Electric Universe Model.,

[Nereid]

WOW!!! EU expert in a few posts!!

Sounds good Nereid, list the actual specifics you'd like to know and i'll see what I can come up with, could be fun.

OK, will do.

Be sure to state only what you have confidence in your ability to defend, against questions and challenges.

Would it also be fair if you could answer some of my questions about the standard model? Is this the model you proscribe too??

Please read the BAUT rules again, esp the one on this ATM section.

This thread is about the Electric Universe idea.

It is a place for proponents of that idea to make claims, and defend those claims against challenges.

If you would like to ask questions about anything in (mainstream) astronomy, BAUT has a Q&A section set up for just that purpose (be sure, though, to ask questions, and not promote the EU idea) - this thread is not the place for such questions (nor is it the place to engage in bashing mainsteam theories - once you've established the consistency of the EU idea, quantitatively, with observations, you may then - and only then - comment on how much better this idea accounts for the observations than mainstream theories. Be warned though, no previous EU proponent has been able to present a quantitative case that withstood even mild questioning).

[Nereid]

Sounds good Nereid, list the actual specifics you'd like to know and i'll see what I can come up with, could be fun.

sol88: "The space shuttle was caught by a discharge that it could not sustain into EDM territory because it kinda blew up instead.

• 1) How big was the discharge (an OOM range will do)?
• 2) What is "EDM territory"?

Open questions, from this post:

• 3) According to the EU idea, how much charge would [a spacecraft sent out past Pluto then returned at a steep angle to the ecliptic over the sun poles at around the same speed as a comet] gain?
• 4) What would be the mechanisms for it to gain such charge?
• 5) In the EU idea, what - quantitatively - are the mechanisms for X-rays to be "produced by icy,dirty,fluffy comets"?
• 6) What is the relationship between the inputs and the X-ray emission (at the OOM level), in the EU idea?

I note that your post did not answer either of these last two questions.

For the record (my bold):
Nereid: "you arrived at the conclusion that you've just presented without any understanding of the theory [...] - other than at the handwaving level?"
sol88: "You are crystal clear but to say I have no understanding is a bit rich, sure i might not be able to do complicated mathematical calculations, OOM estimates, etc so on and so forth"

[sol88]

"The space shuttle was caught by a discharge that it could not sustain into EDM territory because it kinda blew up instead.

* 1) How big was the discharge (an OOM range will do)?
* 2) What is "EDM territory"?

1) Unfortunately my multimeter was not hooked up to the shuttle at the time, but best guess would be it was enough to compromise the shuttle's integrity. For me to determine OOM then I'd need a shuttle and some big arse electrical power to see how much current would be needed to compromise the shuttle's structure, but chances of that??? NASA state it was a camera wobble/artifact, then why was the shuttles ion trail nice and crisp?? Would they lie

2) EDM territory, in my mind, is if the body is not charge equalized or disintegrates due to electrical stress then it will enter the arc discharge mode and if kept discharging for some time then we would see evidence of electrical arcing scars/EDM on the body. Unfortunately this evidence was destroyed along with the shuttle and crew, so we will never know will we??

Open questions, from this post:

* 3) According to the EU idea, how much charge would [a spacecraft sent out past Pluto then returned at a steep angle to the ecliptic over the sun poles at around the same speed as a comet] gain?
* 4) What would be the mechanisms for it to gain such charge?
* 5) In the EU idea, what - quantitatively - are the mechanisms for X-rays to be "produced by icy,dirty,fluffy comets"?
* 6) What is the relationship between the inputs and the X-ray emission (at the OOM level), in the EU idea?

I'll start with the easy stuff first,

5) Haven’t yet read Icy comets, volcanoes etc produce X-rays in the EU model , how could they??
6) The relationship between inputs and X-ray emissions?? More input= more X-rays, No??
3,4) With no figures or equations it'd just be a theoretical experiment, would you like to hear it anyway or should I not bother?

Are the question you asked considered answered? excepting #3 & 4.

My question too you is, what evidence would sway you? Is it only proved if a mathematical equation works out? Is there any piece of evidence that you would like to see proved either which way? In my mind the stardust experiment was almost the clincher.




Sol

[tusenfem]

tusenfem:
So are you one of the big boys then? No where in your post did it say you were surprised, but seems most other experts are

I would not call myself one of the "big boys", I am just a research scientist on Galileo (Jupiter), Cluster, Double Star, Venus Express. Having a nice job at the Space Research Institute of the Austrian Acacemy of Sciences

So it stands then "air bubbles" made the experiment fail oh well like I said maybe next time they'll get it right

And to answer your question, i know squat (on paper), but a can smell ** when someone tries to feed it to you.

So that will leave us at an impasse, no?

