Electric Universe

[Starglider]

In another thread I mentioned dedicated science/research forums and various people asked if they actually do anything useful. I also asserted that some topics are worthwhile in some sense but not appropriate for SLAM. Well, here's an example of a web site+forum that claims to be 'bleeding edge science', but is actually a support group and rallying point for physics cranks that got laughed out of mainstream discourse. They've got a whole mini 'creation science' thing going on, with their schizoid 'mainstream cosmology is an evil conspiracy that must be overthrown / we deserve to be treated as seriously as real astronomers' sentiment, their own private one-sided books and forums and their own private conference in the works. IMHO they're ripe for some 'critical analysis' and I can't see any previous threads on them. So what do you think of these arguments, from their site:

Electric Universe: A Cosmology for the 21st Century

“Credibility is currency.” One day this phrase popped into my mind and, thinking myself quite clever, I “Googled” it, hoping I might have originated it. Well, I had not. An author whose name I cannot find wrote, “Credibility is currency; it’s hard to get, and easier to lose.”

This statement applies to virtually every human endeavor, perhaps none more so than theoretical science — an inherently idealistic endeavor to advance human understanding. A “credible” scientist can have the whole world’s ear, and nothing says “credibility” better than those three little letters – PhD.

The work of scientists has an enormous impact on everyday life. We do not just rely on scientists to help us understand the natural world. We rely on their viewpoints to guide us in critical personal decisions, including health and lifestyle (remember the short-lived fervor around the Atkins’ Diet?) The respectable, bespectacled scientist whom the media cites as an “expert” has the power to change the way we think, and thus to change the world.

But credibility is a complex tapestry. In addition to the tangible requirements that any “credible” scientist must possess, there are intangibles such as honesty, integrity, and openness to new possibilities. On an individual level, most accredited scientists may indeed possess those traits. But one cannot judge the validity of a scientific opinion based on an individual’s “accreditation.”

I suspect that most people find little reason to question the scientific Establishment. Most of us just assume that the expert knows what he’s talking about and that he has no reason to deceive us. But few who are removed from the leading edge of science know that beneath the noble exterior of many institutions lie many tendencies toward political maneuvering and manipulation, often with highly destructive consequences. This state of things should not surprise us. Money, reputations, limited fields of view, and the momentum of earlier beliefs have always had the power to corrupt free inquiry and to subtly dissuade individuals from challenging institutionalized ideas.

(snip lots of semi-philosophical crap about how the Establishment is preventing progress)

In science today, the “generally accepted conclusions” are routinely presented as inarguable “facts”. From the Big Bang to the evolution of planets, from the nature of comets to highly speculative and hidden phenomena such as black holes, dark matter, and dark energy, the big cosmological picture is presented with such confidence that media in this country have almost never questioned it. But the picture may be much less clear than we have been led to believe. Far removed from the spotlight of scientific media, critics have suggested that a single, fundamental error has infected the theoretical sciences.

This error is the notion that the Universe is electrically neutral — that electricity does not “do anything” in space. It is a perverse stance given the overwhelming importance of electricity in our lives and space probes’ discovery of electrical phenomena everywhere they have gone.

The most dramatic recent discoveries have consistently challenged the interpretations of conventional theorists on this point. At the same time, they have fostered considerable interest in an alternative hypothesis — the Electric Universe.

In the study of comets, for instance, researchers have been so confounded by unexpected discoveries that conventional comet theory no longer exists! Yet comets are still touted as "Rosetta Stones" allowing us to decipher the formation of the solar system. The “dirty snowball” hypothesis, considered theoretical bedrock for decades, has failed resoundingly at predicting comet behavior and, more recently, comet composition. The most dramatic surprises began in 1986 with the discovery of negatively charged ions in the coma of Comet Halley, the signatures of energetic electrical activity, and the absence of water on the nucleus. In subsequent years, comets have produced a steady stream of mysteries that have had astronomers heading back to the drawing boards. These include:

1. Highly energetic supersonic jets exploding from comets’ nuclei.
2. Narrowly confined, filamentary comet jets spanning distances that defy the expected behavior of neutral gases in a vacuum.
3. Comet surfaces with sharply carved relief – the exact opposite of what astronomers expected under the “dirty snowball” model.
4. Unexpectedly high temperatures and x-ray emissions from comets’ comas.
5. A short supply or complete absence of water and other volatiles on comets’ nuclei.
6. Mineral particles that can only be formed under extremely high temperatures.
7. Comets flaring up while in "deep freeze," beyond the orbit of Saturn.
8. Comets disintegrating many millions of miles from the Sun.
9. Comet dust particles more finely and evenly divided than is expected for sublimating “dirty ices.”
10. Ejection of larger particles and “gravel” that was never anticipated under the idea that comets accreted from primordial clouds of ice, gas, and dust.

All the above findings pose enormous difficulties for the “dirty snowball” model; all are predictable features of the electric model. Nevertheless, the odds are pretty good that you have never even HEARD of the electric comet hypothesis! (But if you had lived at the end of the 19th century you could have). This is because the space sciences have been constructed throughout the 20th century on the theoretical assumption that bodies in space are electrically neutral. An electric comet would strike at the foundations of the theoretical sciences today.

If the foundational assumptions are incorrect, the ramifications will reach far beyond comet theory. According to Wallace Thornhill and other proponents of the Electric Universe, the electric comet is inextricably linked to the electrical model of the Sun, a model with sweeping implications:

Dr. Charles E. R Bruce of the Electrical Research Association in England set the stage for a scientific model of an “electric sun” in 1944. According to Bruce, the Sun’s "photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and the spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it is an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel." This discharge characteristic, he claimed, "accounts for the observed granulation of the solar surface." Bruce’s model, however, was based on a conventional understanding of atmospheric lightning, allowing him to envision the “electric” Sun without reference to external electric fields.

Years later, a brilliant engineer, Ralph Juergens, inspired by Bruce’s work, added a revolutionary possibility. In a series of articles beginning in 1972, Juergens suggested that the Sun is not an electrically isolated body in space, but lies within a larger galactic circuit. With this hypothesis, Juergens became the first to make the theoretical leap to an external power source for the Sun.

Juergens proposed that the Sun is the most positively charged object in the solar system, the center of a weak radial electric field and the focus of a "coronal glow discharge" fed by galactic currents. This is why a comet, moving rapidly through the strengthening electric field as it approaches the Sun, begins to discharge under the electric stresses.

To avoid misunderstanding of this concept, it is essential that we distinguish the complex, electrodynamic glow discharge model of the Sun from a simple electrostatic model that can be easily dismissed. Throughout most of the volume of a glow discharge the plasma is "quasi" neutral, with almost equal numbers of protons and electrons. A similar situation exists inside a fluorescent light tube. The current is carried primarily by a drift of electrons in a weak electric field toward the positive electrode (the Sun). It is only beneath the corona, close to the Sun, that the electric field becomes strong enough to generate all of the brilliant and energetic phenomena we observe on the Sun.

In the electric model, the Sun’s external energy source is the reason why temperatures rise SPECTACULARLY with distance from the surface of the Sun — precisely the reverse of what one would expect if heat were radiating from the Sun’s core. From a "cool" 4400 degrees K at 500 kilometers (300 miles) above the photosphere, the temperature rises steadily to about 20,000 degrees K at the top of the chromosphere, some 2200 kilometers (1200 miles) above the Sun’s surface. At this point an abrupt increase occurs, eventually reaching 2 million degrees in the corona. And even farther from the Sun, the energetic activity of ionized oxygen atoms reaches an astonishing 200 million degrees! This is the last thing one would expect of a nuclear furnace hidden in the core of the Sun. But it is the observed nature of a corona discharge.

Electrical theorists point out two dozen or more defining features of the Sun that pose problems for standard theory, ranging from “difficult” to “impossible” to explain. In each case, the observed feature follows logically from the glow discharge model. Perhaps the most telling illustration of this contrast is the issue of the solar wind. The Sun continually emits a stream of positively charged particles, but these particles are not only unaffected by the Sun’s gravity, they continue to accelerate away from the Sun. Since the discovery of this mysterious behavior decades ago, solar theorists have never set forth an explanation that could withstand scrutiny. They thought they had a partial explanation when they claimed that solar radiation (the light from the Sun) continued to push the charged particles outward. To the electrical theorists, this was not only a feeble explanation but also one that lacked any support in experimentation, which should be the first resort.

