We Live in an Electric Universe (Part 1) by Louis Hissink

One of the basic working rules in empirical science is the Donald Duck Factor, that when something novel looks, waddles and sounds like a duck, then in all probability it might also be a duck, or at least of the same species. And when a similar structure or shape is found in two disparate phenomena, there is a good chance that both might be formed by a similar process. Such might be in the case of tropical cyclones and spiral galaxies.

Cyclone Nargis.jpg
cyclone Nargis

spiral galaxy 1.jpg
spiral galaxy

It is cyclone season in the northern hemisphere of the equatorial regions and yet again humanity has discovered how puny it is in the face of a tropical cyclone when Cyclone Nargis devastated parts of Burma recently. However tropical cyclones, or hurricanes, are not well understood weather phenomena and the formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research.

A spiral galaxy is a one belonging to one of the three main classes of galaxy originally described by Edwin Hubble in his 1936 work “The Realm of the Nebulae” and, as such, forms part of the Hubble sequence. Spiral galaxies consist of a flat, rotating disk of stars, gas and dust, and a central concentration of stars known as the bulge. These are surrounded by a much fainter halo of stars, many of which reside in globular clusters.

The origin of the spiral arms in galaxies is not as easy to identify as one may first think. After all, whatever it is that creates the spiral arms must be able to account for a wide variety of spiral structures. Some galaxies have a well-organised spiral structure (grand design spirals), while others are patchy (flocculent spirals). The arms may be wound tightly around the galaxy or may be more open. Some spiral arms originate at the end of bars, others directly from the galactic bulge.

Louis Hissink
Perth

124 Responses to We Live in an Electric Universe (Part 1) by Louis Hissink

  1. Louis Hissink May 10, 2008 at 7:13 pm #

    An apology: I have a continually changing drilling program, as well as an environmental survey of 2 weeks duration starting on 12 May, so if I seem unresponsive to comments here, it’s for the simple reason that I have a day time job.

  2. SJT May 10, 2008 at 9:13 pm #

    I am dying to get to part 2 of this series.

  3. Wes George May 10, 2008 at 9:36 pm #

    Apparent convergency is super cool especially when spread across a thousand-fold magnitude of scale.

    But don’t be fooled, Louis, if it looks like a duck it could just as well be a rabbit.

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Rabbit-DuckIllusion.html

    Turns out that people see what they are wont to see and once they are wont to see something, then they can’t see anything else.

    For instance, look at the picture at the link above. You can see a rabbit or you can see a duck, but it is a very odd mind that can see both at the same time.

    This has some relevance to the psycho-politics of AGW. You either believe or you don’t once you have dug into the literature. And once you see AGW it is difficult to see the alternative at the same time.

  4. Louis Hissink May 10, 2008 at 9:44 pm #

    SJT,

    So if part 2 doesn’t, you might disappear?

  5. Louis Hissink May 10, 2008 at 9:52 pm #

    Wes,

    I did not know about that reference you linked concerning he duck-rabbit issue.

    However I sense that the superfluity of rhetoric surrounding your post above means you don’t have any experience in the empirical world.

  6. SJT May 10, 2008 at 9:57 pm #

    Part One doesn’t really do it for me, I’m afraid, Louis. :( Why don’t you just tell us what you are getting at. It’s like watching an episode of Days of Our Lives.

  7. Denialist Scum May 10, 2008 at 9:57 pm #

    Louis,
    There better be a part two to this or I’m probably going to have to agree with Ender that your cheese has slid off the cracker …

  8. Jennifer May 10, 2008 at 10:08 pm #

    So, all of you impatient people, tell me why a cyclone can look like a spiral galaxy?

  9. SJT May 10, 2008 at 10:11 pm #

    Why does it look like the water going down my toilet?

  10. Denialist Scum May 10, 2008 at 10:11 pm #

    It’s Louis’ story.
    We want to see if he has an answer!

  11. Denialist Scum May 10, 2008 at 10:12 pm #

    “Why does it look like the water going down my toilet?”

    I figured that’s where you got most of your material from.

  12. Johnathan Wilkes May 10, 2008 at 10:17 pm #

    SJT
    You really should take up a more constructive hobby than, watching the water going down the dunny!

  13. SJT May 10, 2008 at 10:45 pm #

    You don’t know what else I see going down there.

  14. Wes George May 10, 2008 at 10:53 pm #

    convergency?

    fractal geometry?

    They both have super massive black holes in the eye?

  15. SJT May 11, 2008 at 12:02 am #

    They don’t smell like a black hole. That’s all I’m saying.

  16. cohenite May 11, 2008 at 12:21 am #

    Ahem; injecting a bit of decorum back into the discussion; people do see what they want to and what they are programmed to; we do have a conscious volition however, which, amongst other things, may enable us to see past the AGW emotionalism; here’s a test to see how your conscious volition is coming along:

    http://www.oldmasterpiece.com/painting-en_1681.html

  17. Woody May 11, 2008 at 1:53 am #

    Global warming causes spiral galaxies–and probably black holes!!

  18. Keiran May 11, 2008 at 9:05 am #

    According to classic black hole theory the matter from giant collapsing bodies gets permanently reduced to a tiny amount, a mere pinpoint, and creates a mind-boggling gravitational field so powerful that nothing can ever escape, not even light. This I find quite problematic. e.g. Black holes cannot exist and for starters would need a gravitational only universe that is symmetrical …. which is impossible. i.e. let’s assume it is a giant collapsing body under pressure then it will spin and can only redistribute matter elsewhere. But do we have a gravitational only universe?

    Super massive black holes populating the centre of galaxies is an assumption that also just doesn’t make sense. Although photons and any other material constituents can be distorted in this extreme blast furnace environment, if this was a classic black hole then stars should be falling in instead of explosively moving away from the centre.

    ……….. Of course there is great mystery and we have but minds to wonder why but surely we an progress from this Newtonian obsession of a gravitational only universe.

  19. spangled drongo May 11, 2008 at 9:08 am #

    cohenite, that’s injecting decorum?
    Mediterranean girls in those days were sodomised because of the necessity for virgin marriage.
    There just had to be blood on the marriage bed.
    With a cake like that why wouldn’t you want to eat it and still have it?

  20. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 9:17 am #

    Denialist scum, if there is no part 2, then there could not be a part 1 could there, but I am impressed with the total vacuity of commenting here.

  21. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 9:26 am #

    Astrophysicist John Wheeler “invented” black holes (he passed away recently) on the basis of mathematical singularities.

    His argument for using black holes to explain the inability of standard gravitational calculations to explain galaxy motion was that we can’t disprove his assertion. It’s an old college debating technique, positing a hypothetical rhino under the table, and challenging me to prove its not there. While entertaining in a college debate, it cannot be used in science, because it falls into the category of an unfalsifiable proposition. Science is not done that way.

    Black holes are pure pseudoscience.

    And that is the proble,m with science these days, dominated by the Socratists who believe that scientific proofs can be arrived at by discussion and consensus, especially astronomical phenomena which are almost impossible to test.

    Climate science has fallen into the same trap – mainly because it is government science, and most government scientists lean politically to the left, a philosophy that is essentially Socratic in essence, where reasonable persusasion is used to prove the efficacy of a theory, except in global warming’s case it is shrouded in sophisticated technical jargon.

  22. spangled drongo May 11, 2008 at 9:27 am #

    To the more mundane….Isn’t spiraling just the natural movement of huge, fluid things? Natural acceleration?
    I know being there in the violent stuff like the eye of the cyclone, water spout etc. and surviving is enough to make you think about going to church.
    Only think about it, mind.

  23. Alarmist Creep, AGW Fanatic, opinionated urban green tax eater and nice person (Lucy - the artist fo May 11, 2008 at 10:09 am #

    Louis – an article so simple – so elegant – so brief – I am speechless at your abilities.

    BTW on the black holes – better tell all those guys finding them – that they’re wrong. And ejecta pictures are forged.

    And that “cyclone” picture isn’t a cyclone – it’s a fungal culture. You’ve been duped. You were just testing us weren’t you?

  24. Ender May 11, 2008 at 10:58 am #

    Louis – “Black holes are pure pseudoscience.”

    So you don’t believe in black holes either – I will just add it to the list.

    How about neutron stars are they OK?

    As I said before just believing the opposite of everything does not make you original.

  25. KuhnKat May 11, 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    His cheese did NOT SLIDE off the cracker.

    The duck/rabbit got it!!

    Alarmist Creep,

    you REALLY need to work on that sarcasm!! Very weak!!

    Hey, spirals work!! You know, just like water down a drain!!

  26. Greg May 11, 2008 at 1:13 pm #

    “I am impressed with the total vacuity of commenting here.”

    Says something about the thread perhaps.

  27. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm #

    Ender

    Tommy Gold invented neutron stars to explain the extremely high frequency of electromagnetic radiation (both light and frequency emissions) of pulsars. When first discovered it was thought they rotated rapidly – like lighthouses. And when the implied rate of rotation was announced to be about once every second, despite having masses exceeding that of the sun, the lighthouse explanation became untenable. It was proposed that only such a super-dense material as neutronium could make up a star that could stand up to those rotation speeds. So they “must” exist according to the standard theory.

