fleet. Moreover, SDO’s measurements of the sun’s magnetic field revealed direct connections between the various components of the Great Eruption—no statistics required.

Much remains to be done. “We’re still sorting out cause and effect,” says Schrijver. “Was the event one big chain reaction, in which one eruption triggered another–bang, bang, bang–in sequence? Or did everything go off together as a consequence of some greater change in the sun’s global magnetic field?”

Further analysis may yet reveal the underlying trigger; for now, the team is still wrapping their minds around the global character of solar activity. One commentator recalled the old adage of three blind men describing an elephant–one by feeling the trunk, one by holding the tail, and another by sniffing a toenail. Studying the sun one sunspot at a time may be just as limiting.

“Not all eruptions are going to be global,” notes Guhathakurta. “But the global character of solar activity can no longer be ignored.”

As if the sun wasn’t big enough already….
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA

About these ads
This entry was posted in Science, Solar, Space, Technology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

147 Responses to Global Eruption Rocks the Sun

  1. VICTOR says:

    eureka!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Wow! We are clearly upsetting the Sun God with our use of fossil fuels.

  3. pwl says:

    It’s funny if they think that they have a chance in hell of predicting this type of event.

  4. savethesharks says:

    The plural of separatrix ….”separatrices” words you don’t hear often.

    Fascinating stuff.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  5. ge0050 says:

    Great video.

    Off-topic, this article shows what really happened to the billions the EU spent to eliminate GHG. $650 was taken by Chinese government in taxes. Increased GHG production in China to get increased GHG payments from EU. Black market in US for cheap GHG surplus produced by China.

    http://e360.yale.edu/feature/perverse_co2_payments_send_flood_of_money_to_china_/2350/

    [ This kind of "tip" is best put in "Tips and Notes" (see the tab up top) -MOD ]

  6. ShaneCMuir says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:
    December 14, 2010 at 8:48 pm
    “Wow! We are clearly upsetting the Sun God with our use of fossil fuels.”

    *Sigh*
    There is no such thing as fossil fuels Jimmy.
    http://www.gasresources.net/
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150
    http://trilogymedia.com.au/Thomas_Gold

  7. Brian H says:

    Shane;
    Good one!
    And for another peek into the world of heresy, holistic magnetized plasma analysis of the sun is probably gonna get some support from the plasma cosmologists, sort of. ;) Lief will be frazzled defending the ramparts of fusion orthodoxy.

  8. JG says:

    Ooooo and that was a massive C2 flare.

    I wonder what it looked like back when C flares were background levels and M or X flares were going off almost daily.

  9. pat says:

    “So while this event is unprecedented in the history of science, it is likely “business as usual”
    Exactly. And absolutely fascinating. Very different than the models we grew up with. This is more like a piece of dry wood thrown in a camp fire while a bit of wind has come up. And the fact that it had virtually no impact on the Earth is a welcome relief.

  10. Mike D. says:

    The “related posts” widget is no longer functioning, so it is worth noting that WUWT first covered this story back in August:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/earth-braces-for-solar-storm-tonite/

  11. John F. Hultquist says:

    Where did all the “stuff” go?
    ————————————–

    One commentator recalled the old adage of three blind men describing an elephant . . .

    This is an old story with many attempts:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

    However, there is version of Saxe’s poem here:
    http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html

    It starts:

    It was six men of Indostan
    To learning much inclined,
    Who went to see the Elephant
    (Though all of them were blind),

  12. James F. Evans says:

    A peer-reviewed paper, Astronomy Letters, 2005:

    ELECTRON ACCELERATION BY ELECTRIC FIELDS NEAR THE FOOTPRINTS
    OF CURRENT-CARRYING CORONAL MAGNETIC LOOPS

    V. V. ZAITSEV
    Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences

    Abstract: “We analyze the electric fields that arise at the footpoints of a coronal magnetic loop from the interaction between a convective flow of partially ionized plasma and the magnetic field of the loop. Such a situation can take place when the loop footpoints are at the nodes of several supergranulation cells. In this case, the neutral component of the converging convective flows entrain electrons and ions in different ways, because these are magnetized differently. As a result, a charge separating electric field emerges at the loop footpoints, which can efficiently accelerate particles inside the magnetic loop under appropriate conditions. We consider two acceleration regimes: impulsive (as applied to simple loop flares) and pulsating (as applied to solar and stellar radio pulsations).We have calculated the fluxes of accelerated electrons and their characteristic energies. We discuss the role of the return current when dense beams of accelerated particles are injected into the corona. The results obtained are considered in light of the currently available data on the corpuscular radiation from solar flares.”

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/d32j212710843216/

    “INTRODUCTION
    Much of the energy in solar and stellar flares is released in the form of energetic particles. The bulk of the electrons and ions in impulsive solar flares are accelerated to energies of 100 keV and 100 MeV, respectively (Miller et al. 1997) and produce hard X-ray and gamma-ray line emission.”

    Many of these “energetic particles” eventually interact with the Earth’s magnetosphere and potentially effect Earth’s energy balance, one expression of which is climate.

    Another peer-reviewed paper published in Solar Physics (1991):

    TOWARDS THE CIRCUIT THEORY OF SOLAR FLARES
    V. V. ZAITSEV
    Institute of Applied Physics, Nizhny Novgorod, U.S.S.R.
    and
    A. V. STEPANOV
    Crimean Astrophysical Observatory, U.S.S.R.

    “Abstract. It has been shown that the main problems of the circuit theory of solar flares – unlikely huge current growth time and the origin of the current interruption – have been resolved considering the case of magnetic loop emergence and the correct application of Ohm’s law. The generalized Ohm’s law for solar flares is obtained. The conditions for flare energy release are as follows: large current value, > 1011 A, nonsteady-state character of the process, and the existence of a neutral component in a flare plasma. As an example, the coalescence of a flare loop and a filament is considered. It has been shown that the current dissipation has increased drastically as compared with that in a completely ionized plasma. The current dissipation provides effective Joule heating of the pIasma and particle acceleration in a solar flare. The ion-atom collisions play the decisive role in the energy release process. As a result the flare loop resistance can grow by 8-10 orders of magnitude. For this we do not need the anomalous resistivity driven by small-scale plasma turbulence. The energy release emerging from the upper part of a flare loop stimulates powerful energy release from the chromospheric level.”

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/nr8k36ln0w6525u1/

    The introductory passage from the body of the paper:

    “1. Introduction
    The circuit model for solar flares proposed more than twenty years ago by Alfven and Carlqvist (1967) is still attractive among the numerous flare models. Following the idea of Alfven and Carlqvist the problem of flare energy release is equivalent to the problem of electric current interruption in the solar corona-photosphere circuit…”

    Another passage from the body of the paper:

    “2. The Current-Carrying Flare Loop: Circuit Analog
    Consider an equivalent electric circuit composed of a coronal magnetic arch with resistance R c and inductance L and a photospheric section with resistance Rph and electromotive force (e.m.f.), o ~, (see, e.g., Alfven and Carlqvist, 1967; Henoux, 1987). The photospheric e.m.f., g, is caused by the Lorentz force (e/c) (v x H), which in turn is created by the photospheric material motion. For this dynamo mechanism to work, the plasma must not be frozen-in. Such conditions do exist in the photosphere where the ion-neutral collision frequency is much more than the ion gyrofrequency (Sen and White, 1972). A quite opposite relation is true for the electrons. Therefore the ions follow the neutral component of the photospheric plasma, a charge imbalance arises, and an e.m.f, sets up:”

    And here is a more recent 2009 peer-reviewed paper published in the Central European Astrophysics Bulletin

    GENERATION OF LARGE SCALE ELECTRIC FIELDS IN CORONAL FLARE CIRCUITS

    Önel, H. & Mann, G.
    Astrophysical Institute Potsdam

    Abstract: “A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.”

    This paper presents the electric circuit theory championed by Hannes Alfven.

    A passage from the body of the above paper:

    “Currently several different electron acceleration mechanisms in the solar corona are known. All of these mechanisms have the principle of acceleration due to electric fields in common, but differ in the processes leading to the generation of the electric field. In the present paper the generation of a large scale DC electric field is discussed in terms of electric circuits, which is related to a current generated due to photopheric plasma motion (e.g., Alfven and Carlqvist, 1967; Sen and White, 1972; Martres et al., 1973; Heyvarts, 1974; Obayashi, 1975; Akasofu, 1979; Kan et al., 1983; Melrose, 1997; Zaitsev et al., 1998; Yang et al., 2004; Zaitsev, 2005). Motivated by these papers, the electric currents are investigated in order to obtain a mechanism for acceleration of electrons to high energies. The basic idea of this mechanism is to generate the flare energy by photopheric plasma motion in active regions. This is in contradiction to the reconnection model in which the magnetic field energy in the corona is taken for the flare.”

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2009CEAB…33..141O

    Several peer-reviewed published papers discussing electric fields and electric currents in the solar environment.

  13. Richard G says:

    “The country that controls magnetism, controls the universe.” Chester Gould’s Dick Tracy

  14. Jimmy Haigh says:

    In reply to : ShaneCMuir at December 14, 2010 at 9:21 pm

    Oh dear.

  15. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Just think, once they are able to prevent just about every known possible environment-related disaster that can happen on this planet, by achieving complete domination and control of the Earth’s climate system through the regulating and taxing of the emissions of an otherwise-beneficial trace atmospheric gas that has or will be tied to causing all of those problems due to its absolute and direct linkage to the global average temperature, then they’ll be all set to start preventing the above disruptions on the Sun by controlling it as well.

    It’ll be a straightforward and proper application of the Precautionary Principle, since despite the large body of peer-reviewed work put forth by Climate Science™ showing that the Sun has nothing to do with climate with long-term solar output variations yielding no statistically-significant global average temperature changes and thus no environment deviations, they can’t rule out such solar disruptions and fluctuations having some effect, therefore…

    Gee, I wonder… Since the term “global climate” is tied to controlling the worldwide average surface atmospheric temperature on Earth, what climate term will they use when they can control the average surface temperature of the Sun, the big glowing globe?

  16. Laurie says:

    Brian H says: “Lief will be frazzled defending the ramparts of fusion orthodoxy.”

    Tonight, I was watching Cosmos, a series I enjoyed 30 years ago and found it to be just as intriguing now as then. Carl Sagan made a comment about Johannes Kepler that struck me as impossible to find in today’s scientific communities. Kepler could have glossed over the minor variations. He didn’t. Instead, Sagan said, “When he found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest allusions. That is the heart of science.”

    Today, the heart of science is the federal grant, fame and the prideful ego, wound up into an ugly ball that prevents the service to humanity that it once did so well.

  17. wayne Job says:

    Science has yet to come to terms with the fact that there are more unknown unknowns than there are known unknowns. One event can create many new known unknowns, such as this little normal event. Solar science is in its infantcy before any real progress can be made the basic ingredients of electricity, magnetism , gravity etc must be explained and understood. They can be modelled and manipulated but as yet no real idea as to what they are, what they are made of or indeed why they exist at all.
    The understanding of the basics will give us the keys to the universe.

  18. Roger Carr says:

    Brian H says: (December 14, 2010 at 9:31 pm) Lief will be frazzled defending the ramparts of fusion orthodoxy.

    You know another Lief, Brian?

  19. kim says:

    OK, I can’t help it. What of all this interconnectedness speaks to the phenomenon known colloquially as the ‘Livingston and Penn Effect’?
    =======================

  20. James F. Evans says:
    December 14, 2010 at 11:20 pm
    Several peer-reviewed published papers discussing electric fields and electric currents in the solar environment.
    As these papers demonstrate and as you have been told many times, all exciting stuff happens when electric currents are generated by movement of neutral plasma across a magnetic field.
    Relevant to the topic of the posting, the ‘global’ eruption shows that the regions are connected through the magnetic fields in the corona. When one region becomes unstable, the eruption disturbs the nearby regions by reorganizing the coronal fields and they may erupt as well.

    Laurie says:
    December 15, 2010 at 12:22 am
    “When he [Kepler] found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts.”
    Just as the modern fusion-deniers should, since the modern theory of energy generation of the Sun and the stars agrees very well with the ‘most precise observations’.

  21. Magnus says:

    @Carr, @Brian H

    Not Lief. LEIF.

    There.

  22. John Whitman says:

    Wonders to behold!

    The desire in some men/women to understand takes us all forward.

    John

  23. oakgeo says:

    “Arguments in favor of cause and effect were statistical and often full of doubt.”

    Climate science take heed.

  24. kim says:
    December 15, 2010 at 4:24 am
    OK, I can’t help it. What of all this interconnectedness speaks to the phenomenon known colloquially as the ‘Livingston and Penn Effect’?
    The L&P effect [we still need to have it firmly established - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so we have to wait a bit more to be sure] has to do with the magnetic fields in the photosphere and has no real impact on the interconnectedness in the corona. The magnetic fields will reconnect and order themselves regardless.

  25. James Evans says:

    I have a theory that the sun is suffering from global warming. Can I have a grant?

  26. Septeus7 says:

    Once again the crazy nuts who believe an Electric universe are not shocked.

    Check out http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm for a intro the idea that Electric currents and the strong force is actually just as important to universe as gravity and it’s unseen gravity waves/ graviton particles, dark matter, neutron starts, blacks stars, Higgs Bosons and wave packets from the future.

    Give it up for crazy kooks like Kristian Birkeland and Nikola Tesla. Consider Telsa said

    ” “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

    Can we “Insert Computer Models” for “Mathematics” for today’s situation.?

  27. Chris Reeve says:

    We need to clarify and provide some context for WUWT readers on electricity and the Sun …

    1. Re: “… Several peer-reviewed published papers discussing electric fields and electric currents in the solar environment.”

    Keep in mind that the conventional theories propose that electricity does not “do things of importance” in space. We are all told that E&M are second-order effects, rather than any sort of driving force. This assumption is driven by the Big Bang theory’s lack of need for E&M (the cosmology acts as a framework for problem-solving within most scientific disciplines). We basically train our physicists to accept assumptions proposing that electricity is not important in space, and then they subsequently vigorously defend this training. None of us should be surprised by their preferences for belief. We should, however, all be surprised by the widespread timidity in questioning these assumptions which they’ve been taught. They oftentimes appear to not even realize that these are actually assumptions.