(snip some useless verbiage)

Wallace Thornhill, for example, suggests that the electric comet offers the best model for comprehending the surface features of planets and moons. Unacknowledged evidence accumulated in the Space Age makes clear that planets are themselves charged bodies within the Sun's electrical domain. Unstable motions within the electric field of the Sun, or motions bringing planets into close encounters, would lead to devastating electrical discharge events, with planets themselves taking on possible “comet-like” attributes.

Space exploration has continually revealed features on planets and other rocky bodies that cannot be explained by impacts from space or familiar planetary geology (volcanism, water erosion, or surface spreading.) Since we first pointed telescopes at the Moon, the single geologic feature that has most entranced astronomers is cratering. For decades, the unresolved issue was whether craters on the moon were formed by volcanism or impact. With the Apollo space program, astronomers believed that the issue was settled. Celestial objects striking the surface, planetary scientists said, created the craters on the moon.

This conclusion seemed so clear that virtually no one paused sufficiently to notice the litany of facts about lunar craters that throw the entire hypothesis into doubt. Consensus had hardened into dogmatic belief... (snip additional whining)... The features of high-velocity impact craters do not match the features of the lunar craters. Nor do they match up with the features of craters we observe so abundantly on the surface of Mars or on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn and other rocky bodies in the solar system. The anomalies include (to name just a few):

1. remarkable circularity of almost all craters of all sizes. Oblique impacts should form many oval craters;
2. lack of collateral damage expected if the crater circularity were due to a near-ground explosion like a thermonuclear detonation;
3. flat-bottomed, melted crater floors instead of dish shaped excavation from impact blast. Impacts and high-energy explosions—even atomic bombs—do not melt enough material to create flat floors;
4. many craters with steep walls rather than the shallow dish shape expected from a supersonic impact blast;
5. unexpected terracing of large crater walls, with melted floors of some terraces;
6. inordinate numbers of secondary craters centered on the rims of larger craters;
7. absence of larger craters cutting through smaller craters;
8. intricate chains of small craters along the rims of larger craters;
9. far too many crater pairs and crater chains;
10. minimal disturbance where one crater cuts into another;
11. repeated, highly “improbable” associations of craters with adjoining cleanly cut gouges and rilles, from which material has simply disappeared;
12. rays of “ejecta” tangential to the crater rim;
13. concentric rings.

Rather than consider these challenges, planetary scientists have stopped asking the most important questions. Indeed, they have yet to consider a fact of overwhelming importance to the future of planetary science: All the primary cratering patterns in the solar system can be produced by electric discharge in the laboratory. This cannot be said of any other causative agent explored in the space age.

Our neighbor Mars, the most studied planet in the solar system (outside the earth) offers almost limitless examples. The Martian surface reveals global evidence of violent electric scarring.

The stupendous chasm of Valles Marineris stretches across more than 3000 miles — the equivalent of hundreds of Grand Canyons. In the early 1970s, engineer Ralph Juergens posited that in an earlier period of planetary instability electrical arcs between charged celestial bodies created many of the features on Mars. In 1974, Juergens wrote of Valles Marineris:

“[T]his region resembles nothing so much as an area zapped by a powerful electric arc advancing unsteadily across the surface, occasionally splitting in two, and now and then weakening, so that its traces narrow and even degrade into lines of disconnected craters.” More recently, Wallace Thornhill has argued that the entire VM region has identical morphology to the grandest electric discharge phenomenon in the universe – the barred-spiral galaxy. (See Spiral Galaxies & Grand Canyons)

So what happened to all of the “missing” material? In the electrical hypothesis, it was excavated explosively by a process called electric discharge machining (EDM). And the resulting debris not only was strewn across the surface of Mars but also much of it was accelerated electrically into space. From this vantage point, it is not a coincidence that even today meteorites from Mars continue to fall on earth.