    Neutron stars do not exist – they are impossible – based on the rules of nuclear chemistry is the so-called band of stability. This is the observation that if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to ad an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus.

    Heavy nuclei contain a few more neutrons than protons but the limit is about 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio SPONTAENOUSLY UNDERGO RADIOACTIVE DECAY transformation that tend to bring their compositions close to this ratio. Groups of neutrons are not stable by themselves.

    We know from laboratory experiments that any lone neutron decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino is less than 14 minutes; atom-like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously. There is no such element as neutronium, therefore there can ne no such entity as a neutron star. It is a fiction that flies in the face of all we know about elements and their atomic nucleii.

    And some astronomers are now realising the neutrnium is an absurdly impossible. A new X-Ray pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658 located in the constellation of Sagittarius, flashes every 2.5 thousandths of a second (24,000 RPM) goes beyond the redline even for a neutron star, So another ad hoc explanation is added to the list – this pulsar must be composed of something even denser that neutronium – “strange-matter”.

    However a paper published in Astrophys.Space Sci., 227 1995, Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory and Experiment.

    The bursts of radio frequency energy that are observed are quite short in comparison to the time between bursts, and it was concluded that the pulsar oscillation was similar to a relaxation oscillator of two capacitors (stars) and a nonlinear resistor (plasma) between them. One capacitor charges up relatively slowly and, when its voltage becomes sufficiently high, discharges rapidly to the other capacitor (star). Then the process begins again. This rate of discharge/charge phenomenon depends on the strength of the input (Birkeland Current), the capacitances (surface areas of the stars) and the breakdown voltage of the (plasma) connection. It in no way depends on the mass or density of the stars.

    In the plasma that surrounds a star or planet, there are conducting paths whose sizes and shapes are controlled by the magnetif field structure of the body. These conducting paths are giant electric transmission lines and can be analuses as such (see referred paper).

    Plasma physics can explain teh observations of pulsars using known laws and facts – tyhey don’t need to invent neutronium or ‘strange matter’.

    Neutron stars are a nonsense.

  28. James Mayeau May 11, 2008 at 1:28 pm #

    Lets proceed as if black holes exist. Black holes would be high density matter, positively charged, spinning at a various rates of speed. Wouldn’t that be something like the armature of an electric generator?
    What would the induced currents effect look like as it interacts with surrounding materials in a galaxy? Would it be spiral arms? If it’s causing spiral arms, then are eliptical galaxies lacking a black hole core?
    Would there be a method for confirming a lack of black hole in eliptical galaxies? Would there be a less energetic electrical field? Could that difference be detected?

  29. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 1:39 pm #

    Ender,

    I made an error – the β-decay half-life of the free neutron was measured. Greater accuracy was obtained through the development of a special 4πβ spectrometer with a well-defined source volume and through the use of a new density calibration method with a 3He proportional counter. A clean thermal-neutron beam was developed especially for the measurement. The final result is a half-life of 10.61 +/- 0.16 min. The derived value of gAgV is -1.239 +/- 0.011.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972PhRvD…5.1628C

  30. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm #

    James,

    You are getting close – electric currents indeed are forming the spirals but you don’t need a black hole, though your allusion to a generator is close to the mark – Think instead homopolar motor. (I’m only back because the drilling rig broke down again so a few hours on this Sunday to while away).

  31. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm #

    Ender,

    You do understand half-life don’t you, an element with a half life of 10 minutes will present some problems unless you and your mates are advocating that neutrons are constantly being created in neutron stars. How bizarre can things become?

  32. James Mayeau May 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm #

    It’s the only way I can approach the galactic scale Louis. Sorry.
    There is an astrophysicist I know who postulates that the (our) sun is the residue from a primordial supernova. He claims that the suns photosphere is a shell overlaying a neutron star “core”.
    Perhaps if I am afforded the time, I will quiz him on his opinion with regard to this new information (it’s news to me) regarding the impossibility of neutron stars.

    Of course, it will take me time to get up to speed with what you are showing me. Maybe I can talk him into making a few comments on this series of posts.

  33. Carl Smoth May 11, 2008 at 1:58 pm #

    I notice few of those poking fun at Louis appear to be observant enough to grasp the implications of the curious structural similarities between cosmic vortices such as galaxies and earthly ones such as cyclones.

    A remarkable thing about nature is that you will find vortex structures and patterns at just about every scale you choose to look.

    The Electric Universe hypothesis points the way to understanding aspects of many phenomena, both in the Universe at large and on the Earth as well, and I expect that Louis will have some interesting things to say as his series of posts are presented.

  34. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm #

    James

    it might be better if you study Don Scott’s essays (he is a retired professor of Electrical Engineering and an amateur astronomer) on http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm and he has an excellent set of links as well which is accessed here http://www.electric-cosmos.org/links.htm.

    You might find that most astrophysicists are of the opinion that there cannot be charge separation in space, so they ignore explanations that propose electricty.

    Incidentally our sun can’t have a neutron star core free neutrons decay in 10 minutes to a proton, electron and neutrino. So something else has to doing it.

  35. James Mayeau May 11, 2008 at 2:13 pm #

    A galactic core which acts as a homopolar motor (another new concept for me) allows for the creation of the various morphologies of galaxies due to the varying angle of axis of the core magnetic field, in relation to the electric field flow.

    I think.

  36. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 2:13 pm #

    Thanks for the kind words Carl Smoth, and yes, some very interesting points have still to come.

  37. Wes George May 11, 2008 at 2:26 pm #

    I agree with Louis, black holes are just a mathematical construction. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the math isn’t roughly describing something out there.

    If there isn’t something like a black hole, then the whole basis of contemporary cosmology is adrift.

    Since Schwaztchild equations and GRT don’t make any practical difference to our global economy, unlike AGW theory….

    Why not just play along with the working mathematical theories while they are yielding such interesting and relatively (no pun intended) interesting result? I don’t think denying a theory without offering something that gives a better description of observed gravitational effects is useful.

    Oh, and it is the coriolis force that’s the reason why a galaxy’s shape converges with that of a cyclone even though they have almost nothing else in common.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

  38. Keiran May 11, 2008 at 2:26 pm #

    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
    – Richard Feynman

    When one examines the likes of a group of high priest mathematicians one seems only to see jokers doing their best to design their own universe. Hawking for twenty years plus was speaking of classic black holes where nothing escapes. What a dead head but all this sucking up sure gets people sucked in and sells plenty of books. Years ago my response was that they cannot exist unless the universe is entirely gravitational and is symmetrical around the black hole, which is impossible. However only quite recently, Hawking was forced to come out and admit he was wrong.

    For a simple down to earth chap like myself, I find this alpha and omega insecure mindset to be classic funny stuff with absolute beginnings and endings, bangs in vacuums, multiple universes all culminating with the totality of carbon based life as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. But maybe i am wrong and it’s an imaginary teddy (god figure) or anthropocentric bias that creates black holes in the minds of people.

    Being so false, just how can humanity collectively ensure a continued appreciation of the beauty of existence?

  39. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 2:27 pm #

    James,

    Read Don’s material and you will quickly grasp it. I was grappling with the earth’s change in axial speed with sunspot numbers, (it seems to slow done the more sunspots, and then speeds up when the numbers diminish). My error was assuming that the sun was the only energy source, which it isn’t and that the earth is electrically part of a larger circuit, along with the rest of the solar system.

    The homopolar motor is the main element in the electricity watt-meter in our homes.

    The Hubble Crab nenula (M1) is the remnant of a nova, and recently the Hubble telescope has found a companion to the pulsar CM Tauri.This new discovery and the pulsar line up with the direction of a jet of x-ray emission, and a second discovery found a ring-like halo of emission through which the polar jet flows. This was discovered from an image taken in the synchroton light from the nebula and will cause astronomers to scratch their heads for some time.

    The shape of this pulsar centered object is exactly that of a homopolar motor-generator.

  40. James Mayeau May 11, 2008 at 2:33 pm #

    Louis, would you know when this book was published? I’m wondering if it is worth a trip to the library.
    Bet there’s some further reading and supporting documentation at the thunderbolt blog. http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

    Come to think of it Louis, you’re probably the guy who turned me on to them in the first place.
    I haven’t read all of it, but the stuff that I know about and have investigated (Enceladus & Saturn, Io & Jupiter) prior to visiting, the thunderbolt guys explain with precision. Excellent eye opening analysis.

  41. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 2:35 pm #

    Wes,

    Black holes and all the other imaginals are ad hoc creations to sustain the gravitational (relativistic) model. Unfortunately gravitation has become a quasi-religion in astronomy since it can’t possibly be wrong!

    And yes the galaxies rotate and the newton maths shows that they can’t see enough mass out there to explain the observed velocity. Instead of being scientific and wondering if the math was wrong, they assumed that it could not possibly we wrong and then start looking for other causes. That is the Socratic or deductive mind at work.

    Empiricists would recognise that observation did not explain the maths, then maybe the maths are wrong, or the the ideas which the math represent. That is science. The other is pseudoscience.

  42. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm #

    James

    Don Scott’s book The Electric Sky was published in 2006, and obtained from the Thunderbolt site.

    You may be right, I may have been I.