    Now, the thing about electric fields in plasmas is that the conventional theories generally propose that they cannot exist within plasmas because they propose that cosmic plasmas differ from laboratory plasmas. Whereas the textbook VI curve for a plasma demonstrates without any doubt that there is *always* a finite resistance (and hence an electric field), the cosmic plasma models propose that plasmas are basically superconductors which lack any electrical resistance. We are told to believe that the cosmic plasmas can instantaneously charge-neutralize over great distances.

    There is a good reason for why Big Bang theorists tend to avoid the hypothesis that the solar wind is evidence for an E-field centered at the Sun, even as that would — without a doubt — be the simplest explanation for its failure to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the Earth’s orbit. An E-field basically occurs because like charges repel one another. So, in a general sense, it represents this collective repulsion radially outwards from an overabundance of charged particles. Clearly, if given a chance, an E-field will tend to create distance between these charged particles.

    So, when somebody proposes that an E-field is centered at the Sun — which may or may not be the point of those papers (?) — the problem is that it naturally leads to one crucial question: What is replenishing the collection of charged particles which inspires the E-field? Thus, any assertion of an E-field centered at the Sun *very* quickly transitions into galactic-scale electric circuits.

    This is why, although we see evidence for E-fields here on Earth and on the Sun (the acceleration of the solar wind is evidence for an E-field), theorists generally refuse to even discuss the subject in certain astrophysical journals. It’s worth noting that IEEE remains fearless in this regard.

    Re: “As these papers demonstrate and as you have been told many times, all exciting stuff happens when electric currents are generated by movement of neutral plasma across a magnetic field.”

    So, there is quite a bit of danger in using the word “neutral” in association with a plasma. Plasmas are instead designated as “quasi-neutral” in order to avoid confusion, and I highly recommend that people pay special attention to this other term within the context of plasmas. That’s because, unlike with solids, an equal number of + and – charges does not mean that the plasma cannot conduct electrical current. For more information, go here:

    http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Quasi-neutrality

    The thing is this: Quasi-neutrality stops being helpful for understanding a plasma when there are double layers or charged particle beams present. And considering that we see these two types of structures frequently in the plasma laboratory, it’s really quite a stretch for conventional theorists to argue that — for whatever convenient reason they have latched onto — that these structures do not exist in cosmic plasmas. After all, what is the structure that comes out of a black hole? Don’t believe a word that they say if they’re trying to tell you that that is not a beam of charged particles.

    As for double layers, plasma cosmology (or the electric universe) proposes that they would exist, for instance, at the surface of the Sun and at the heliopause (which is the edge of the heliosphere). Double layers are what separate plasmas in the laboratory which exhibit dramatically different characteristics. This is the underlying physical phenomenon which lends a cellular structure to laboratory plasmas. And to be 100% clear, we see strong evidence for cellular structures in cosmic plasmas, just like the laboratory kind. So, for conventional theorists to argue that double layers don’t exist in cosmic plasmas is really quite baseless. They should be asked: Based upon what premise are you tinkering with the laboratory models to formulate this assumption about cosmic plasmas?

    I will re-iterate a point which I’ve been trying my hardest to make on these issues:

    I *highly* recommend that the people of WUWT be very persistent in their attempts to understand how plasmas tend to behave in the laboratory. Anybody who goes the extra length to learn this set of behaviors will be rewarded with a newfound ability to interpret astronomical imagery and even structures which we see here within our own solar system. These facts have fundamental bearing upon the Earth’s climate for the reason that our planet is literally surrounded by plasmas in every direction, as far as our telescopes can see. And the magnetosphere is, in the plasma cosmology view, a plasma cell, complete with a double layer, which protects us from the interplanetary plasma. It exists — not because of some sort of invisible dynamo genie within the Earth — but rather because the Earth is electrically connected with all of the other planets, the solar system, etc.

    The big picture for electricity in space is this: Mankind has tried his hardest to believe that everywhere he sees evidence for electricity in space, that this electricity must be confined to some small box. But, as anybody who works with electricity knows, that’s not how it works. Electrical currents move from one location to another.

    We’ve known for decades now that intergalactic space is permeated by magnetic fields. Conventional theorists have no need for this observation, and so they attempt to propose “new physics” explanations which lack any laboratory backing for how those magnetic fields came to be. They do this specifically to avoid the hypothesis that electric currents are causing all of those magnetic fields — and they avoid this inference even as it is really the only “real physics” explanation for the observation.

    Re: “the modern theory of energy generation of the Sun and the stars agrees very well with the ‘most precise observations’.”

    That’s not exactly true. There exists a very controversial observation of an anti-correlation between neutrino generation and sunspots. This is a very big problem for the solar models because there is supposed to be one or two hundred thousand years of latency between these two events in the models. Theorists have tried their hardest to discount the underlying statistics for this observation.

    Also, keep in mind that the very problem with fusion is that — although each of the individual steps of fusion have been re-created in the laboratory — scientists have never reproduced the entire chain all at once in a single laboratory experiment.

    Electric universe proponents claim that fusion occurs near the surface of the Sun, where temperatures are high enough to cause it. After all, the temperature of the Sun’s entire surface is enigmatic to conventional solar theory. The Sun’s surface sits at around 5,000 Kelvin, while it’s corona (the Sun’s “atmosphere”) is around 100x – 500x hotter than its surface. To somebody who knew nothing about the conventional thermonuclear model, they could reasonably argue that the energy is arriving externally. And that’s indeed what plasma cosmologists propose.

    They propose that an electron “drift current” powers the Sun. This drift current would be *very* difficult to observe because the electron movement on the small scale would seem random. It is only the large-scale view which would demonstrate a *net* movement of electrons. In this alternative view, as this net movement of electrons is funneled into an increasingly smaller volume of space, the plasma eventually enters into the glow, and then arc, modes in response to increased charge density.

    Also, from where does the energy driving the solar wind’s acceleration come from? What is pushing these charged particles to move faster, the farther they get from the Sun? Conventional theorists pretend as though this is some question which can be shelved for future resolution. Don Scott and other EU proponents claim that this observation actually falsifies their model.

    For anybody who wants to read excellent criticisms of conventional solar theory, I highly recommend Wal Thornhill’s holoscience.com site. He will show you exactly why the Sun is in fact a textbook case of a laboratory plasma glow discharge — no different from a high pressure sodium street lamp. He actually recommends that people read JD Cobine’s “Gaseous Conductors” in order to build the solar models based upon the observed behavior of a Crook’s tube, but with spherical geometry.

  28. dave ward says:

    The UEA’s IT & Phone networks have been hit by a major outage – they claim it wasn’t due to hackers, maybe a solar flare has penetrated their defences?

    http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/uea_it_and_phone_network_down_for_40_hours_1_754444

  29. James F. Evans says:

    Evans stated: “Several peer-reviewed published papers discussing electric fields and electric currents in the solar environment.”

    Dr. Svalgaard responded: “As these papers demonstrate and as you have been told many times, all exciting stuff happens when electric currents are generated by movement of neutral plasma across a magnetic field.”

    Dr. Svalgaard is engaged in revisionism:

    I, long ago, actually brought to Dr. Svalgaard’s attention statements to that effect on this website:

    “The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

    “An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

    Dr. Svalgaard has repeatedly minimized the role that electric fields and electrical currents play in space plasmas, however, he has, now, acknowledged that electric fields and electrical currents do play an important role in space plasma dynamics, because I repeatedly presented peer-reviewed published papers, which discuss the importance of electric fields & electrical currents in space plasma dynamics (such as the papers linked in my previous comment in this post).

    Dr. Svalgaard’s attempts to minimize the importance of electric fields and electrical currents was on full display in a post on this website, The Great Filament, February 24, 2010:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/the-great-filament/#comments

    From the post, The Great Filament: Evans (February 26, 2010 at 9:26 am) responded to Dr. Svalgaard:

    Evans had previously stated (01:33:47): “The author clearly identifies the filament as being an ‘electric current’.”

    Dr. Svalgaard, then (07:02:09) responded: “This is a typical example of the twisting of science to conform to wrong physics. Such twisting occurs can occur when the physics is not understood. Nowhere does the author identify the filament as being an electric current. [one might ask for page and line number for such identification].”

    Of course, I provided the relevant quote and the page and line number from the paper at issue.

    Here is the quote:

    “The filament temperature can take values ranging from a small fraction to a few times the coronal temperature, depending on the internal electric current of the filament.”

    Of course, the above quote is consistent with the several papers I linked to in my previous comment in this post.

    To further illustrate Dr. Svalgaard’s revisionism, here is another quote by Dr. Svalgaard from the post, The Great Filament:

    Dr. Svalgaard claimed (February 25, 2010 at 2:07 pm): “A flow of plasma does NOT create a magnetic field.”

    Of course, Dr. Svalgaard’s statement is contradicted by Dr. Anthony Peratt’s statements (which I had presented in the post, The Great filament):

    “The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

    “An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

    Which brings to mind this famous quote:

    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer

    It seems Dr. Svalgaard is now in the third stage.

  30. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 15, 2010 at 7:44 am
    ………………….
    Now Dr Svalgaard, you can’t have it both ways.
    L&P measured for 12 years with ‘some’ correlation not terribly convincing, no mechanism.
    You say: it’s OK!
    Vukcevic polar field formula
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    correlation excellent (97%, R^2 = 0.93 ) for 40 years, 3 x as long as L&P, no mechanism (as in L&P).
    You say : it’s NOT OK.
    Shouldn’t you be a bit less biased ?

  31. Enneagram says:

    Commentaries of this post are becoming frankly apostates of the sacred belief in holy “settled science” :-)

  32. Enneagram says:

    Chris Reeve says:
    December 15, 2010 at 9:28 am
    If there is neutrality there is no movement….we will know that after death. :-)
    See my post at:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/14/voyager1-so-far-out-theres-no-solar-wind-anymore/#comment-550867

  33. Tom in freakin cold Florida says:

    Are neutron stars and black holes allowed in an electric universe? How and why would they be formed? (general blog friendly answer is OK)

  34. Chris Reeve says:

    Re: “Are neutron stars and black holes allowed in an electric universe? How and why would they be formed? (general blog friendly answer is OK)”

    Neutron stars suppose that a hypothetical state of matter — neutronium — is necessary in order to explain the rapid lighthouse-like spinning which would be required to explain stars which pulse at speeds comparable to a dentist’s drill.

    Clearly, there are many assumptions made in arriving at this conclusion: Foremost being that the pulsing results from spinning. If you assume that the universe is electrically sterile, then you will always interpret pulsating stars as rotating beacons of light. But, if you permit electricity to do things of importance in space, then we don’t have to hypothesize neutronium. We can just infer that we’re seeing the behavior of a relaxation oscillator — a sophomore-level EE lab project. We’re just seeing electrical current bounce back and forth between two cosmic objects. Indeed, pulsars more often than not involve two separate cosmic objects.

    Black holes have always been a bit pseudo-scientific to begin with. In philosophy of science, it’s technically out of bounds to propose that something which cannot be observed is the cause for a great number of the universe’s riddles. And that’s indeed the situation we have today. How can a person ever “disprove” the black hole, given that we cannot even observe it? That’s pseudo-science.

    In laboratory plasma physics, plasmas tend to naturally form filaments. These individual filaments exhibit long-range attraction and short-range repulsion. The attraction has the strength of the electric force — which, as you probably know, is something on the order of 10^35 times stronger than the gravitational force. When you consider that these filaments are limitless in distance, you begin to see how it is that gravity loses its reach long before electromagnetism.

    So, what happens is that filaments tend to twist around one another without fully combining, as they conduct charged particles over the length of them. Given a sufficient charge density, this twisting will “pinch” (also known as a z-pinch). These pinches are excellent scavengers of ions. They are oftentimes called “ion pumps”. And when you move ions, it’s inevitable that neutral particles will over time get dragged with the charged particles. This whole process is called Marklund Convection. This is the plasma cosmology explanation for “gravitational accretion”.

    Look at what our best image of our own Milky Way’s center looks like:

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050415milkyway.htm

    What in the world is all of that structure? None of that was predicted by black hole theory. The plasma cosmologists propose that this structure can be explained as a homopolar motor (aka Faraday disc). In fact, the homopolar motor morphology with its equatorial donut and axial hourglass also appears over a broad spectrum of frequencies for just about ALL cosmic objects.

    In a laboratory setting, we can recreate the spiral galaxy’s rotational characteristics by simply firing two plasma beams at one another. Gravity-based theorists can only accomplish the same thing by proposing a halo of invisible, hypothetical matter surrounding the galaxies.

    There are perhaps better, more complete answers than this, but this is a good starting point to understanding what you are seeing when you look at a “black hole”.

  35. Chris Reeve says:

    @James F. Evans

    One of my favorite theories is that of magnetic reconnection. I think it goes to show just how absurd modern-day astrophysics has become. Astrophysicists decided to infer their own underlying mechanism for generating energy from magnetic fields. Why would they do that? Well, because they are proposing that the magnetic fields are not the result of electric currents.

    So, they propose that magnetic field lines can release great amounts of energy when they “reconnect”. The first problem is that magnetic field lines are like lines on a topography map. They are *imaginary*. They are not real lines. It is just a way of envisioning what is going on with the field.

    But, the true humor pertains to these magnetic reconnection experiments. These guys who perform these magnetic reconnection experiments start by flipping the power ON. Then, they study the reconnection events. And to be clear, when the electricity is shut off to the experiment, the experiment ends.

    I honestly don’t know whether I should laugh or cry when I think about it.

  36. Louis Hissink says:

    Tom in cold Florida asked:

    “Are neutron stars and black holes allowed in an electric universe? How and why would they be formed? (general blog friendly answer is OK)”

    Neutron stars are supposed to be made of neutrons only – but these have a measured 1/2 life of 10 minutes and break down into a proton and electron. Neutrons in isolation are highly unstable. Matter comprised solely of neutrons is not known to exist except in stars that are inaccessible to in-situ measurement.

    Black holes are 3-D points of infinite mass located at the centre of gravity of an object – they are the reification of mathematical singularies and are a nonsense.

    Neither neutron stars or black holes are necessary in an electric universe theory. They are unscientific propositions.

  37. Zeke the Sneak says:

    @Chris Reeve

    True, the “problem with fusion is that — although each of the individual steps of fusion have been re-created in the laboratory — scientists have never reproduced the entire chain all at once in a single laboratory experiment” after billions of dollars have been spent in decades of research.

