• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Jul 10, 2013.

  1. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

    IMO it's a tad ironic that Tom Bridgman spends his free time talking about dealing with creationism in astronomy when he's the one that is claiming that a 'big bang' created all the matter in our universe. :confused::doh:

    He's essentially peddling a creation event story that requires three (maybe four now) hypothetical entities. Considering his basic belief system, I have no idea why he feels compelled to whine about other people's creation mythologies. Anyway, what struck me about his most recent blog entry was his topic - Magnetic reconnection theory.

    What struck me most about this particular post is the blatant ignorance of history, along with the absurd attempt to twist the facts.

    There is no misconception. The fact of the matter is that solar flares are "electrical discharges". Bridgman's whole spiel about "like terrestrial lightning" seems to be the area where he intends to play word games.

    In fact it was Kristian Birkeland who first described solar flares as electrical discharges, not James Dungey.

    FYI, here's what Hannes Alfven had to say about "magnetic reconnection" theory when he presented his double layer paper that made that theory obsolete:

    In short, Alfven openly stated that the entire 'magnetic reconnection' concept was pure pseudoscience. His double layer paper makes it obsolete and Bridgman never even mentioned that.

    To discuss electrical discharges in plasma we first need a definition of an electrical discharge from a plasma physics textbook. Anthony Peratt from his book "Physics Of The Plasma Universe":

    Now of course Peratt studied plasma physics from Alfven, but I have no idea what, if anything, Bridgman understands about plasma physics, or if he's even read a single textbook on the topic of plasma physics.

    BZZZT! Those aren't just magnetic neutral points in Dungey's paper, they are electrically active areas where streams of electrons are flowing, electrons that ultimately *discharge* themselves into to the surrounding plasma.

    Now of course Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma *is inclusive* of "magnetic reconnection' theory in the first place, it's not *exclusive*.

    That line is so false it's pathetic. The electrical discharges in the plasma of Birkeland's experiments came from a source *external* to the plasma itself, and the ionization state of the plasma to start with is utterly irrelevant. Alfven also wrote an entire paper that is devoted to explaining how and why electric fields form in plasma, which Bridgman never mentioned!


    He is basically wrong on both counts.

    Apparently Bridgman does not begin to even understand Alfven's double layer paper or that paper by James Dungey. That same X marks the spot in Alfven's double layer where the current from both directions slams into each other. It's not just 'magnetic lines' that interact at that X, it's all the charged particles that are interacting at that X. That's true in Alfven's double layer paper, and it's true in the paper by James Dungey as well.

    That line is a complete misrepresentation of the facts considering my discussion of this topic at JREF. It was the astronomers and the mathematicians that kept claiming that "reconnection' was a "plasma optional" process! It's the maintream that doesn't even understand their own stupid pseudoscientific theories, not the EU proponents.

    Alfven already did that for him:

    http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf

    Their 'discouragement' was a ruse that was designed to ignore the fact the they *are* similar processes! That's their entire game in a nutshell. When they talk about making two "lines" reconnect, they aren't talking about simple magnetic lines, they are talking about current carrying threads of plasma (aka Birkeland currents) that electrically interact through a double layer that forms in between the two currents! There are no simple "magnetic lines' that actually reconnect, there are two *Birkeland currents" that reconnect electrically through a double layer. Alfven's double layer paper makes their "reconnection' theory obsolete in such instances. They can't and won't accept that fact.

    It's a placeholder term for pure pseudoscience according to the author of plasma physics theory. It's a placeholder term for an electrical interaction process in a plasma double layer that is adequately described in Alfven's double layer paper without the need for any magnetic lines disconnecting from or reconnecting to any other magnetic lines.

    Not actually. They all occur in "current carrying" environments, and Alfven's double layer paper explains that process already *without* reconnection theory.

    That statement is pure bunk. They are both "electrical discharges" involving huge amount of current through plasma.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2013
  2. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    Oh how I've missed the blather of creationists who pretend to be experts in science.
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    From actually reading his papers and his books including Cosmic Plasma, (something astronomers rarely do), I get the feeling that Alfven felt the same way about magnetic reconnection theory. ;)
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2013
  4. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie

    What misconception, the one on his part?

    His own scientists have used electric currents to create solar flares in the laboratory, perhaps TB would be better off reading what science is telling him instead of talking of what he knows not.

