Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: erich on 18/07/2006 07:26:00
-
Have you all heard of Wallace Thornhill and these folks?
Their theory seems to be that electric plasmas rule the cosmos , no Dark matter or energy needed, the multi disciplined team provides collaborations for almost everyone; astronomic and terrestrial plasmas, Chaos and catastrophism , Myths, Climate change, ball lightning.............
Thunderbolts.info http://www.thunderbolts.info/
This view of Nova remnant is interesting:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=88edua1k
Don't these two recent findings of X-rays, Y-rays and neutrons in CG lightning lend support to the Electric Universe idea?
Joe Dwyer Paper:
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf
Russian Science News
http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2...-13-5_65_e.htm
Erich J. Knight
-
What are the implications of this finding to the Electric Universe Theory?:
Heavy hydrogen find alters galaxy formation theory
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/natio n/4117430.html
Erich J. Knight
-
Sorry Bad link in post:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4117430.html
Erich J. Knight
-
posted on 08/16/2006 5:25 AM by Extropia to http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html
The problems with black holes keeps piling up...
BABY STAR FOUND NEAR GALAXY'S VIOLENT CENTRE,
'The youngest star ever found near the Milky Way's centre is deepening a mystery over how stars could take shape in such a turbulent environment.
Several groups of massive stars have been found within 100 light years of the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's centre. The innermost stars lie in a group less than 3 light years from the black hole and appear to be just 6 million years old, based on the spectra of their light.
But the existence of such young stars so close to the black hole has long puzzled astronomers. That is because calculations suggest that gas clouds at such distances should be torn apart by the black hole's gravity before they ever condense to form stars.
And it appears the stars could not have migrated there from more peaceful birthplaces- the stars are too young to have had time to travel from very far away.
Now, astronomers led by Tom Geballe of Gemini Observatory, Hawaii, have shown that one of the stars in the innermost cluster seems to be younger than the rest, adding to the mystery.
Using the Gemini North telescope to obtain a spectrum of the star, called IRS 8*, they estimate it is only 3.5 million years old.
It also appears to be massive and bright, with an estimated mass 45 times that of the Sun and 350,000 times the sun's brightness. This would make it the youngest and most massive star in the group.
"If IRS 8* is single, its origin is highly uncertain".
But the researchers acknowledge that it is possible that IRS 8* is actually a pair of stars orbiting so close to each other that telescopes cannot resolve the individual stars. In this case, the stars would have exchanged a lot of matter with one another, changing their chemical evolution so they only masquerade as a single young, massive star.
The researchers hope to obtain a more detailed spectrum that could distinguish between the single and binary scenarios'.- New Scientist.
None of these mysterious observations trouble EU. A star could quite easily form near the centre of the Milky Way, because there is no black hole but rather synchotron radiation that is an experimentally-proven outcome of the homopolar-motor generator model of galaxies. No need for black holes, no need for dark matter either.
The idea of assigning age groups to stars (this one is young, that one is old) is entirely fictitious from the ES point-of-view. Stars do not climb up the HR diagram as they burn their reserves of fuel. Rather, they leap from position to position as the current density impinging on their surface changes strength. The fact that some stars have been observed jumping position on the HR digram (IMPOSSIBLE according to mainstream theory but a predictable outcome of ES) speaks volumes.
In the ES model, a star's mass and brightness has nothing to do with age and everything to do with the current density impinging on its surface (well, that affects its brightness, not its mass). The intense plasma discharges at the surface that give rise to starshine also synthesize metals that continually rain down into the star's depths. It is perfectly possible for a star to have the brightness and mass of an old star (according to fusion theory) but also have the metal content of a new star (again, according to prevailing theory) for the simple reason that stars do not age- the Birkland currents powering them simply grow/weaken their output.
I look forward to the next 'mystery' that further strengthen's EU's case.
-
What do electric plasmas even mean? What are they?
-
Is that the same thing as this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
quote:
Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology which emphasizes the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma cosmology includes explanations for the evolution of the universe — from the cosmic microwave background, to galaxy formation, to large scale structure. Fundamental to its explanations are interpretations of many astrophysical phenomena by scaling results from laboratory experiments. Advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional community.
A plasma is an electrically-conductive collection of charged particles, possibly together with neutral particles or dust, that exhibits collective behavior and that responds as a whole to electromagnetic forces. The charged particles are usually ions and electrons resulting from heating a gas. The stars and the space between them are made up of plasma. Plasma physics is known to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena.
Overview
The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from standard cosmology are:
- Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.
- An origin in time for the universe is rejected due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.
- Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).
Plasma cosmology also differs from big bang cosmology methodologically. Its advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos. Plasma cosmology is explained as much as possible in terms of the basic behavior of a plasma in the laboratory. Proponents contrast this with the big bang theory which has over the course of its existence required the introduction of such features as inflation, dark matter and dark energy that have not been detectable yet in laboratory experiments.
Plasma cosmology was first developed by Swedish physicist Hannes Alfvén together with Oskar Klein, Per Carlqvist and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar beginning in 1962. Alfvén, a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, is well-respected in the scientific community as the founder of modern plasma physics and the inventor of magnetohydrodynamics. While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a small group of plasma physicists such as Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner have continued to promote and develop the approach. The level of detail in the development of big bang cosmology is not rivalled by that seen in plasma cosmology, evidenced by the quantity of scientific papers published regarding the two approaches.
George
-
Any evidence for this at all?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Mjhavok
Any evidence for this at all?