Sol

I love it when a lay person is able to smell **, but usually it is not his/her own that is smelled. You have every right to doubt the official reason for the failure of the tether experiment. But you yourself said:

I'm no expert, but even I would have thought about the inclusion of air bubbles at 1 atmosphere

which means you believed the explanation and you would have thought of it yourself. Or were you just BSing?

[Nereid]

"The space shuttle was caught by a discharge that it could not sustain into EDM territory because it kinda blew up instead.

* 1) How big was the discharge (an OOM range will do)?
* 2) What is "EDM territory"?

1) Unfortunately my multimeter was not hooked up to the shuttle at the time, but best guess would be it was enough to compromise the shuttle's integrity. For me to determine OOM then I'd need a shuttle and some big arse electrical power to see how much current would be needed to compromise the shuttle's structure, but chances of that??? NASA state it was a camera wobble/artifact, then why was the shuttles ion trail nice and crisp?? Would they lie

Your statement was unambiguous ("The space shuttle was caught by a discharge that it could not sustain"; not "might have been caught", etc). Your answer was less certain ("best guess would be").

Is that the best answer you can give?

2) EDM territory, in my mind, is if the body is not charge equalized or disintegrates due to electrical stress then it will enter the arc discharge mode and if kept discharging for some time then we would see evidence of electrical arcing scars/EDM on the body.

For an object like the shuttle, in what (charge-time) region of parameter-space would the shuttle "disintigrate due to electrical stress"?

Unfortunately this evidence was destroyed along with the shuttle and crew, so we will never know will we??

Are you saying there is no way, even in principle, that your claim could be tested?

More generally:
7) In the EU idea, how did the shuttle acquire that charge?

Open questions, from this post:

* 3) According to the EU idea, how much charge would [a spacecraft sent out past Pluto then returned at a steep angle to the ecliptic over the sun poles at around the same speed as a comet] gain?
* 4) What would be the mechanisms for it to gain such charge?
* 5) In the EU idea, what - quantitatively - are the mechanisms for X-rays to be "produced by icy,dirty,fluffy comets"?
* 6) What is the relationship between the inputs and the X-ray emission (at the OOM level), in the EU idea?

I'll start with the easy stuff first,

5) Haven’t yet read Icy comets, volcanoes etc produce X-rays in the EU model , how could they??

In the EU idea, what - quantitatively - are the mechanisms by which comets produce X-rays? Please be sure to read the relevants parts of this thread, so that you answer does not merely repeat what has been already posted here*

6) The relationship between inputs and X-ray emissions?? More input= more X-rays, No??

Please quantify this answer:

• In terms of the EU idea, what are the key inputs which produce X-rays in/from comets? (same question as 5)
• Using equations, math, numbers and stuff, describe the relationship between these key inputs and the X-ray emission.

3,4) With no figures or equations it'd just be a theoretical experiment, would you like to hear it anyway or should I not bother?

Just so that I'm quite clear then: what, specifically, are you claiming (in terms of the EU idea)?

Are the question you asked considered answered? excepting #3 & 4.

No (see above).

My question too you is, what evidence would sway you? Is it only proved if a mathematical equation works out? Is there any piece of evidence that you would like to see proved either which way?

Here are some examples:

• Data from instruments on space probes that is consistent with the space densities of charges, currents, etc which EU proponents claim (for both the IPM and ISM).
• At least OOM estimates of the observables, produced by consistent application of the physics which EU proponents claims is at the heart of their idea.

In terms of order, the second must come first - without such estimates, the EU idea is not capable of being tested.

In my mind the stardust experiment was almost the clincher.

What was it 'almost the clincher' for?

*the requirement is similar to that outlined in my post here.

[sol88]

tusenfem:

I would not call myself one of the "big boys", I am just a research scientist on Galileo (Jupiter), Cluster, Double Star, Venus Express. Having a nice job at the Space Research Institute of the Austrian Acacemy of Sciences

Cool, bet ya Cluster & Double star will find some "surprises" Mmm.. seems they already have

I'm am very envious, you must be very excited at what this data will show. You may be our "inside" source or would you be bound by some "secret" disclosure law??

I love it when a lay person is able to smell **, but usually it is not his/her own that is smelled. You have every right to doubt the official reason for the failure of the tether experiment. But you yourself said:

Quote:
I'm no expert, but even I would have thought about the inclusion of air bubbles at 1 atmosphere

Which means you believed the explanation and you would have thought of it yourself. Or were you just BSing?

But I might of tested a bit in a vacuum chamber, simulating the expected currents and pressures.