    The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Mail Online

    Just like mainstream have recreated galactic jets in the laboratory using electric currents.

    Plasma experiment recreates astrophysical jets - space - 04 July 2005 - New Scientist

    No, mainstream astronomers and basher's of EU theory think magnetic fields accelerate particles. Electrical Engineers know better and have known this for close to 200 years.

    The Lorentz Force

    Particle accelerator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Seems your own scientists are proving the creationist side then, while the evolutionist is lying to your face and not presenting you with the facts.

    It is no longer theory, but backed by laboratory experiments whereas what does he have? An unseen core of continuous nuclear fusion (never achieved), already disproved by modern experiments.

    [1206.3173] Anomalously Weak Solar Convection

    This is 2013, we have the technology to see what could not be seen before, electrical currents everywhere.

    NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

    NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

    NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

    Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute

    NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

    Check your own reality - seems to be missing.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2013
  5. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie

    Sorry, web browser keeps reloading the post twice.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2013
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Evidently so. :)

    If you read Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma, it's actually *inclusive* of reconnection theory and induction. Of course Bridgman never bothered to cite a useful scientific definition of an electrical discharge in plasma and it's highly unlikely he's read any of Alfven's work on double layers or that he understands his views on reconnection theory. I'm almost certain he's never read Peratt's book on plasma physics.

    My last conversation on this topic at JREF was quite enlightening by the way. The argument started with a mathematician claiming that "magnetic reconnection" was a plasma optional process.

    I think he took three or four weeks and presented something like five parts in his dog and pony show, and and not one single resident astronomer in the crowd busted him on his claim about plasma being optional in the "reconnection' process. They don't have the slightest clue about plasma physics, and even their understanding of basic EM theory is woefully lacking IMO.

    Anyone with even a basic understanding of EM field theory knows that magnetic lines have no beginning, no ending, no source, and no sink. Magnetic fields aren't like electric fields with a defined source and sink. Magnetic lines cannot disconnect from other magnetic lines, nor reconnect to other magnetic lines. Only plasma particles and *current* can reconnect in plasma. When I pointed all this out to them and cited WIKI for them, they actually changed the WIKI page to suit themselves! :doh:

    The whole "magnetic" reconnection claim is pure pseudoscience, just like Alfven said. If they called it "current reconnection', or "circuit reconnection', they might actually get it. The mainstream doesn't even grasp basic EM theory properly in many cases, and almost none of them have the slightest clue about plasma behaviors. Even JREF's so called "resident expert" tried to claim that magnetic reconnection was a plasma optional process. That's why Brigman's one comment was so ironic.

    What a ridiculous statement. The EU crowd has a *much* better handle on plasma physics, and it's the mainstream that seems to believe that 'reconnection' is a plasma optional process! After reading Birn's work on reconnection theory, I finally understood what idea they were trying to convey, but it's ultimately just 'circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" since they all involve current exchange, through a double layer in plasma.
  7. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie

    What always gets me is current astronomers ideas on magnetic fields being *frozen in*. I have yet to see anyone explain how a magnetic field is *frozen in* at the temperatures found in the Sun's environment without a constant electric current to sustain that magnetic field.

    Temperature effects on magnets
    Here is a list of tempertures for common materials.

    Curie temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Since a magnetic field can not even be blocked, disconnection and reconnection is a usless theory.

    Is there any material that can block a magnetic force? Specifically does lead block magnetic fields?
    Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields
    They actually believe because Electrical Engineers draw magnetic field strength lines off the paper it means they are open ended. Such drivel, the paper is just not large enough. If 15 lines are drawn leaving the North Pole, 15 lines will be drawn entering the South Pole. Every single reconnection theory ignores over 100 years of laboratory experiments with magnetic fields. It is the electric current which disconnects and reconnetcs. The magnetic field forms around the current, collapsing when the current is interrupted and reforming when the current reconnects.

    Of course, if mainstream astronomers would even once take an electrical field theory class they would know this about magnetic fields and not be constantly surprised with every new data set. Reconnection theory could then be consigned to the trash bin and science could advance instead of going backwards to the 3rd century of using epicycles again.