One of the most fascinating geologic anomalies on Mars is the presence of so-called “blueberries” — blue-gray bb-sized spherules embedded in the iron-rich Martian soil. After spectroscopic analysis, the spherules were identified as “hematite concretions.” The formative process of the “blueberries” remains enigmatic to planetary scientists. Plasma physicist Dr. CJ Ransom of Vemasat Laboratories, however, conducted his own experiment to test the electrical explanation of concretions and Martian blueberries. He blasted a quantity of hematite with an electric arc, and the result was embedded spherules with features similar to the blueberries on Mars. (See Martian “Blueberries” in the Lab)

One of the most important features of electric discharge is its SCALABILITY — what is observed on a small scale is also observed on larger scales. And the Martian “blueberries” may have a much larger analog in the form of “domed craters” on the planet. Orbiting cameras have found many craters with domes or spheres resting within them. These domed craters range in size from a hundred meters or less (the limit of the camera’s resolution) up to a kilometer or more. The similarities between the domed craters and the laboratory “blueberries”, many of which form inside craters, are striking.

To proponents of the Electric Universe, the geologic evidence of electric scarring on planets and other rocky bodies is a compelling testament to planetary violence and instability in the past. The notion of an unstable solar system in the recent past was put forth by Immanuel Velikovsky in his 1950 bestselling book Worlds in Collision. Although Velikovsky was immediately dismissed by the scientific mainstream, it can no longer be denied that the Space Age has done more to support Velikovsky than to refute him.

While Electric Universe proponents Wal Thornhill and his colleagues acknowledge that Velikovsky was wrong on several points, they agree with Velikovsky that electromagnetism was the key to an earlier epoch of planetary catastrophe. And today, evidence has become overwhelming that we live in an “electrically connected” solar system.

In the case of Jupiter, we see this electrical connectivity between the planet and its closest moon, Io. In 1979, Cornell astrophysicist Thomas Gold proposed in the journal Science that the “volcanoes” on Io were actually plasma discharge plumes. Gold’s hypothesis was dismissed in the same journal by Gene Shoemaker, et al. But in 1987, plasma physicists Alex Dessler and Anthony Peratt supported Gold’s interpretation in an article published in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science. Dessler and Peratt argued that both the filamentary penumbra and the convergence of ejecta into well-defined rings are plasma discharge effects that have no counterpart in volcanoes.

Later, the Galileo probe recorded amazing images of the “volcanoes” and found precisely what was predicted by electrical theorist Thornhill: temperatures so high that they saturated the cameras; MOVEMENT of the “volcanoes” across the surface; and location of “volcanoes” along the cliffs of previously excavated valleys. It is now indisputable that the basis of Shoemaker’s “rebuttal” of the Gold hypothesis was incorrect. It is also indisputable that Thornhill’s highly specific predictions were correct. And yet, neither the journal Science, nor any other scientific publication, has even revisited the question.

A NASA press release stated, “When humans visit Mars, they’ll have to watch out for towering electrified dust devils.” They attribute the electric fields of the “dust devils” to solar heating and the resulting mechanical energy of air convection, acting on dust particles, to separate charge in rapidly moving “dust clouds.” But the Martian atmosphere is less than one percent as dense as Earth’s, and the mechanical ability of its air to carry dust particles to the apparent speeds and heights of these monstrous vortices is at best improbable. In the Electric Universe, wind is not asked to do either the improbable or the inconceivable. Charge separation is already present in the Martian atmosphere because the planet is a charged body. And rotating columns of air and dust are a natural consequence of atmospheric electric currents.

In meteorological phenomena on Earth, we witness planetary charge as well. It is no longer possible to think of the Earth as an isolated, electrically neutral body when we observe giant bolts of lightning from above storm clouds discharging INTO space. Since the early 1990s, investigators have been documenting forms of lightning called “sprites” and “blue jets” leaping upwards from storms as much as 15 kilometers toward space. Some giant “jets” shoot up to 80 kilometers. These investigators found that every time there was a “sprite” above the clouds there was a bolt of positive lightning below the clouds. In other words, a single discharge stretched from space to the Earth’s surface. (See Giant Lightning to Space)

Critics of modern cosmology suggest that too often mathematicians have no principles when applying their trade to physics. They note, for example, the mathematicians’ glee when some unexplained data provides the opportunity to devise a new physical law or principle. To the critics this pattern is a blatant violation of the scientific code of "parsimony of hypotheses", or Occam's Razor. Stated crudely: don’t complicate things, when what is already known suffices. None of the evidence we’ve noted here is a violation of any existing physical law or principle. The electric explanation WORKS, and in the specific ways that the physical evidence demands. Yet space science continues to ignore the electric force, while adding speculation to speculation—all to save prior assumptions.