[Tim Thompson]

Oh, my. 69 pages, 2045 messages (will this be 2046?), 51,635 "looks", and what has this thread accomplished? Well, comets have bright spots & spacecraft pick up a charge in the solar wind. Therefore, everything we ever knew about physics is all wrong. Who'd have thunk it?

[korjik]

tusenfem:


Cool, bet ya Cluster & Double star will find some "surprises" Mmm.. seems they already have

I'm am very envious, you must be very excited at what this data will show. You may be our "inside" source or would you be bound by some "secret" disclosure law??



But I might of tested a bit in a vacuum chamber, simulating the expected currents and pressures.

The link isnt that suprising, just measured for the first time. Besides, I am pretty sure I heared about it a year ago.

It is impossible to get to space vaccum conditions on Earth, especially with something like a spacecraft.

[sol88]

To put up an agument for the EU/EC/ES theory, hows about one of the mainstream mob letting me on the secret of how an impact into a dirtysnowball produced X-ray's? with water as one of the main ingredients

Article today from Universe Today:

Swift observations show that the comet grew brighter and brighter in X-ray light after the impact, with the X-ray outburst lasting a total of 12 days.

Grew brighter and brighter and 12 days Mmm....

The X-ray power output depends on both the water production rate from the comet and the flux of subatomic particles streaming out of the Sun as the solar wind. Using data from the ACE satellite, which constantly monitors the solar wind, the Swift team managed to calculate the solar wind flux at the comet during the X-ray outburst.

X-Ray,Power output,Water production,Particle Fux and Streaming all sound like terms more at home in the EU/EC/ES theory

How about instead of a complicated mathematical equation we just swap a few words around i.e.

The X-ray power output and OH ion production, depends on both the comets charge and the flow rate of positive plasma particles streaming out of the Sun as the solar wind. Using data from the ACE satellite, which constantly monitors the solar wind, the Swift team managed to calculate the solar wind flux at the comet during the X-ray outburst.

Whys that harder to hypothesize than the current model

Although the impact was observed across the electromagnetic spectrum, most of what was seen was directly attributable to the impact explosion. After 5 days, optical observations showed that the comet was indistinguishable from its state prior to the collision. This was in stark contrast to the X-ray observations.

How would you interpret that?

"A collision such as Deep Impact can cause an outburst, but apparently something rather different from the norm can also happen," said Dr. Willingale. "Most of the water seen in X-rays came out slowly, possibly in the form of ice-covered dust grains."

How would a energetic particle slowly come from icy dust grains, dirty ice grains or any other way you’d like to say it.

I await your coment on it mainstreamers, especialy Nereid and Tusenfem

The evidence strongly pionts in the favour of the EU/EC/ES

Deep Impact Caused a Great Gush of Water Vapour

Sol

[Nereid]

To put up an agument for the EU/EC/ES theory, hows about one of the mainstream mob letting me on the secret of how an impact into a dirtysnowball produced X-ray's? with water as one of the main ingredients

Article today from Universe Today:



Grew brighter and brighter and 12 days Mmm....



X-Ray,Power output,Water production,Particle Fux and Streaming all sound like terms more at home in the EU/EC/ES theory

How about instead of a complicated mathematical equation we just swap a few words around i.e.

The X-ray power output and OH ion production, depends on both the comets charge and the flow rate of positive plasma particles streaming out of the Sun as the solar wind. Using data from the ACE satellite, which constantly monitors the solar wind, the Swift team managed to calculate the solar wind flux at the comet during the X-ray outburst.

Whys that harder to hypothesize than the current model



How would you interpret that?



How would a energetic particle slowly come from icy dust grains, dirty ice grains or any other way you’d like to say it.

I await your coment on it mainstreamers, especialy Nereid and Tusenfem

The evidence strongly pionts in the favour of the EU/EC/ES

Deep Impact Caused a Great Gush of Water Vapour

Sol

You've been here a while now sol88, so I think it's reasonable to expect that you will have grasped how this ATM section of BAUT works.

Should you wish to propose EU/PC/PU claims, here in this thread, you are welcome to do so. Having made such claims, you are required to answer all direct, pertinent questions concerning your claims (as posted) in a timely manner (failure to do so will result in first a warning, and later suspension of your BAUT membership).

Should you wish to ask questions about how any particular astronomical phenomena, observations, etc are understood/interpreted/explained/etc within the mainstream community, you are welcome to start threads in BAUT's Q&A section.

In this post, you were asked (again) several direct, pertinent questions concerning your EU/PU/PC claims. You have not answered them yet. Please do so, within the next 4 days.

(note that you may choose to retract your claims, or answer "I don't know"/"I cannot answer"/(or similar), or "It will take me {time} to get an answer" (or similar), etc.)

[biknewb]

"A collision such as Deep Impact can cause an outburst, but apparently something rather different from the norm can also happen," said Dr. Willingale.