    One gets so tired of such poor science by mainstream astronomers and EU/PC bashers that have not a clue as to what the EU/PC theories actually say because they never read them, let alone their own science!:doh:
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2013
  8. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
    Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Death by Electric Universe. I. EU's Unsolvable Problem

    Hey Jats, you're officially on Bridgman's hit list. :)

    Apparently Mr. Bridgman is incredibly ignorant of EU/PC history, and/or not particularly imaginative. It turns out that Birkeland 'solved' Mr. Bridgman's "unsolvable problem" over 100 years ago, in a lab too. :)

    This type of ignorance and close mindedness is the thing that is holding astronomy back at the moment. EU/PC theory doesn't have a "single" solar model. In fact it has several, and several hybrids. The "maths" that Mr. Bridgman presents really relate to a *single* 'electric sun' model, specifically the *externally* powered Juergen's solar model. Any *internally* powered 'electric sun' theory resolves Mr. Bridman's unsolvable problem, and that is exactly the model that Birkeland proposed. It's also the model that Alfven proposed as well.

    What Mr. Bridgman failed to mention is that Birkeland published his internally powered "electric sun" (cathode sun) theory about 60 years before Juergen's. He also fails to mention that Alfven's "electric sun" model was also internally powered, in fact Alfven assumed that the standard solar model was correct in terms of energy production.

    Juergen's presented his solar model at a time when the "neutrino mystery" was still in full swing, and nobody had a clue about neutrino flavor changes. It's relevancy today is anyone's guess. It should be pointed out however that even Juergen's model could be modified in terms of energy production, allowing for some local energy generation (local fusion) as well as external currents from the universe.

    Admittedly Juergen's model isn't my personal favorite. I'm a big fan of Birkeland's cathode sun, but of course Birkeland presumed it was internally powered via a "transmutation of elements" inside the sun. It has nothing to do with Juergen's "johnny come lately" 'electric sun' theory.

    I think what I find most obnoxious about EU "haters" is that they refuse to educate themselves to history. They also tend to have a very shallow and 'narrow' viewpoint of what an "electric sun" theory might be. None of them seem to have a clue about Birkeland's model for instance. Fewer still understand that Alfven's "electric sun" model was essentially the standard solar model in terms of power supply, with an electrical interaction in the solar atmosphere between the sun and the rest of the universe.

    Bridgeman is a typical EU/PC hater. I doubt if he's even read a single textbook on plasma physics, and it's clear he's read none of Alfven's work. If he did read Birkeland's cathode sun theories, or Alfven's 'electric sun' theories, he's not even honest enough to mention either one of them as an alternative to Juergen's solar model.

    I'll give Bridgman a little latitude in terms of demonstrating that Juergen's model of a completely externally powered sun isn't viable, but that's hardly a serious problem for "electric sun" theory. It's too bad that EU haters have so little regard for history, and such a blind hatred toward empirical physics. :(
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    I must say.....

    After reading Tom Bridgman's recent blog entries, it's easy to see why the mainstream is so utterly lost, and why they continue to grope around in the dark ages of astronomy.

    Bridgman apparently does not know, nor did he ever once mention the fact that two of the first three 'electric sun' theories were *internally* powered. In fact Juergen's externally powered model wasn't the first "electric sun" theory ever proposed, nor has it been the last "electric sun' theory ever proposed.

    God only knows why Bridgman picked that particular "electric sun" theory to focus on in the first place. God only knows why he seems to think that *all* electric sun theories have some sort of "unsolvable problem". Apparently his entire belief system is predicated upon pure ignorance of the long history of EU/PC theory, and he has no real desire to study the topic in earnest. I seriously doubt from his recent posts that he has even read a real textbook on plasma physics. I'm sure he has not read 'Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven, or he would certainly know that his "killer math's" about electric suns are completely irrelevant to Alfven's "electric sun" theory. They have no relevance to Birkeland's cathode sun theories either.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

    This statement is so outrageously wrong, it's not even funny. It's bad enough that astronomers misrepresent the facts in relationship to their *own* theories, but the fact they blatantly lie about EU/PC theory is beyond sleazy.

    Birkeland was the first EU/PC proponent to empirically test the EU/PC model *in the lab*, in real experiments. To suggest that EU/PC theory has no experimental support of a cathode solar model is absolutely false. Birkeland did that himself. He even created his own mathematical models to describe the travel path of *both* types of charged particles.

    http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf
    http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf

    The "invisible agent" in Birikeland's experiments was an ordinary current, and it wasn't all that "invisible" either. Birkeland literally described solar flares as electrical discharges in his work.