  43. Ender May 11, 2008 at 4:09 pm #

    Louis – “Tommy Gold invented neutron stars to explain the extremely high frequency of electromagnetic radiation (both light and frequency emissions) of pulsars.”

    So neutron stars as well – OK how about brown dwarfs? Are they OK? Stars OK? I guess we can see them so they are OK after all.

    I can see why you are such a fervent denier of AGW, biotic oil, plate tectonics and now most of mainstream physics. I guess this does make you original.

    BTW you are not taking me into debating this as I wish to retain my sanity. If you really think that all this it true then nothing I can say will sway you.

  44. Ender May 11, 2008 at 4:17 pm #

    BTW here is a link to information on a neutron star that has been observed.

    http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/NS/ns.html

    Of course this a left leaning commie website and must be automatically discounted. The astronomers involved were also all later found to be leftists.

  45. Wes George May 11, 2008 at 4:45 pm #

    Louis, having not read Mr. Scott’s book I don’t know if he makes an attempt to explain the cosmological ramifications that his theories make for how our universe is shape, was formed, is now working and where it is going in a lay person’s English.

    Perhaps, you could make an attempt to explain his new cosmology with as few jargons as possible and without mathematics for the lay folks, such as myself?

    After looking at his website, I must admit, I could use a summary.

  46. cohenite May 11, 2008 at 5:15 pm #

    Louis; so wormholes and FTL travel is now out of the picture?

    Keiran; your summary of the plight of mediterranean virgins was the point of Dali’s masterpiece; which is to say the contradictory hypocrisy of the sexual zeitgeist; his use of an optical illusion was an inspired artistic device to depict that hypocrisy because the initial impression of the painting is a sexually reductionist one, like the zeitgeist. AGW is not a sexual illusion but it seems a lot of the supporting science is of the trees not the wood variety; just like the painting.

    creep; thanks for the Chao article; this may not be the best place to comment since I am in mourning about the logical conclusion of Louis’s thesis that the stars are barred to us; but the alleged 20thC increase in rate of sea level rise predates the main period of damming; this rate of increase in sea level rise also predates the post WW11 increase in atmospheric CO2; so, there are some issues with it.

  47. Carl Smith May 11, 2008 at 5:19 pm #

    Ender, how do they know it’s a neutron star if they have not looked inside it?

    These hypothetical entities are the downfall of modern astrophysics/cosmology, and the Big Bang Theory should be an embarrassment to any thinking person:

    —————–
    The Big Bang Theory
    (reduced to essential bits)
    —————–

    In the beginning was nothing, however an unexplainable tiny something, smaller than the smallest imaginable thing, somehow appeared out of nowhere and suddenly exploded!

    The smallest imaginable thing containing the full future content of the universe that manifested out of nothing exploded so violently that it expanded faster than the speed of light, and later slow down to a more leisurely sub-luminal pace.

    The debris from nothing exploding coalesced into various forms of matter becoming the universe we see today.

    —————

    If you believe that, you are nuttier than I am!

  48. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 5:27 pm #

    Wes,

    Basically Don Scott’s book summarises the current position of the PLasma Universe in lay terms. He offers no new theories but demolishes some of the eixsting ones with sound science.

    The Plasma Universe theory essentially states that the universe always existed, is comprised of matter that is 90.99% in the plasma state and that the dominant cosmic force is electricty. Gravity is not ignored but operates in a very localised sense.

    The Plasma or Electric Universe theory is strictly empirical in that it bases its science on laboratory experiments involving electric plasma. The applicable physical laws are those of Maxwell and Lorentz, in addition to Newton’s etc. Plasma phenomena scale up to galaxy dimensions, so what is observed in the laboratory can be seen in space. Plasma cosmologists also point out that the universe exhibits fractal patterns which repeat at different scales from small to large. Because of plasma scalability, the Fractal nature of the universe is predicted from plasma universe theory while inimical to the relativitic or Big Bang model.

    It rejects the Big Bang Theory as Fred Hoyle wrote in 1994 “Big Bang cosmology refers to an Epock thath cannot be reached by any form of astronomy, and, in more than two decades, it has not produced a single successful prediction,”

    It is important to understand that magnetic fields cannot be divorced from electric currents, so when cosmic sized magnetic fields are measured and observed, that also means the presence of cosmic sized electrical currents.

    Experiments have shown that electric currents in space typically flow in sheets and narrow filaments, while cells from around sheets and narrow filaments. (String theory is in part response to the realisation of these cosmic sized filaments).

    We do not know the ultimate source of the stupendous electrical energy manifest in the visibale universe, but its effects can be seen on every scale.

    Plasma cosmologists can offer concrete and testable models to explain existing puzzles and contradictions in popular theories.

    Kristian Birkeland first proposed that solar electric currents produced the northern aurora over 100 years ago. He was laughed at then but now we know he was right.

    The earth;s weather is simply the electrical interplay between the surface of the earth and its active plasma environment.

    That is it in a nutshell.

    Do we know what the sun is? No, not yet, but it isn’t a fusion reactor nor, Ender wishes labour over, a neutron star. Both the earth and the sun have similar temperature profiles, and while the earth’s is due to an external energy source, no one has realised that it could be as well as for the sun.

    Another good site is Dr. Tony Peratt’s official site

    http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

    If you go to Don Scott’s link page there are some other sites which might be appropriate. Some are, as Scott says, a bit problematical, but it’s a start.

  49. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 5:32 pm #

    cohenite

    Wormholes and FTL travel? Hmm, Don’t know about wormholes and there is some evidence that the speed of light isn’t a constant as well, but I would do some research on David Bohm’s (Physicist) about his concept of the implicate order. It was covered in Michael Talbots book, “the Holographic Universe”. Bit controversial but some parts of it are quite interesting.

  50. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 5:37 pm #

    Ender

    If the half life of a free neutron is 10 minutes, then neutrons cannot exist independently from the rest of matter. Hence Neutronium cannot exist. Therefore neutron stars cannot exist.

    As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think you understand what a radiogenic half-life is.

  51. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 5:46 pm #

    Error – The universe comprises 99.99% of matter in the plasma state. The other wee bit is what we know a little about.

  52. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 6:02 pm #

    Ender

    “We discovered the X-ray source RX J185635-3754 serendipidously in a ROSAT PSPC image of the Corona Australis dark cloud taken in 1992. The source is bright, at 3.6 counts per second, and has the spectrum of a 57 eV (660,000K) black body. The neutron star is the bright source to the lower right”,

    but no visible image of it.

    An X-ray source a neutron star does not make because neutrons don’t emit X-Rays but plasma discharges in a stellar magnetosphere can.

    Do you actually read the papers you refer to ?

  53. cohenite May 11, 2008 at 6:04 pm #

    ender; are you a fan of biotic oil? This may interest you;

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/14/2162556.htm

  54. James Mayeau May 11, 2008 at 6:13 pm #

    http://www.raben.com/weblog/category/astronomy/aurora/
    Louis, you might like this. It’s the aurora, color coded for electrical output, superimposed on the globe. Notice how the highest intensity areas correspond with the Arctic ice melt of last year.
    Lowest intensity over the areas where the ice survived the summer.

  55. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 6:38 pm #

    James

    Hmm this is a bit of a coincidence because Jennifer asked me initially to write a post on polar electrical currents. Quite amazing – thank you :-)

    In Tony Peratt’s list of published papers on his web site, (PDF), there is one “Characteristics for the occurrence of a high-current, Z-Pinch aurora as recored in antiquity”. In it he notes:

    “We know that Birkeland currents flow in and out of the earth’s atmosphere at high latitude (poles) and routinely measured with total magntitudes of millions of amperes”.

    Initially I though that these currents might go straight into the earth but forgot about the Langmuire Sheafs that isolate the earth electrically from its plasma environment. So the currents are restricted to the ionosphere in most part.

    That said, one would need to have another look at the data for ice coverage and auroral frequency vs time. The auroras only arc up when the sunspots increase in number.

    Is it possible that the currents might leak into the earth slightly raising its temperature, (no, the earth’s DL stops that) or more likely, is the increased electrical activity in the ionosphere around the poles affecting the precipitation of ice below electrically?

    Water has some very strange properties when it comes to electricity.

    (The earth is electrically isolated from space plasma by Double Layers (AKA Langmuire Sheafs), so any electrical currents that pass through this DL are usually lightning).

  56. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 6:45 pm #

    James,

    in addition, the high colour aurora colours correspond to low ice cover while the low ones, with ice cover, also suggests that the electrical intensity of the aurora seems to depend on the electrical conductivity of the earth’s surface underneath the auroras.

    I don’t know what the electrical conductivity of ice vs sea water would be but this might be a better explanation for the observations than the ideas I speculated above.

    Hmmmm.

  57. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 6:47 pm #

    Hell, and no CO2 involved either!

  58. Wes George May 11, 2008 at 6:50 pm #

    That’s a fine theory that I am incapable of judging, since I don’t know enough about physics and plasmas.

    I do wonder about is the nature of a universe with no beginning or end. That would mean the universe isn’t 12 or 14 billion years old as is the “consensus” figure, and not even trillions of years old, not even 10 to the 100000000000000000000000000000000th power old but older still.

    Infinite is a big place and strange things should occur in such a big old space.

