Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond...

[katesisco]

Nuetrons as compressed hydrogen works for me. But why 2008? Nothing new?
As a non scientific person who wants to find the reason, I have considered that G1.9 is not an orbiting body, but an invader in Sol's heliosphere when it punctures the ORT shell. I conjecture this anti matter is being repelled from a system probably Centauri and is caught between Centauri's and Sol's. Its orbit is merely a repelling between the two systems. As it could not maintain its nuclear compressed matter (G Gammow) it lost the hydrogen gas maintaining the quantum to enforce light into non-vivratory status, silence. I term this LT (light therminus). As the small anti matter LT starbit lost its gas, it could no longer compress Sol's heliosphere down to Mercury, and allow expansion to rule on Earth temporarily, ala the floating mountains of Pandora.

This past occurrence was at least from close to 15,000 years ago survivable by the inhabitants of Earth. The extinction event of 12,900 y ago was due to the insufficiency of the LT to compress sufficiently and the rivers in the sky collapsed. The smarter us whose primary scientific interest was in maintaining the anti-gravity zone between appearances of the LT starbit (G1.9) were then forced to act diametrically and set about maintaining the non-expansion Earth via the moderation of input and outgoing energy through the pyramids. Their goal was to preserve the planet. The LT is now a neutron star having burped the gas necessary to maintain its LT status. Neutrinos are now being shed heavily while it makes its brief appearance into Sol's domain.

As we obey the Second Law, it seems unlikely we will obtain a source of energy sufficient to restore anti-gravity even in spots on E. If the smarter us couldn't restore the sky rivers of anti gravity, the future of our gravity well planet seems assured.

[Benevolent]

Heliophysics nugget: Riding the plasma wave
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-heliophysi ... lasma.html

[sjw40364]

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.

[kiwi]

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.

someone needs to get a few links through to these people ... the history of Plasma Cosmology would be a good start, and then the EU Guide for desert

http://phys.org/news/2012-01-galactic-m ... sters.html

Why is the universe magnetized? It's a question scientists have been asking for decades. Now, an international team of researchers including a University of Michigan professor have demonstrated that it could have happened spontaneously, as the prevailing theory suggests.


The findings are published in the Jan. 26 edition of Nature. Oxford University scientists led the research. "According to our previous understanding, any magnetic field that had been made ought to have gone away by now," said Paul Drake, the Henry S. Carhart Collegiate Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences and a professor in physics at U-M. "We didn't understand what mechanism might create a magnetic field, and even if it happened, we didn't understand why the magnetic field is still there. "It has been a very enduring mystery." With high-energy pulsed lasers in a French laboratory, the researchers created certain conditions analogous to those in the early universe when galaxies were forming.


Through their experiment, they demonstrated that the theory known as the Biermann battery process is likely correct. Discovered by a German astronomer in1950, the Biermann process predicts that a magnetic field can spring up spontaneously from nothing more than the motion of charged particles. Plasma, or charged particle gas, is abundant in space. Scientists believe that large clouds of gas collapsing into galaxies sent elliptically shaped bubbles of shockwaves through the early universe, touching off flows of electric current in the plasma of the intergalactic medium.


Anyone who has built an electromagnet in middle school science class is familiar with this concept, Drake said. "If you can make current flow, you make a magnetic field," Drake said. The question in astrophysics was what could have generated the current. This experiment demonstrated that such asymmetrical shockwaves could do the job. The results, Drake said, aren't particularly surprising. But it's important for scientists to test their theories with experiments. "These results help strengthen the understanding that we've taken from our interpretation of astrophysical data," Drake said. "And understanding the universe and most definitely the origin of life is one of the great human intellectual quests." More information: The paper is titled "Generation of scaled protogalactic seed magnetic fields in laser produced shock waves." Provided by University of Michigan

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-01-galactic-m ... s.html#jCp

[sjw40364]

No, it would be much too obvious that electrical pathways, i.e. Birkeland Currents are driving those magnetic fields. Much too simple an idea for those trained to look for Black Holes, Dark matter, etc. to come to the obvious conclusion. Why, the math just might work if they tried it.

[sjw40364]

What makes magnetic fields is simple, charge. E=mc^2 demands all particles have charge even at rest. Moving charges in particles cause magnetic moments in those particles. Why would it be a surprise that moving charges cause magnetism in space?