    James Dungey also used the term "electrical discharges" in his work, and he also put forth a working model of how it worked. Not coincidentally, his work is much like 'reconnection' theory today, albeit he expressly described the current. Dr. Charles Bruce also did extensive writing on discharge theory as it relates to solar flares.

    The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Critici
    Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution

    What's nice about Dungey's paper is that it expressly accounts for the current along the "neutral", and he explicitly describes the energy release process as an electrical discharges, very much in agreement with Perratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma.

    Anthony Perratt also wrote any entire plasma physics textbook that describes the whistler waves and various processes in plasma, not to mention the book that Alfven wrote that describe the math that Bridgman has clearly never read for himself.

    Cosmic Plasma - H. Alfvèn - Google Books
    Physics of the Plasma Universe (Book) - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

    Apparently Mr. Bridgman believes that if he's personally never read and understood the work and math that describe solar flares from the E/circuit orientation of plasma physics, they must not exist. :(
  11. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    FYI, it should also be noted that Birkeland's "electric/cathode sun" was internally powered. All of Mr. Bridgma's IBEX commentary is meaningful only to a Juergen's solar model, and only to an *externally* powered sun theory. Both Alfven's "electric sun" and Birkeland's electric sun were internally powered, not externally powered. Of course it's doubtful that Bridgman even understands Birkeland's solar model or Alfven's solar model based on his commentary.
  12. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Let's talk now about the mainstream experiments, how they actually work, and where Alfven's double layer paper comes in.

    If you review the various lab experiments on 'magnetic reconnection", they typically begin by creating two current carrying filaments in plasma that flow in opposite directions. Note that it is the *current* that provides/creates both current filaments to start with, and all the available magnetic field energy as well. They then move the current filaments into close proximity, which causes a 'double layer' to form in between the two streams of current. Alfven's double layer paper describes the energy transfer process in that double layer *without* magnetic reconnection. In fact his double layer paper makes 'reconnection' theory obsolete in *all* current carrying environments, including the experiments that use current carrying filaments.

    The "rewiring" that takes place between the two current filaments is an example of 'current reconnection', or 'circuit reconnection'. Magnetic lines do not have a beginning, an end, a source, or a sink. They cannot 'disconnect from' nor reconnect to any other magnetic lines. Even the concept of 'magnetic lines' is an oversimplification. Magnetic fields form as a complete and whole *field*, not discrete individualized lines.

    In short, the mainstream simply *ignores* the kinetic energy of the current carrying filament, *ignores* the current flowing through the double layer, and tries to dumb down the whole process to a B (magnetic) orientation. The problem is that *electric* fields are providing the entire motive force behind each of the two current carrying filaments, and that same E field is what ultimately 'reconnects'.

    As Alfven stated rather bluntly, MR theory is a 'psuedoscience' that is 'sort of' right, and 'sort of ' missing the whole point. As Alfven's double layer paper demonstrates, it's possible to describe the particle actions of a current carrying double layer *without* magnetic reconnection.

    Anyone with a basic understanding of EM field theory knows that magnetic lines have no beginning. They don't "end' anywhere either. They don't have a source or a sink, so they cannot "disconnect" for any source, nor reconnect to any sink.
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    As long as I'm complaining about the so called 'EU critics'....

    While I agree with Bridgman on the 'internal vs. external' power issue, it's most annoying that he erroneously continues to act as though there is but *one* 'electric sun' theory.

    Alfven's 'electric sun' theory was essentially the standard solar model, with EM interactions between the sun and the universe itself. It was *internally* powered, and it's energy source was dependent on the standard solar model. Unfortunately it also suffers from the revelation that convection speeds at depth are but 1 percent of predicted values.

    Likewise Birkeland's solar model was *internally* powered, not externally powered. He presumed a 'transmutation of elements' was providing the power *internally*.

    Both Alfven's model and Birkeland's model would *necessarily* need to match the neutrino output predictions of the standard model. Alfven's "electric sun" model is literally dependent upon the standard model. Birkeland also predicted an internal power source, so it too would need to match the neutrino counts of standard theory to produce enough energy to explain what we observe on Earth.