Something odd strikes me, reading about the norm for impact outbursts. AFAIK there has been 1 impact, so the effect of this one impact constitutes the norm. The rest is speculation.

regards

[Tim Thompson]

On the matter of water observed in the aftermath of deepimpact, see my post #18 from the Universe Today story. That discussion should probably move here.

[ATKINS]

Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps the mods could move the whole of the posts from the Universe Today story thead here? The belated extrapolation of "250 000 tonnes of water vapour" from observed intense X-ray activity, in an apparent attempt to rescue the "dirty snowball model", certainly deserves further comment here.

[sol88]

Nereid

Maybe time I think to open a sub forum on the EU/ES/EC theory for people to discuss the evidence being observed without having to show a full page of equations and OOM's for an as yet untested explanation??

The non-EU proponents will always be able to make the observed facts "fit" the theory. the shackle's of trying to think inside the mainstream framework is becoming trying

I would love to answer your questions HERE but have neither the smarts nor the data to be able to "convince" you that something different to the mainstream ideas, is happening. This thread has for the most part run it's course, if these are the arguments used.

Ban me if that’s what the rules recommend, but that would make it the strangest forum I've participated on

Just think, BAUT forum's could be on the cutting edge for some ideas on this theory :surprised

Open space would be a good way I've sorting the fairy tale elements of the EU theory from some of the glaring truths then we could start making predictions on some of the upcoming space experiments, maybe even give 'em a hand.

Sol

[upriver]

"However, this new study shows that the auroras located polewards of the main ovals are directly linked to the strength with which the solar wind is blowing, which means that Earth-like processes are causing these polar auroras. Surprisingly, we've also found that the main oval also shows a direct correlation to solar wind strength, which is completely the opposite result to the one we were expecting from our predictions."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0604/05auroras/

Its a cry for help, since their model has failed.

And I would say that is a prediction from the EU model.
And dont ask me for a passport and papers because that is pretty obvious if you have been paying attention.


On another note.
GRBs. The latest model has 2 neutron stars crashing into each other.
Now at the rate of 1 GRB a day how many supernovas or is it novas does it take to keep up? Was there a supernova epoch? Or was it magnatars.....
or black hole swallowing a large star.....

One word; z-pinch. Intense magnetic fields. Element enrichment.

tusenfem, if you could simulate a big pinch, I wonder if it would look like a GRB.

[Tim Thompson]

A query by Ian Tresman, transferred from the "Deep Impact Caused a Great Gush of Water Vapour" thread. I put it here lest I violate the rules of the other part of the forum, by continuing an ATM discussion there.

Any idea whether it mentions the production of x-rays from the acceleration of electrons through double layers, and their subsquent constriction as they enter a z-pinch (standard peer-reviewed plasma physics [ref])?

The "it" in Ian's query is my reference as follows:

X-Ray and extreme ultraviolet emissions from comets
Krasnopolsky, Greenwood & Stancil
Space Science Reviews 113(3): 271-374, August 2004
Abstract: There is significant progress in the observations, theory, and understanding of the x-ray and EUV emissions from comets since their discovery in 1996. That discovery was so puzzling because comets appear to be more efficient emitters of x-rays than the Moon by a factor of 80 000. The detected emissions are general properties of comets and have been currently detected and analyzed in thirteen comets from five orbiting observatories. The observational studies before 2000 were based on x-ray cameras and low resolution (E/deltaE ≈ 1.5-3) instruments and focused on the morphology of xrays, their correlations with gas and dust productions in comets and with the solar x-rays and the solar wind. Even those observations made it possible to choose uniquely charge exchange between the solar wind heavy ions and cometary neutrals as the main excitation process. The recently published spectra are of much better quality and result in the identification of the emissions of the multiply charged ions of O, C, Ne, Mg, and Si which are brought to comets by the solar wind. The observed spectra have been used to study the solar wind composition and its variations. Theoretical analyses of x-ray and EUV photon excitation in comets by charge exchange, scattering of the solar photons by attogram dust particles, energetic electron impact and bremsstrahlung, collisions between cometary and interplanetary dust, and solar x-ray scattering and fluorescence in comets have been made. These analyses confirm charge exchange as the main excitation mechanism, which is responsible for more than 90% of the observed emission, while each of the other processes is limited to a few percent or less. The theory of charge exchange and different methods of calculation for charge exchange are considered. Laboratory studies of charge exchange relevant to the conditions in comets are reviewed. Total and state-selective cross sections of charge exchange measured in the laboratory are tabulated. Simulations of synthetic spectra of charge exchange in comets are discussed. X-ray and EUV emissions from comets are related to different disciplines and fields such as cometary physics, fundamental physics, x-rays spectroscopy, and space physics.

