Electric Universe thread - the "Table of Contents"

[Nereid]

The Electric Universe model., thread is now closed.

An EU proponent may start a new thread, on one, specific EU topic (per thread), to permit focussed discussion.

The guidelines for the thread starter are:

* State whether the EU idea includes only mainstream physics (e.g. plasma physics, classical electromagnetism), or includes at least some new physics. If in doubt, assume the latter.

* If the EU idea has a (public) history, provide a succinct summary of its antecedents, and where one can read the prior work done on it.

* If the EU idea is chacterised as a theory, or a model (or includes these), provide references to (publicly available) material which details the theory or model (doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed publication, though that would be nice).

* If the EU idea is not quantitative (maths, OOM, numbers, equations, etc), provide a summary of how the idea could be tested, in principle, using today's technology.

To help anyone wishing to quickly find relevant EU material, in the very long Electric Universe model., thread, I have started this thread.

The purpose is to collect link summaries - links to pages, or posts, in the EU thread, where specific topics within the EU idea are discussed, together with a very brief summary of the material.

For example (no particular order; certainly not an exhaustive list):

• magnetic slinky
• Electric Sun (current diagram)
• Electric Sun (neutrinos)
• Electric Sun (HR diagram)
• electric comet (Thornhill's Tempel-1 'predictions')
• Perrat on quasars and radio galaxies
• application of Alfven's work to astronomical observations
• neutron stars

To suit its purpose, this thread should be no longer than 2 pages (60 posts).

[Tim Thompson]

• Perrat on quasars and radio galaxies

I would like to suggest that in any further discussions, a clear distinction has to be made between Electric Universe (EU) and Plasma Cosmology (PC). The latter is certainly much more "mainstream" than is the former. Obviously, there is a great deal of commonality. But during the EU discussions I often had the experience of asking a question about EU, and getting an answer about PC. Eventually, the two seem to get so intertwined one cannot distinguish between them.

We know that Perrat is a proponent of the PC, but is he also a proponent of EU? His discussion of quasars & radio galaxies is PC, but is this a point where PC & EU are in concordance? We need to distinguish between PC & EU. We don't need to discuss this now, here in this thread, and probably should not. But in any new thread started as per instructions given here by Nereid, that distinction should be made, to the extent that it can be made.

[iantresman]

I would like to suggest that in any further discussions, a clear distinction has to be made between Electric Universe (EU) and Plasma Cosmology (PC).

The Electric Universe features these differentiating concepts:

• Electrically powered stars
• Electrical discharge machining of cosmic bodies
• Increased cosmic electrical activity in the past

The Electric Universe fully supports Hannes Alfvén's "Plasma Universe", which:

• Promotes the importance of electricity (as well as magnetism), in cosmic plasmas
• Highlights the importances of (a) Double layers (b) the pinch effect (c) Cellularisation of plasmas (d) Critical ionization velocity (e) Cosmic electric circuits
• Favours an empirical approach
• Promotes a Plasma Cosmology based on the Plasma Universe

Additionally,

• Peratt has never endorsed the Electric Universe approach.
• There are currently no peer-reviewed papers on the Electric Universe, whereas there are many on various aspects of the Plasma Universe
• There may be many aspects of the Plasma Universe that are well accepted in plasma science in certain contexts.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[P.Asmah]

There are more similarities than differences, nonetheless!

Some PC'ers, such as Perratt, support the idea of a more electrically active solar system in the past. See his paper on Petroglyphs -- Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...AntiquityZ.pdf

Alfven also hints at this, although neither go as far as Velikovsky in terms of catastrophic consequences

"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven

"And even if one regards the electric fields as merely another postulate, it has the great advantage that it is the one postulate which, in my view, renders all the others unnecessary." C. E. R Bruce, Electric Fields in Space, Penguin Science, 1968

[VanderL]

I think there were some interesting discussions in the last several pages of the EU thread. More focus is ok, but I have trouble classifying the different parts of the discussions into separate threads, for example these exchanges:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2289
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2326
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2331
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2354
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2355
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2362

What to do?

Cheers.

[VanderL]

I think there were some interesting discussions in the last several pages of the EU thread. More focus is ok, but I have trouble classifying the different parts of the discussions into separate threads, for example these exchanges:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2289
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2326
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2331
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2354
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2355
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2362

What to do?