    What is "different" about those two electric sun models is not their power source, but rather their interaction with the heliosphere. Birkeland's model actually predicts the flow of both types of charged particles from the sun that will flow toward the heliosphere (space in Birkeland's lingo).

    There are of course more than just *three* "electric sun" models under discussion. Several other EU proponents have proposed their own variations of 'electric sun' models, some of which are also internally powered.

    It's really disingenuous IMO for Tom Bridgman to misrepresent the facts as it relates to "electric sun" theories. There are several electric sun models to choose from, not one. A *minority* of them are actually entirely *externally* powered.

    It's really very annoying IMO that EU critics aren't particularly knowledgeable about the EU/PC topic. I doubt Bridgman has even read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven, or he would already know this stuff.
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Solar dynamic loops reveal a simultaneous explosion and implosion, plus evidence for magnetic reconnection

    This article that Bridgman cited to support so called 'magnetic reconnection' theory is amusing IMO. Notice that the mainstream 'dumbs down' a million degree current carrying plasma to a "magnetic arch"? That's utterly absurd. Coronal loops are current carrying Bennett pinches in plasma. It's the current that flows through the loop that sustains the individuals loop at a million degrees.

    The only 'encouraging' thing about the article is that it would "seem" that the mainstream is now acknowledging that the large loops come up and through the surface of the photosphere, and are hot before they exit the photosphere. We can actually observe the magnetic fields that are associated with the flow of current in the largest loops in magnetogram images. The hot temperature of the loops also leave their heat signature on that surface in 1600A and 1700A images.

    The thing they *didn't* mention is that coronal loops come in various sizes, from loops that are too small to be observed as more than a single pixel in an SDO image, to loops that are large enough to exit (and reenter) the photosphere.

    The "little loops" never actually get large enough to exit the surface of the photosphere, and therefore they never leave their telltale heat and magnetic field signatures on the surface of the photosphere.

    Many of the coronal loops are not only 'anchored' in the photosphere, the smaller ones never exit the photosphere at all.

    The smaller loops release a lot of heat underneath of the surface of the photosphere. We see the effect of this release of energy in the smaller loops as convection at the surface of the photosphere.
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    The Heart of Space Weather Observed in Action | NASA

    This other video cited by Bridgman to support "magnetic reconnection" is another good example of a "dumbed down" explanation of arcade loops. The person in the video notes that they cannot observe the magnetic field "lines" as they call them, they observe the million degree particles that run along the 'flux rope". What the video fails to mention is that it's not just 'magnetic lines' that are 'reconnecting' at those locations, it is multiple (two or more) current carrying plasma filaments that 'rewire' themselves in the atmosphere as *current* seeks the path of least resistance through plasma.

    It's not actually "magnetic lines" that disconnect or reconnect, it's *current* that rewires itself inside of a double layer. The double layer paper by Hannes Alfven makes the whole concept of ''magnetic reconnection' unnecessary and irrelevant in current carrying environments.

    The energy that is released inside the double layer is due to the kinetic energy of the charged particles that traverse each loop, and traverse the double layer between the loops as the currents inside the double layer begins to 'reconnect'.

    FYI, the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy has a proper name. It's called "induction', which of course does take place too. It is however the *600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 volts that drives the process, not just dumbed down magnetic lines.

    FYI, it's also disingenuous for Bridgman and the mainstream to be claiming that this represents 'magnetic reconnection' considering the fact that they lost their primary energy source to explain those 'magnetic lines' when they discovered that convection was much slower than predicted, just 1 percent of their predicted value. One percent!

    I love how Bridgman just *ignores* the observations that falsify his own beliefs, yet he keeps harping on EU proponents without even properly understanding the range of 'electric sun models' that EU/PC theory has to offer.
  16. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie

    But that's just it. You are asking them to give up a belief, not change a scientific theory. You and I and they understand that this is not merely solar data and theories at stake. The implications reach much further beyond that Michael.
  17. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    I see that Bridman is up to his old tricks of simply *misrepresenting* what I actually said.

    Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

    Emphasis mine. Brigman apparently then attempts to attribute this claim to *me*?!??????? :confused: :doh:

    First of all his original claim is purely bogus. I have *never* said to Bridgman that high voltages *could not* kill. He simply made that up, and in fact it's a blatantly false statement.