    How does this jive with the observed phenomena, things like redshift and weird objects at the so-called edge of the universe? Galactic evolution? Why does the further we look out in time, the universe looks striking different, even immature? Less galaxies? Shouldn’t everything look the same if it was infinitely old?

    Why can’t anything further away than about 13 billions years be seen? And if the universe is infinite in time, then it must be in space, since they are one and the same, so why is the sky at night not white instead of black as the number of light sources approach infinity and thus fill ever scintilla of the night sky?

    Or at the opposite end of the spectrum, given infinite time space, but limited energy (sky isn’t white hot) why are we here at all? It should mean heat death—absolute zero temperature.

    But the real worry is how does evolution fits into a mega-ancient universe Scuzillions of years to the Gazillion powers old? I can’t even wrap my mind around infinite.

    Evolution of stars, of matter, of energy and galaxies and most importantly of information storage and retrieve systems (ie life) Evolution seem to be something universal, something inevitable and moving steadily in quite the opposite direction of the 3rd law of thermodynamics towards increasing complexity and Novelty.

    Novelty is the key word. Infinite universe should mean an infinite level of novelty, since evolution would have had all those extra eons to work its magic on matter/energy.

    So why don’t we see some really “novel” things out there in the universe?

    Some geek once calculated how long a dissolved cube of sugar in a bucket of water would take to come back together as the exact same cube in said bucket of water by the random circulation of the molecules of sugar in the water and it turns out that it wouldn’t have happened yet in this universe because at 14 billion years old there wasn’t yet enough time past!

    Imagine there isn’t even enough time in the universe for something as simple as a melted sugar cube to reassemble itself in a bucket of water! But in an infinite universe, some really weird things would be out there. Perhaps, the religions of the world don’t have such a wild imagination after all?

    Obviously, certain things because of the mathematics of probability simply haven’t had enough time to have precipitated in a universe that is only 14 billion years old. Thus the novelty factor is limited. Could be why we don’t have elves and trolls living in the forests or why the galaxy isn’t clogged with electromagnetic signals from ten thousand advanced civilizations or why the biosphere isn’t really James Lovelock’s Gaia, a sentient being, at least not yet?

    In fact, the observed universe looks pretty damn young from a novelty point of view. Of course, I’m just a lay man and can’t defend this position adequately.

    I got a problem with an infinitely old universe and the observed data and how evolution have manifest itself in such a space.

    Louis, help me out here?

  59. rog May 11, 2008 at 7:05 pm #

    Fred Hoyle dismissed the chance that life evolved from a random collection of atoms by comparing it to the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

    And he was an agnostic!

  60. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 7:14 pm #

    Wes,

    you are getting into philosophy here :-) but if the universe never started but was always here, then age becomes an irrelevancy. Infinite does not come into it because that idea is always contrasted with a finite one – eliminate the finite one also eliminates infinity as one idea depends on the existence of the other.

    I suspect we might have travelled the same path (but at different times) so I can understand your perplexity, but if the Big Bang never happened, then how did life start?

    The only explanation I can offer at this point in time is that life spontaneously appears whenever the physical conditions allow it.

    Other than that I cannot offer any sensible explantion for the existence of life except for the trivial excuse that it was here before I was.

    I do not know how new species appear but have a good idea why they die out (not in this thread).

    Put differently, life has always existed and the biodiveristy we observe today is it’s expression under the existing physical conditions.

    I remain mindful of the fact that if I looked at the Cambrian fossil assemblage, I would have some difficulty predicting what future species would look like.

    But then I am irreligious with no axe to grind and no belief to proselytise.

    But one thing I am certain of, life was, is and will be.

  61. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 7:26 pm #

    Wes,

    As for religion, I am not one to ask for advice – but if you look at the practical implementation of religion, you might observe that it is concerned principally with a people’s behaviour in order to maintain civil peace.

    How that peace is maintained is another matter – which I won’t go into here as it is off-topic.

    The closest example to my own ideas I found were here http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/index.html

  62. Alarmist Creep, AGW Fanatic, opinionated urban green tax eater and nice person (Lucy - the artist fo May 11, 2008 at 7:29 pm #

    Louis (and just asking)

    What’s the checklist of issues you don’t believe in?

    So far:

    AGW
    Left wing anything
    Global average temperature
    Tectonic plate theory
    Biotic Oil
    Black Holes
    Big Bang?
    Neutron Stars

    I’m now curious to get the full list.

  63. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 7:33 pm #

    Creep

    Belief is religion, not science. I neither believe nor disbelieve gravity when I rock hits my head – it is fact.

    Try again.

  64. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 7:34 pm #

    Error: A rock hits…. sigh.

  65. Wes George May 11, 2008 at 8:27 pm #

    I’m not talking philosophy or religion.

    I thought I was asking you, with all due respect, to address a few of the empirical, logical and observational issues surrounding the proposition that the universe is infinite or as you say, “always existed” which implies infinity. As far as I know infinite is a well defined mathematical situation and empirically certain things should follow on.

    None of my lay man’s concerns from above have you addressed.

    That said, what Don Scott is doing is admirable. He is bringing his considerable expertise to bear on the problem of how stars work from an electrical engineering point of view.

    The math and physics geeks in their ivory towers may well have dismissed the practical implications of EE as beneath them and made some fundamental errors in the science. So it is absolutely positive that Mr. Scott is contributing.

    But the fact that universe is filled with electrical plasma isn’t a fundamental paradigm shift away from the “consensus” theory at the basic cosmological level. Especially since as you say, “that he (Mr. Scott) offers no new theories.”

    Can you displace a working theory with no new theory?

    Perhaps, but one would be loathe to ditch a paradigm which is producing insights (how ever off target) on an almost daily basis for decades for “no new theory.” I would also question that 20 th century cosmological theory has produced not, “a single successful prediction.” Even a lay man can think up a few notables off the top of the head.

    Mr. Scott might well settle to go down in history as someone who contributed to moving theory forward, rather than having been a Copernicus or a Galileo, both of which proposed superior phase shift hypothesis to the prevailing one of the day.

    You certainly have not shown any evidence to reject “big bang cosmology” yet. By all mean please do.

    In fact, as I understand from my lay position: while the Big Bang is something highly speculative it follows hand in glove with the general idea of how gravity works on time space and the empirical evidence from radio observations and from the gravitational singularities that have been indirectly observed.

    What do you propose is going on at the event horizons of these objects?

    What do you propose is forcing the spiral arms of the galaxy in your picture above?

    What do you propose is the three dimensional shape of the universe?

    What do you make of e=MC squared? Does it function? Does it have predictive value?

    How many dimensions does your proposed universe exist in?

    How do you measure time in an infinite universe?

  66. SJT May 11, 2008 at 8:44 pm #

    I have to say, this topic continues the high standard of science we have to come to expect on this blog.

    It is also instructional to see the same sceptical reasoning that denies AGW at work on other scientific bodies of knowledge.

    Jennifer, do you realise you are making your employers, the IPA, open to be considered a laughing stock by allowing such ‘science’ to be published here? AGW is so politically charged, it’s easy to miss the science for the politics, when you have a topic like black holes, which has no political baggage attached, the ignorance one display is much more apparent.

  67. Keiran May 11, 2008 at 9:01 pm #

    Cohenite, whilst i mainly comment on science issues here and there, you may be the first person to see me as an artist which has been my life long major passion. The dali painting is of his life long partner, Gala who has always been silent and sphinx like in his paintings but perhaps the main reason for Dalí’s success. The rhino horns suggest supposed mythological, sexual, magical or medicinal qualities. Although from his surreal period this painting points towards the later 1950′s period where he developed his ideas into the concept of Nuclear Mysticism. He felt that the nature of reality would be fully explained by science.

    Whilst i wasn’t referring to the painting directly i certainly have been saying for many years that the universe is infinite, was never created and is far from anthropocentric. i.e. Like the point of this being is that if empty space is an impossibility then the NON-existence of the universe is an impossibility. When scientists try to create an absolute vacuum for some inexplicable reason particles appear from nowhere and it proves impossible. Likewise to produce an absolute solid is impossible because it could always be more solid. Just seems that an absolute solid and an absolute vacuum are human idealisations with reality existing somewhere between. This then draws attention to anthropocentric issues…… i.e. our human built in bias and mode of conceptualisation and our submersion in this state will exhaust all creativity and historical growth.

    If i may return to the point. We need to learn to think outside the box on many issues but one of the glaring oversights of 20thC science is these high priest’s gravity-only model where there is an assumption that electricity doesn’t do anything. Just how terribly wrong can one really be when we see that galaxies are the largest plasma discharge formations in the visible universe.

  68. Wes George May 11, 2008 at 9:03 pm #

    So louis is it true that you have an alternative theory to plate tectonics?

    Pray do tell!

  69. Johnathan Wilkes May 11, 2008 at 9:12 pm #

    SJT,
    Don’t display your ignorance then!

    Actually I find this topic quite interesting, while taking in the fact, that the universe just “Always” existed, is not easy, it’s far easier than the Big Bang, something out of nothing theory.

    Thank you Jennifer and Louis.

  70. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 9:21 pm #

    Wes George,

    Just realised – Mt T in disguise.