Cheers.

Maybe a possibility is to re-open the EU thread restricted only to some unresolved discussions?

Cheers.

[upriver]

The purpose is to collect link summaries - links to pages, or posts, in the EU thread, where specific topics within the EU idea are discussed, together with a very brief summary of the material.

So I guess that means rereading(searching) the whole EU thread.
I think that would be good because I bet we might catch something that we missed before.

[upriver]

I want to post this to show what the difference is between EU and mainstream interpetation of jets.

EU thinks that jets are Birkeland currents with the spiral magnetic fields and that they have pinches in them.
We predict they will next have to figure out that the magnetic fields come from plasma motion(current flow).

Here is the mainstream view.

"The next question was, what is keeping this outpouring of material confined into narrow jets? Theoreticians suspected magnetic fields, and we now have found the first direct evidence that a magnetic field is confining such a jet," said Wouter Vlemmings, a Marie Curie Fellow working at the Jodrell Bank Observatory of the University of Manchester in England.

"Magnetic fields previously have been detected in jets emitted by quasars and protostars, but the evidence was not conclusive that the magnetic fields were actually confining the jets. These new VLBA observations now make that direct connection for the very first time," Vlemmings added.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19746

Now is this ok to post in this thread?
I liked being able to post EU interpetations of mainstream news.

[P.Asmah]

"Magnetic fields previously have been detected in jets emitted by quasars and protostars, but the evidence was not conclusive that the magnetic fields were actually confining the jets. These new VLBA observations now make that direct connection for the very first time," Vlemmings added.

They claim to make the direct connection for the first time! Yeah, right. At least they have caught onto the idea of magnetism playing a role, whereas before they used to talk in terms of 'cosmic hose pipes'.

Have they never heard of Alfven, Bruce, Birkeland, Perratt et al?

They will have to work hard to exclude electric currents (Plasma motions) from their ideas, but I suspect they'll do just that!

"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents." Hannes Alfven

[iantresman]

I want to post this to show what the difference is between EU and mainstream interpetation of jets.

EU thinks that jets are Birkeland currents with the spiral magnetic fields and that they have pinches in them.
We predict they will next have to figure out that the magnetic fields come from plasma motion(current flow).

Of course it is also the "Plasma Universe" view, which has peer reviewed paper on the subject in mainstream journals. In turn, it is based in standard plasma physics.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[Tim Thompson]

They claim to make the direct connection for the first time! Yeah, right. At least they have caught onto the idea of magnetism playing a role, whereas before they used to talk in terms of 'cosmic hose pipes'.

That's a load of B.S., typical of the thoughtless rambling that kills threads like this, where otherwise we might actually be able to have an intelligent conversation. See "Theory of Extragalactic Radio Jets"; Begelman, Blandford & Rees; Reviews of Modern Physics 56(2): 255-351, April 1984. Especially note section IIC Collimation, stability, and dissipation, and part 4 thereunder, Magnetic collimation. Ever since jets were recognized as jets in the early 70's, they have been known to involve magnetic fields. Collimation by magnetic fields has always been a contender for collimation of jets at all scales. We have long since judged that the jets are primarily collimated by magnetic fields close to the source, and more by ambient gas pressure far from the source, where the magnetic fields have become confused, and the pressures are much smaller anyway (as suggested in this 22 year old review).

Talking about 'cosmic hose pipes' is just one more example of the common practice of going out of your way to insult people's intelligence, instead of trying to say something useful.

[tusenfem]

I guess P.Ashma heard about the fire-hose instability which can occur in a collimated jet.

Naturally, some questionable quoting above makes it seem different as what is written in the article about the magnetic confinement. The first two paragraphs are written down, but Upriver forgot to quote what followed, and which sets the paper in a whole different view:

By using the VLBA to study the alignment, or polarization, of radio waves emitted by water molecules in the jets, the scientists were able to determine the strength and orientation of the magnetic field surrounding the jets.

"Our observations support recent theoretical models in which magnetically-confined jets produce the sometimes-complex shapes we see in planetary nebulae," said Philip Diamond, also of Jodrell Bank Observatory.

This clearly shows that "for the first time" is has been possible to exactly measure the magnetic field strength with the VLBA from intensity and polarization of the observed radiation.