    He's also attempting to *ignore* the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *internally* powered, and therefore the current requirements are *not* the same as a Juergen's solar model. He's also intent on ignoring that the solar wind has a terminal velocity, and that plasmas do not carry current evenly. About all I can say for that last "hater post" by Bridgman is that he literally "made up" the part that I highlighted. The rest is irrelevant in since Birkeland's model predicts that the sun will release *both* types of charged particles, not just one, and the end result is a moving "quasi-neutral* solar wind plasma in the vicinity of Earth that *separates* again into actual *current* as it runs into the magnetic fields of the Earth. Furthermore, electrons will always seek the path of least resistance, and inside the nearly perfect conductor of the plasmas in the the solar system, that won't be through the human body. :)

    As long as Brigman continues to blatantly misrepresent the statements of the EU/PC community like that, he only dishonors himself and shows just how low he will go in a concerted effort to outrageously misrepresent the facts.
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2013
  18. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

    Ya know.....

    It's become *painfully* clear that the mainstream "method" of dealing with electric universe theory is to begin by *oversimplifying* the *range* of various options in EU/PC theory, and then building a strawman case out of a *single* EU/PC option.

    Such is the case with Tom Bridgman, one of perhaps the universe's greatest offenders in this activity.

    In his last Blog entry, Bridgman makes several oversimplification fallacies, several factual errors, and demonstrates a *fundamental ignorance* of 2/3rds of of EU/PC theory.

    EU/PC theory comes with three fundamentally unique solar models, two of which are *internally*, not externally powered. Bridgman's most recent attack on PC theory based on Peratt's models that used an *externally* powered solar model are an excellent example of this oversimplification process in motion in mainstream circles.

    While it's technically correct that not *all* galaxies are "strung together" via columnated Birkeland currents with other galaxies, it's still *far* from clear that this is *never* the case in all instances. Furthermore he neglects to mention several of the *correct* predictions that both Birkeland *and* Peratt made with their models.

    Birkeland's "electric universe" begins differently than Jurgen's "electric universe", and both are fundmentally different from Alfven's "electric universe models". There are *at least* three fundamentally *unique* "electric universe/plasma cosmology' concepts to consider within the EU/PC framework.

    Bridgman begins (and ends) his oversimplification campaign against whole range of EU/PC theories by attempting to fundamentally 'dumb it down" to but a single concept, and only 1/3 of the possible range of options to choose from. This attempt of pure oversimplification is a *constant pattern* found among all Eu/PC theory "haters" IMO. They know just a tiny little bit about it, and insist on limiting it to *their own ignorant understanding* of the topic!

    Even still, I'd like to address two fundamental problems with Bridgman's last oversimplified blog entry:

    That's actually a factually untrue statement for two reasons. First of all we do observe well defined microwave emitting columns of *current* carrying plasma flowing into and out of galaxies, particularly around galaxies with 'active' central cores. They connect not necessarily to *other galaxies* directly, but to the surrounding plasma mediums, and *in some cases* they B) may in fact connect to other galaxy cores, and connect through that surrounding plasma medium.

    Bridgman *assumes* that only one of three possible "configurations" of EU theory is somehow fully representative of the whole of EU/PC theory. He also *assumes* that the "wiring diagram" has to look *exactly* (and I mean exactly) like Peratt *assumed* in some mythical (not even named) quote from Peratt, otherwise the whole of EU/PC theory is falsified in his oversimplified hater world. :confused: :doh:

    Let's start with what a real galaxy looks like (our own) in a *raw* (rather than heavily processed) microwave image:

    Short Sharp Science: Microwave universe: Planck's first hi-res image


    Just as *all* versions of EU/PC theory "predict", there are *tons* of electrically active current flowing to and from various locations *within* our own galaxy that do indeed radiate microwave energy just as *predicted* in EU/PC theory. Bridgman fails to note that successful prediction *entirely*.


    He also points us to his own selected image of a galaxy *with* an active core that *does* "wire itself' to the surrounding plasma, in well defined 'Birkeland currents" that are indeed predicted by *every* EU/PC theory. Again Bridgman fails to note this *successful prediction*, while concentrating on *one possible wiring configuration* that turned out to be 'oversimplified' even in early EU/PC models. Oh well. Nothing like ignoring all the *correct* predictions, and fixating on only one claim that actually isn't falsified by the image Bridgman selected.