  71. Denialist Scum May 11, 2008 at 9:28 pm #

    “Actually I find this topic quite interesting,”

    Which makes a welcome change … that and the vastly truncated ‘contributions’ from Alarmist Creep and Ender. Hmmmmm … coincidence?

  72. Ender May 11, 2008 at 9:34 pm #

    Louis – “In the beginning was nothing, however an unexplainable tiny something, smaller than the smallest imaginable thing, somehow appeared out of nowhere and suddenly exploded!”

    If that is the understanding that you have of it then it is no wonder you doubt it. If you were an astrophysicist and could understand the physics behind inflationary theory then you could resolve the problems. However the psuedo science that you peddle is not a substitute for real science. It is only your profound and complete ignorance of physics and astronomy that allows you to propose these theories. Assuming you could find an astrophysicist with the patience of a saint, he/she could demolish these ideas of yours in a couple of minutes. The problem you would have, that I also would have, is understanding the mathematics and physics behind it. If I started now, and if I had the talent (which I don’t), it would take 6 or 8 years of study to master the required maths to even understand current astrophysics let alone work in it and extend our knowledge.

    Your knowledge of cosmology is the popular science knowledge similar to my own. However I do not have the supreme arrogance to tell astrophysicists their jobs and propose in my ignorance that every thing that they have worked on is rubbish.

  73. Ender May 11, 2008 at 9:39 pm #

    Louis – “If the half life of a free neutron is 10 minutes, then neutrons cannot exist independently from the rest of matter. Hence Neutronium cannot exist. Therefore neutron stars cannot exist.”

    BTW just asking – is there a strong nuclear force and a weak one? Or in the electric universe is there only one force.

    If you don’t know why I ask then my previous post is confirmed.

  74. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 9:43 pm #

    Ender,

    I never posted that comment, so the rest is superfluous.

  75. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 9:52 pm #

    Thank you Jonathan Wilkes, :-)

  76. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 10:04 pm #

    Ender,

    Don’t know whether you got the message but a Carl Smith posted that comment about the big bang. Personally I found it somewhat prolix – I would have preferred:

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded”.

    But I do sense some “implosions” about me.

  77. Wes George May 11, 2008 at 10:08 pm #

    Louis,

    Mr. T? What are you talking about?

    I understand that you have to go to work tomorrow. Are you going to address any of my questions that I submitted with all due respect?

    If not, just say so. No worries, mate.

  78. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 10:17 pm #

    Wes

    What do you propose is going on at the event horizons of these objects?: Have no idea

    What do you propose is forcing the spiral arms of the galaxy in your picture above?: Electrical forces

    What do you propose is the three dimensional shape of the universe?: 3D.

    What do you make of e=MC squared? Does it function? Does it have predictive value? Mass is not a property of matter, it is merely a measurement of a force acting on it.

    How many dimensions does your proposed universe exist in? 3 but I never proposed any universe, so why assert I did.

    How do you measure time in an infinite universe?

    Time is simply the recognition of a steady, repeatable sequence of some physical event. It has no start, no end.

  79. Wes George May 11, 2008 at 10:28 pm #

    Thanks, Louis

    Be safe at work tomorrow!

    Good night

  80. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 10:31 pm #

    Thank you George, I will

    Good night.

  81. cohenite May 11, 2008 at 10:35 pm #

    Keiran; I hope you are right; entrophy and heat death is a cruel prospect for the universe; bad enough we have to face it personally.

    Louis; what is your take on Hadron and how does the Cosmic Microwave Background fit into your thesis? You understand that if Hadron detects tachyons all bets are off? Wasn’t the early universe a plasma universe?

  82. Louis Hissink May 11, 2008 at 11:58 pm #

    cohenite,

    Isn’t Hadron supposed to mimic a black hole ore something? In that case, er, what???

    Cosmic microwave background is simply the radio fog or noise we have to put up with.

    Detecting unimaginables is not within my purview so I can’t comment.

  83. Carl Smith May 12, 2008 at 12:00 am #

    Black Holes fell out of bad maths taking the inverse square law to an extreme (i.e. r = 0 and 1 / (0 * 0) = infinity …. aha … I’ve invented a black hole!), they can never be observed because light cannot escape their tremendous gravity (but polar jets of energetic matter apparently can) but they were enshrined by proclamation because they saved gravity driven stellar theory from falsification.

    Dark Matter that is impossible to see because it does not interact with EM radiation (i.e. it is invisible at all wavelengths because it does not emit or absorb light or any other radiation), was invented because observations falsified the crumbling gravity driven theory of galaxy rotation.

    Dark Energy was invented because it was the only way to salvage the Big Bang via ‘inflation’ (i.e. faster than light expansion) which otherwise contradicts physics (so does the faster than light bit, but that does not matter because Dark Energy has magical properties, so it cannot be proved wrong).

    Modern cosmology has degenerated to the point that it is little better than saying ‘the magical pink unicorn created the universe, and you cannot prove this is wrong, because the magical pink unicorn cannot be seen or heard by anyone but true believers’.

  84. Keiran May 12, 2008 at 8:18 am #

    Cohenite, don’t worry about entrophy and heat death for the universe because the Second Law of Thermodynamics would only apply to an isolated, finite universe expanding into “itself”. Of course if we continue with the old obsolete assumption of finite universal causality and closed isolated systems we will never come to terms with the great “cosmic dance” of matter in motion nor the complement to the Second Law which necessarily is its antithesis. i.e. An infinite universe is not a system as such but best understood as an infinite environment with the assumption of infinite universal causality that describes both divergence and its complement convergence which are equal. How hard is it to comprehend that things will come apart in one place to form other things in another place?

    Because this BB cosmology has nagged away at me for most of my lifetime, all i’m really proposing is a philosophic, inductive, open and inclusive process of discovery not some new cosmological model. You mention cosmic microwave background radiation and at 2.7K is way lower than BBer’s predictions and about normal to what was predicted without reference to any big bang fireworks. Let me say though that the BB is a sexy hypothesis but it is based on the will to believe rather than its opposite ….. the will to find out. The BBer worship of finite universal causality is not about love of forensic evidence because worship can only misinterpret or ignore or deliberately distort evidence.

  85. Ender May 12, 2008 at 9:36 am #

    Louis – “Don’t know whether you got the message but a Carl Smith posted that comment about the big bang. Personally I found it somewhat prolix – I would have preferred:”

    Yes you are correct I was getting my wacky theorists confused here. The comments still apply. You do not have the theoretical understanding of astrophysics to champion a completely new one. However you did say the bit about neutrons so I repeat is there a strong and weak nuclear force in this electric universe?

    Carl – “Dark Energy was invented because it was the only way to salvage the Big Bang via ‘inflation”

    No it was invented to explain the rotation of galaxies and the lack of a velocity curve.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

  86. spangled drongo May 12, 2008 at 9:48 am #

    Wes, I have been throwing the odd bucket of bolts in the air throughout my life, hoping it would come down a Ferrari.
    You telling me 14 billion years plus?
    If I throw a Ferrari into the air it will come down a bucket of bolts in five seconds.

  87. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 10:27 am #

    Ender,

    If you took the trouble to read the literature you will find that I am merely the messenger – Hannes Alfven, Eric Lerner, Tony Peratt and many other plasma physicists and engineers have developed the electric universe model from experiment and rigorous testing.

    But you still have not understood that an element of with a half life of 10 minutes cannot exist.

    As for weak and strong forces, of course they exist in the electric universe.

  88. SJT May 12, 2008 at 11:05 am #

    Creationists now. Hooray.

  89. Carl Smith May 12, 2008 at 11:26 am #

    Ender, read what I wrote again, then have a look at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

  90. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 12:00 pm #

    So when the maths doesn’t work out right, the astropphysicists “invent” dark matter as Ender states, rather than consider the possibility, no matter how slim, that there might be something amiss with the theory they are using.

    This is not science.

  91. Wes George May 12, 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    What was the purpose of this thread? The cyclone and galaxy seem to imply a relation between global warming scepticism and Louis’s bold scepticism of modern physics and cosmology.

    But the two are of utterly different orders of epistemology. To be a global warming sceptic all you have to do is to be able to imagine that, say for instance, the medieval warming period was quite possibly warmer than today. A simple statistical adjustment to a few data sets is all that AGW is based upon:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3072

    That, and a few rational doubts that the UN’s IPPC is any more credible than the average UN commission, for instance the UN Human Right’s Commission:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002944

    No Copernician phase shift in the nature of the last 100 years of fundamental physics is required or relevant to be sceptical of AGW theory. No re-imagining of any type of fundamental science or cosmology is necessary at all.

    Moreover, climatology is a relatively basic science that any uni-educated lay person ought to be able to grasp with a little bit of due diligence. Astrophysical concepts based on quantum physics are not so easily dealt without a profound level of mathematical insight and I dare say not a single person on this blog, myself included, knows enough to talk with authority on the subject, pro or con. But we can talk realistically about the epistemology on exhibit in this thread. And it is shameful!

  92. SJT May 12, 2008 at 12:26 pm #

    Of course it’s science. That is the role of science, to try to explain and understand that which we currently do not.