    And true, “because they are proposing that the magnetic fields are not the result of electric currents…they propose that magnetic field lines can release great amounts of energy when they “reconnect”. The first problem is that magnetic field lines are like lines on a topography map. They are *imaginary*. They are not real lines.”

    Put the two together, and what have you got?

    “Nuclear fusion reactors use powerful magnetic fields to confine a hot plasma gas. In order to produce the magnetic fields, one must provide high quantities of electric energy.” Then, at this point, “Magnetic reconnection…prevents physicists from creating nuclear fusion reactors that have high-efficiency electric energy production capabilities.”

    Now you can properly decide whether to laugh or cry.

  38. Stephen Wilde says:

    Does this report do anything for Dr. Svalgaard’s contention that solar variability has no effects on the upper atmosphere that could significantly affect the downward flux of ozone depleting materials ?

  39. Chris Reeve says:

    @Zeke

    Pay close attention to Eric Lerner’s research. He is a plasma cosmologist trying to achieve a fusion reactor. If a self-sustaining reaction can be created at all, I’d put my money on him pulling it off. If my memory serves me well, he’s been very open about the status of his research.

    There is actually one way to figure out which side of the fence a person is sitting on this cosmological debate prior to investigating the *entire* debate:

    Read the biographies for both Faraday and Maxwell. Then read up on various attempts online to understand what a magnetic field is. Now, after that research, ask yourself: What causes a magnetic field?

    If, after that reading, you believe that cosmic magnetic fields must be the result of electric currents, then you favor plasma cosmology. If, on the other hand, you believe that theorists should be permitted to propose exotic “new physics” explanations for magnetic fields, then you lean more towards the Big Bang.

    It’s really that simple. But, it took me 3-5 years to do all of the necessary reading to understand this debate. And I had to run ALL of the major arguments on both sides by the other first in an attempt to find good critiques of both sides. In the end, after all of that personal investigation, I came to personally realize that plasma cosmology wins, hands down. But, I encourage everybody to do their own personal investigation. It is a lot more worth the effort than people realize. The plasma-based cosmology is far more intriguing and predictive than the gravity-based theories.

    Either way, I think it’s fair to say that we live in interesting times. The Sun is clearly misbehaving for the conventional theorists. Nobody can say where it will go from here, even as they pretend to know that humans are responsible for the warming. Within the context of plasma cosmology, there are truly no guarantees that the Sun will continue to shine as it does tomorrow. It could switch from arc mode down to glow mode, or it might become electrically stressed, and expel a new planet for our solar system to deal with right before our eyes (as some believe has already occurred …). But, more likely, if the past is any indicator, it will continue to shine the same as it has been for a while now.

    One of the reasons I advocate for the electric universe online is because I believe that we can actually predict the behavior of the Sun if we pursue this line of investigation. However, we need to be studying our heliosphere’s electrical input(s) with dedicated satellites to do so. Gerrit Verschuur should be commended for the amazing work he’s done in mapping out these interstellar filaments, and confirming that they are emitting critical ionization velocities. He’s done all of this research knowing that he can lose his telescope time at any moment because of it (like Halton Arp …).

  40. Ulric Lyons says:

    “The whole-sun approach could lead to breakthroughs in predicting solar activity,”

    The whole solar system approach yields good long range forecasts. My heliocentric forecasts for larger flare activity this year was around August 14th, and stronger events around November 5th. We had M class events 8th to 13th August, and M class events again 6th to 10th November.

  41. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Stephen Wilde says:
    December 15, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    “Does this report do anything for Dr. Svalgaard’s contention that solar variability has no effects on the upper atmosphere that could significantly affect the downward flux of ozone depleting materials ?”

    What is most interesting is the proton burst following this event:
    http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20100805_0955/index.html
    this, and the proton burst on the 14th August:
    http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20100817_1033/index.html
    kicked off the two largest tropical cyclones in the Atlantic this summer.

  42. JudyW says:

    Take a look at the alignment of the planets on August 1, 2010. Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus are in a close aligned. Mars, Venus, Mercury and Earth are not far off the alignment.
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar

  43. James F. Evans says:

    @ Chris Reeve:

    So-called “magnetic reconnection” was a concept developed in the pre-space age (1946) to explain CME’s. The observations were limited to magnetic fields, as magnetic fields were the only thing that could be observed & measured from ground observatories. Observing & measuring electric fields and electric currents requires in situ satellite probes.

    Today, it’s apparent that what was called “magnetic reconnection” (and still is by one school of thought) is actually an Electric Double Layer, an electromagnetic process.

    There is a controversy between two rival points of view (contrary to what some from the “magnetic reconnection” camp would have you believe):

    From Interspace News (February 27, 2008):

    “There is a lot of excitement over this project [THEMIS] in the research community, [Dr. Vassillis] Angelopoulos [THEMIS principal investigator at University of California Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory in Berkeley, Calf.] said. For more than three decades, scientists around the globe have been embattled about where these lights originate so brilliantly and suddenly. And like the two polar caps at opposite ends of the planet, there are also opposing viewpoints.”

    “In the Reconnection Theory camp, members say the magnetosphere on the night side is like two rubber bands that stretch, snap and then reconnect into “U” shape bands that release their energy — much like a slingshot. That action would then accelerate the particles toward Earth causing the light show.”

    “On the other side of the hypothesis is the Current Disruption Theory, which says at the onset of a substorm, higher frequency instabilities are excited so that the plasma and electromagnetic field form a turbulent state, which then short circuits the current that is now forced to go directly into the atmosphere. This current accelerates the electrons that in return cause the light show.”

    http://www.interspacenews.com/FeatureArticle/tabid/130/Default.aspx?id=524

    Current disruption encompasses the idea that Electric Double Layers can “explode”, thus, causing a disruption of current, which then releases energy expressed as kinetic acceleration of charged particles and radiation.

    While “magnetic reconnection” seems to have the upper hand, nobody has been able to quantify the “magnetic reconnection” process, as opposed to the Electric Double Layer process, which has been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations.

    In situ observations & meaurements have identified and mapped so-called “magnetic reconnection”, but the signature magnetic fields, electric fields, charged particle location, direction, velocity and points of charged particle acceleration are indistinguishable from the Electric Double Layer process, which, as you have pointed out about plasma physics, has been observed & measured in the laboratory.

    There is tremendous resistence in some quarters to the Electric Double Layer process, likely, because it opens up the door to explaining astrophysical processes and objects with an electromagnetic analysis & interpretation.

  44. the same video on YouTube

    12 seconds long

  45. vukcevic says:
    December 15, 2010 at 10:39 am
    Now Dr Svalgaard, you can’t have it both ways.
    L&P measured for 12 years

    The L&P effect is an observed fact [whether it persists remains to be seen], yours is just numerology.

    Various EU folks:
    Fortunately, modern science is making great strides within the current [hard won] paradigm and we can tolerate [and ignore] fringe ['cargo'] cults. They do provide a certain levity and have entertainment value [but are at the same time sad commentaries on the dismal level of scientific literacy].

  46. johnnythelowery says:

    To: Chris Reeve: An impressive summary of the EU view IMHO and it has reared it’s head many times before here at WUWT…..only to be ‘scwhwinged’ off A-la Lord of the Rings, by Leif and a few others. Hopefully, he’ll see fit to answer this challenge and that you’ll stick around to respond. Are you proposing that there is no such thing as dark energy nor dark matter???

  47. johnnythelowery says:

    Oops. Too late!

  48. Chris Reeve says:

    Re: “Various EU folks:
    Fortunately, modern science is making great strides within the current [hard won] paradigm and we can tolerate [and ignore] fringe ['cargo'] cults. They do provide a certain levity and have entertainment value [but are at the same time sad commentaries on the dismal level of scientific literacy].”

    The very premise that mankind should only seriously pursue just one cosmology is completely misguided. It also suggests that you are ignoring ongoing peer-reviewed research, since plasma cosmology is to this day an ongoing investigation in IEEE’s Transactions on Plasma Sciences (IEEE is of course remains the world’s largest scientific institution).

    Your belief that the CMB is some relic of a primordial explosion represents a preference for a metaphysical inference over more physical plasma physics processes which we can validate within the laboratory. As you (hopefully) already know, plasma beams naturally emit synchrotron microwaves on a regular basis. Thermalizing this synchrotron into a black body bell curve is a problem which does not require a metaphysical solution. As you know, the scientific method demands that we investigate non-metaphysical inferences before settling onto those which are inherently unexplainable themselves.

    You might want to take a closer look at plasma’s VI curve. We’re repeatedly told that plasmas lack electrical resistance. But, nowhere on that diagram does the voltage ever approach zero.

    Gerrit Verschuur’s papers might interest you as well. He’s been trying to tell conventional theorists for years now that those “anomalous high-velocity clouds” which permeate interstellar space are in fact not “clouds” at all. They are twisting, spaghetii-like filamentary structures which emit redshifts which (coincidentally?) coincide with critical ionization velocities at 50 km/s, 35 km/s 13 km/s, etc. Any fan of the conventional framework should be *very* concerned about this research, as there exists no conventional explanation, as is, for the two faster inferred velocities. The *only* explanation that’s even on the table is that these filaments are flows of charged particles. As you hopefully know, Alfven predicted that we would observe these exact CIV’s in space. Verschuur reports that the 35 km/s signal is especially widespread.

    Einstein of course had no idea that the universe prefers plasma over liquids, solids and gases. We didn’t learn that until the 1950′s. Only a mathematician would imagine that we could change the universe’s preferred state for matter without there being major consequences for our cosmological views.

    Neither did he know that magnetic fields permeate galactic space. Up until 1986, conventional theorists of course claimed that there was no observational evidence for large-scale electromagnetic fields in space. Why? Because there’s simply no need for them in the conventional framework. Once a magnetic field was finally associated with a galaxy at the Effelsberg Observatory in 1986, theorists switched gears to obstructing publications involving plasmas or electric currents.

    Of course, Einstein’s followers have always gone much more out of their way to defend Einstein’s work than the man himself. Einstein was his own biggest critic, and doubted his life’s work all the way to the end. When he died, “Worlds in Collision” by Velikovsky was left open upon his desk. For anybody who is familiar with the old catastrophist debates, this was perhaps the most defiant book he could have possibly been reading at the time.

    Have you checked out Jeff Schmidt’s “Disciplined Minds” yet? That was an utterly scathing review of the way in which we train physicists today. He compares the physics PhD program to a boot camp, where physicists are basically forced to relieve themselves of interest in any theory other than the conventional framework. It leaves little doubt about where all of this consensus in physics is coming from these days.

    What do you think of lightning to space? For many years, theorists ignored reports by pilots that unusual electrical discharges were connecting the Earth with outer space, many miles above the clouds. This is rather peculiar because lightning is thought to result from processes involving clouds. Are you aware that the Van Allen Radiation Belts are observed to blink with each lightning bolt? Conventional theorists frequently complain that they can’t figure out how lightning can be so powerful, even as they see the entire system electrically connected from space down to the surface of the planet. What exactly would you require as evidence that the Earth is electrically neutralizing with its surrounding space?

    Are you aware that EU Theorists can explain the HR diagram in terms of laboratory plasma physics fundamentals?

    In the big picture, your condescension is akin to a reckless gambler. Rather than hedge your bets, you’ve decided to bet everything on black. Now, something that you need to understand (just in case nobody has explained it thus far) is that the conventional theories propose a mostly benign universe. Your timescales are off-the-charts long compared with plasma cosmology. In plasma cosmology, the Sun is not as stable, and the Earth is subjected to catastrophe on the order of thousands of years. To wager everything onto the benign view of the universe, and ignore the inherent threat of the competing cosmology, is really quite reckless.

    And I have no doubt that if the sh*t really did hit the fan, that advocates of the conventional theories would pretend to know what’s happening all the way to the very end.

  49. johnnythelowery says:
    December 15, 2010 at 8:16 pm
    Hopefully, he’ll see fit to answer this challenge
    No, I’ll declare defeat from the get-go because there is no challenge and the ideas espoused are ‘not even wrong’. And we would be O/T.

    As an example I might quote you:
    “Neither did he know that magnetic fields permeate galactic space. Up until 1986, conventional theorists of course claimed that there was no observational evidence for large-scale electromagnetic fields in space. Why? Because there’s simply no need for them in the conventional framework. Once a magnetic field was finally associated with a galaxy at the Effelsberg Observatory in 1986, theorists switched gears to obstructing publications involving plasmas or electric currents.”

    And compare with:
    “Galactic Magnetic Field.” American Institute of Physics Handbook. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. “A comparison of the observed cosmic-ray electron spectrum with the non-thermal radio spectrum arising from galactic synchrotron radiation indicates that the magnetic field is 10 to 20 microgauss near the galactic center, 5 to 10 microgauss near the solar system and approximately 2.5 microgauss for the halo.”
    Magnetic fields in space were first reported as far back as 1949 by Hall and Hiltner and has been part of mainstream science ever since.

    Getting your facts straight would be your first order of business. Lacking that, there is no challenge.

  50. Chris Reeve says:

    Re: “To: Chris Reeve: … Are you proposing that there is no such thing as dark energy nor dark matter???”

    Quasars have been observed to be in front of galaxies and even linked to galaxies with filaments. Not only that, but their raw redshifts appear to possess a quantized component. The EU view is in accordance with Halton Arp’s observations that redshift is more a reflection of a cosmic object’s age than its velocity. We see populations of quasar pairs surrounding energetic galaxies.

    None of us should be fooled into imagining that Big Bang theorists will “surrender” on any of the principal dogma which drives the theory. They will argue against any evidence which discounts the Big Bang event or its expansion. Halton Arp was a highly respected astronomer who lost his telescope time for insisting that conventional theorists consider his *observations* of quasars. To argue against him, conventional theorists would publish the spectral imagery which happened to not show the bridge (see the YouTube video, Universe – Cosmology Quest). Then, they would question his statistics. Once they decided that he was wrong, as for the plasma cosmology debate, they stopped paying attention to whether or not his model was actually working.

    Consensus-driven science should really be called critic-ignorant science. It’s really a decision to stop reading. It’s an artificial constraint on the flow of information.

    We humans come to science with a lot of baggage. Scientists are not priests, and none of us should treat them as such. We rely heavily upon philosophy of science to keep the human element out of our scientific theories. Where any of you see evidence that a particular approach is devoid of philosophy, expect to find human preferences and prejudices imprinted upon the theories themselves. When people ignore philosophy of science, they abandon the sanctity of science which is what compels us to listen to them to begin with.