At first, astronomers were convinced that space was a perfect vacuum, and electric currents seemed inconceivable. Then astronomers discovered that space is pervaded by charged particles, or plasma. In the face of this discovery, astronomers wrongly concluded that charge separation could not be maintained in space; any charge would be quickly neutralized by the movement of charge (electric current). But as every electrical engineer knows, that conclusion depends upon the current-carrying ability of the plasma. In the sparse plasma of space, current-carrying ability is undeniably present but limited. The result is that cosmic-scale currents generated by the relative movement of dissimilar plasma regions can be sustained over long time spans. The signatures of such electric currents are their magnetic fields. But when magnetic fields were detected in space astronomers considered them to be "frozen in" to the plasma — as if the plasma were superconducting — in order to maintain the notion of electrical neutrality. But the cosmic electricians know very well that space plasma is not a superconductor. External electrical energy must be supplied to maintain the observed magnetic fields in space.

From the larger circuit of the Milky Way, currents flow into the Sun’s domain. At planetary distances from the Sun, the field is imperceptibly weak. But as the current “pinches down” toward the Sun, the electric power is sufficient to light the Sun. A comet spends most of its time in the weakest part of the field far from the Sun and may balance its voltage with that field. But as the comet accelerates nearer the Sun, it grows profoundly out of balance with its environment and begins to discharge. Astronomers have missed such fundamental points for a reason no one wants to admit: they are embarrassingly untrained in electrodynamics. This is why electrical engineers have a tremendous advantage in understanding electrical activities in space. An arc welder could more easily understand the rilles and craters on solid surfaces than a planetary scientist. But rather than expand their knowledge to include electricity, astronomers and cosmologists have instead contracted the space sciences into a narrow field of “elegant” but irrelevant mathematical theories.

Every day we hear of great advances and discoveries in the quest to identify invisible — and supposedly ubiquitous — things such as dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, and black holes. These conjectures are necessary because cosmologists remain unaware of plasma's ability to organize structure in space. (See Plasma Galaxies) And the weirdness of their conjectures continues to grow, to the point that the current picture of the cosmos resembles the most “spacey” Star Trek episodes.

It is tragic that the scientific Establishment — working hand in hand with popular media — has succeeded in convincing many that the largest cosmological questions are the sole domain of mathematicians. The very fact that mathematics is commonly looked to for a “theory of everything” reveals the blunder of this thinking.

(snip extensive ranting about evil elitist mathematicians and why layman are the only people who can save the field)

Increasingly, the public is expressing doubt about the directions of popular theory. What they get in response is the mathematicians’ assurances that the “pieces of the puzzle are falling into place.” But those who follow discovery with a skeptical eye see things much differently. They warn us that credibility of science cannot be sustained through self-congratulation. It is only in the best interest of scientific institutions to open the door to new possibilities and to layers of evidence long ago excluded.

[Starglider]

Some of their other essay abstracts:

Why Neutron Stars are Impossible

The concept of the "neutron star" was a baseless invention. It was proposed because only such a dense material could make up a star that could stand those outrageously high rotation speeds...

Tornadoes as Electrical Machines

Thanks to Ian Tresman (Catastrophism.com) for finding this gem from R.A. Ford, in his book Homemade Lightning. I find the mention of a clay containing iron oxide required to form the fireball as especially interesting following upon my ideas on the formation of extreme ball lightning in the presence of a heavy element catalyst...

Still Chasing the Ghosts of ‘Dark Matter’ and ‘Dark Energy’

Space Age technology has achieved wonders. But according to critics, many theoretical adventures undertaken to explain unexpected Space Age discoveries have set the theoretical sciences on a dead-end path...

