History:
When geniuses like Johannes Kepler
(1571-1630) and Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
formulated their theories very little was
known about electricity. (Oil and gas
provided the lighting back then.) A
treatise had been written on magnetism,
and some magnetism is incorporated in
astronomical models, but the basis of
mainstream theories remain the same — they
rely on gravity and inertia. They work on
the mistaken premise that space is
electrically sterile.
The situation changed briefly in the late
1800s and early 1900s when
electromagnetism was thought the most
likely route to a better understanding of
space. Indeed, the scientific press was
awash with such speculation at the time.
However, something happened, and it became
taboo to discuss EM in space. Albert
Einstein, for example, did not so much as
mention EM in his Relativity theories, and
his mathematical theories effectively
removed the concept of the aether.
Magnetic Reconnection and
Frozen-in Magnetic Fields
These erroneous
concepts are probably the biggest source
of confusion in mainstream circles.
Ironically, the concept of Frozen-in
Magnetic Fields was first proposed by
Hannes Alfvén, but he quickly realised
his mistake and explained the error.
Unfortunately, he was surprised to find
that the error persisted, and later in
life he wished he had spent more time
correcting the misconception.
Magnetic Fields are never
frozen into a plasma. This is just a
symptom of mainstream science refusing to
acknowledge electric currents (energy
transfer) in space. They prefer to talk in
terms of magnetic ropes et al, as the idea
of electricity in space would open up a
can of worms for them. They simpy refuse
to face this fact to any meaningful
extent. Furthermore, magnetic field lines
do not reconnect or merge after they break
down and release energy.
Don Scott, a retired
professor of electrical engineering,
explains the issues in more detail here
Psychology:
Belief is known to
have a profound affect on perception.
Witness the fact that euphemisms are
employed to conform to the inertia of
prior belief. The mainstream prefers to
talk in terms of ion storms and electron
rains rather than acknowledging the
existence of electrical phenomena in
space. See the technical section for
explanations of some common
misconceptions. So many astronomical
phenomena scream 'Electricity', but
sophistry is all too often employed to
interpret them within the existing
paradigm.
Filamentary Birkeland currents in plasma,
and double layers et al are not even
recognised in mainstream cosmology, let
alone understood! And they call it the
queen of the sciences!
'Charge separation in
space is not possible'
Well, this is the
mainstream view. Because the attractive
electrical forces between electrons and
ions are 39 orders of magnitude greater
than the gravitational attraction
between their masses, it is assumed that
these particles quickly find each other
and neutralise.
It is wrong, however, as we
now observe charge separation in space. It
is therefore important to stress that we
should be working backwards from
observation, and not extrapolating from
some idealised theoretical starting point.
Theories of the plasma universe do not
begin with neutral matter. They begin with
the observation that charges are already
separated.
Math
While GR is amenable to math — if we allow
for the fact that so many space probes
have suffered inexplicable crashes and
anomalous accelerations — the situation
with electrodynamics is less simple. How
would we go about measuring the voltage of
the earth, for example, when voltage is a
relative figure? Would we measure the
voltage in relation to The Sun or The
Moon? And how could we do this? Running a
cable between any two planets presents
technical difficulties, whereas problems
with GR calculations are simply plugged
with exotic hypotheticals!
Science
versus Math
Unfortunately, the current cosmological
scene is dominated by mathematicians, not
scientists, and electromagnetism is
notoriously difficult to model
mathematically, so they prefer to close
their eyes to it. See bad astronomy versus
good science, below.
Electrodynamics versus
Fluid Dynamics
Another common trick
is to refer to electrodynamic phenomena
in terms really only appropriate to
fluid dynamics. 'Electron Rains' and
'Ion Storms' are prime examples. These
are clearly electrodynamic phenomena, as
are 'Magnetic Ropes'. Magnetic ropes are
in fact Birkeland currents. See
technical for further info.
Bad Astronomy versus Good
Science
Phil Plait, the
self-proclaimed Bad Astronomer, is an
unrepentant critic of the Electric
Universe. In 2007, on his web site
badastronomy.com, he launched an attack
on the EU model, by proxy, claiming that
astronomy does not ignore magnetic
fields. This is a straw man, as no such
claim has been made. There was a lot of
talk about the EU model on the BA forum
at the time, and many of the threads
were locked by the notorious moderator,
Nereid.
"Magnetism is a very
important topic in astrophysics
(despite some pseudo-scientists lying
and saying this force is ignored), but
it’s not well-understood. It’s
fiendishly complex, so much so that
it’s a joke in astronomy."
Phil Plait, The Bad
Astronomer
The real issue is that the relationship
between magnetic fields and electric
currents is being overlooked, and this is
a critical omission
"In order to
understand the phenomena in a certain
plasma region, it is necessary to map
not only the magnetic but also the
electric field and the electric
currents."
Hannes Alfvén, Nobel
Laureate
In other words, magnetism cannot be
viewed in isolation. At least Plait admits
their fear of magnetism in the process,
which is the big giveaway.
Mathematics and the kinetic theory of
ordinary Gases
See below
|
"Newton was unaware of plasma. Today his
disciples spend years in training learning
when and how to shut their eyes to it."
Mel Acheson
"Never attribute to malice that which can
be adequately explained by stupidity, but
don't rule out malice." Heinlein's Razor
"Facts do not cease to exist because they
are ignored." Aldous Huxley
Men occasionally stumble over the truth,
but most of them pick themselves up and
carry on as if nothing ever happened."
Winston Churchill
|