    Anybody who is telling you that the matter which you see around you is only 5% of the universe’s total matter might as well be admitting that they don’t know what’s happening. If only 5% of what they’re talking about is verifiable in the laboratory, then why, again, are we deciding to ignore competing cosmologies? Upon what basis are we being so … “picky”?

  51. savethesharks says:

    Chris Reeve says:
    December 15, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    ============

    Brilliant post. Well said.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  52. Chris Reeve says:
    December 15, 2010 at 8:17 pm
    that the conventional theories propose a mostly benign universe.
    On the contrary, the Universe is extremely violent and deadly

    Your timescales are off-the-charts long compared with plasma cosmology. In plasma cosmology, the Sun is not as stable, and the Earth is subjected to catastrophe on the order of thousands of years.
    Here you show your cards, that you are a ‘young Earther’ or worse. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old. If you claim otherwise, you have put yourself outside serious discussing.

  53. Chris Reeve says:

    Re: “And compare with: “Galactic Magnetic Field.” American Institute of Physics Handbook. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. “A comparison of the observed cosmic-ray electron spectrum with the non-thermal radio spectrum arising from galactic synchrotron radiation indicates that the magnetic field is 10 to 20 microgauss near the galactic center, 5 to 10 microgauss near the solar system and approximately 2.5 microgauss for the halo.” … Magnetic fields in space were first reported as far back as 1949 by Hall and Hiltner and has been part of mainstream science ever since … Getting your facts straight would be your first order of business. Lacking that, there is no challenge.”

    I’m confident in that claim, as it is transcribed from a conversation with a plasma theorist who was there.

    One of the things that I’ve learned in speaking with advocates for the conventional theories is that they are really quite liberal in their interpretation of history of science. They are frequently very quick to present something like a single paper as proof of a prior consensus. One of the things you learn, as you pick up on the debate over electricity in space, is that conventional theorists always strenuously argue against any suggestion that electricity can exceed the consensus box for this current era. But, once it is proven that they are wrong, they then subsequently claim credit that they came up with the idea all along. This has turned out to be a repeating pattern.

    Amongst the EU theorists, they already know that conventional theorists will ultimately TRY to take credit for the discovery of electricity’s driving role in the universe’s dynamics. The problem for them is that we already know that it’s happening right now, today, with the data that we already have. And, their tortuous, argumentative path will instead waste another hundred years to get there, if it ever truly does.

    As a species, we really need to take a look internally at what you’re doing here. What is the point of defending the consensus view on a forum? Are you actively trying to convince people to not educate themselves? You guys always claim on these forums that it is the burden of the critic to prove the theory. Is it really? Is it not true that at some point before “proof” that people might decide to read something because it is merely promising? What is really at stake in these conversations?

    In my own view, what you’re really trying to do is to convince the public to remain ignorant of alternatives. You’re just trying to convince people to NOT read. You’re trying to convince them that it’s not worth their time to do something as simple and innocent as learning.

  54. Chris Reeve says:
    December 15, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    Re: “And compare with: “Galactic Magnetic Field.” American Institute of Physics Handbook. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.
    I’m confident in that claim, as it is transcribed from a conversation with a plasma theorist who was there.

    Well, you can go look it up to see that your confidence is misplaced. I was a working scientist back then and knew quite well the observations [and acceptance] at the time. We had also firmly measured magnetic fields in interplanetary space since 1961. I even used these measurements myself in my work.
    You may consider that the plasma guy might have been less than candid with you. [or you with us].

  55. Grumbling says:

    This August 2010 event is pretty small compared to the CMEs on Dec 12 2010
    Check out the SOHO Movie Theatre – LASCO C2
    http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/soho_movie_theater

  56. Vuk etc. says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    The L&P effect is an observed fact [whether it persists remains to be seen], yours is just numerology.

    Nop.
    Based on the Kepler’s planetary orbits observations and calculations and the Wilcox Solar Observatory Polar Field Observations.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

  57. Vuk etc. says:
    December 16, 2010 at 12:42 am
    “yours is just numerology.”
    Nop.
    Based on the Kepler’s planetary orbits observations and calculations and the Wilcox Solar Observatory Polar Field Observations.

    The numerology is connecting the two.

  58. Myrrh says:

    Given enough time and a smidgin or more iq I might possibly be able to work out if EU has explained this, the first is still just about feasible, the second… So as simply as possible, what is it exactly at the centre of our galaxy?

  59. Enneagram says:

    “E pur si muove”
    Galileo Galilei

  60. johnnythelowery says:

    To Chris Reeve: The problem with EU advocates over here is that after buffeting with Leif for a few rounds…the battle field goes silent. Engage the arguments. If you are challenged……….answer. So, for instance, Leif has questioned your view on the age of the sun. Has challenged your assertion about magnestism in space. I’m no scientist but I do follow the reading recommendations and am trying to get an understanding; your point about
    ‘……….Anybody who is telling you that the matter which you see around you is only 5% of the universe’s total matter might as well be admitting that they don’t know what’s happening. If only 5% of what they’re talking about is verifiable in the laboratory, then why, again, are we deciding to ignore competing cosmologies? Upon what basis are we being so … “picky”?……….’
    I definately agree. But pure physics can be weired that way; quantum entanglement and the weired communication between the two; mass dissappearing(If the LHC is right) and so you tell us…….under what basis are they being so picky??? Why, if the evidence is so…..obvious by the looks of it, does this EU thing lack……traction in the Main Stream Science?

  61. Enneagram says:

    Then….are these not “eruptions” of a healthy and strong Sun, but thermo-sphere disruptions of a weakening and feeble Sun?

  62. rbateman says:

    Very nice to see that somebody got the colorization balance right.
    The impression I have always gotten from the Active Regions is that they throw up a lot of ‘smog’ in thier later stages.

  63. Chris Reeve says:

    Re: “I definately agree. But pure physics can be weired that way; quantum entanglement and the weired communication between the two; mass dissappearing(If the LHC is right) and so you tell us…….under what basis are they being so picky??? ”

    If any of you permit anybody to convince you that common sense no longer has bearing upon the inferential step in physics, then you’ve just been had. The quest for simpler, more physical inferences never ends. Conventional theorists frequently imagine that they have “ruled everything else out,” when what they’ve actually done is artificially constricted their set of inferences to suit the “framework” within which they operate.

    Jeff Schmidt’s book “Disciplined Minds” discusses this concept of a theoretical framework in great depth. He argues that our scientific institutions have decided to adopt a single set of theories and assumptions for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method. In a philosophical sense, theorists are supposed to be trying their hardest to maximize this set of inferences, as this represents one of the biggest philosophical problems in science. Conventional scientists typically do the opposite for reasons which are purely human in nature — to, for instance, prevent hierarchical challenges to their authority, and to maintain control over the funding channels.

    For those who are asking, “how is this possible?”, Jeff Schmidt’s book is an excellent starting point.

    Re: “Why, if the evidence is so…..obvious by the looks of it, does this EU thing lack……traction in the Main Stream Science?”

    The evidence is only clear to those of us who have spent time trying to understand the behavior of plasmas within the laboratory. To all others, it is not. Consider that plasmas represent the universe’s preferred state for matter, and yet only a minute number of people in this world are familiar with their laboratory behavior. This is a major problem.

    Electricity also has a history of being elusive because charged particles can clearly transfer in the absence of any emissions. Plasmas can conduct electricity and do things of great importance within this “dark mode” (it’s one of their three fundamental operating modes). This is why radio astronomers have to observe the 21-cm wavelength, subtle HI energy state transition in order to observe the behavior of the interstellar plasma “clouds” (which are really filaments).

    Complicating things further, electrons can move in circles while still exhibiting an overall net movement. This is called an electron drift, and it is the principle within the EU by which the Sun is powered. Electron drift is not a “new physics” concept; it’s how electrons move along copper wire. And yet, conventional theorists behave as though they need not check for it in space.

    Advocates for the conventional theories will oftentimes complain that this movement of electrons is not obvious, even as they argue that it’s not their responsibility to validate one way or another that it’s there. They appear to not realize that they work for us — the public — and that the public expects them to, when necessary, investigate ideas which they don’t actually prefer, and which they didn’t learn in school. When scientists and theorists exhibit obvious displeasure for a confirmed prediction — like Wal Thornhill’s successful Deep Impact predictions — this should raise red flags with the public that they are exhibiting preferences and prejudices in their scientific methodology which will have ultimately have a profound impact upon their findings.

    Of those who do begrudgingly accept the challenge — like Tom Bridgman — they will ignore the plasma cosmology texts and laboratory plasma physics fundamentals in their analysis of plasma cosmology. And then, based upon an electrostatic or some other analysis which has little to do with plasma physics, they’ll claim that we should be seeing something like x-rays coming from coronal holes. In the process, they’ve made assumptions about what they *should* be seeing. What they’re doing is filling in the gaps that they created themselves with respect to the behavior plasmas.

    The very notion that conventional astrophysicists see no problem with telling plasmas physicists what the plasma physics models should look like should alarm everybody. There is a complete disconnection between the models which they use for cosmic plasmas and observations of laboratory plasmas made by plasma physicists. We’ve permitted them to let the framework drive the plasma models.

    I’m not convinced that there are really very many astrophysicists or cosmologists today who actually know what plasma cosmology or EU Theory actually states. There’s something that happens when people try to learn a theory which they already disagree with: They tend to obstruct their own educations.

    When they learned the conventional theories, they did not argue against it as they were learning it. For those students who have completed their four-year training and are in the process of getting their PhD’s, this would have been sufficient reason to boot them from the program. This is what I mean when I say that we are all bound to philosophy of science as a means of removing our natural human tendencies from our scientific theories. When a person refuses to objectively learn a new paradigm on its own terms, we say that the person “knows too much.” They’ve abandoned all pretense of being objective and fair-minded. We are all susceptible to this. The difference is that the heretics are just more aware of the phenomenon, since they battle it every day.

    Let’s say that a small child lives in a remote village next door to a little girl. This girl is not exactly the cutest of girls. In fact, she’s kind of ugly. But, to that boy, she’s the most beautiful girl in the world. It’s not until that boy goes into the city before he realizes what’s going on. When we obstruct our own educations, we deprive ourselves of an ability to make effective, meaningful decisions.

    One need only spend a lot of time on forums to learn all of this. This process of discussing competing theories online is extremely educational on the topic of human psychology. It doesn’t take long to realize that logic and evidence oftentimes take a back seat to more human tendencies. Most of us will perhaps start out by imagining that the social phenomena we observe on the forums can’t possibly be representative of how professional scientists and theorists think. But, it’s just not true. What it means to be a professional scientist or theorist today is that they are fully educated in the conventional framework. We don’t train any of them to be experts in plasma cosmology, so why should we expect them to even have any need for philosophy of science?

    The answers, if you ask me, to some of the greatest riddles in the universe are really right in front of our eyes. It’s these social phenomena that the people of the WUWT forums are already familiar with that are shaping the scientific views of the world. And there is no small irony in this fact: That we humans are our own worst enemies, and that we will not understand the truth of the universe until we are truthful with ourselves.

    It may sound almost cheesy, but it’s true.

  64. Chris Reeve says:

    Re: “Well, you can go look it up to see that your confidence is misplaced. I was a working scientist back then and knew quite well the observations [and acceptance] at the time. We had also firmly measured magnetic fields in interplanetary space since 1961. I even used these measurements myself in my work.
    You may consider that the plasma guy might have been less than candid with you. [or you with us].”

    I cannot reveal my source, but for the sake of the remainder of you on the forum, I will produce a partial quote which demonstrates that I’m not artificially coloring my reporting on this subject …

    “The universal outcry from these gravitationalists was ‘There Is No Observational Evidence for Magnetic and Electric Fields in Space’.

    And they were correct. Magnetic Fields in space were not to be discovered until 1986, at the Effelsberg Radio Telescope outside Bohn, Germany. And the word ‘Plasma’ became taboo to the tens of thousands of gravitational astronomers and particle physicists (if you wished to have any chance at all of funding).

    The desired result was achieved; that Astronomers could now make their own ‘discoveries’ and ‘stories’ on how these electromagnetic fields came to be.”

    It’s an unfortunate fact that many scientists, theorists, and astronomers who privately support the Electric Universe must do so under cover of secrecy. We live in an era where there are real and profound personal consequences for those who openly challenge the conventional framework. In the past, when I’ve made the mistake of directly quoting my sources on forums, critics of EU Theory launched letters directly to those overseeing the laboratories at which these people worked at, in hopes of interfering with their research.

    So, people will just have to take my word that this is indeed a professional scientist who is highly respected on the subject of plasmas. And there will be times when I simply cannot reveal identities.

    To be clear, although I’m certainly not immune to mistakes, nearly everything I’m saying here has already been vetted by plasma physicists and theorists.

  65. ge0050 says:

    It seems reasonable that both gravity and electricity shape the universe. Given the relative strengths of the two forces, it seems reasonable the electricity could be the dominant force.

    For example, (outside of exotic particles) isn’t electricity the only know force that repels? It seems much simpler to explain an accelerating expansion of the universe in terms of electrical repulsion, than the current “dark matter/dark energy” theories. Does it not make sense to first consider the acceleration in terms of electric charge, as per Occam’s Razor, rather than postulate “dark” physics.

  66. James F. Evans says:

    Dr. Svalgaard stated: “As these papers demonstrate… all exciting stuff happens when electric currents are generated by movement of neutral plasma across a magnetic field.”

    I appreciate your comment, thank you.

    And I do appreciate the discussions and your application of the Socratic Method. I do learn from the discussions, and it does prompt me to refine my understanding of the subject. It forces me to better formulate my ideas and be able to articulate those ideas on the written page.

    Criticism and objection forces the writer to “grasp the nettle” and understand his subject better and confront gaps in his own understanding.

    The ability to formulate ideas and write those ideas on “paper” is critical for both scientific understanding and communication. The refining of ideas based on specific observations & measurements, i.e., laboratory experiments and in situ satellite probes, is the “meat & potatoes” of learning.

    So, let’s study “exciting stuff” — I do agree with you — this is a Golden Age of in situ satellite probe observation & measurement.

    Chris Reeves:

    I appreciate your enthusiasm.