History

Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.

A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.

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

It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color.[3] Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.

Why would it be so difficult to understand moving charges make magnetic moments, that is exactly why they realized a neutron was not a fundemental particle as it possessed a magnetic moment yet was considered neutral. The same neutral as space is considered to be, yet moving charges create magnetic moments in neutrons. 1+1 = 2.

It is confusing to them because they are trying to explain the magnetic fields gravitationally and not electrically.

[Sparky]

This hypothesized force was called the strong force------The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge,---- Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.

Where is gravity mentioned? I only see types of charges in what you posted. You can't be suggesting that the strong force is gravity!

Actually, until you and those who proffer charge as an attractive/repellant field, explain what it is, you are really no more accurate than those who throw out gravity as a cause. Effects are not an explanation!

And throwing in speculative quarks and gluons only muddies up the mix.

By definition, there can be no electricity/magnetism at the subatomic level, unless there are charged particles, and those need to be explained, not just proclaimed. Until then, effects can be observed, but they do not explain what is happening and why.

[sjw40364]

This hypothesized force was called the strong force------The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge,---- Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.

Where is gravity mentioned? I only see types of charges in what you posted. You can't be suggesting that the strong force is gravity!

Actually, until you and those who proffer charge as an attractive/repellant field, explain what it is, you are really no more accurate than those who throw out gravity as a cause. Effects are not an explanation!

And throwing in speculative quarks and gluons only muddies up the mix.

By definition, there can be no electricity/magnetism at the subatomic level, unless there are charged particles, and those need to be explained, not just proclaimed. Until then, effects can be observed, but they do not explain what is happening and why.

I am claiming there is no fundamental force called the Strong Force:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6374

I am saying there exists no fundamental force but that of charge.

That charge explains everything even gravity: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 ... ode73.html

What is gravity? I am no more speculating than standard cosmology is speculating. Is it just a coincidence that only gravity and charge are totally unknown? Look up magnetic maps of the moon and gravitational maps of the moon, tell me if they are similar?

Magnetic map: http://core2.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/pur ... index.html

Gravitational map: http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... ghest.html

I say gravity IS charge and when we all figure out what charge is then we will know what gravity is. E=mc^2

[D_Archer]

I say gravity IS charge and when we all figure out what charge is then we will know what gravity is. E=mc^2

I still think Miles Mathis has the best physical model for charge, ie real photons with mass and radius that spin.

The field that is charge is very large, i think people forget how many photons there are, and they are everywhere.

I would describe the photon field as a plasma and matter is structure in the field.

Regards,
Daniel

[seasmith]

"

By definition, there can be no electricity/magnetism at the subatomic level, unless there are charged particles, and those need to be explained,...

Sparky,
Those definitions may need be broadened

[jone dae]

Hello there,
So, I'm Dr. Jone Dae and my research partner is Mr. Jae Kamel. And we have already, but in a different way, produced lists of links that accomplish what - is it MGmirkin? - is trying to accomplish with this new blog. The main difference is, that the relevant links are on different Lists, and in the appropriate categories on those Lists. As I've explained several times on this site, on Thunderblogs, we first became interested in the EU in about 2002, owing to Don Scott's websites, which are now on archive.org. Then we found and read Alfred De Grazia'a Quantavolution series, and, realized how important it was for others to know of their work, and so on. We didn't "connect the dots" about all that was going on here on this website, for a long time, owing to the demands of our respective lives, our free time available, and so on. Starting last year though, we began watching and downloading all the relevant videos from you tube, etc., and including them in our Lists, which we then mailed out to our friends, contacts, colleagues, and so on. So, in other words, what I am trying to do is make my (our) separately made set of links for all the biological, geological, and astronomical electromagnetic phenomena, available for you to use here. We have nothing to sell and nothing to advertise. We do this work for, what might be called personal reasons; however, the intelligent reader can easily think of several wisdom traditions or religions which emphasize service, giving to others, and so on. Also, note that I'm blogging about all this on Wordpress, see http://jonedae.wordpress.com/2012/12/16 ... -urls-jku/ }here for example to look at the relevant blogs.
Or rather, look here http://jonedae.wordpress.com/ }to see the relevant blogs, that other links is just for the Index and TOC of JKU.
I encourage you to look at the Lists. We have many more links about, for example, electromagnetism and human biology, than you do; but what's more important, is that we don't just post a link: we read and review each website, and provide an annotation, a review or summary, of each and every link that we provide; and only JKU does that for you. Our collection of links is better than using, say, google, since no search engine will provide annotations or reviews for you.
And of course, eventually I'll be looking at your links, to see if their are any that we'd like to use for our Lists. The JKU are finished; we completed the set earlier this year, and so will not be making any new ones. What we've done since then, is to develop the existing ones, and, of course, the constant re-checking for dead links, typos, incorrect annotations, etc., that keep our Lists usable. And we may not find any that we can use, but, I felt that it would be more honest to say so. If you have any questions about our work, feel free to ask me.
It seems kind of strange to us to have worked to "get the word out" to our friends, contacts, colleagues, etc., by ourselves, and then to suddenly this year discover how much activity takes place on this website! It is a huge website now, and David Talbott is to be congratulated for having done us, science, and the advance of human knowledge such a big favor, by founding Thunderbolts, and by his constant work on this for all those years.
Jone Dae.