The constant discussion of double layers is one of the things which make the EU model look so bad. That's because the only thing that the EU proponents actually know about double layers is that they happen, but nothing more. So, they blithely assume that double layers must be everywhere. What they really need to do is show some good physical reason why there should be double layers anywhere near a comet.

Here is a reference that does the study that the EU "scientists" have never done:

Dust-acoustic double layers - Ion inertial effects
Richard Mace & Manfred Hellberg
Planetary and Space Science 41(3): 235-244, March 1993
Abstract: Space and astrophysical plasmas often comprise a number of massive ion components in addition to a tenuous, negatively charged dust component and an electron component. Stationary electrostatic double layers in a dusty plasma are investigated in a model treating the ion components as Boltzmann-distributed (inertialess) fluids. On comparison with the inertialess theory, one finds considerably reduced double layer existence parameter regimes. Significantly, highly nonlinear double layers are ruled out when ion inertia is incorporated. However, in the restricted parameter regimes in which the inertial theory predicts double layers for small ion/dust mass ratios (about 10^-15 - 10^-8) there is good qualitative agreement with inertialess theory. The reasons for these, and other discrepancies and similarities, are discussed.

In this paper the authors use more complete physics in analyzing the existence of electrostatic double layers in dusty plasmas, as applied to comets. They find that the previous, simpler models, overestimate the probability that a double layer can form. It turns out that the double layers that can form are also limited to relatively weak potential differences. So it does not look like one should expect double layers to be significant in a cometary environment.

The paper by Krasnopolsky, Greenwood & Stancil does not mention double layers, but the reason is that they are outside the scope of the paper, which is a study of charge exchange reactions. Double layers were assumed to exist, and accelerate electrons to charge the dust in Hill & Mendis, 1980. But the study of dusty plasmas by Mendis & Rosenberg, 1994, does not mention double layers at all (and they continue to use inertialess models in studying wave instabilities).

I don't see any papers which challenge the conclusion of Mace & Hellberg. Double layers in dusty, cometary plasmas are inhibited by the inertia of the heavy ions in the solar wind. Those that do form are relatively weak, and unlikely to accelerate electrons to produce X-ray emission.

But it also needs to be pointed out that the X-ray emission we see is readily explained by physics that does not include double layers. We already know about charge exchange from the the cited study by Krasnopolsky, Greenwood & Stancil. We know that X-rays are generated by a cometary bow shock (Wegmann & Dennerl, 2005). And we know that X-rays can be generated by charging the surface of the comet (Djuric, et al., 2005). So why do we need double layers to explain anything? How do you overcome the limitations imposed by Mace & Hellberg? And, finally, keep the point in mind that double layers could never explain line emission, only bremsstrahlung. Double layers at comets appear to be a losing proposition for the EU.

[iantresman]

A query by Ian Tresman, transferred from the "Deep Impact Caused a Great Gush of Water Vapour" thread. I put it here lest I violate the rules of the other part of the forum, by continuing an ATM discussion there.

Many thanks for the feedback Tim. I am somewhat confused as to why this part of the discussion appears in the ATM section. We are not discussing the Electric Universe, but astrophysical plasmas, part of the mainstream, fully peer-reviewed, and verifiable literature, as evidenced by Tim's citations.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[iseasons]

hi guys
first post here
looking about there is a co-relation with another line of thought.

there is always a possibility of light behaving as a ship floating on water and having a greater variety of guises than thought.
looking at a ship on water the floatation of the particles relies on the arraingement of the particles..the more volume , the greater the bouyancy.
in order for the ship to sink the same number of molecules simply has to become dender.
in considering light travelling from a distant star we should also expect that the light travels this distance differently to our perceptions.But on arriving in our atmosphere it must collaborate in order to arrive at the surface.
the reason for this is the same as the ship floating or sinking.....if light retains the loose arraingement that creates a dark sky at night , then we could see nothing since it could not penetrate anything larger than itself.....meaning that our atmosphere would stop it in it's tracks because it could not "sink"
so the electric universe is correct but relative to the interaction of the medium in which it finds itself.
light hitting a surface changes to heat but tries to survive and conserve itself and so we see the reflection to the degree that it is successful.
cheers
iseason

[Zero Signal]

I can't believe this thread is still around after over two years. I posted in it back in January of '05 before the BA/UT forum merger (I think it's on page 26). My main point in it and in a similar thread I started on the BABB nearly three years ago is the simple fact that the Electric Star "theory" cannot explain the pattern of stars seen on the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram. Since nobody ever posted a rebuttal, I'll repost my main points again.