    Remember, you can win a battle and still lose the war. I appreciate Anthony Watts allowing vigorous discussion in his “living room”, we are his guests in his forum. (Mr. Watts has shown supreme forbearance and patience with myself, as I have often engaged in raucous debate and argument which has tested Mr. Watts’ general “full discussion” policy. For that, Mr. Watts, I thank you.)

    Staying on topic (in this instance, the Sun’s eruption) is important. There is plenty to discuss regarding the Sun which covers electric fields, electrical currents, charged particles, and just as important, magnetic fields, and the processes and objects associated with those forces and particles, i.e., see the peer-reviewed papers I presented in this post.

    Besides, based on my experience in this and other forums, “going global” plays into opponents’ hands. They want plasma physics proponents to spin off into the furthest reaches of theory & hypothesis, as it distracts from the observations & measurements at hand and plays into the biases & prejudice of numerous readers and turns off other readers who want to focus on the present physical observations.

    Theory & hypothesis are confirmed or falsified one example at a time, i.e., one experiment or in situ satellite probe observation at a time (unless a strong “connect the dots” argument can be made regarding a series of observations & measurements).

    And remember, Mr. Watts has already shown great patience and has even reconsidered his ground rules. Let’s not make him revisit that decision, again. Thank you readers who have shown support for alternative hypothesis and discussion of those ideas and the facts & evidence which support those ideas.

    Believe me, Chris, I’m sympathetic to your views and subscribe to your philosophical stance.

    However, you are wrong in one respect:

    Magnetic fields were observed & measured in space before 1986.

    Magnetic fields could be detected via light polarity properties from ground observatories prior to 1986, that is why the “magnetic reconnection” concept was develope to explain CME’s in the 1940′s, because magnetic fields could be detected from ground observatories in association with CME’s.

    (Electric fields and electric currents could not be observed & measured from ground observatories, so detection of those had to await in situ space satellite probes.)

    I suggest Gerrit Verschuur observations were of intergalactic space, i.e., outside the Milky Way galaxy. These are important observations & measurements and support the ideas you have presented and cast doubt on, if not out-right falsify, mainstream astronomy theories.

    See, when an alternative hypothesis is presented, it’s most important to correctly present the mainstream facts & evidence because when misstatements are made, incidental or not, opponents will latch on to those misstatements to discredit & distract from the argument they can’t directly challenge.

    There will be other posts where electric fields, electrical currents and, just as important, magnetic fields will be of issue. Presentation of relevant scientific papers on those subjects have the maximum impact — general discussion has less impact, but can still be valuble if tied in with the post’s observations & measurements.

    Take this as friendly advice: Each relevant post is an opportunity… I want to be able to present relevant data at those opportunities.

    Somtimes less is more… and wisdom is knowing the difference…

  67. James Evans says:

    “Anybody who is telling you that the matter which you see around you is only 5% of the universe’s total matter might as well be admitting that they don’t know what’s happening. If only 5% of what they’re talking about is verifiable in the laboratory, then why, again, are we deciding to ignore competing cosmologies? Upon what basis are we being so … “picky”?”

    Quite. “Dark Matter” may be the stupidest thing I ever heard of. Why not just call it what it really is – “There’s-a-truly-vast-gap-between-the-predictions-of-our-theories-and-our-observations”. It’s not such a sexy title as “Dark Matter”, but it’s a more accurate name.

  68. Chris Reeve says:

    Re: “It seems reasonable that both gravity and electricity shape the universe. Given the relative strengths of the two forces, it seems reasonable the electricity could be the dominant force. ”

    The key to discounting the gravity-dominant paradigm is to get a strong handle on the distances involved between stars. Don Scott scales these light-year distances down to distances which we humans can recognize. In human terms, stars are literally specks of dust separated by miles. At these typical distances, common sense casts doubt that gravity is what’s holding them together in galaxies.

    By contrast, the geometry of twisting plasma filaments, bound to one another with the incredible strength of the electric force, is limitless in its reach.

    The ideas don’t actually have to be fully quantified for people to take them seriously — even though the mathematics are much further along than the critics will have you believe (see Hannes Alfven’s Cosmic Plasma). A cosmological theory need only have all of the fundamental components necessary to reproduce our observations in order to justify funding it further. Once this is realized, these ideas should be considered within the inferential step of all relevant peer-reviewed literature.

    One has to expect that an empirically-derived cosmology will *always* be comparably less quantified than a model which has undergone numerous ad hoc overhauls. At the point where the mathematics works, but large amounts of the underlying physical processes remain hypothetical, philosophy of science dictates that we be concerned that the math is being used as a fudge factor, or glue.

    Re: “For example, (outside of exotic particles) isn’t electricity the only know force that repels? It seems much simpler to explain an accelerating expansion of the universe in terms of electrical repulsion, than the current “dark matter/dark energy” theories. Does it not make sense to first consider the acceleration in terms of electric charge, as per Occam’s Razor, rather than postulate “dark” physics.”

    While I think that your approach is good, it’s important that we also carefully revisit fundamental assumptions regarding redshift. Conventional quasar theory is hardly impenetrable, and if that falls, then the entire justification for dark energy evaporates. The case is laid out in simple terms in “Universe – The Cosmology Quest” (Google Video or Youtube) by some world-renowned astronomers.

    The concept of dark matter naturally disappears once the cosmic plasma models are corrected to reflect laboratory plasma behavior. Anthony Peratt and Winston Bostick have confirmed this point by both simulation and experimentation.

  69. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 16, 2010 at 1:40 am
    …………..
    According to Kepler’s biographers he was not only astronomer but astrologer too, and looks like creationist ‘his work was motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason’.
    Are you sure that the MWO data is not processed by an astrologer or creationist, there is higher probability (I would say ~ 30%) of that being the case, than that the observations and calculations by Kepler would be by chance ( say <1%) matched by the Wilcox Solar Observatory Polar Field Observations with the correlation factor of 93%.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    What do you say?

  70. rbateman says:

    Enneagram says:
    December 16, 2010 at 6:37 am
    Then….are these not “eruptions” of a healthy and strong Sun, but thermo-sphere disruptions of a weakening and feeble Sun?

    Interesting thought. I’d wager that the Sun is 1/2 way or thereabouts along in it’s ramp portion of the cycle.
    Feeble is a good descriptor here.

  71. vukcevic says:

    vukcevic says:
    December 16, 2010 at 1:33 pm
    Correction : not MWO but WSO (Wilcox Solar Observatory)

  72. johnnythelowery says:

    To Chris: So. about the age of the Sun and Leif’s comment: does EU Cosmology possit a much younger Sun than the 13.7 Billion Year Standard cosmology model??? Because you don’t want to get painted into the same corner as the ‘discovery institute’ guys as being religiously predisposed to a young earth/sun. There should be some where where the EUC and SMC diverge in a way that can be empircally tested, published, etc. and a new winner declared.
    And then the shielding issue. We can’t shield from gravity but we can electricity. What is Gravity anyway??

  73. Myrrh says:

    If it’s not a black hole, what is it? I’m sorry if this is irritating EU proponents, but I simply want to understand this. I’ve only just got my head around black holes..

    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7qqsr17q

    There’s a picture on this page of the “the plasmoid at the center of the galaxy” – what is creating it?

    As an aside, there is a quote on this page from Martin Rees, I have heard him lecture on the subject of black holes. I take issue on the subject of the time line of understanding presented by majority scientists, presenting this a ‘we thought only a few centuries ago that …’. I think we’d be a lot further advanced if the “shoulders’ of giants” scientists stood on went back a lot further. The Vedas for example have easy familiarity with billions and trillions of years as time scales in our universe – a day and night of Brahma (the creator) is very exactly calculated, and the day of 4.32 billion years corresponds closely with the modern scientist’s take on the beginning of our solar world.

  74. vukcevic says:
    December 16, 2010 at 1:33 pm
    What do you say?
    I say that the test of any theory is agreement with data. And your numerology does not pass that test. According to your formula the polar fields in 1965 should have been very large [even larger than in 1954]. All the data we have suggest that the PF in 1965 were small. The list of evidence of that is long:
    1) attempts by Severny in the Crimea to measure any organized PF in 1965 were unsuccessful, so the PF must have been below his noise level. He did measure the PF in 1976, so PF(1965)<PF(1976)
    2) MWO began measurements with their upgraded instrument in 1967 and found weak polar fields. At that time we were past minimum so the polar fields should have weakened, but since SC20 was a small cycle, there were not enough low latitude field drifting to the poles to diminish any strong 1965 fields to the value found in 1967.
    3) the PF-precursor method [working very well for SC24] would have predicted a very strong SC20 [even stronger than SC19] contrary to the observed weak S20.
    4) the heliospheric magnetic field at solar minimum has a large contribution from the PFs, so the HMF in 1965 should have been strong, contrary to observations [only 5 nT]
    5) the PF determine the flatness of the corona [e.g. as it did for 1954] and the HCS, but for 1965 no particular large flattening was observed
    6) as a result of 5) the cosmic ray sidereal anisotropy should have been very abnormal [more than in 1954 if PFs were stonger in 1965] and it was not.

    Taken by themselves, one by one, the above reasons could perhaps have been explained away, but collectively they provide very strong evidence for weak PFs in 1965, so your formula must be discarded as incompatible with observations.
    We have been over this many times before.

  75. ge0050 says:

    The Universe is 13.7 billion years old. If you claim otherwise, you have put yourself outside serious discussing.

    Really? It seems like only yesterday that science was claiming the universe was 18 billion years old. Given that almost every theory ultimately proves to be incomplete/wrong, the current guesstimate of 13.7 billion is unlikely to be correct.

  76. ge0050 says:
    December 16, 2010 at 6:19 pm
    Given that almost every theory ultimately proves to be incomplete/wrong, the current guesstimate of 13.7 billion is unlikely to be correct.
    You’re right about that! It might turn out to be more like 13.697 billion …

  77. ge0050 says:

    The number 13.7 billion years implies the universe is finite. That seems unlikely.

    I find it much easier to believe that our “universe” is simply a local event, resulting from a “big bang” in a much larger universe. The dark energy we observe is the evidence of the energy and matter is the much larger universe, that was present when the star that gave birth to our universe went super nova in a “big bang”. The CMBR we observe is the event horizon of the black hole in our parent universe. We and all the other “black holes” have been time shifted due to acceleration so that we coexist in space, but not in time. This multiverse we see in the wave-particle nature of quantum mechanics. Each universe has N black holes, that give birth to N black holes, which themselves are new universes. This N^N^N… exponentiation creation rate of new universes is seeking to create an infinite number of universes, as it plays out all possibilities, as it seeks the answer to life, the universe, and everything. This search for the ultimate truth is “God”, or “Deep Thought”, depending on your belief system. Unfortunately, this still leaves the question of the first universe, the ultimate parent. The chicken and egg problem.

  78. ge0050 says:
    December 16, 2010 at 7:03 pm
    Unfortunately, this still leaves the question of the first universe, the ultimate parent. The chicken and egg problem.
    It is turtles all the way down…

  79. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    ………….
    1. Only a naïve would believe that at height of Cold war, intercontinental ballistic missile threats, following Cuban crisis, space race, etc, etc that Soviets were telling the Americans whole truth and nothing but truth !
    2. This is real important. For simplicity I kept my formula to two components, it is not all there, there are one or two more large magnetospheres.
    What do you see in here at 1960’s?
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EW.htm
    A huge dip, same data is incorporated in here too (look at 1960’s)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
    I might incorporate it in the polar field, but there is no rush, 2025 minimum is taken care of , as you can see:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    My prediction are good for next 25-30 years, by than the new version will be ready.
    3. I understand your irritation with my formula, and its superiority over Svalgaard-Cliver precursor, but that is science, someone was bound to come with something better.
    Hey, no hard feelings !

  80. Myrrh says:

    Leif Svalgaard It is turtles all the way down..

    Each called Brahma..? Our present Brahma is around middle age according to Vedic calculations, around 155 trillion years old, (life span of Brahma 100 Brahma years, 72,000 kalpas of 4.32 billion years (a day or night); the life span 311.04 trillion years is less than one nimesa, one second, of the life of the beginningless Lord, which is the Soul of the Universe.

    Leif Svalgaard replying to ge0050 You’re right about that! It might turn out to be more like 13.697 billion..

    Are these adjustments made because speed of expansion increasing?

    Increasing into what space? I’ve read recently that Einstein meant ‘time’ as discrete unit of measurement, not the whole concept of time – is this right?

  81. vukcevic says:
    December 17, 2010 at 1:11 am
    My prediction are good for next 25-30 years, by than the new version will be ready.
    It is a common [and time honored] trick to add more ad-hoc terms when a formula fails so yours is no different. If such terms can be added in a natural manner, it is science. If they are added ad-hoc, it is not. In your case, I don’t see how it will work, nor have you explained how it will, and the notion that in 30 years, the ‘new version will be ready’ is silly. Just keep adding new terms a posteriori each time the formula fails means that it has no predictive value. There is no irritation on my part; if something works, I’ll be the first to jump on the bandwagon. In your case, it does not.

  82. Myrrh says:
    December 17, 2010 at 3:28 am
    Increasing into what space? I’ve read recently that Einstein meant ‘time’ as discrete unit of measurement, not the whole concept of time – is this right?
    The galaxies are not moving through space. They are at rest [except for small local movements due to gravitation from nearby galaxies. It is 'space' itself that is stretching everywhere.
    At some level, both space and time [spacetime] may be ‘foamy’ and quantized. Nobody has really figured this out yet, so there is more to be discovered.

  83. Myrrh says:

    Chris Reeve, I should be grateful if you’d have a go at answering my question re what’s at the centre of our galaxy.

    I’m not sure I’ve grasped the concept of plasma, (Leif please join in here if you want). I’m thinking of it as what used to be called the ether layer of matter, but it’s also used to describe it as affected by some other energy, as in our Ionosphere the plasma is acted on by the sun. Is ‘plasma’ used to describe this ‘neutral ether’ or ‘ionised’?

    What is actually happening to the ‘ether/plasma’ in the centre of our galaxy?

    Ancient texts say there is a connection between the centre of our galaxy and the centre of the universe we’re in, which is in the direction of Pleiades. Across ether/plasma does EU fit as energy source for the centre of our galaxy, (to create the plasmoid thingy at the centre)?