  93. Wes George May 12, 2008 at 12:28 pm #

    Kieran and Carl Smith are asking us to submit to a Copernicus-like shift from one cosmological model to another without submitting anything more than distaste for dominate model as evidence, nor even bothering with proposing a well articulated model that better fits the observed data on a point by point basis. Never mind that to attempt a Copernician revolution in the comment section of a blog is an absurdity to begin with. If Don Scott had any real proof he’d be hanging out at the nobel laureate club with fellow delusionalist, Al Gore.

    AGW sceptics, like the hard-nosed Steve McIntrye, demand strict adherence to scientific method and empiricism. Emotional 300-word appeals (with no substantiating links, as Luke would say) to dump the working cosmological models are quite the opposite.

    The Endless Flat Universe theory has more in common with Hansen/Mann/Gore hand waving attempts to create a new anthropogenic and apocalyptic climatological model than it does with AGW scepticism. Just like the climate true believers, few of my questions put to Louis did he even attempt to answer, and the few he did, he answered inadequately.

    Just one example: Louis says we live in a three dimensional world…yet even maths beyond first year trig demand recognizing that there is at least a fourth. And most modern astrophysicists suspect that our universe may have several more dimensions beyond that still!

    Perhaps, this is what is so confusing the Flat Universe people here, all those weird, irrational objects and funky observations that make little “common sense” to our primate minds, might be “flat” 3D shadows cast on the cave wall. Maybe God (whatever that means to you) didn’t make the universe so that it might be easily understood by a man ape who just learn to walk upright yesterday in terms of cosmic time. I suspect this is the case. Maybe the human mind was designed only to navigate and create in the normal 3 dimensional space regularly encountered on Earth, thus cognitive abilities to reason in higher dimensions were never naturally selected for since astrophysics bestowed little survival advantage in the neolithic. This would render what we see when we look back billions of years in time with our telescopes appear very strange indeed.

    Maybe the universe is far far more exotic than our simple Sapien minds can grasp. I doubt the astrophysicists have it right, on this we can agree. We are all Flatlanders in this respect:

    http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

    Kieran and Carl Smith, et al, rants against modern physics are simply not in the same epistemological class as a rational debate on climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. And to suggest they are equal in merit (as creating a thread for this sort of nonsense does) is a great disservice to the cause of rational scepticism in the fields of climatology, the environmental sciences and socio-economics.

  94. Wes George May 12, 2008 at 12:31 pm #

    Kieran and Carl Smith are asking us to submit to a Copernicus-like shift from one cosmological model to another without submitting anything more than distaste for dominate model as evidence, nor even bothering with proposing a well articulated model that better fits the observed data on a point by point basis. Never mind that to attempt a Copernician revolution in the comment section of a blog is an absurdity.

    AGW sceptics, like the hard-nosed Steve McIntrye, demand strict adherence to scientific method and empiricism. Emotional 300-word appeals (with no substantiating links, as Luke would say) to dump the working cosmological models are quite the opposite.

    The Endless Flat Universe theory has more in common with Hansen/Mann/Gore hand waving attempts to create a new anthropogenic and apocalyptic climatological model than it does with AGW scepticism. Just like the climate true believers, few of my questions put to Louis did he even attempt to answer, and the few he did, he answered inadequately.

    Just one example: Louis says we live in a three dimensional world…yet even maths beyond first year trig demand recognizing that there is at least a fourth. And most modern astrophysicists suspect that our universe may have several more dimensions beyond that still!

    Perhaps, this is what is so confusing the Flat Universe people here, all those weird, irrational objects and funky observations that make little “common sense” to our primate minds, might be “flat” 3D shadows cast on the cave wall. Maybe God (whatever that means to you) didn’t make the universe so that it might be easily understood by a man ape who just learn to walk upright yesterday in terms of cosmic time. I suspect this is the case. Maybe the human mind was designed only to navigate and procreate in the normal 3 dimensional space regularly encountered on Earth, thus cognitive abilities to reason in higher dimensions were never naturally selected for since astrophysics bestowed little survival advantage in the neolithic. This would render what we see when we look back billions of years in time with our telescopes appear very strange indeed.

    Maybe the universe is far far more exotic than our simple Sapien minds can grasp. I doubt the astrophysicists have it right, on this we can agree. We are all Flatlanders in this respect:

    http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

    Kieran and Carl Smith, et al, rants against modern physics are simply not in the same epistemological class as a rational debate on climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. And to suggest they are equal in merit (as creating a thread for this sort of nonsense does) is a great disservice to the cause of rational scepticism in the fields of climatology, the environmental sciences and socio-economics.

  95. Wes George May 12, 2008 at 12:33 pm #

    whoops, sorry for the double post.

  96. Ender May 12, 2008 at 12:38 pm #

    Carl Smith – “Ender, read what I wrote again, then have a look at:’

    I see – my apologies. However it really goes back to Einstein’s cosmological constant rather than saving the big bang.

  97. Ender May 12, 2008 at 1:19 pm #

    Louis – Try putting these 2 things to together:

    1. “As such, although free neutrons are unstable, bound neutrons are not necessarily so. The same reasoning explains why protons, which are stable in empty space, may transform into neutrons when bound inside of a nucleus.”

    2. “A neutron star has some of the properties of an atomic nucleus, including density, and being made of nucleons. In popular scientific writing, neutron stars are therefore sometimes described as giant nuclei. However, in other respects, neutron stars and atomic nuclei are quite different. In particular, a nucleus is held together by the strong force, while a neutron star is held together by gravity. It is generally more useful to consider such objects as stars.”

  98. Keiran May 12, 2008 at 2:19 pm #

    Wes, let’s have no more anthropocentric cosmic models with humanity at the centre and start opening our minds and observe what is actually here. You may like to describe how this attitude may threaten your security? Is this the core issue …… ? When i regard the idea of nothingness as just that, an idea, can i enquire who or how or what gives you the evidence to the contrary? i.e. If mathematicians remain the fashion leaders in physics then physics just becomes an intellectual game with no reality principles.

  99. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 2:24 pm #

    Ender,

    Show us a lump of matter comprised totally of neutrons which we can test and analyse. Proposing this stuff exists millions of light years away where we cannot test it is simply baloney.

    The only time we have seen this, the neutrons decay alsmot instantaenously.

    The statement “bound neutrons are not necessarily so means they are guessing Ender.

    Its pure pseudoscience.

    And where did you cull that information from? It would be interesting to see what elese the authoer conjured up.

  100. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 2:33 pm #

    Wes,

    And let’s have a lsit of the questions I did inadequately so I know instead of informing all and sundry that I failed your tests.

    I have no experience of any other world other than the 3D we exist in. That would suggest I am not off the planet.

  101. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm #

    Ender

    Wikipedia states:

    “Neutronium is a term originally used in science fiction and in popular literature to refer to an extremely dense phase of matter composed primarily of neutrons. The word was coined by scientist Andreas von Antropoff in 1926 (i.e. before the discovery of the neutron itself) for the conjectured ‘element of atomic number zero’ that he placed at the head of the periodic table.[1][2] However, the meaning of the term has changed over time, and from the last half of the 20th century onward it has been used legitimately to refer to extremely dense phases of matter resembling the neutron-degenerate matter POSTULATED to exist in the cores of neutron stars”.

    Postulated to exist does not mean it actually does.

  102. James Mayeau May 12, 2008 at 2:50 pm #

    Louis said – (The earth is electrically isolated from space plasma by Double Layers (AKA Langmuire Sheafs), so any electrical currents that pass through this DL are usually lightning).

    What are the chances that this Langmuire sheaf might leak a bit in some places? That would make them capacitors rather then insulators.
    What if the capacitance is related to air pressure in the troposphere?
    In that case, hurricanes and polar votices would be local expressions of Earth’s connection to the electric universe.

  103. Ender May 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm #

    Louis – “Show us a lump of matter comprised totally of neutrons which we can test and analyse.”

    Sure assuming that you had test instuments made of the same material. How can you then believe in electrons? You cannot measure their velocity and postion at the same time therefore they must be make believe particles invented to explain electricity.

    So the electric universe is also as made up as neutrons stars. So please send me one electron nicely parcelled up for me to see.

  104. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 3:09 pm #

    James

    That’s the basic principle – a leaky capacitor model for the earth, and that would be correct – they are the interface effects between the earth the active solar plasma.

  105. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 3:13 pm #

    Ender,

    You consistently refuse to present empirical evidence for any of your assertions. Since you can’t show the evidence, you conclusively demonstrate that neutronium doesn’t exist, because if it did I would be the first to have to swallow it.

    Thank you for this sterling effort.

  106. James Mayeau May 12, 2008 at 4:01 pm #

    I like this idea. Hurricanes pump up in volume when over water, (water being a great conductor) subside when over land (grounding out).
    Makes sense to me.
    Also explains the patterns of ice melt observed over the poles. The antarctic stores up ice because it is grounded out. The Arctic aurora are more intense over water then land.
    Perhaps the wanderings of the geomagnetic poles have more to do with climate change, then ambiant co2 levels.

  107. SJT May 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm #

    Apply such brilliant logic to AGW and bingo, anything can be denied, nothing is ever proven.