First off, let's start off by how the luminosity of a star can be determined by its surface temperature and average radius by the following formula:

L = 4πr²σT⁴

Now for certain properties of electric stars stated by ES proponent Don Scott:

"In the ES model the important variable is: current density (Amps/sq m) at the star's photospheric surface. If a star's current density increases, the arc discharges on its surface (photospheric granules) get hotter, change color (away from red, toward blue), and get brighter. The absolute luminosity of a star, therefore, depends on two main variables: current density at its effective surface, and its size (the star's diameter)."

"[A star's] position on the HR diagram depends only on their size and on the electrical stress they are experiencing."

"In the Electric Star hypothesis, there is no reason to attribute youth to one spectral type over another. We conclude that a star's location on the HR diagram only depends on its size and the electric current density it is presently experiencing. If, for whatever reason, the strength of that current density should change, then the star will change its position on the HR diagram - perhaps, like FG Sagittae, abruptly. Otherwise, no movement from one place to another on that plot is to be expected. And its age remains indeterminate regardless of its mass or spectral type. This is disquieting in the sense that we are now confronted by the knowledge that our own Sun's future is not as certain as is predicted by mainstream astronomy. We cannot know whether the Birkeland current presently powering our Sun will increase or decrease, nor how long it will be before it does so."

Given these caveats, any individual star could potentially have any possible value of r and T, at least within the range of values observed in nature (0.01 to 1000+ r_sun and 2500 to 50,000 °K). For example, a star of one solar radii could be as hot as a spectral class O star, or as cool as an M star, since the electrical current density at its surface could drastically and abruptly change. After all, this is how Scott proposes that FG Sagittae changed from a class B to a class K star over the last 50 or so years. There is no reason to presume that a star of a given radius cannot have any possible amount of current density at its surface and thus any temperature. Thus, stars of a given radius should have more or less random luminosities — that is, in the stellar luminosity-radius-temperature law given earlier, a star of a given value of r can have any level of current density and thus any value of T. If this is true, then there should not be any particular pattern of stars on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.

However, this is simply not the case in nature. Stars of a particular radius are restricted to certain temperature, and vice versa. For example, stars of one solar radius are restricted to spectral class G, and IIRC late F and early K. They are never found in spectral classes O, B, A, or M. Yet according to the Electric Star "theory", a star with the same radius as the Sun (or any other star for that matter) could potentially become much hotter or cooler if the photospheric current density changed enough. The absence of these extremely hot or cool solar-radius stars is striking. We can see this with other main sequence stars as well. The trend in the main sequence is that the larger the star, the hotter it is. For example, stars with one-half to a tenth the radius of the Sun are all much cooler than the Sun. There are no hot stars within that range of radii. OTOH main sequence stars in the hotter spectral classes are all much larger than the Sun.

This restriction of stars to be limited to certain values of temperature for a given radius is very noticeable on the H-R Diagram. For example, there are two very pronounced gaps. One is between main sequence stars and giant stars in spectral classes K and M. The other is between white dwarfs and main sequence stars, with the gap being most pronounced between O-B main sequencers and white dwarfs of comparable temperature. Given the way stars are supposed to evolve if they are electrically powered, it is odd that there aren't at least a few stars between these gaps. There should be stars in spectral classes O, B, and A with radii between what we find on the main sequence and on the white dwarf branch. There aren't. There should be stars in spectral class M between those of red dwarfs and red giants. There aren't any. Yet there should be in the Electric Star theory.

The arrangement of stars on the H-R diagram is completely inexplicable in the Electric Star scenario. It is at a complete loss to explain any of the HRD's features, especially the aforementioned gaps. Until they can explain why there are no mid-range radius stars in those two gaps, then the ES "theory" will remain a complete failure, even if it did somehow overcome the other objections raised against it. After all, Scott said that "[A]ny viable model of the workings of a star must be consistent with [the HRD]. Is the Electric Sun (ES) model of how a star is powered consistent with the HR diagram? If it is not, then this would disprove the ES hypothesis." So until ES proponents can somehow explain how electrically-powered stars will reproduce the arrangement of stars on the HRD, then it stands as a falsified hypothesis on this basis alone.

Well, it's late and I'm tired and my back's killing me, so I'll post more on the subject of electric stars sometime later.

[biknewb]

Hi Zero signal
I remember getting your point the first time. The HR diagram is the observation. It is about time someone works this out.
You'll have to wait untill enough scientists start incorporating EU/ES ideas into their daily evaluations of data. So far there seems to be only blind pitiless indifference.

gerards regards

[papageno]

Since iantresman is back, I would like him to address my questions in post #1992.
Answers like "I have no evidence to support my claims" are acceptable.