  84. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 17, 2010 at 4:22 am
    …………..
    When cornered you tend to talk through a hole in your hat:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
    was discussed here and on SC24 even before polar field formula was constructed (2years ago), and that can be easily verified.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EW.htm
    was known for some time now, but I never bothered to connect it to CET’s.
    As said: ‘I understand your irritation with my formula, and its superiority over Svalgaard-Cliver precursor, but that is science, someone was bound to come with something better.
    Hey, no hard feelings !’
    Here is another opportunity to smash the ‘charlatan’ and his ideas;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/15/arctic-oscillation-spoiling-nasa-giss-party/#comment-552248
    and
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/15/arctic-oscillation-spoiling-nasa-giss-party/#comment-552273

  85. vukcevic says:

    L.S
    If such terms can be added in a natural manner, it is science. If they are added ad-hoc, it is not. In your case, I don’t see how it will work, nor have you explained how it will.

    Ad-hoc, my foot . Published in Jan 2004 (page 2)
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf

  86. ge0050 says:

    The galaxies are not moving through space. They are at rest [except for small local movements due to gravitation from nearby galaxies. It is ‘space’ itself that is stretching everywhere.

    Wasn’t it recently discovered that a vast area of galaxies are in motion towards/away from a single spot? This is not explained by current mainstream cosmology. Could be be evidence for EU, or maybe new arrivals though the singularity (navel) of our local universe or ???

  87. vukcevic says:
    December 17, 2010 at 6:58 am
    Ad-hoc, my foot . Published in Jan 2004 (page 2)
    The ad-hoc bit goes all the way back to then trying to patch up your faulty sunspot formula. And it doesn’t even work. As Feynman used to say “the easiest one to fool is oneself”. Very applicable in your case.

  88. ge0050 says:
    December 17, 2010 at 7:04 am
    Wasn’t it recently discovered that a vast area of galaxies are in motion towards/away from a single spot? This is not explained by current mainstream cosmology.
    Galaxies are clustered and the clusters are part of super clusters. Gravity moves vast numbers of galaxies within the local cluster/super cluster. This is very much explained. ‘Mainstream’ is mainstream because it works.

  89. vukcevic says:

    The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. – Winston Churchill.
    But in the end; there it is:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

  90. James F. Evans says:

    @ Myrrh:

    Plasma is NOT ether.

    Plasma consists of charged particles, free electrons and ions. As opposed to neutral atoms, where electrons are in balance with protons within the structure of the atom.

    Plasma is where the electrons have been stripped away from the nucleus of the atom.

    Plasma is subject to the fundamental force of Electromagnetism.

  91. One, Chris Reeve, I really appreciate your posts.

    “We live in an era where there are real and profound personal consequences for those who openly challenge the conventional framework.”

    Two, as opposed to …?

  92. Myrrh,

    Is ‘plasma’ used to describe this ‘neutral ether’ or ‘ionised’?

    Plasma is matter that has enough ions separated from some of their electrons that, while the total average electric charge of the plasma may be near zero, the separation of charges into positively charged ions and negatively charged ions (including in many cases a large amount of regular atoms that haven’t separated their charges, but there are enough that have that it acts like a plasma) is sufficient that the whole behaves as a plasma including has the ability to transmit electricity and so produce magnetic fields. Plasma makes up the majority of the visible universe and is all around us.

    Strike a match? You’ve just created a plasma. Turn on a fluorescent light? Plasma. Lightning? Plasma. Sun’s corona? Plasma. Northern lights? Plasma. Ionosphere? Definitely plasma.

    Etc.

    Plasma is relatively rare on Earth where we’re familiar with solids, liquids, and gases, but it is exceedingly common in space.

    Yet, for some reason, while acknowledging it exists, mainstream cosmologists haven’t fully grasped the importance of plasma and electrical phenomena in space in my lay opinion.

    It’s easier to measure magnetism at a distance than it is directly measure electron flow (electricity). So mainstream scientists have been surprised many times to discover just how much magnetism exists in space. Everything from the Sun to the Northern lights were basically assumed not to be magnetic, until scientists (such as Kristian Birkeland) showed that they are.

    So mainstream scientists are postulating that some huge, massive magnetic fields that we can measure in space are essentially created internally in the various bodies, like in the core of the Earth, to use one example, or in the Sun’s alleged internal dynamo.

    Plasma cosmology proponents and their arguably more radical electric universe brethren don’t necessarily deny that their may be internal electrical processes within the planets and stars, but what they insist on is the majority of these magnetic fields are actually created by electron (electricity) flow in space plasmas.

    In fact, they hypothesis that these often flow in so-called “Birkeland currents” — that the magnetic fields generated by the electric current within the plasmas condense the current into narrow bands, usually twinned, that intertwine and twirl.

    You’ve observed this phenomena if you’ve ever observed the (mind-boggingly beautiful) Northern Lights in person or if you’ve ever looked at the close-up video of the Sun’s surface).

    In short, mainstream astrophysicists say the Sun’s internal dynamo produce its immense and stunning (and pretty much unpredicted) magnetism, solar wind, etc. Plasma cosmology proponents say maybe so, but the majority of this can be explained by interstellar and even intergalactic flows of electricity.

    That we can see evidence of both in how the galaxies form, and from directly measured magnetic fields and solar wind in our solar system, and by inference from observing many other events in the universe that can be more elegantly explained using known, laboratory reproducible plasma physics rather than speculating about black holes, and dark matter and dark energy.

    Both dark matter and dark energy were “discovered” when it was learned that the amount of visible matter in galaxies, including plasma, is woefully insufficient to explain the formation of or angular momentum of galaxies.

    And yet, computer models show that galaxies can form with these qualities using plasma physics with the known quantities of matter visible through observation.

    I am not overtly impressed by the “computer modelling” aspect of that, but I do find plasma cosmology far more elegant than continually “discovering” new forms of matter and energy, not because we’ve actually, you know, discovered them … but because mainstream’s cosmology’s theories and calculations don’t explain the universe we see unless you add them in to their equations.

    On the nature of stars: The theory that they are internally nuclear powered was devised by Sir Arthur Eddington, a very smart man by all accounts. But he knew, and said, that the competing theory was that the Sun drew energy through some unknown process from the surrounding solar system (and galaxy).

    If true, that would quickly and easily explain why the corona of the Sun can be 1-3 million K in temperature, while the surface of the Sun (nearer the supposedly super hot core) is about 6,000 K.

    So, according to the standard model, the Sun is amazingly hot in its core, cools down toward its surface, and heats up outside of its surface, in its atmosphere.

    There are two main theories used to explain this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Coronal_heating_problem

    but neither one of them is sufficient according to their own mathematics. Mainstream scientists use a combination of, “We don’t really know”, hubris, and, “probably both,” to explain this observation.

    Ironically, that article refers to Alfvén waves, named after Hannes Alfvén, as one of the possible partial explanations of the coronal heating problem. Yet Hannes Alfvén, who received the 1970 nobel prize in physics for his work on magnetohydrodynamics (the theoretical basis for the fictional “caterpillar drive” in the Tom Clancy submarine thriller, Hunt for Red October), used his nobel speech to caution physicists, and in particular astrophysicists, that they are overlooking much that is important regarding plasmas in space.

    Is that not irony? I think it is. The takeaway point is that not everyone who believes plasma and electricity play a far, far bigger role in space than mainstream science currently accepts are idiots.

    Would Sir Arthur Eddington, knowing more about the coronal heating problem, be as certain about his internal fusion solar model? Or would Eddington have been a little less certain?

    I can’t tell you. Indeed, I can’t tell you who’s right here.

    But to say the mainstream cosmology, astrophysics, and solar physics models things satisfactorily is a stretch … they are all very beautiful, on paper.

    I love mathematics. I believed them for a long time just because the math is so damn beautiful.

    But, their predictions are very often wrong, and they throw new “fudge factors” to maintain the models, especially in cosmology.

    That troubles me. Keep an open mind, I say.

    Leif may be right, but right or wrong, he doesn’t appear to be especially open minded. Leif said:

    “‘Mainstream’ is mainstream because it works.”

    That’s one of the reasons it might be, but that’s by no means the only one as readers of this site should know.

  93. Myrrh says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: December17, 2010 at 4:30 am

    Yes, I didn’t make that clear, I was assuming the current view that space itself was stretching, but that doesn’t preclude there being another space for it to be stretching itself in. Since the Big Bang theory begins with a beginning..

    James F. Evans says: December 17, 20 at 9:26 am

    I was sure I had read it described as such, from which my question, is the same word used as that concentrated in ionisation? If in our atmosphere the Ionosphere is charged plasma, what is it being charged?

    You may have to take me step by step through this..

    Ether may have got itself another name, I’ve just come across Quintessence to describe it. As the fifth essence or element beyond the standard earth, air, fire and water of ancient chemistry.

    If plasma isn’t ether, what is ether?

  94. Myrrh,

    “If plasma isn’t ether, what is ether?”

    Ether is a hypothetical medium needed to transmit waves of electro-magnetic energy and in particular of photons (light).

    There is nothing in the mathematics requiring ether to have charge separation, or any particular electric charge, for this purpose to the best of my understanding. Einstein said that his special relativity theory allowed for there to be this type of ether, but that mechanics may allow for yet another, to do with accelerating objects in space. I have my doubts that ether in either of these senses is real and physical. I think we’re grasping for a concept to explain things there. We know light does, in fact, reach us, and we wonder how if it has nothing to travel through (we now say that space is teeming with virtual products popping in and out of existence due to the laws of quantum mechanics and, no, I don’t think that’s the “ether” either).

    Regardless of what ether is, it isn’t plasma. Plasma’s quite real and non-theoretical. Moreover, it’s easy to make and to observe. There’s probably some in the room with you now, most likely in your computer monitor. (Even if you’re using an LCD or cathode ray tube monitor, they’ll still be some in there: But good luck finding the “ether”!)

  95. Typo correction:

    “into positively charged ions and negatively charged ions”

    must be read:

    “into positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons”

    For that to be accurate and make sense.

  96. Tom in Florida says:

    Christoph Dollis says:{December 17, 2010 at 2:12 pm}
    ” The theory that they are internally nuclear powered was devised by Sir Arthur Eddington, a very smart man by all accounts. But he knew, and said, that the competing theory was that the Sun drew energy through some unknown process from the surrounding solar system (and galaxy).”

    So there is an unknown process that draws energy to the Sun and that is the basis of EU?

  97. Myrrh says:

    Christof Dollis –

    Ether is a hypothetical medium needed to transmit waves of electro-magnetic energy and in particular of photons (light).

    Thank you. I think I got confused here because of reading that plasma was thought by some to make up 99% of the universe.

    Einstein said that his special relativity theory allowed for there to be this of ether, but that mechanics may allow for yet another, to do with accelerating objects in space.

    OK, I may also have misread, misunderstood what I read, but read that Einstein said that ether was essential for his theory of relativity, that it didn’t work without it. I’ve just found that others like Maxwell used it, but it seems to have become superceded by the idea of vacuum. Can’t yet find why.

    Regardless of what ether is, it isn’t plasma. Plasma’s quite real and non-theoretical. ..

    The Ionosphere is where it’s made by the action of UV light from the sun, so I’ve read, doesn’t this mean that it is also being made in the Troposphere or is the greater density and pressure lower down that precludes this happening?

  98. Myrrh says:

    Ah, apologies, should be Christoph. And forgot to close italics.

  99. “So there is an unknown process that draws energy to the Sun and that is the basis of EU?”

    It is considered among the most aggressive, ambitious hypothesis in the EU cosmology, and not every EU supporter buys into it. The process speculated, however, is electricity flows within interstellar plasmas, with stars forming the foci (and that galaxy clusters themselves align along other electrically charged paths).

    EU proponents also claim this accounts for the very large percentage of twin and tri star systems in the galaxy. They claim when the electrical stress on the star becomes too great, the star splits to increase the surface area, thus reducing the stress on it. They further claim gas giant planets can be ejected from stars in a similar process … and that coronal mass ejections, far from being unexplained, are a more minor form of the same process, albeit involving much less electrical stress on the star.

    True?

    I’m not willing to dismiss it out of hand just because it isn’t what I was taught as a kid.

    It would, however, go a long way to explain the Sun’s, and other stars’, non-stop fluctuations, in a way that a nuclear fusion powered model doesn’t seem to so well.

  100. “… Einstein said that ether was essential for his theory of relativity, that it didn’t work without it. I’ve just found that others like Maxwell used it, but it seems to have become superceded by the idea of vacuum. Can’t yet find why.”

    Einstein may well have believed that. As I said, I doubt the ether is a physical reality, as such, separate from space itself, but that has been a debate for some time, hasn’t it?

    The Ionosphere is where it’s made by the action of UV light from the sun, so I’ve read, doesn’t this mean that it is also being made in the Troposphere or is the greater density and pressure lower down that precludes this happening?”

    I’d be surprised if there was NO plasma in the troposphere, and if nothing else there will be during electrical storms (which EU proponents say is because the planet is acting as a capacitor and discharging electricity with space, which also explains high-atmospheric lightning). However, I have no significant knowledge of the troposphere and you’re better off asking someone else that question.

  101. Myrrh says:

    Christoph – very many thanks for your post explaining plasma, especially for being able to work out what I meant.

    I saw a programme recently on TV about EU, Thunderbolts Part I, and it, so to speak, sparked my interest in exploring further. As in all situations when one finds oneself in the middle of an argument between two people using terms familiar to them, they can both seem credible, but I was impressed by the scalability scenarios, does it actually work according to its known properties a touchstone for me in the AGW CO2 arguments.

    Leif – on thinking again about Christoph’s post and now having explained the problem I have with understanding the arguments, would you look at this page and tell me if you think the reasons given for dismissal of the Big Bang theory are valid, credible? (Particularly re the red-shift)

    http://davidpratt.info/cosmo.htm

    Christoph -
    As I said, I doubt the ether is a physical reality, as such, separate from space itself, but that has been a debate for some time, hasn’t it?

    I’m only just catching up..

    ..glad it’s still going on and the science isn’t settled..

  102. Myrrh says:

    Wow! Coming to you every 8 minutes..
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-new/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/

    Interesting how these tubes bend from the equator towards north or south pole depending on time of year, seem to have some similarity with wind patterns?

    Geologists getting in on the act – http://www.geulogy.com

  103. Tom in Florida says:

    How does the EU explain ocean tides on Earth?