  108. Wes George May 12, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    “You consistently refuse to present empirical evidence for any of your assertions”

    Jeez, Louis, you’re the dude with the revolutionary new theory the onus is on YOU to produce and convince us with evidence.

    And you consistently refuse to present empirical evidence for any of your assertions!

    Ender doesn’t have to prove anything. Working theories of gravity stand on their own. All Ender has to do is point to them. You do the presenting of new evidence which shows those theories in error and then you present an alternative theory which works better and not just in one narrow sense, but better overall. Can’t cheat and just deny observations that are inconvenient.

    You have to disprove Einstein, Bose, Hawkings, Quantum Physics, E=MC squared and all the rest of it.

    AND present something to replace it all with.

    So cut the baiting and get on with it. Time is a wasting.

    This whole digression into neutrons is a way to lose focus on the topic at hand which is your theory of the universe.

  109. Ender May 12, 2008 at 4:13 pm #

    Louis – “You consistently refuse to present empirical evidence for any of your assertions. Since you can’t show the evidence, you conclusively demonstrate that neutronium doesn’t exist, because if it did I would be the first to have to swallow it.”

    I really do not have to as emperical evidence exists by the ton – one of which is the pulsar. As someone else has said you have the revolutionary theory and it is imcumbent on you to show where your theory has better preditions that the current theory.

  110. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 4:39 pm #

    Wes/Ender

    I am slowly doing that but when neither of you want to examine the information on the various plasma sites, then there is little point in pursuing this.

    Suffice it to say that using Maxwell-Lorentz equations plasma cosmoligists can model the galaxy shapes using Particle in Cell simulation. Peratt has done so many times and published on it. Plasma science can deal with galaxy rotation simply by using the Mawell_lorentz equations and has not needed the invention of hidden matter, black holes and etc.

    It’s all there in the scientific literature. If neither of you wish to read it, there is nothing I can do about that.

  111. Wes George May 12, 2008 at 6:04 pm #

    Actually, Louis, I’m not qualified to judge Maxwell-Lorentz equation base plasma cosmology, but Skipper I thinks she’s gonna blow if we don’t add another dilithium crystal!

    Look, it’s fine to believe in whatever you folks want. I know a perfectly nice homeopath and we’re good friends. Another friend of mine was almost abducted by aliens. (They confiscated his esky of XXXX instead.) Go figure.

    Louis says that he is “slowly” working on a refutation of Einstein, quantum physics and a century of astrophysical work. Well, bloody hell, man, don’t tell me you done come to battle with no arms. You called the meeting now you tell us to hang on while you go back and rustle up the facts???

    BZZZT. You lose. Game over. To continue add another 50 cents.

    What I object to is the insinuation this thread seems to make that your particular brand of quackery is similar to rational brands of AGW scepticism. SJT sees that clearly!

    On the contrary, your unsubstantiated claims for a whole new revolutionary cosmology have more in common with unsubstantiated claims for a whole new CO2 driven climatology.

    They both rely on vast oversimplification of the problem. Electrical plasmas account for everything, GHG drives the climate.

    And they both thrive on ignoring any observations that don’t fit the new model. Extremes of gravity, time space continuum, relativity, dimension beyond the third, The 3rd law of Thermodynamics, gravitional lens, theories of both evolution and probabilities, etc. etc.

    AGW theory: Medieval warm period, natural interglacial warming, complexity theory, etc.

    Unfortunately for the Electric Universe theory, unlike AGW, there is no convenient political handle for Al Gore to grab on to, or you blokes would all be famous now.

    I remain sided with the skeptics both in climatological matters and as in regards to your new Flat Universe theory.

    I think it is important though that we don’t equate crank theories of the universe with AGW scepticism. The mere existence of this thread on our host’s blog is somewhat uncomfortable, and if I were in the Al Gore camp I would link to it as evidence for the irrational quackery of the sceptics. (Luke, don’t you dare!)

    And do have one last question for Mr. Hissink, before I give it up.

    Is it true, as Ender and Luke said, that you have an alternative theory for geological plate tectonics as well?

  112. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 6:32 pm #

    Wes

    I never said that, I am slowly working on an exposition of the Theory of the Electric Universe.

    As for plate tectonics, please read the literature at http://www.ncgt.org

    It isn’t my theory by a theory developed by many geoscientists.

    And pleasae We do give up, because the electric universe theory has aleady by published by Anthony Peratt in 1992, The Physics of the PLasma Universe”, and a list of papers published

    COSMOLOGY

    Hannes Alfvén, 1908–1995. A. L. Peratt

    Birkeland and the Electromagnetic Cosmology, A. L. Peratt, Sky & Tel.May 1985 (696KB)

    Model of the Plasma Universe, H. Alfvén, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol PS-14, 1986 (1.1MB)

    Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition, H. Alfvén, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, 1990 (740KB)

    Plasma Cosmology, A.L. Peratt, Sky & Tel. Feb. 1992 (552KB)

    Not With A Bang, A. L. Peratt, The Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences, January/February, 1990, Part A (452K), Part B(536K)

    ELECTRIC SPACE

    The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26 (1990) (548KB).

    Plasma Experiments in the Laboratory and Space, A. L. Peratt, C.-G. Fälthammar, and N. Rynn (1992) (548KB)

    Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992 (152KB)

    Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, APSS 242, 1997 (3.3MB)

    Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 (2.1MB)

    Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A .L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 [Adobe annotated edition] (8.3MB)

    ENERGY DENSITY AND TEMPERATURE OF UNIVERSE

    Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, A. L. Peratt, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 3-11 (1995) (576KB)

    The Redshift Revisited A.K.T. Assis and M.C.D. Neves(36KB), Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 13-24, 1995 (696K)

    The Temperature of Space, C.H. Guillame 1896 (108KB)

    Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents, W. Peter and A. Peratt, Laser and Particle Beams, vol. 6, part 3, pp. 493-501, 1988 (560K)

    COBE Satellite Finds No Hint of Excess in the Cosmic Microwave Spectrum, Physics Today, 1990 (128K).

    COBE Sows Cosmological Confusion, Science, vol. 257, 28, 1992 (356K).

    Fretting About Statistics, Daniel Kleppner, Physics Today, July 1992 (236KB).

    GALAXIES

    Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, H. Arp, Astrophys. J., Supplement Series, 123-132, 1966 (152K).

    Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.(1.7M)

    Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986 (1.9M).

    The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe, A. L. Peratt, Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491, 1988.

    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, SPECIAL ISSUES ON PLASMA ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY

    Electrical Engineering, Plasma Science, and the Plasma Universe, A. L. Peratt, 1986 (312KB)

    The Golden Anniversary of Magnetic Storms and the Aurorae, T. A. Potemra and A. L. Peratt, 1989 (516KB)

    Guest Editorial: The IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology, La Jolla, CA, A. L. Peratt, 1990 (1.1MB)

    Guest Editorial: Plasma Experiments in the Laboratory and in Space, A. L. Peratt, C.-G. Fälthammar, N. Rynn, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 1992 (548K).

    Guest Editorial, Space Weather Effects, S. T. Lai, N. Singh, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. December 2000 (36K).

    Guest Editorial Sixth Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt and C.-G. Fälthammer, December 2003 (1.4MB)

    LABORATORY ASTROPHYSICS

    Evolution of Colliding Plasmas, A. Peratt, J. Green, and D. Nielsen, Physical Review Letters, 44, pp. 1767-1770, 1980 (248K).

    Microwave Generation from Filamentation and Vortex Formation within Magnetically Confined Electron Beams, A. L. Peratt and C. M. Snell, Physical Review Letters, 54, pp. 1167-1170, 1985 (688K).

    A Particle-in-Cell Simulation of a Cyclic Beam Buncher, A. L. Peratt, C. M. Snell, and F. S. Felber, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.626, (1990) (448KB).

    REDSHIFTS

    Comments on Tired-Light Mechanisms, H. Arp, IEEE TPS v.18, 1990 (136K).

    Evidence for Quantized and Variable Redshifts in the Cosmic Background Rest Frame , W. G. Tifft, in Modern Mathematical Models of Time and Their Applications to Physics and Cosmology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997 (1.2M).

    Redshifts and Blueshifts of Spectral Lines Emitted by Two Correlated Sources, E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Letters, 58, 2646, 1987 (176K)

    Shifts of Spectral Lines Caused by Scattering from Fluctuating Random Media, D. F. V. James, M. P. Savedoff, and E. Wolf, Astrophysical J., 359, 67, 1990 (448K).

    SOLAR, SOLAR SYSTEM, INTERSTELLAR, GALACTIC PLASMA, PLASMA SPACE, ELECTRIC SPACE

    Filamentation of Volcanic Plumes on the Jovian Satellite Io, A. L. Peratt and A. J. Dessler, Astrophys. Space Sci. 144, pp. 451-461, 1988 (1M).

    Was the Titius-Bode Series Dictated by the Minimum Energy States of the Generic Solar Plasma? E. Wells, IEEE TPS v.18, 1990 (264K).

    Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes and the Bennett Pinch, G. L. Verschuur, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, pp. 187-198, 1995 (776K).

    Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment. K. Healy and A. Peratt, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 1995 (1.1MB).

    Galactic Neutral Hydrogen Emission Profile Structure, G. L. Verschuur and A. L. Peratt, Astron. J. 118, pp.1252-1267, 1999 (672K).