It would be nice if the quotations would be truthful now and then.

[P.Asmah]

That's a load of B.S., typical of the thoughtless rambling that kills threads like this, where otherwise we might actually be able to have an intelligent conversation.

I am not the one claiming the 'first' in relation to magnetism playing a significant role, so I agree, the article referenced from spaceref.com is, er, 'thoughtless rambling'!

Again, Alfven stressed: "In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents."

Thank you for the article which you reference, which is a wink in the direction of the EU from the mainstream:

From the abstract: "Supersonic jets may be collimated along the spin axis of a gas cloud surrounding the source of the lighter jet gas. Magnetic fields may be crucial in collimating jets, especially if they are wrapped around the jet by orbiting gas and can thereby collimate the outflow through the pinch effect. In fact, the spin energy of the black hole could also be extracted by magnetic torques, in which case the jet would contain electrons and positrons and carry a large electromagnetic Poynting flux."

[P.Asmah]

This clearly shows that "for the first time" is has been possible to exactly measure the magnetic field strength with the VLBA from intensity and polarization of the observed radiation.

Well, if this is the 'first' being claimed, it seems we have no reason to disagree, but I still see it as a nod and a wink at EU/PC ideas. Is that fair?

[upriver]

This clearly shows that "for the first time" is has been possible to exactly measure the magnetic field strength with the VLBA from intensity and polarization of the observed radiation.

That is true but nowhere do they say anything about the fact that the magnetic field is caused by moving plasma.


And I think this paper which I think represents the EU view, is beyond the mainstream view.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...306..451B

Am I correct in thinking that?

Let continue here.
I started a new thread on jets.

[tusenfem]

That is true but nowhere do they say anything about the fact that the magnetic field is caused by moving plasma.


And I think this paper which I think represents the EU view, is beyond the mainstream view.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...306..451B

Am I correct in thinking that?

Let continue here.
I started a new thread on jets.

There is nothing beyond the main stream in Borovsky's paper. I as a mainstrean plasmaastrophysicist/spacephysicist have quoted this paper in my PhD thesis. I am a bit rusty on the details, but to quote from section 1.6.3 of my thesis:

Borowsky (1988) applies DL to jets ejected by AGNs where they may be the main sources of electron beams leading to bright points in the jets. This does not involve a direct emission mechanism by the DL (which was the topic of my thesis), but an iderect one, where the emitted electron beams, bunched in their gyro phase arund the magnetic field in the jet, procude the intense emissin which is observed as bright spots in the AGN jet.

As I said, I am a little rusty on the details, so I should read the paper again about how he supposes the DLs are created, if he does so at all. Borowsky, although being a great physicist, is know to not really pay attention to the details of his models and calculations. Often, getting his paper out fast is his main driver.

[tusenfem]

Well, if this is the 'first' being claimed, it seems we have no reason to disagree, but I still see it as a nod and a wink at EU/PC ideas. Is that fair?

I see no reason at all, that this measurement should be a "nod and wink" to the EU/PC ideas. I see it as a nice piece of measurement that shows that the electrodynamic theory (as writtend down e.g. in Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson) is a great tool.
As said by Tim Thompson the fact that jets are collimated by magnetic fields and plasma pressure was already accepted in the 80s.
It is in the electromagnetic theory that magnetic fields, when not created by a bar magnet, are created by electric currents. It is not something that physicists keep on repeating. E.g. in my current research field if I write: the interplanetary magnetic field I am not going to diverge on saying: that are created by the electric currents and the alpha and omega dynamo in the sun. My colleagues know that, and it does not need to be stated extra.

edited to add: the last part of this message is more a reply on what Upriver wrote.

[Zero Signal]

What I want to see is, first and foremost, an EU/EC supporter address the problems with the Electric Star "theory" that I've outlined several times before here and at the BABB, most recently several weeks ago here and here in the Electric Universe thread. Nereid has mentioned this briefly several times as well over the last several weeks since my last posts, both in the EU thread and in this thread's OP.

Basically, it boils down to the simple fact that the Electric Star "theory" cannot explain the observed distribution of stars on the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram. This is because of the basic attributes of the ES "theory," which entail that electrically powered stars should show no relation between temperature and luminosity. This means that if stars were electrical phenomena, then we should not see any particular pattern of stars on the HRD. The fact that there is such a pattern is something that the ES "theory is at a loss to explain.