[papageno]

"However, this new study shows that the auroras located polewards of the main ovals are directly linked to the strength with which the solar wind is blowing, which means that Earth-like processes are causing these polar auroras. Surprisingly, we've also found that the main oval also shows a direct correlation to solar wind strength, which is completely the opposite result to the one we were expecting from our predictions."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0604/05auroras/

Its a cry for help, since their model has failed.

I followed the link and found:
"Solar wind whips up auroral storms on Jupiter and Saturn".
And the paragraph you quoted begins with:

"Previous work by our group has shown that Jupiter's main auroral oval is not caused by the same type of processes that cause the Northern Lights on Earth."

So this new work about Jupiter has brought new information about its magnetosphere:

The results indicate that substantial energy is transferred from the solar wind to the planet and this may account for the puzzle as to why Jupiter is significantly warmer than it 'should' be. The new findings may affect theories surrounding other aspects of the Jovian magnetosphere, such as the mechanism by which the plasma originating from Io is lost from the system and determining the length of Jupiter's huge comet-like magnetic tail.

Also:

Her findings corroborate the theory that Saturn's auroras are caused by the explosive release of solar wind energy that is built up and stored in the planet's magnetic field.

(bolding mine)

I don't hear any cry for help, just normal research: more experimental data to test and refine current models.

And I would say that is a prediction from the EU model.

And where is the prediction about auroras on Jupiter?

[papageno]

You'll have to wait untill enough scientists start incorporating EU/ES ideas into their daily evaluations of data. So far there seems to be only blind pitiless indifference.

That's not correct.
EU/PC proponents claim to base their ideas on the Theories of Electrodynamics and Plasma Physics.
If you have a look at any modern text about Astrophysics, you can see that Plasma Physics is an important component, especially when dealing with stars.

[biknewb]

That's not correct.
EU/PC proponents claim to base their ideas on the Theories of Electrodynamics and Plasma Physics.
If you have a look at any modern text about Astrophysics, you can see that Plasma Physics is an important component, especially when dealing with stars.

Good

[iantresman]

Since iantresman is back, I would like him to address my questions in post #1992.
[..]
So, where are the electric discharges causing jets of material, such as in EDM?

• Objects charge in a plasma, such as spacecraft [Ref], the Moon [Ref] and comets [Ref].
• Dust on such objects also charges, resulting in its levitation [Ref], plumes [Ref] and fountains [Ref].

It seems reasonable to assume that some cometary dust is charged and contributes to a comet's tail.

Is this electrical discharge machining (EDM)? I think it is similar enough, though in standard EDM, heat, rather than electrostatic charging does most of the machining. Doesn't electrode wear from electrolysis demonstrates that you don't need high temperature for ions to erode a surface.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[papageno]

So, where are the electric discharges causing jets of material, such as in EDM?

• Objects charge in a plasma, such as spacecraft [Ref], the Moon [Ref] and comets [Ref].
• Dust on such objects also charges, resulting in its levitation [Ref], plumes [Ref] and fountains [Ref].

First, my questions were about the references you provided in the post I was responding to. You are supposed to give specific explanations showing how those references are relevant to the discussion and how they support your claims.
Instead of doing this, you dodged the questions and come up with another list of references without showing how they are relevant.
So, when are you going to show us how those references are relevant?

Second, the only reference about comets, has this abstract:

The paper demonstrates that a water-dominated cometary nucleus is not shielded from solar UV radiation or solar wind by protective atmospheres beyond a heliocentric distance of 5 AU. It is also shown that submicron dust particles can be electrostatically levitated and blown off the cometary surface. An upper limit on the total mass that can be lost from the sunlit hemisphere is derived using two solar wind models, and the dust mantle erosion is estimated at 5-12 cm. It is noted that the erosion is comparable to the mass of dust blown off a typical medium bright comet by the viscous drag of the sublimating gases during perihelium passage between 3.0 and 0.5 AU, and it is therefore proposed, that the surface dust blow-off be included in the current balance equation.

Now, point us to the exact spot where this paper shows that electric discharges (not levitation) produce jets of material.

It seems reasonable to assume that some cometary dust is charged and contributes to a comet's tail.

And what does this have to do with the EDM idea.
After all, you claimed that electric arcs are responsible for cometary jets.
Is this yet another case of irrelevant reference?

Is this electrical discharge machining (EDM)? I think it is similar enough, though in standard EDM, heat, rather than electrostatic charging does most of the machining.

No electric arcs, no EDM.
I already pointed out that levitation is not similar enough to EDM.

Doesn't electrode wear from electrolysis demonstrates that you don't need high temperature for ions to erode a surface.

So?
Who ever said that high temperatures are needed to erode a surface (see the Grand Canyon)?
You are simply dodging the questions.

[Tim Thompson]

No electric arcs, no EDM.

