Interesting; I had this pretty much written and was looking up a reference and accidentally closed my Google Chrome browser instead of just the reference page, losing the entire composition in the process. Starting over is nothing new, unfortunately. The "save" box is there for a reason
Last August sjw40364 wrote
I think standard cosmology is finally starting to realize the data is becoming too much to ignore. I have noticed a lot of articles lately about plasma and magnetic fields. Of course only a few actually mention the word electricity, but even in the ones that don't you can see it screaming in the background to be noticed. I think they have just fought the idea so long they are no longer sure how to accept all the new data and it is more like a bad habit that they are trying to break.
I arrived at the same conclusion not long after stumbling onto the TB website back in early 2009.
My observation is that the conventional interpretations of what is going on, and what the EU take on that is, are different. We all use the same data, as EU doesn't really get research grants to support the interests of the established model. This is understandable from several perspectives. Thomas Kuhn has noted ("The Structure of Science Revolutions") that those involved with an extant model are resistant to change.
One contributing factor is specialization. Another is that large, smoothly operating research communities, such as the university system in many countries, possibly coupled with government grants to fund research and sometimes associated with industrial/military interests in guiding that research, want/need to maintain the funding stream to perpetuate the status quo of teaching and learning employment.
I've spoken with a lot of scientists since then, and can say with first-hand knowledge that they are mostly smart and well educated, and that they have a real interest in finding out how stuff works, at least in their area of specialized expertise. But they are cautious about seriously investigating alternate interpretations, as their own work usually keeps them busy enough, and there aren't many agencies which fund a department of alternate wild-eyed ideas (besides NASA, oddly). It is difficult for a specialized person to decide to start taking in a lot of ideas from many broad perspectives and to fabricate or synthesize a new viewpoint. With the exception of a few badly-behaved individuals, most scientists are not hostile to the EU paradigm. They are largely indifferent, and indisposed to make a large effort to investigate its possibilities and to critique it. The latter, in science, is typically done from a mathematical and a theoretical perspective. Neither of those areas is well-enough developed yet in the EU to deal with such criticisms. In a real sense, not being a theory, nor even a hypothesis, the EU should not be perceived as a threatening figure just yet, one to be debated and taken on in logical and mathematical term by established cosmology and astrophysical sciences. It just wastes both our time.
The other point that I need to make is that when you read that scientists all believe in black holes and dark matter, or that they don't know anything about electricity in space or electrodynamics in plasma, put on your critical thinking cap for a minute and search around a bit. How many plasma physics labs can you find in just the U.S., for example? What do radio astronomers know most about when they interpret their false color imagery of phenomena that humans aren't naturally equipped to see? What about the research in the dusty plasma lab in Boulder's U of CO branch? Or at Iowa State, or Princeton, or MIT or CalTech etc etc.
I and "Jarvamundo" both approached Bryan Gensler at the same time a couple years ago about an article he had written on magnetic fields in galaxies. Bryan is a good radioastronomer, was named "Young Astronomer of the Year" in Australia, and is currently active in many research projects including the Australian portion of the Square Kilometer Array. He did not just fall off the turnip truck. We didn't know it at the time, but we had both asked him why he hadn't mentioned the source of those magnetic fields; i.e., electric currents. Bryan graciously wrote us both back in a joint e-mail, saying (I paraphrase), "Everybody knows that magnetic fields are caused by electric currents. The bigger question is, what causes and supports those electric currents across such huge distances in space?"
Is that an EU question or not?!!