Another problem I've noted are the fact that the observed main sequence mass-luminosity relation is inexplicable in the ES "theory," as there would be no reason to suspect any kind of relationship between a star's mass and luminosity if they were powered by external electrical currents. The main sequence mass-luminosity relation is, however, to be expected if stars were fusion engines like in standard stellar theory.

Even after three years, I still haven't received anything from the EU supporters beyond a couple of passing comments that did not constitute anything remotely like a rebuttal. However, I never really did know when to quit, and I won't be satisfied until the problems I've outlined get some kind of answer.


There are other topics I'd like the EU proponents to address.

First off, what, if anything, does Arp's theories of non-cosmological redshift have to do with the Electric Universe? Many EU proponents have written articles and webpages in support of Arp. However, Arp doesn't even seem to notice the Electric Universe "theory," and if he does know about it, he's never written about it to my knowledge and obviously doesn't support it. So, what's the deal with the EU crowd's fixation on Arp?

Well, time to cut this short. I had some other things, but they'll have to wait for tomorrow. Gotta go.

[Tim Thompson]

You see what's happening? The first post in this thread is an invitation for an EU proponent to start a new thread on a specific EU topic, which can be handled without the "shotgun" approach. But instead, we have the same old EU thread starting again here. I don't think any of the EU proponents are able or willing to support their own idea in a real discussion, which explains all of the irrelevent distractions & invented falsehoods. I like Zero Signal's idea. Somebody from the EU crowd should start a thread explaining why the electric star hypothesis is better than the standard explanation, and why the standard is so bad it has to be replaced.

[Tim Thompson]

This clearly shows that "for the first time" it has been possible to exactly measure the magnetic field strength with the VLBA from intensity and polarization of the observed radiation.

Well, if this is the 'first' being claimed, it seems we have no reason to disagree, but I still see it as a nod and a wink at EU/PC ideas. Is that fair?

No, not at all. The standard theories & hypotheses of astrophysics & cosmology make heavy use of electromagnetism & plasma physics. So you can't point to every instance of E&M being considered as a "nod & a wink" towards EU. In fact, in this instance, it is exactly the opposite; EU proponents have managed to "predict" something that had already been well established by mainstream astrophysics, before the EU came along. If anything, it is a "nod & a wink" by the EU proponents at mainstream astrophysics.

As I explained earlier, it is necessary to point out the differences between EU, PU or PC, and mainstream astrophysics & cosmology. The notion that electromagnetism is not a large part of the standard, mainstream world, is unacceptable. And the idea that anything involving electromagnetism must be a "nod & a wink" at EU is ludicrous.

[P.Asmah]

The notion that electromagnetism is not a large part of the standard, mainstream world, is unacceptable. And the idea that anything involving electromagnetism must be a "nod & a wink" at EU is ludicrous.

Yes, magnetism is incorporated in much mainstream stuff...

It is in the electromagnetic theory that magnetic fields, when not created by a bar magnet, are created by electric currents. It is not something that physicists keep on repeating. E.g. in my current research field if I write: the interplanetary magnetic field I am not going to diverge on saying: that are created by the electric currents and the alpha and omega dynamo in the sun. My colleagues know that, and it does not need to be stated extra.

My bold. So you are saying that the relationship between magnestism and electricity goes without saying, in effect.

If this is the case, I wonder why Alfven was so explicit: "In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents."

You are right, nonetheless, in so far as the mainstream rarely -- if ever -- mentions electric fields and electric currents in relation to this magnetism!

Edit: Grammar/spelling

[Tim Thompson]

If this is the case, I wonder why Alfven was so explicit: "In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents."

I think you will find that a rift deveolped between Alfven & the astrophysical community. It is not terribly unlike the rift that developed between Einstein and the physics community. Just as Einstein rejected much of quantum mechanics, so did Alfven reject much of magnetohydrodynamics. And just as the world of physics regretably left Einstein behind, so did the world of plasma astrophysics leave Alfven behind. And this does not detract in any way from the evident fact that both Einstein & Alfven contributed enormously to their fields of endeavor, and both received well earned Nobel Prizes (Einstein in 1921 and Alfven in 1970). Alfven continued to believe that non-neutral electric currents were responsible for much of the magnetic phenomena in the universe. He became essentially alone in this. In the passage you quote, Alfven is selling his own point, which most astrophysicists were in the process of rejecting.