Not going to claim that I would understand all the calculations involved, but it does 'claim' to explain the large scale features of the universe without having to invoke dark matter or dark energy or the notion of inflation – all of which run contrary to all features of the cosmos that have been observed locally on Earth.
Clearly, this is not positive proof, and does not amount to a testable prediction that can distinguish between any of the several plasma cosmoses and the Big Bang theory, but one cannot really say that the absence of any observable dark matter or dark energy, nor any proper explanation for inflation can really suggest that the Big Bang model is in any way complete either.
George
-
Whilst I would aggree that plasmas and Magnetohydrodynamics forms a significant part of the detailed structure of stars whch is well observed in our sun. I consider that the energy sources and generalised evolution of stars has been adeqately explained by nuclear physics.
The conditions around the centre of the galaxy are very extreme and the observational information is very restricted because of the blocking of radiation by intersetellar dust so although the current report is interesting it does not supply strong evidence for a radical change in currently accepted theories.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
-
This confirmation of predicted behavior of Dark Matter may shoot some holes in the Electric Universe idea, I thought this article summed up the implications best:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/8/17
Erich J. Knight
-
I don't think this will suprise our EU Folks:
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2006/radiomagnetar/
Erich J. Knight
-
I don't think this will suprise our EU Folks:
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2006/radiomagnetar/
Erich J. Knight
-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/edsumm/e060831-08.html
As we get more observations of GRBs and X-ray flashes like these our understanding of Stellar and Black hole evolution should get nailed down.
As these results filter in it will be interesting to see how EU theory holds up.
Also hopefully the next generation of particle accelerators should bring even more grist for this Plasma based mill.
Erich J. Knight
-
I have read that Black holes could be the most efficient generators in the universe , is that what this study is getting at:
Here's the paper:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
Lots of interesting comments here:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/8/4/4887
--------------------
Erich J. Knight
-
Maybe GAUGE will provide the answers we need for gravitons, and the Axions of Dark Matter too, and we will have all the grist we need to prove or disprove EU:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/9/1
Also:
I thought this would be supportive of EU views on the Big Bang:
Hypography Science Forums - Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test
http://forums.hypography.com/astrono...tml#post130584
Erich J. Knight
-
Sorry for the bad link:
Hypography Science Forums - Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test
http://forums.hypography.com/astronomy-news/8252-big-bangs-afterglow-fails-intergalactic-shadow.html
Erich J. Knight
-
If this Particle Nucleation by cosmic rays proves out, doesn't it throw a giant monkey wrench into the present climate modeling?
I started several threads, in various science forums, titled " Lightning Comes from Space" citing Joe Dwyer's work at FIT on runaway cascade initiation of lightning from his observations of X-Rays and Y-Rays.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...F9683414B7FFE9F
Dwyer's paper:
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf
Looks like I'll have to update them with " Clouds Come from Space Too"
cosmic rays & clouds:
http://spacecenter.dk/cgi-bin/nyheder-m-m.cgi?id=1159917791|cgifunction=form
NEWS from spacecenter.dk
October 4th 2006
Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate
A team at the Danish National Space Center has discovered how cosmic rays from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere. The results support the theory that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate.
An essential role for remote stars in everyday weather on Earth has been revealed by an experiment at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. It is already well-established that when cosmic rays, which are high-speed atomic particles originating in exploded stars far away in the Milky Way, penetrate Earth’s atmosphere they produce substantial amounts of ions and release free electrons. Now, results from the Danish experiment show that the released electrons significantly promote the formation of building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds. Hence, a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth’s atmosphere has been experimentally identified for the first time.
The Danish team officially announce their discovery on Wednesday in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, published by the Royal Society, the British national academy of science.
The experiment
The experiment called SKY (Danish for ‘cloud’) took place in a large reaction chamber which contained a mixture of gases at realistic concentrations to imitate the chemistry of the lower atmosphere. Ultraviolet lamps mimicked the action of the Sun’s rays. During experimental runs, instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.
The data revealed that electrons released by cosmic rays act as catalysts, which significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules which are building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei. A vast numbers of such microscopic droplets appeared, floating in the air in the reaction chamber.
‘We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,’ says team leader Henrik Svensmark, who is Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research within the Danish National Space Center. ‘This is a completely new result within climate science.’
A missing link in climate theory
The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation. The original theory rested on data showing a strong correlation between variation in the intensity of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines.
It is known that low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth’s surface. Hence, variations in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays can change the surface temperature. The existence of such a cosmic connection to Earth’s climate might thus help to explain past and present variations in Earth’s climate.
Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. However, until now, there has been no experimental evidence of how the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work.
‘Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds to climate as unproven,’ comments Eigil Friis-Christensen, who is now Director of the Danish National Space Center. ‘Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The SKY experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research.’
Publication data
Published online in “Proceedings of the Royal Society A”, October 3rd
Title: ‘Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’.
Authors: Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj.
For more information and supporting material: www.spacecenter.dk/media
Requests for interview and original article: press-requests@spacecenter.dk
Erich J. Knight
-
quote:
Originally posted by erich
If this Particle Nucleation by cosmic rays proves out, doesn't it throw a giant monkey wrench into the present climate modeling?
I had already posted that item on a new thread:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5504
George
-
After reading a little deeper into Rabett's blog.......... this Real Climate discussion has comments from Martin B Enghoff the author of the paper that started this thread.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I finished this long Real Climate thread and they have this topic covered! I strongly suggest all to read it.
-
The current Nature has a couple studies, a little off topic concerning sun forcing of climate .......but these measurements do provide an Earth magnetic field history 800,000 years ago and implies stability of geodynamo processes on billion-year timescales.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7115/edsumm/e061102-05.html