    Note that the *distance between* various galaxies is likely to play a large (read that *huge*) contributing factor in any likelihood of current traveling in well columnated jets for great distances. They clearly do travel great distances, but eventually they run into plasma that is dense enough to carry current without the need of well defined jets.

    Bridgman also fails to note the fact that we *have found* well defined connecting bridges of *hot gas* (bait and switch term for current carrying plasma), between whole galaxy clusters!

    Hot Gas Bridge Discovered Connecting Galaxy Clusters


    Not only are the galaxies "wired together" individually via the surrounding plasma medium, they're also 'wired together' at the galaxy cluster level! Bridgman fails to note or ever mention this *successful prediction* of all EU/PC models.

    I can only surmise from his most recent blog entry that Bridgman *assumes* that only *one possible wiring configuration* of Peratt's model was relevant, and only one specific prediction matters in terms of trying to falsify *every* EU/PC model.

    By "blobs", apparently he means "more dense regions of plasma".

    How did he *decide* that based upon the images he presented?


    What Bridgman failed to note is that the currents *are* well defined *close to* the galaxies themselves, but once the medium is "more dense" the current can flow through the more dense medium *without* the need for strong columnized jets to form. It's not true that the IGM is empty, so it's not true that they currents must form *thin* streams of currents in *all* instances and densities of plasmas.

    This is a flat out misstatement of fact. Birkeland was the first proponent of the 'electric universe' concept and he used an *internally* powered solar model, not an *externally* powered model. Bridgman's question was addressed more than 100 years ago by the *original proponent* of EU/PC theory. He's apparently ignorant of history, and *assumes* everyone else must be ignorant of history as well.

    The fundamental difference between Alfven's solar model and Birkeland's solar model, vs. a Jurgen's solar model is the fact that the previous (first two) solar models were *internally* powered. Only the *last* and my personally *least favorite* solar model is *externally powered* at all, and even in that case it's not clear that the *whole thing* must necessarily be *externally* powered.

    Bridgman is clearly ignorant of the whole of EU/PC history, and what he does think of "EU/PC theory' is really just a cartoon characterature of the actual theory. Even though the universe is indeed filled with currents that connect galaxies and whole galaxy clusters together, Bridgman ignorantly believes those currents have to flow in *tightly wound jets* in every location in spacetime! I doubt even Peratt himself ever said such a thing in a published paper which is why Bridgman never quoted him in the first place!

    Grrr. The pure ignorance of EU/PC haters is just absurd. Bridgman seems to be destined to be the last "flat earther" left in cosmology theory, while he continues to whack away at his own ignorant little strawmen.

    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013
  19. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Whine? He calls a *lab demonstrate fact* a "whine"? Really? Let's see Bridgman produce a plasma ball that creates tightly wound plasma spirals for *billions of years* after he turns off the power! In fact, I'd settle for 5 minutes. ;)

    Once it's 'started'? You mean by *moving charged particles*, AKA *current*?

    Define "long gone" for me? In terms of nicely defined Birkeland currents, it's not going to happen. Once the current stops flowing the nicely defined Birkeland currents dissipate almost instantly. Turn of the power inside of an ordinary plasma ball and watch how fast the filaments disappear.

    Energy that is radiating away, and going billion of light years away, won't explain those nicely formed jets around black holes or around galaxy *clusters today*. The mainstream simply *ignores* the *need* for electric fields and the *need* for electrical current in astronomy. They *insists* on trying to *dumb it down* to the B orientation of Maxwell's equations, and they utterly refuse to embrace the E orientation of those very same formulas! That's why they need "magnetic reconnection" rather than the simple circuit theories that Alfven used to describe electrical discharges in double layers.
  20. Elendur

    Elendur Gamer and mathematician

    I can't help but to point out the irony...

    (Given that several persons, that claims to have understanding in the matter, have stated equivalently about you (with the exception of the range statement (which, you know, you extend into infinity)))

    Ok. So if that is a misstatement of fact, then I assume you mean that the opposite would be correct.
    I.e. you claim that:
    We have heard from Electric Universe theorists what would power such gigantic circuits if they did exist.

    Do you think it would be within my range of knowledge to take part of the calculations for the expected energy consumption of a star to "power such gigantic circuits"?
    (If not a general, a specific would do)

    If yes, could I see it?