Is this guy ignorant of basic and advanced electricity and plasma dynamics? I suggest not. And he is not that different, at least in his specialty of radioastronomy. So don't be too tough on someone until you've taken time to get to know what people think. Solar physics people are a lot the same, I might add. They know it's plasma just as we do. They might think it's run a little differently than the EU says, but neither party has a magic viewer to see inside the Sun, so we are both making conjectures based on assumptions, to be real honest about it. Theirs happens to be better "documented" and we happen to look at their observational data and make different conclusions. That's the cool thing about science. Eventually a better model can succeed. But not always
. P.Kyle Stanford writes about "Science, History and the Problem of the Unconceived Alternate" in his little, dense book, "Exceeding Our Grasp". Like Kuhn, he is something of a science historian, and draws on several examples that show that ideas of alternate solutions or concepts or theories were swirling around and being openly discussed simultaneously with the on-going standard model of the time. Some of those ideas had the power to explain as well, or predict better or otherwise present a more robust alternate theory, but were never considered or were dismissed by the mainstream science. One might hope that the EU is the "unconceived alternate" that Stanford writes about, for this time, but there is no guarantee that the EU in present form is more robust or overall a better predictor or otherwise the most suitable candidate. (I'll likely get flack for this, but EU predictions, while good when they occur, are relatively sparse and narrow. Think about it. There is a lot of hard work yet to go, and "miles to go before I sleep".)
It is particularly gratifying to find a consensus scientist (one who is employed as a researcher today) who ventures successfully into "electric territory" when his subject is astronomical in nature. Such a person is Canadian astronomer Philipp Kronberg. You may have seen me mention his 2011 paper
, "Measurement of the Electric Current of a Kpc Jet". That was pre-printed on that most valuable of sites - i.e., no paywall - arXiv.org, and went on to peer-reviewed publication in the Astrophysics Journal or something similar, I can't remember. Since he ventured that the galactic jet was "powered by the black hole..." he made it past the censors I mean anonymous peer reviewers into print. But it used the "E" word in its title. I've collected nearly a dozen of his papers now, and even found a copy of a PowerPoint on galactic jets and their analysis for the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab.
* * * * A quick way to find a pre-print of an article that is mentioned in one of those dreadful "press release" reviews, in order to get the whole context and not the "dreaded comet may be largest yet; Earth's power grid likely doomed!!!" is to select an author's name, go to arXiv's website, click on Help | Advanced Search in the upper R corner, then select Physics papers (assuming that's your subject - there are others), and enter Last Name, First Name
in the Author entry box, and click the tiny "Do Search" button below that stuff. You can elaborate on that, but that's the basic way to get at what's behind stuff if it has been put up as a pre-print on arXiv, increasingly a popular thing to do. Especially with me.
Kronberg now has another paper
out on arXiv, as of December 2012, "Transmission Line Analogy for Relativistic Poynting-Flux Jets". A transmission line is a stock-in-trade subject in electrical theory. Relativistic means particles are moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. John Poynting developed the mathematical notation concerning the flow of energy through an area or a volume of space. A jet is, well, a tightly bound, high-speed ejection of matter. This is Nothing New or Improvised, folks! It is the current version of well-known (so far, anyway) science applied to these mysterious jets from galactic poles that can go for thousands of parsecs before blooming out and losing coherence in the intergalactic medium. Kronberg is doing what the EU should be able to be doing - writing papers using known physics and good astronomical measurement techniques and careful observations to come up with a method that might point to "how this works".
Was this [electric transmission line theory relating to plasma stuff] floating around in prior years? Well, yes
. The Index in the back of Anthony Peratt's textbook, "Physics of the Plasma Universe" references Transmission LInes in 7 different places, several of which are in "Appendix A. Transmission Line Fundamentals in Space and Cosmic Plasmas". I'd say that qualifies, even if astronomers don't read it.
Springer only published 847 copies of the first and only edition so hardly anyone but collectors has that, any more. Although the hardcover is out of print now, it has become available in paperback from Springer: google your favorite bookstore for details. A crucial
book for any EU enthusiast's bookshelf! Not yet on Kindle or iBooks or Nook, so far as I know.
I've written Kronberg to point out that his reference list was incomplete without Peratt's book's being on it, but am not holding my breath. Otherwise, Kronberg has responded graciously to me, a stranger, as have many others to whom I've just written out of the blue. Most of these are good people, and appreciate a pat on the back from someone who is just in the lay public and tells them they like their paper. If you know anything about transmission lines, you might strike up a conversation with him and be pleasantly surprised.
Don't bother calling or writing Leroy Ellenburger. He's a little foamy about the mouth when it comes to "EU mumbo jumbo".