The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology, and Extreme Ball Lightning

It is engineers who have made space exploration possible, and their precision probes and navigation skills have returned data that routinely surprises space scientists...

Astronomers Puzzled by Titan's Missing Craters

The Cassini spacecraft’s radar sweep of Saturn’s largest moon Titan in January revealed a portion of what appears to be a 110 mile (180 kilometer) diameter impact crater...

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory...

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background...

Anyone want to help these brave revolutionaries in their struggle to overthrow orthodox cosmology and the sinister cabal of mathematicians behind it? There's an area on their forum specifically for addressing 'discussions on other forums that have added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of electrical principles'. They invite people to 'summarize questions that have yet to be answered'.

[CaptainChewbacca]

There's so many things wrong with those theories I don't know where to begin. If nobody's hit this in about 10 hours, I'll get on debunking it tomorrow.

To start off with, assertion #1 about craters is wrong, because there ARE oblique craters all over the solar system, but oblique impacts are a very small minority of preserved impacts due to their improbability.

[metavac]

I'm a big fan of fighting fire with fire. If somebody wants me to debate an argument I have to first purchase in a book, then I'm just gonna let Wikipedia speak for me.

[wolveraptor]

But one cannot judge the validity of a scientific opinion based on an individual’s “accreditation.”

He's lying, not only to others, but to himself. God knows he'd never take seriously the scientific opinion of Randy the Truck Driver, who's never so much as seen a college. He is perfectly willing to deny the significance of his lack of personal accreditation, however. Why? Because he's a big fat fucking egotist.

[ClaysGhost]

The plasma universe folk get involved in regular debates on the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forums. There is not much point in debating them, since as they see it the facts are quite clear, but still, many people continue to make the attempt.

[metavac]

I'd guess debates over relatively uncontroversial cosmology are fruitless exercises in Google-fu. On the other hand, for lurking enthusiasts they can provide an exciting bevy of issues and problems to search out in textbooks and pre-prints. The history behind the plasma cosmological hypotheses is interesting enough to stoke a man's drive to learn about the tools and reasoning used to arrive at the prevailing view.

[Starglider]

I'm a big fan of fighting fire with fire. If somebody wants me to debate an argument I have to first purchase in a book, then I'm just gonna let Wikipedia speak for me.

The talk page for that article is hilarious. The label 'Non-standard' cosmology is unfair! We are an 'alternative' cosmology! Despite less than 0.1% of physicists thinking we have anything at all to offer!'

He's lying, not only to others, but to himself. God knows he'd never take seriously the scientific opinion of Randy the Truck Driver, who's never so much as seen a college. He is perfectly willing to deny the significance of his lack of personal accreditation, however. Why? Because he's a big fat fucking egotist.

Sadly we get this a lot in AI. I've lost count of the number of cranks who've told me 'Since no one has solved the whole AGI problem yet, studying the field is worthless. There can't be anything to learn from other people's failures. I am better off striking out on my own without my thinking being polluted by your broken paradigms'. The concept of a relevant education being necessary but not sufficient is not one that can penetrate their wall of ego-protecting delusion.

[Il Saggiatore]

The plasma universe folk get involved in regular debates on the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forums. There is not much point in debating them, since as they see it the facts are quite clear, but still, many people continue to make the attempt.

You should see how some of the Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe proponents whine about recent restrictions on the debates (basically the new rules say: "Tell us something we haven't heard before.").

The sad irony is that the PC/EU proponents keep claiming that their ideas are based on mainstream science (like Maxwell's equations), but they obviously don't understand it.

And after thirty years, they main authors of these "theories" have not come up with decent quantitative models that agree with the observations. It didn't take that long to develop Quantum Mechanics.

On the other hand, for lurking enthusiasts they can provide an exciting bevy of issues and problems to search out in textbooks and pre-prints.

I hope so. Otherwise the debates would be a waste of time and effort.

[ClaysGhost]

[quote="metavac"]I'd guess debates over relatively uncontroversial cosmology are fruitless exercises in Google-fu.[/url]

I don't know, some of the websites they come out with have their own comedy charm.