In the past EU discussions I have had, "electrical discharge machining" has invariably referred to craters, rilles, and other substantial surface features, being the result of "machining" by extremely large & powerful lightning or arc discharges. Anything as wimpy as "levitation" has never been mentioned in that respect until now. Personally, I reject the notion that anyone can pretend that levitation has anything at all to do with EDM, they are not even vaguely similar concepts.

[Tim Thompson]

Many thanks for the feedback Tim. I am somewhat confused as to why this part of the discussion appears in the ATM section.

I may have been overly cautious. Double layers are certainly a standard concept in plasma physics, but past experience tells me that once they come into the conversation, an ATM discussion can't be far away. Hence my desire to avoid the wrath of fastidious moderators. Double layers are commonly misused & abused by EU fans, who assume without reason that they are literally "everywhere". I find it a curious double-standard, since that kind of unwarranted assumption from a "mainstream" scientist would be severly castigated by the EUers, who do the very same thing.

Here is another reference for Deep Impact fans. This one follows in the same vein, of showing that observation supports the presence of water at comets, contrary to some EU claims.

Detection of water ice grains after the DEEP IMPACT onto Comet 9P/Tempel 1
R. Schulz, et al.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 448(3): L53-L56, March IV 2006
Abstract:
Context. Icy grains in the inner coma of a comet may play an important role in the energy balance and in the production of certain gas coma species. Their existence has therefore been assumed repeatedly to explain a variety of observed phenomena. However, owing to their extremely short life time no evidence for the presence of icy grains had been found in any active comet close to the Sun.
Aims. We observed Comet 9P/Tempel 1 during the Deep Impact mission to look for phenomena induced by the impact.
Methods. The comet was observed with the XMM-Newton Observatory. We used the EPIC camera for X-ray imaging and the Optical Monitor for monitoring in the ultraviolet and visible spectral range.
Results. An outburst of the comet nucleus was observed as a result of the impact and the evolution of the coma was monitored in gas and dust. Our observations led to the first detection of icy grains in a comet at 1.5 AU from the Sun.
Conclusions. We showed for the first time that the material ejected from the nucleus of a comet contains icy grains, even at small heliocentric distance.

The paper itself is not available online, without a subscription to A&A. The presence of rapidly disintegrating water ice grains is inferred from a combination of optical, UV & X-ray spectroscopy. The observations made here are consistent with pre-impact predictions, that ice grains would be liberated, and with earlier infrared evidence of water ice grains at Comet Hale-Bopp.

Coupled with the X-ray observations yet to be published by Willingale's team, the observational evidence here, and at Hale-Bopp, certainly support the standard models of comet structure & behavior.

[Tim Thompson]

It seems reasonable to assume that some cometary dust is charged and contributes to a comet's tail.

It is reasonable. It is also part of the standard models of comets. It is a common tactic of the EU proponent(s) to point out every reference to plasma physics, or electromagnetism, as if it is a point in their favor. But we all know, or should know, that the standard models incorporate considerable levels of plasma physics & electromagnetism.

Constantly referencing aspects of physics that do not differentiate between the EU and standard models does nothing but confuse the issue, go in circles, and create threads with 2,067 posts and no conclusions.

• What is it that differentiates the EU from standard models?
• What do we know about comets that is hard, or impossible, to explain with standard models, but easier in the EU context?
• What do we know about the sun & stars that is hard, or impossible, to explain with standard models, but easier in the EU context?
• What do we know about galaxies that is hard, or impossible, to explain with standard models, but easier in the EU context?
• What do we know about plasma physics that is hard, or impossible, to explain with standard models, but easier in the EU context?

Maybe I have missed something along the way, but I have seen very little along the lines of answering questions like this, which seem fundamental to me. There was a claim that comets did not have the water that standard models expect, but observations of comets do not support that claim. But, that claim, even if it held up, only works against the standard models, but says nothing about the EU model. Another typical ATM tactic is the old line that if your theory is weak, mine must be strong. But it does not work that way. Just because one theory is wrong, does not make another theory right.

Personally, I see nothing at all about the EU that is not a matter of speculation. I see nothing supported by reasonable inference from fact or observation. I do see one long train of unwarranted assumptions, and pure speculation, that has been turned into a long thread with no end in sight, and no hope of reaching anything like a reasonable conclusion about anything, save perhaps concluding that the EU is bereft of a scientific foundation.

[tusenfem]

Wowie! the discussion is still going on, and after coming back from Vienna visiting the EGU general assembly, I see I am called for answers. But now it is saturday, a quarter to midnight, and I am watching blade II, so no time for answers, but I will get to it, tomorrow or in the week.

Tuesday, Venus Express arrives at its Venus orbit. Exciting!