[kiwi]

Still well short of the mark regarding the inter-play of E/ fields/currents and Mag/fields .... the beast seems to be stirring

“The options were a quasar-like outburst from the black hole at the Galactic Centre, or star-power — the hot winds from young stars, and exploding stars,” said Dr. Gianni Bernardi of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in a statement. “Our observations tell us it’s star-power.”

http://thespacereporter.com/2013/01/ast ... ys-center/

[jone dae]

@kiwi,
Your post was in my inbox, but is it a reply to me, another, or the topic generally? Regarding that "interplay", only electricity causes magnetic fields, so, we're already "there" with that. That is, wherever there are magnetic fields, there are also electrical fields (or were, in the case of remanent magnetism, etc.); we - all people - have to start with that. Can you tell me more about what subject area is not developed in this sort-of "micro-to-macro" forum? Although probably unknown to the founders and stars of this revolution in science, jae kamel and me have been making the connections "micro-to-macro" for years, and consider that our work runs parallel to the by now famous ones, such as Talbott, Thornhill, Scott, Peratt, and their teachers and so on. And we want to continue discovering and sharing the inter-connections in all the scales for our friends and correspondents.
Jone

[jjohnson]

Hi, Jone,
I'm going to read through your WordPress site shortly, but here are a couple of things you might want to know about the EU paradigm (a linked set of ideas and observations; not a hypothesis or a theory just yet, please). First, though, many thanks for helping with the never-ending task of organizing and collection and pointing to the growing pile of information on this absorbing subject.

It includes a lot of people involved in life sciences and water, such U of WA professor Gerald Pollock ("Cells, Gels and the Engines of Life" being one of his books), Mae-Wan Ho ("The Rainbow and the Worm") and Rupert Sheldrake, www.rupertsheldrake.org. All three spoke at the EU 2013 Conference in Albuquerque NM earlier this month, in addition to others. Easy stuff to google.

Geology is a topic of wide interest, from the perspective of moon and planetary scarring (including Earth's geological processes and possible catastrophic electromagnetic events which could have reformed Earth in momentous ways in times past, as well as the alleged link to plasma formations by way of petroglyphs and associated mythologies, the latter of which are found to have a high degree of correlation at places round the Earth which likely had no communication with each other. Two EU-interest geology websites include geulogy.com and Andreas Otte's and Michael Steinbacher's fascinating site eu-geology.

Sites related to EU ideas are not "approved" or "sanctioned" by Thunderbolts, even if Thunderbolts itself publishes its own ideas on the subject. It's a free press, and people are allowed to say whatever they please on their sites. Some publish ideas that have a pronounced slant or a particular religious bias to them, and some others don't. Some mix EU ideas in with other aspects that Thunderbolts may not have a position on. Use common sense in reading what others say about EU concepts and ideas. That probably should include what I have to say, too, to be impartial as possible about it!

Okay, I decided to say the next part on a follow-up posting as it is more narrowly aimed on a scientific topic under discussion here, so it'll be up in several more minutes, probably.

Cheers,
Jim

[jjohnson]

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".

Jim