  104. Myrrh says:
    December 18, 2010 at 2:40 am
    tell me if you think the reasons given for dismissal of the Big Bang theory are valid, credible? (Particularly re the red-shift)
    None of these ‘reasons’ have any validity. In particular, the ‘tired light’ hypothesis is in discordance with observations, see e.g. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

  105. ge0050 says:

    The problem with the mainstream big bang theory is that it is constantly being tweaked to match new observations. This is not a sign of a good theory.

    “Inflation” was created to explain why observation did not match theory. Then dark energy, dark matter, and now dark flow. At some point in time the obvious answer it quite simple. The underlying hypothesis is wrong.

    http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080923_wmap.htm

    Sept. 23, 2008
    Courtesy NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
    and World Science staff

    Sci­en­tists have meas­ured an un­ex­pected mo­tion in dis­tant clus­ters of ga­lax­ies—pos­sibly caused, they say, by the gravita­t­ional pull of some­thing out­side the vis­i­ble uni­verse. “We nev­er ex­pected to find an­y­thing like this,” said lead re­search­er Al­ex­an­der Kash­lin­sky of NASA’s God­dard Space Flight Cen­ter in Green­belt, Md

  106. “How does the EU explain ocean tides on Earth?”

    Gravity.

  107. “We nev­er ex­pected to find an­y­thing like this,” said lead re­search­er Al­ex­an­der Kash­lin­sky of NASA’s God­dard Space Flight Cen­ter in Green­belt, Md.”

    To their credit, earlier this year NASA Goddard invited EU proponent, Professor Emeritus in electrical engineering, Don Scott, to address some of their scientists. You can easily find that video on YouTube, however, I’ll say that in my opinion Scott is a much better writer than he is a speaker.

    I agree with what you said that Big Bang cosmology has been tweaked far too many times for my liking. It doesn’t seem to predict much, really, except after the fact and following adjustments, which is not my definition of a prediction.

    This is what I call a prediction:
    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=nq9zna2m

    I also think it makes one heck of a lot more sense than than the incredibly visible cometary trails in the sky visible from umpteen miles away being ice perpetually melting into (mostly) water vapour along with dust.

    This is more or less than standard astronomy theory of comets, and how it makes any sense at all, I don’t know.

    Electrical discharge and a resulting plasma trail makes so much more sense. Not only would it be more visible, but it wouldn’t run out either.

    Besides, we found out even our humble moon has an invisible sodium ion tail back in 89 or so, I believe. Venus has an ion tail too. It seems to be the norm rather than the exception, but comet tails are much more visible, EU proponents assert, because of their highly elliptical orbits rapidly bringing them from very far away to very close to the Sun, which is to say in regions of vastly different electric charge.

    It’s an elegant explanation. Far more so than to think when I look in the night sky and see a massive comet tail I’m seeing water vapour.

    What’s more, actual NASA probes impacting with comets don’t seem to bear that out. I wonder if that’s why they invited Professor Scott to speak?

  108. pochas says:

    I look forward to more EU comments sometime in the far distant future.

  109. ge0050 says:

    There are strong parallels between cosmology and climatology:

    1) They both tend to fund only the mainstream view, which is self re-inforcing.
    2) They are poor at prediction, requiring after-the-fact-correction to explain new observations.

    http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

    The Flyby Anomaly and Pioneer Anomaly come to mind.

  110. Tom in Florida says:

    Christoph Dollis says:[December 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm]

    ““How does the EU explain ocean tides on Earth?” Gravity.”

    So EU uses gravity only when it is convenient.

  111. Christoph Dollis says:
    [December 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm]
    ““How does the EU explain ocean tides on Earth?” Gravity.”
    Everything that happens is in the end caused by Gravity. Gravity forms the galaxies, the stars, even the planets. The stars shine because gravity compresses [which heats] them enough to enable nuclear fusion. Gravity holds the planets in their orbits, ensuring stable conditions for life in the habitable zone. Etc.

  112. “So EU uses gravity only when it is convenient.”

    Yes, EU uses gravity when convenient. Of course they do. If it’s the right explanation for a given thing, why wouldn’t it? I mean, obviously we DO orbit the Sun; we CAN send probes into space to intersect with things.

    EU says, in essence, that electricity plays a far bigger role in space than is thought by consensus science and the standard model of cosmology. It doesn’t say gravity is non-existent.

    EU argues electricity is more fundamental than gravity, not that gravity isn’t a factor. Jump! Gravity worked, didn’t it?

    Now look at your computer. Wait — electricity is working too, isn’t it?

    Everyone on all sides of the debate agrees these are real forces. Which is more fundamental, how they came to be, which is more important under what circumstances, etc. … these are among the items under debate. Such things as are hugely massive black holes amazing amounts of high energy plasma to eject from the cores of galaxies … or is there another explanation?

    I am hardly an unabashed EU proponent. You could find Wallace Thornhill’s most recent video online and you’d see how I criticized limited aspects of Thornhill and especially David Talbott’s beliefs in no uncertain terms, as well as objected to how some (one of the commenters: Not Thornhill nor Talbott) EU proponents claim a certain plasma physicist is one of their supporters when he isn’t (but believes in an alternate, competing model).

    It’s a good summary video, and shows that, yes, EU acknowledges much of mainstream astrophysics works.

  113. ge0050 says:

    The standard “it is gravity” model of the cosmos has had a low success rate at prediction, which suggests it has little value as a theory. Instead, the model is adjusted to fit observation, similar to the circles within circles model of planetary orbits. Very little funding goes towards research into other models, which makes it difficult to find a better model.

    This is similar to what we see in climate science, where the “it is CO2″ models have poor predictive ability and are continually being adjusted to fit observation. Research into alternative models is similarly hampered by funding.

  114. ge0050 says:
    December 19, 2010 at 9:46 am
    The standard “it is gravity” model of the cosmos has had a low success rate at prediction, which suggests it has little value as a theory
    Prediction of what? The stock market?
    The standard model is very successful in describing [and predicting] the cosmos. Some successful predictions:
    1) solar neutrino flux
    2) the cosmic microwave flux and its acoustic fluctuations
    3) the upcoming prediction of a lunar eclipse on 21st Dec will be successful as well. If that eclipse doesn’t happen as predicted, I’ll retract everything and eat my old hat.

  115. Myrrh says:

    Leif, thank for the link. It will take me a while to work through and compare… The page on estimating the age of the universe is interesting too.

  116. ge0050 says:

    Neither the lunar eclipse nor the solar nutrino count rely on the standard big bang model.

    Predictions about the CMBR rely on the “creation” of dark matter to make pediction match observation. Prior to that, the observations did not match prediction.

    With sufficient added terms, such as inflation (faster than light travel), dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, etc., just about any theory can be “curve fit” to match observation.

    However, as has been seen with the standard model, this sort of curve fitting has no skill as a predictive tool, except to predict the past. This is what has happened to the climate models as well.

    none of which have been shown to have a any physical basis. They are simple made up.

  117. ge0050 says:

    ps: none of this is to say I believe the EU model is better. Rather, there are problems with the standard model, and the addition of inflation, non-local expansion, dark matter and dark energy to explain the model in terms of observation is not good science.

    1) Inflation breaks c – where has this been experimentally demonstrated?
    2) non local expansion – if space is expanding, why are the orbits of the solar system not?
    3) dark matter – where has this been experimentally demonstrated?
    4) dark energy – ditto

    The underpinning for the standard model is the assumption that the red-shift is a result of motion of the universe away from us. This is give rise to a finite universe with a finite age. It also gives rise to a number of contractions with observation, requiring an increasing number of “circles within circles” to explain the observations.

    However, there are other explanations for the red-shift that do not require motion, that explain the other “problem” observations without the “fudge factors”. These alternatives are themselves largely unexplored becuase they threatend funding of the status quo, as has happened with climate science.

    Those scientists that have come forward with alternative theories, have in large been treated much the same as “skeptical” scientists in climate science. Halton Arp for example and the quasar anomaly. Science in general, along with the scientific method has largely been hijacked by the large investment in the self perpetuating status quo.

  118. ge0050 says:
    December 21, 2010 at 8:59 am
    1) Inflation breaks c – where has this been experimentally demonstrated?
    General relativity does not limit the expansion of space, only motion through space, and the universe is motionless in space [expect for small local random movements].
    2) non local expansion – if space is expanding, why are the orbits of the solar system not?
    Because gravity holds things together. Only on very large scales [greater than the Galaxy] where gravity is weak enough does the expansion of space show.
    3) dark matter – where has this been experimentally demonstrated?
    By its gravitational effect [especially gravitational lensing] that allows its mass to be measured.
    4) dark energy – ditto
    We observe its effect as a speeding up of the expansion. What its nature is we still don’t know, but that does not mean we cannot observe its effects. Like we can observe that the Sun is hot. Until ~1938 we didn’t know why, but that does not preclude observing that it is hot.

    This is give rise to a finite universe with a finite age.
    The universe is infinite. The ‘finite’ bit is the ‘observable universe’. We cannot see further than light has had time to reach us. That distance is getting large as we speak.

    Halton Arp for example and the quasar anomaly
    Arp was taken seriously by most astronomers early on, but we have now data on many millions of galaxies and the statistics is so much better, than we can see that the alignments are well within expectation from random, so our modern data has proven him wrong.

  119. ge0050 says:

    None of these were predicted. They are fudge factors added after the fact to fit observation. A simpler explantion is that one of the assumed cosmic constants is only locally constant, or that our understanding of gravity is incomplete.

    There is plenty of evidence that Arp is correct, that Quasars are much closer than indicated by their red shift. Otherwise they would show time dilation. Lack of time dilation is prima facia evidence that Arp is correct, that the red shift is not a result of expansion.

    “Discovery that quasars don’t show time dilation mystifies astronomers”
    http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627554.200-time-waits-for-no-quasar–even-though-it-should.html
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13792-cosmic-time-warp-revealed-in-slowmotion-supernovae.html

  120. Myrrh says:

    OK, I offer this solution to the argument as I think I was along the right lines in the first place to confuse ether with plasma – Ether = Plasma (99.9% of observable universe) = Dark matter sought by Fusion scientists.

    Quote: In a celebration-speech Einstein (1920 p.15) said:
    Summarizing we can say: According to the general theory of relativity the space has certain physical aualities; in this sense an Ether does exist. According to the general theory of relativity a space without ether is unthinkable; because in a space like this, not only the transmission of light would be impossible, there could not exist measuringsticks or clocks, thus neither distances in time nor space in the physical sense. This ether should not be thought endowed with properties characteristic of ponderable media, or consist of parts that can be traced through time; the concept of motion is not used on it.
    Thus Einstein acknowledges the existence of an Ether, but says that the concept of movement is not to be used on it. Thus the whole Theory of Relativity stands or falls with whether it is possible or not possible to measure velocity relative to the Ether. If it is possible the theory is falls. – Einstein (1925) wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan (Clark 1971 p.328):
    I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards. Unquote from:

    http://www.the-einstein-case.eu/Engtlish/4._Relativity.htm
    http://www.the-enstein-case.eu/English/index.html

    Now we’ve got ether as the fourth state of matter, what is quintessence?

    Could Einstein’s “ether” which doesn’t disprove relativity be quintessence?

  121. ge0050 says:
    December 21, 2010 at 2:15 pm
    There is plenty of evidence that Arp is correct, that Quasars are much closer than indicated by their red shift. Otherwise they would show time dilation.

    The paper you refer to also says:
    “Several explanations are discussed, including the possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in time-scale of variation associated with black hole growth, or that the variations are caused by microlensing in which case time dilation would not be expected.”

    Quasars are extreme objects and not fully understood. Supernovae are much better understood, and they show the expected time dilation.

  122. ge0050 says:

    The paper says:

    There would appear to be three possible explanations for the lack of a time dilation effect in quasar light curves, all of which conflict with broad consensus in the astronomical community.

    and concludes:

    Taking the various arguments outlined above at face value, and accepting the case against microlensing, there does not appear to be a satisfactory explanation for the absence of a time dilation effect in quasar power spectra.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/553/2/L97/015104.text.html

    I see very close parallels between cosmology and climate science in this regard. The reliance on consensus for funding, which limits examination of the underlying assumptions. The reliance on arbitrary “fudge factors” to make observation fit theory, without predictive power.

  123. ge0050 says:

    Here is an interesting approach. It matches observation without the need for dark matter or dark energy, including such problems as galaxy rotation and the pioneer anomaly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar-tensor-vector_gravity

  124. ge0050 says:
    December 22, 2010 at 6:42 pm
    Here is an interesting approach. It matches observation without the need for dark matter or dark energy, including such problems as galaxy rotation and the pioneer anomaly.
    Interesting that you invoke an approach that predicts all things you object to. It just replaces ‘dark energy’ by an equally mysterious “repulsive fifth force due to the vector field”. This is just calling things by another name.
    The strongest evidence for dark matter is its direct observation by gravitational lensing and that is not explained by the Scalar-Tensor theory.

  125. ge0050 says:

    “Dark Matter” violates my sense of the scientific method. The observed effect is “excess gravity as compared to theory, with no corresponding EM signature.”

    As such, the name “Dark Matter” is unscientific because it is imprecise. It makes the assumption that the effect is due to matter – which is contradicted by EM. A more exact name for “Dark Matter” is “Excess Gravity”, or perhaps even more precise “Excess Gravity at a Distance”.

    The use of precise labels is fundamental to science, to ensure the name reflects what is known, and no more. Otherwise, the name becomes political, a form of advertising/promotion.

    As such, the name “Dark Matter” is not scientific. It is based on the assumption that the excess gravity is due to matter, in the absence of any evidence for matter other than the observed excess gravity, and is specifically contradicted by EM.

    What I find interesting is that the scientific community does not recognize this problem. We see the same problem in climatology, first “Global Warming”, then “Climate Change” and now “Climate Disruption”. The use of labels to advance one point of view at the expense of objective science.