You are right, nonetheless, in so far as the mainstream rarely -- if ever -- mentions electric fields and electric currents in relation to this magnetism!

That's because they don't need to; electric fields & electric currents, in the sense you are thinking of, are not required to generate magnetic fields. That's the whole point of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD); a neutral plasma in motion will generate magnetic fields, because even though the sum of + and - charges is zero, the free charge carriers are still considerable as electric currents. And the time variable magnetic fields that are generated by MHD processes induce electric fields, which accelerate charged particles. MHD is not just some simple guess work, it is a full blown theoretical & experimental science, long since verified beyond reproach. This does not mean that there are no classical non-neutral currents flowing around out there in the cosmos, but it does mean that there is no physical reason to generally prefer such currents, which are hard to come by, over the much simpler MHD solutions, which we already know work.

So Upriver started a thread on jets & Birkeland currents. Why not go there, and demonstrate why MHD does not work, and we need "real" electric currents?

[madman]

So Upriver started a thread on jets & Birkeland currents. Why not go there, and demonstrate why MHD does not work, and we need "real" electric currents?

i'm not a proponent of eu, but i don't think there should be such an ultimatum made.

mhd may be correct...and in some instances an electric current (of some form) may be associated with a jet.

[P.Asmah]

I think you will find that a rift deveolped between Alfven & the astrophysical community. It is not terribly unlike the rift that developed between Einstein and the physics community. Just as Einstein rejected much of quantum mechanics, so did Alfven reject much of magnetohydrodynamics.

I thought that Alfven was largely responsible for the field of MHD, but either way, it seems that many of Alfven's ideas went against the mainstream, especially later on, and that these ideas have more in common with the EU.

[iantresman]

Just as Einstein rejected much of quantum mechanics, so did Alfven reject much of magnetohydrodynamics.

Alfvén wrote the book on magnetohydrodynamics, and won the Nobel Prize for Physics for it in 1970. I can't find anything to suggest that he rejected MHD. But Alfvén and co-author Carl-Gunne Fälthamma wrote in their book Cosmical Electrodynamics (1952, 2nd Ed.):

"It should be noted that the fundamental equations of magnetohydrodynamics rest on the assumption that the conducting medium can be considered as a fluid."

They continue:

Very roughly we can say that a high-density plasma obeys reasonably well the laws which in Chapter 3 have been derived for liquids and ompressible media. In a medium-density plasma the magnetic field has introduced a pronounced anisotropy and in several respects the plasma becomes quite different from a magnetized fluid . Finally, a low-density `collision-less ' plasma forms a sort of transition to the case of single charges moving in high vacuum

MHD is not just some simple guess work, it is a full blown theoretical & experimental science, long since verified beyond reproach.

It's an approximation that works well in many situations, but it FAILS in others. Eric Watalis wrote:

About the time when extensive laboratory research started on the interaction between plasmas and magnetic fields, critical views were expressed by Lighthill about the validity of a set of equations called "ideal MHD theory,"; then, as now, normally taken to provide an acceptable description of astrophysical MHD phenomena and magnetic fusion systems. The criticisms have been reviewed here and found to be justified. The corrected MHD fluid equation, expressing approximate magnetic flux conservation in the electron fluid frame, not plasma mass frame, leads to questions about the electric field momentum-transfer distributions between the plasma species. The Lighthill reasoning about this, in conflict with later generally accepted theory, was proved to be correct. (See E.A. Witalis, "Hall Magnetohydrodynamics and Its Applications to Laboratory and Cosmic Plasma", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 842-848.)

This is a fundamental difference between mainstream astrophysicists and the plasma universe people. The plasma universe people have also taken a a fully blown theoretical & experimental scientific approach.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[upriver]

From the paper Tim quoted,

"Magnetic fields may be crucial in collimating jets, especially if they are wrapped around the jet by orbiting gas and can thereby collimate the outflow through the pinch effect."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...3189d850a25469

That is akin to saying that the spinning generator at the power station is responsible for the magnetic fields that surround every wire.