    Observation of the CIV Effect in Interstellar Clouds: A Speculation on the Physical Mechanism for Their Existence, A. L. Peratt and G. L. Verschuur, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. December 2000 (344K).

    Trends in Apparent Time Intervals Between Multiple Supernovae Occurrences, E. Sanders, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.31, pp.1252-1262, 2003 (408Kb)

    SPACE PLASMA PIONEERS

    Plasma Physics from Laboratory to Cosmos—The Life and Achievements of Hannes Alfvén, C.-G. Fälthammar (808KB)

    Dean of the Plasma Dissidents, A. L. Peratt, The World & I, Natural Science Sec., pp.190-197, May 1988, (4 MB)

    A Tribute to Oscar Buneman—Pioneer of Plasma Simulation, R. Buneman, R. J. Barker, A. L. Peratt, S. H. Brecht, A. B. Langdon, H. R. Lewis, IEEE Trans.Plasma Sci. 22, 1994 (1.2MB)

    Particle Beams and Basic Plasma Phenomena in the Plasma Universe: A Special Issue in Honor of the 80th Birthday of Hannes Alfvén, Laser and Particle Beams, (464KB)

    Container Lists — Hannes Alfvén

    In Memoriam Grote Reber 1911-2002 Founder of Radio Astronomy, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 31, December 2003 (372kB)

    ENERGETIC AURORAS: MHD and INSTABILITIES

    Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity, A. L. Peratt, Trans. Plasma Sci. V.31, N.6, pp. 1102-1214, December 2003.

    Evidence for an Intense Aurora Recorded in Antiquity, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Int. Conf. Plasma Sci,.Conference Record, Jeju, Korea, June 2003. p.143 (328kB).

    The Origin of Petroglyphs—Recordings of a Catastrophic Aurora in Human Prehistory? D. A. Scott and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Int. Conf. Plasma Sci., Conference Record, Jeju, Korea, June 2003. p.143 (84kB).

    Stonehenge—A Giant Petroglyph? University of Pennsylvania Almanac, Vol.48, No. 08, October 2001 (Update February 18, 2004)(248kB).

    Derivation of the Chandrasekhar-Fermi-Shafranov Equations and Their Graphical Solution with a High Fidelity Computational Facility, A. L. Peratt, 2004, In preparation

    Problems of Gravitational Stability in the Presence of a Magnetic Field, S. Chandrasekhar and E. Fermi, Astrophys. J., V.118, pp. 116-141, 1953. (1.8MB).

    Orientation of Intense Z-Pinch Instabilities from an Intense Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity: Western USA, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Int. Conf. Plasma Sci., Conference Record, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, June 2004.

    Orientation of Z-Pinch Instabilities from an Intense Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity: South America, D. Scott and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Int. Conf. Plasma Sci., Conference Record, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, June 2004.

    Orientation of Intense Z-Pinch Instabilities from an Intense Aurora as Recorded in Prehistory. A. L. Peratt, , D. A. Scott, and M. A. van der Sluijs. Bulletin of The American Physical Society, 46th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Savannah, Georgia, 2004.

    “Multiple Platform Application of 3D CAD PIC Simulations in Pulsed Power: The Coaxial Plasma Thruster”, Invited Paper, A. L. Peratt and M. A. Mostrom, IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, Madison, WI.,1995 (4.6MB Quicktime Movie)

    Others have alrady done it for me, so I don’t really need to re-invent the wheel.

  113. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 7:59 pm #

    Wes George

    I suspect it is a pseudonym, and I decided to read the rest of your post above.

    I suspect you might need to review your impatient conclusion.

  114. Wes George May 12, 2008 at 8:34 pm #

    Wow, Louis

    I hope some of the above is online.

    Got some reading for the evening! I think I will start with:

    “Stonehenge—A Giant Petroglyph? University of Pennsylvania Almanac, Vol.48, No. 08, October 2001 (Update February 18, 2004)(248kB)”

    I hope you haven’t padded this reading list out any?

    As for plate tectonics, the link you gave is a dead end:

    http://www.ncgt.org/category.php?id=1

    You have to cough up $ to see the contents. So hard to judge what is going on there. However, the homepage did say that the NCGT was:

    “Forum for discussion of such ideas and work which has been inhibited in existing channels. This should cover a very wide scope from such aspects as the effect of the rotation of the earth and planetary and galactic effects, major theories of development of the earth, lineaments, interpretation of earthquake data, major times of tectonic and biological change, and so on.”

    “Galactic effects” on plate tectonics? Puh-leeze. Come on, Louis, I thought you were an electric guy. How’s the galaxy suppose to effect plate tectonics if not through some sort of quantum entanglement, but hey, you don’t believe in quantum states with the electric universe.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

    I think I also heard you once mention the name Veliokosky as a geological reference. In fact, I am a great long time fan of Veliokosky, but from an epistemological and punctuated equilibrium evolutionary POV. I particularly love his descriptions of 5,000 meter high tsunamis washing across the Asian steppes during magnetic polar shifts. Mind bogglingly stuff.

    Mate, I could be well wrong, but outside of the sciences that are being politically manipulated, “ideas and work which has been inhibited in existing channels,” should, in theory, be work that didn’t pass the peer review smell test..

    Thank God for the Internet. So if your blokes at NCGT can’t find a publisher, I think they ought to get together with my almost-alien-abducted mate to compare conspiracy notes over a few beers.

    Of course, if it quacks like Donald duck it could still be Bugs Bunny! I have an open mind.

  115. James Mayeau May 12, 2008 at 8:35 pm #

    Reading through the lightening section of the thunderbolt blog, I found this intriging bit of news;
    “Perhaps lightning also powers the wind… Perhaps hurricanes and tornadoes and even dust devils are electrical vortices. Only recently have investigators thought to look for electric fields in dust devils—and have found quite strong ones.”

    Wouldn’t it be something to develop a tornado dampening version of a lightening rod?
    Might be do-able.

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060322sprite.htm – link

  116. Ian Beale May 12, 2008 at 8:55 pm #

    Electrical fields in dust devils – maybe the glider pilots long sought thermal detector is getting closer

  117. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 9:01 pm #

    James

    I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s experiment when he flew a kite into a thunderstorm. Not a useful thing to do.

    That said, we have an enormous energy potential in front of us and not the wit to make use of it. I wonder what Tesla was designing all those years back.

    As for electrical discharges powering wind, I cottoned onto that when I came across the ioniser gadgets, but balked from doing much about it as that meant dealing with large electrical currents.

    However, as we now know from research and lab experiments, we can simulate it without needing to deal with life threatening electrical currents.

    I am still wondering how one might get electrical energy out of the earth’s surficial electric field.

  118. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 9:52 pm #

    Ian Beale

    Dust devils – the real problem in understanding those is how to measure the data.

    How on earth does one measure a seemingly randomly moving vortex?

    With great difficulty

  119. Louis Hissink May 12, 2008 at 10:03 pm #

    Wes

    NCGT papers are being published, and NCGT has financial support, so it might be useful to read the newer issues.

    Or are you here for another purpose?

  120. Denialist Scum May 12, 2008 at 10:30 pm #

    The discussion about Neutronium (and some of the other comments) makes me wonder if it is somehow related to Governmentium:

    Governmentium (Gv):
    A major research institution (MRI) has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest chemical element yet known to science. The new element has been tentatively named Governmentium. Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of three years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause some morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

    This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to speculate that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.

  121. sunsettommy May 13, 2008 at 10:49 am #

    Louis, having not read Mr. Scott’s book I don’t know if he makes an attempt to explain the cosmological ramifications that his theories make for how our universe is shape, was formed, is now working and where it is going in a lay person’s English.

    Perhaps, you could make an attempt to explain his new cosmology with as few jargons as possible and without mathematics for the lay folks, such as myself?

    After looking at his website, I must admit, I could use a summary.

    Posted by: Wes George at May 11, 2008 04:45 PM

    Here is a basic background in this link:

    A Brief History of Plasma I

    http://www.plasmacosmology.net/history.html

    Here is another link.With a collection of posted articles.In the articles are links that leads back to the original source.

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=11

  122. Louis Hissink May 13, 2008 at 3:07 pm #

    Thanks Sunsettommy, much appreciated,

  123. James Mayeau May 13, 2008 at 8:57 pm #

    Louis, using a Ben Franklin kite to direct the voltage was the first thing that came to mind, but the problem is a leaking capacitor.
    Perhaps, instead of channeling the leak, a better solution would be to plug the hole.
    I know in the transistor world it’s cheaper to pluck out a faulty capacitor and plug in a new one, but if you absolutely had to, could a leaking capacitor be mended?
    What is a Langmuire Sheaf? Can it be augmented?
    How would you go about doing that?

  124. KickLaBuka August 14, 2008 at 4:15 am #

    I’ve read Scott’s book. And Hilton Ratcliffe’s, and a few others. I also have a BS in Physics, where electromagnetic theory was a requirement. I would love to go to Los Alamos and meet these great minds, and share ideas. If they still exist, please direct me to any questions regarding this matter and I can probably help you to shake hands with The Electric Sky.

Website by 46digital