    The more logical explanation (for Dark Energy), based on the history of science and Occam’s razor, is that the theory of gravity is incomplete. One obvious explanation is that G is time dependent due to an expanding universe. As the universe expands, G becomes weaker.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.4821v2.pdf

  126. ge0050 says:

    correction: I wrote (for Dark Energy), should be (for Dark Matter)

  127. ge0050 says:
    December 23, 2010 at 9:16 am
    As such, the name “Dark Matter” is unscientific because it is imprecise. It makes the assumption that the effect is due to matter – which is contradicted by EM. A more exact name for “Dark Matter” is “Excess Gravity”, or perhaps even more precise “Excess Gravity at a Distance”.
    It is very precise [and even it it weren't it wouldn't matter - 'cosmic rays' are not rays, etc]. Matter is defined as something that has mass and hence exerts gravity and react to gravity. It is dark because it does not interact with the electromagnetic force [otherwise we would see it]. So very aptly named.

  128. Myrrh says:

    Dayton Miller’s Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look
    by James DeMeo, Ph.D

    http://www.orgonelab.miller.htm

    For interest, the Miller/Einstein saga.

  129. Myrrh says:
    January 4, 2011 at 9:54 pm
    Dayton Miller’s Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look by James DeMeo, Ph.D
    doesn’t pass the smell-test.

  130. Myrrh says:

    Why not?

  131. Myrrh says:
    January 5, 2011 at 8:31 am
    “doesn’t pass the smell-test.”
    Why not?

    Just too nonsensical to take seriously. It will be futile to explain to you.
    Let me try this:
    If I point out one wrong thing [fact, assertion, claim, whatever], would you abandon your belief in it? Probably not.
    If I point out 2 wrongs, would you? probably not.
    3 wrongs? probably not.
    How many wrongs would it take for you to agree that it stinks?

  132. Myrrh says:

    Well, it seemed reasonable to me..

    I’ve got no dogs in this race, as I mentioned somewhere, I’ve not that long ago got my head around the big bang theory and have read some on the ideas around. I like to work in concepts, so enjoy thinking about these things. I have to say that what amused me with the big bang theory was that science was repeating a statement from Christianity of creation out of nothing…, even more so when Hawkins announced he thought we were on the brink of understanding the Mind of God..

    ..and that those dratted black holes began spitting things out.

    I like the idea of plasma and the electric picture it gives us, I like the idea of gravity and fusion,. I grew up in a religious system which maintains the tension of creator/created being the same with the only difference that one is uncreated the other not, and this not being Western Christianity Augustinian ideas, that we walked in eternity, not looking to ‘a somewhere’ outside all this. So, nothing that ‘science’ has now thrown up in ideas, such as being part of a bigger universe outside out ken, being one of many universes, creating our universe by observing it, being able to be in two places at once, is at all alien to my way of thinking. I like the idea of ether, as a fluid more rarified entity in which grosser physical matter is also manifest, rather than these being in a vacuum.

    On today’s BBC live Stargazing, three day stint, it described M82 galaxy (the Cigar)and the astonishing sight available now through radio telescopes. That showed several supernovae which they said came into being in the last hundreds years, unusual as only one is expected per century per galaxy. The explanation given was that a nearby galaxy M81 was coming closer and “the tidal interaction, the gravitational forces between them, have caused a burst of star formation” (I had it taped! not from my seemingly exponentially fading powers of memory.)

    There was also a really fascinating piece yesterday on recording the sound of the planets . Of course the question, ‘how can you tell because there is no sound in a vacuum so what you’re saying must be rubbish?’ The explanation that though we can’t hear them doesn’t mean they not making a noise, and then a walk through the equipment measuring the different sounds. From which, being able to tell the constituents of matter by the sound it makes, a white dwarf is a solid diamond! (I’ve also got this taped, so if anyone wants, etc.)

    Maybe this is the Buddhists’ Jewel in the Lotus? Mani meaning diamond.

    So, it seemed reasonable to me. The testing as described seemed reasonable, done with care and with great thought and the objections, as described in the piece, seemed churlish, reminding me very much of how AGW scientists act now.

    You may well be able to discount this by giving examples which you say disprove it, is this what you’re saying?, but as I found when following one of your links and found that the age of universe by different methods yields different results, which you have said here is a very well known and established fact; there’s nothing really cut and dried yet, it seems to me.

    I think, as someone mentioned above, that fusion, gravity etc. explaining everything hasn’t yet been proved, the parts appear to make a cohesive whole but it’s not quite a string from A to B, more a dotted line. It doesn’t explain everything, and replacing this by imagining things to exist because it can’t explain all the inconsistencies is no better than the methods used to explain life the universe and everything as is well known in religious belief systems. I’m convinced the answer is 42.

  133. Myrrh says:
    January 5, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Well, it seemed reasonable to me..
    Yes, it is seductive because it is so simple, but it is toosimplistic.

    found that the age of universe by different methods yields different results, which you have said here is a very well known and established fact; there’s nothing really cut and dried yet, it seems to me.
    The ‘age’ is now well-established at 13.7 billion years. cosmology has become a precision science.

    that fusion, gravity etc. explaining everything hasn’t yet been proved, the parts appear to make a cohesive whole but it’s not quite a string from A to B, more a dotted line. It doesn’t explain everything
    It explains more than any other set of theories and that is what counts.

  134. Baa Humbug says:

    Leif a question to you if I may.

    Is there any evidence that suggests these sorts of eruptions happen more often when the sunspot activity is low?

  135. Myrrh says:

    Leif, I’ve seen from reading many of your posts that you reply from a working knowledge of your subject. However, I really find it difficult to engage with you as I do with anyone else who insists they are right when even a quick search shows there are conflicting views, as I mentioned, even from a page you gave me to read of basic science it said that different dates were given from different methods of measuring the age of the universe. You expect me to believe you because you say it’s true, that the science is settled without actually being able to give any proof, the very reason for my rejecting ‘religion’ as such, I am not looking for faith in science, I’m looking for facts.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast22Feb99_1/

    In 1999 those exploring the age of the Universe were saying: “In recent years astronomers have come to realize that the Universe is somewhere between 12 and 18 billion years old.” Which is what the site you linked to was also saying.

    Following the Chandra link from the above via view site: http://chandra.harvard.edu/

    from which Age of Universe typed into the search box takes us to articles of interesting history and to:

    http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_stro/dark_energy/index2.html

    which was the latest dated article on that search front page, Oct 2010, and which says:

    Age of the Universe

    Comparison of the age of the Universe deduced from the expansion rate of the Universe with independent age estimates also provides an important check on amount of dark energy driving the acceleration of the expansion. The ages of the oldest known stars constrain the age of the Universe to be in the range 12-15 billion years, which is again consistent with estimates of the amount of dark matter and dark energy.

    I was taught that nature abhors a vacuum.

    That was rather a long time ago and I don’t now recall what reasoning was given, if any, but from looking a the world around me I see how life fills all niches. We can create vacuums, but those I’ve used don’t keep my tea hot for very long, and the longer kept the more unpleasant to drink, and I don’t know if mankind has created a perfect one which is cut off entirely from the rest of the universe. I’ll have a look for it.

  136. Myrrh says:
    January 7, 2011 at 7:59 pm
    Leif, I’ve seen from reading many of your posts that you reply from a working knowledge of your subject. [...] You expect me to believe you because you say it’s true, that the science is settled without actually being able to give any proof…
    I have more than a working knowledge. I am a professional astronomer: http://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/5053/ . It is my job to know these things. If your doctor tells you that you have diabetes, do you tell him “do you expect me to believe you because you say it’s true”. Recently we have gotten a good grip on the ‘age’ of the universe:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

  137. Myrrh says:

    What I’ve found: Ether space time and cosmology: new insights into a key physical medium

    http://www.sosotech.com/html-science-engineering/ether-space-time-and-cosmology-new-insights-into-a-key-physical-medium.html

    “The necessity of ether is not questioned today even by those who pretend to do so but do not hesitate to attribute qualities to the vacuum. Ether theory plays a creative role, even if given different names: (vacuum, fundamental plenum or cosmic substratum).”

    Which is the conclusion I reached above from the short discussion here and looking at links as advised.

  138. Myrrh says:
    January 7, 2011 at 9:03 pm
    What I’ve found: Ether space time and cosmology: new insights into a key physical medium
    What you have found is pseudo-science dressed up with words that sound scientific [Casimir effect etc]

    Now, the vacuum is not ‘empty’. It is seething with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence all the time. The vacuum ‘knows’ [or embodies the knowledge of] the values of physical constants, like the electron charge, etc. So, there are some half-truths in what you found. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy to save me a lot of typing.

  139. Myrrh says:

    Again, nothing on that page claims that is a definite figure, still requiring citation where first mentioned.

    It’s vaguely a mean between 12 and 15 billion of the latest Chandra which is about all you can really say about it.

    How about this?:

    http://ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

    Based on these considerations, his conclusion was that the thorium within stars has to be about 10 billion years old or less. Schramm believes the meteorite data is consistent with 15 billion year old globular cluster which contain the very old white dwarfs. ….

    And the arguments continue, we still have stars older than the beginning of the Universe.

    Hmm, when I was thinking about this re the ages in the Hindu cosmology I thought the Hindus might be talking about the beginning of our solar system as the figures were so close, but, now, I think I’m going to stick with them for the time being. Until I can see something from the research being done, and the science still being explored, a Day and Night of Brahma for timescale will do just fine (8.64 billion).

    Thank you for your time.

  140. Myrrh says:
    January 7, 2011 at 10:06 pm
    Again, nothing on that page claims that is a definite figure, still requiring citation where first mentioned.
    I tell you that it is a well-determined figure. The uncertainty [and there is always an uncertainty] is small, of the order of 1 billion year. There will always be some data that are outliers because they are pushing the models a bit too far. But the important fact is that the age is determined to be about 14 billion years. It is really irrelevant if it is 13.0, 13.5, 14.0, 14.5, or 15.0 billion years. People that oppose such a large age do it because they push an age vastly different.

    How about this?:
    http://ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

    junk.

    I have forgotten what it was that bothered you.

  141. Myrrh says:

    ?! Why junk? It’s merely a look at the different ways of measuring stars and stuff to estimate the age of the Universe, from pukkha research attempts.

    I have forgotten what it was that bothered you.

    Whether the hubble constant’s measurement of red shift was a viable method of measurement to establish age. I’ll add to what I’ve already posted that this is not proven, that if time is relative to the viewer as in Einstein’s, then all Hubble is measuring is time relative to Hubble..

    I picked up somewhere that you had been arguing with some who thought the universe was created some 6,000 years ago ?, I’ve tried to reassure you that I’m not of their particular number and that my interest is in actually exploring the age from our current idea of the beginning of our universe from the ‘big bang’. Re young earth creationists, there are two immediate problems with their ‘biblical inerrancy’ claims: which Bible? and what is it actually saying in the ‘day and night’? The Septuagint has other numbers for the years of generations and calculates this to, don’t recall exact figures off hand, around 7 thousand, and from the Greek and Hebrew the ‘day and night’ are better read aeons, ages – the first three days the creation of time, space, life, the creation of day and night as we know it couldn’t have happened until later in the sequence when the sun was created, etc. Anyway, I also like the similarity with the Hindu in using ‘day and night’ as discrete measurements, and as it stands, I am far more comfortable with the Hindu concepts of this re age of our Universe, that it but one of many, counting in trillions + years in a linear scale of cyclical time, and also see no reason to suppose the concept of this universe as one of many co-existing with our space and time, as ‘mystic’ concepts have it and modern science explorations are touching upon now, does our universe only exist because we observe it, what is our vacuum leaking into?, sort of questions. What I have been fascinated with finding, is that there are still great contradictions with the ideas currently in play, and am getting as annoyed with those claiming their ideas ‘fact’ regardless of these contradictions, as I am with warmists who jettison actual measurements which contradict their science..

    ..and keep moving the goal posts. Now your ‘it is really irrelvant if the age is ..’ quite at odds with what you said earlier, from which based on what you said your arguments re Einstein and red shift. What is now bothering me, is the fundamentalist blocking out of information contrary to that belief, which makes exploring this subject, my interest, too much of a chore. It seems to me that the last decade has been made very dull by those taking an entrenched position with regard to age, as 13.67, and jettisoning solid work conflicting with fusion and relativity as they see it, and other ways of measuring which shows stars older. That’s my idea of junk science. The repetition of ‘consensus’ often found here, is telling.

  142. Myrrh says:

    I’d just like to add this link, http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/06/could-the-universe-be-far-older-than-we-think-new-findings-point-that-way.html

    Which is state of play now, the joy of exploration still alive and well in last decade; and long may it continue.

  143. Myrrh says:
    January 8, 2011 at 7:43 am
    ?! Why junk? It’s merely a look at the different ways of measuring stars and stuff to estimate the age of the Universe, from pukkha research attempts.
    It contains this telling statement right up front:
    “Evolutionary astronomers confidently argue the universe is 12-20 billion years old, although there is no certainty about any astronomical observations. John Eddy, a famous astronomer, once said that there isn’t much in the way of observational astronomy that proves the universe is old. He said that with “frantic theoretical readjustment” if new evidence showed that astronomers have been wrong, they could live with Bishop Ussher’s date of 4,004 B.C. [1]” setting out the agenda.
    That there are some problems with estimates of the early galaxies is more a reflection of uncertainty about galaxy formation and evolution. It typical that these people use the ‘far-older-than-we-think’ argument in support of Bishop Ussher.
    Re the Bible: it matters not which version one uses. The Bible has nothing to do with the Universe, its genesis, and age. Just ask any Hindu.

  144. Myrrh says:
    January 8, 2011 at 7:43 am
    ?! Why junk?
    Because the link is simply wrong all over the place. E.g. the age of the universe that we have confidence in today does not rely on the Hubble law and redshifts. See, e.g.
    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
    “WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years)”
    An excellent lecture series on modern cosmology can be found here:
    http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~kdh1/cos/cos01.pdf
    especially cos08 and cos09 address your ‘age problem’ [which BTW stems from 1995, modern data has resolved all of that].

  145. Myrrh says:
    January 8, 2011 at 7:43 am
    ?! Why junk?
    You might enjoy this http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

  146. Jeff Alberts says:

    Myrrh says:
    January 5, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Well, it seemed reasonable to me..

    I’ve got no dogs in this race, as I mentioned somewhere, I’ve not that long ago got my head around the big bang theory and have read some on the ideas around. I like to work in concepts, so enjoy thinking about these things. I have to say that what amused me with the big bang theory was that science was repeating a statement from Christianity of creation out of nothing…, even more so when Hawkins announced he thought we were on the brink of understanding the Mind of God..

    Who is Hawkins?

Comments are closed.