It is well known that the pinch effect is from a current flowing axialy through the conducting medium.

It seems like they are backing into EM theory from a astronomers point of view as opposed to an electrical engineers point of view.

[tusenfem]

I have the feeling that P.Asmah is just willfully misunderstanding what people are writing, unfounded by any spark of physical understanding. The theory I and many many others are using is called the theory of electromagnetism, you see, one does not come without the other!

Unfortunately, I do not have the reference here at home (it lies at the office and I am sick at home) but there is a nice paper which shows that there are two approaches to space physics, either the "magnetic" or the "electric" interpretation. And both views are interchangeble, because the stem from the same theory. However, it is usually easier to work with magnetic field lines, etc. and the transformation to eliminate the electric field is usually easier than the transformation to eliminate the magnetic field.

Electric fields are important: how else to generate the inverted V structures above the auroral zone??
Electric currents are important: how else to create the magnetic disturbances that we measure when a magnetic storm happens and the ring current is increased??

Just one more note. I write my papers for my "peers" people that are versed in the theories that are used. Not everything is explained into cruciating detail, because space is limited, and giving all the tiny details would make papers unreadable. For those details there are books, lots of books. I do not expect that people with say a college level of physics will be able to understand all the papers I write. There are many implicit assumptions in the papers, that are usually pointed at through citations of other work, and some not pointed out because they are assumed to be general knowledge (e.g. when MHD breaks down). This may seem pedantish. posh, elitist, but so be it. If I write for the "general public" or give a presentation for the same, I will go out of my way to make things understandable for all, but not in my scientific papers.

[P.Asmah]

The theory I and many many others are using is called the theory of electromagnetism, you see, one does not come without the other!

Sure, but the relationship did not always have an easy ride. Michael Faraday, 1791-1867, was called a charlatan and a fraud when he announced that he could generate an electric current merely by moving a magnet in a coil of wire.

And it seems that people can still view EM in space from differing perspectives. I think that Upriver's post above illustrates this fact very well.

From the paper Tim quoted:

"Magnetic fields may be crucial in collimating jets, especially if they are wrapped around the jet by orbiting gas and can thereby collimate the outflow through the pinch effect."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...89d8 50a25469

That is akin to saying that the spinning generator at the power station is responsible for the magnetic fields that surround every wire.

It is well known that the pinch effect is from a current flowing axialy through the conducting medium.

It seems like they are backing into EM theory from a astronomers point of view as opposed to an electrical engineers point of view.

My bold.

Edit to add: Perhaps we could start a thread to discuss the differing perspectives of electrical engineers and astronomers vis-a-vis electromagnetism?

[Nereid]

First, I applaud upriver's initiative in starting the specific, focussed thread EU: Jets and Birkeland currents.

Second, I would like to remind all readers of the last sentence in the OP (bold added):

To suit its purpose, this thread should be no longer than 2 pages (60 posts)

This is post #28; a quick skim of thread suggests considerably fewer than half the posts in this thread so far are on-topic (even with a very generous definition of 'on-topic').

[Edit: it's #29 ... someone posted between when I started and finished writing this post.

Comment: While it may be interesting to discuss the history of the development of ES/EU/PU/PC ideas, the roles of Alfvén, Einstein, Birkeland, Bruce, Mozina, Thornhill, etc, I feel it is secondary (at best) to a discussion of the ES/EU/PU/PC ideas (this ATM section is available to BAUT members to discuss ATM ideas).]

[tusenfem]

Sure, but the relationship did not always have an easy ride. Michael Faraday, 1791-1867, was called a charlatan and a fraud when he announced that he could generate an electric current merely by moving a magnet in a coil of wire.

We have come a long way since 1867, a lot has been found out. I cannot take this comment seriously, sorry. Maybe you can come up with an example from the middle ages, that will really convince me that I am wrong.

edited to add
And pray, P.Asmah explain us in a new thread what exactly you find so important about:

It seems like they are backing into EM theory from a astronomers point of view as opposed to an electrical engineers point of view.

Explain us the difference between the astronomers EM theory point of view and the electrical engineers one (apart that electrical engineers are able to place voltmeters into their current circuits).

[Moderator Note: for a continuation of this discussion, please go to the new thead Differing perspectives on electricity in space]