Debye length

[Michael Mozina]

So... the generators of the electric currents that energize the stars are... the stars themselves?

Only Juergen's *original* anode solar model requires(d) electrical input to help power it. That is because it was originally conceived of during the 'missing neutrino' days of solar physics when we could measure only electron neutrinos, and they didn't add up to the expected number. Technically even that model could produce fusion locally in it's atmosphere, so even the original model didn't necessarily have to be 100 percent externally powered.

A more "modern" version of an anode model would necessarily produce some fusion locally in the upper solar atmosphere, near the electrode surface. Essentially it has the flexibility to generate some power locally and require some external input, but the percentages are essentially flexible. You could have a scenario where larger stars generate an excess amount of energy locally, whereas smaller stars require more external input.

Both Alfven's solar model and Birkeland's original solar model were internally powered via fusion in Alfven's case and what Birkeland called a "transmutation of elements" since the terms fusion and fission did not yet exist.

[nick c]

A more "modern" version of an anode model would necessarily produce some fusion locally in the upper solar atmosphere, near the electrode surface.

That seems to imply that fusion in the anode model was a latter add on, that is, was not in Juergen's model. But Juergens was aware that his model would have fusion taking place on the Sun (as opposed to in the core.)
from: Stellar Nuclear Energy: A False Trail? Ralph Juergens; Kronos Vol. IV No. 4 (Summer 1979)

If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is because it was originally conceived of during the 'missing neutrino' days of solar physics when we could measure only electron neutrinos, and they didn't add up to the expected number.

At the Earth three types of neutrinos are observed. Only electron neutrinos are emitted by fusion on the Sun, therefore the thinking is that the other two types must be the result of electron neutrino oscillation. It is important to remember that electron neutrinos from the Sun, changing into one or the other neutrino form before being detected near the Earth is an assumption not an observation.
Don Scott explains that:
https://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.html

There simply is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel. The only way such conclusions can be made is when observations have been made at more than one place along the path! Further measurements (MiniBooNE 2007) have found no evidence to support the SNO 2001 announcement.

Clearly, although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being solved. And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So... the generators of the electric currents that energize the stars are... the stars themselves?

Galactic Birkeland currents power the Sun. Galactic currents are part of a larger circuit centered on the galactic core. On a larger scale, the galaxy is part of a larger galactic cluster, which in turn is part of a super cluster....take it from there.

[antosarai]

So... the generators of the electric currents that energize the stars are... the stars themselves?

Galactic Birkeland currents power the Sun. Galactic currents are part of a larger circuit centered on the galactic core. On a larger scale, the galaxy is part of a larger galactic cluster, which in turn is part of a super cluster....take it from there.

Yes, I'm familiar with the proposition — higher and higher hierarchies circuits. Kind of a, mm, "it's turtles all the way" idea?

Regardless, all these circuits are energized, all togheter continuously spending unimaginable amounts of electricity; and unavoidably somewhere something somehow must be separating charges at some ginormous pace to keep such lavishing consumption going on unendingly. You must have a generator in any circuit, and what can be the generator, or generators to all those circuits... for all I know is never mentioned (except for Mr. Mozina's positioning the star themselves supply the energy). If I remember correctly, Mr. Thornhill once said about the origin of all that electric energy: "We don't know. Maybe we will never know."

You propose the universe is somehow moved by an inexhaustible offer of electric energy. And you haven't the foggiest idea what may originate such energy? The first and foremost question your proposition rises has no answer? The main bedrock of your hypothesis... is a mistery?

Quite a brutal weakness...

[jacmac]

antosarai

The main bedrock of your hypothesis... is a mistery?

Quite a brutal weakness...

At least EU proponents are honest and say "we don't know".
Whereas, the big bang believers have an equal mystery,
but claim they don't need to answer the origin question.

"Give us one miracle. and we can explain the rest"
Jack

[nick c]

The main bedrock of your hypothesis... is a mistery?

Quite a brutal weakness...

It is not a weakness, it is a strength, because it is a realistic appraisal of the current state of human knowledge. The Universe is a mystery and Science is a methodology to understand it one step at a time.
Would you rather have some ridiculous "Theory of Everything"? or creation ex nihilo?
IMHOP it is better to know that you don't know, than to think you know something which is wrong.

[Michael Mozina]

A more "modern" version of an anode model would necessarily produce some fusion locally in the upper solar atmosphere, near the electrode surface.

That seems to imply that fusion in the anode model was a latter add on, that is, was not in Juergen's model. But Juergens was aware that his model would have fusion taking place on the Sun (as opposed to in the core.)
from: Stellar Nuclear Energy: A False Trail? Ralph Juergens; Kronos Vol. IV No. 4 (Summer 1979)

If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*

I wasn't trying to imply that Juergen's didn't believe that any fusion occurred on the sun, just that he thought that there was less fusion than with the standard model, but thanks for the clarification.

Considering the "missing neutrino" problem of the time, his assumption about there being less of it was probably logical. I was simply trying to imply that his model was more "flexible" in that respect in terms of how much fusion might occur locally, that's all.

I won't get too into the whole neutrino flavor changing scenario other than to say that the whole oscillation issues still seems fishy to me. Most of the experiments where neutrinos are thought to oscillate seem to show "missing" neutrinos which may in fact have a different cause entirely. Suffice to say that for the time being I accept the premise of oscillation, but it may in fact be that Scott is right about that issue.

[Michael Mozina]

So... the generators of the electric currents that energize the stars are... the stars themselves?

Galactic Birkeland currents power the Sun. Galactic currents are part of a larger circuit centered on the galactic core. On a larger scale, the galaxy is part of a larger galactic cluster, which in turn is part of a super cluster....take it from there.

Yes, I'm familiar with the proposition — higher and higher hierarchies circuits. Kind of a, mm, "it's turtles all the way" idea?

Regardless, all these circuits are energized, all togheter continuously spending unimaginable amounts of electricity; and unavoidably somewhere something somehow must be separating charges at some ginormous pace to keep such lavishing consumption going on unendingly. You must have a generator in any circuit, and what can be the generator, or generators to all those circuits... for all I know is never mentioned (except for Mr. Mozina's positioning the star themselves supply the energy). If I remember correctly, Mr. Thornhill once said about the origin of all that electric energy: "We don't know. Maybe we will never know."

You propose the universe is somehow moved by an inexhaustible offer of electric energy. And you haven't the foggiest idea what may originate such energy? The first and foremost question your proposition rises has no answer? The main bedrock of your hypothesis... is a mistery?

Quite a brutal weakness...

The mainstream cannot even name so much as a single source of "dark energy" and that makes up the vast majority of the LCDM model, and it violates the conservation of energy laws to boot. They haven't a clue what "dark matter" might be either, and that makes up most of the rest of it. Talk about brutal weaknesses.

Keep in mind that as I pointed out, it could be that larger suns are net producers of local electrical current, whereas smaller ones are net consumers, and they're all converting rotational spin energy into electrical current according to Alfven. The input current might simply be the catalyst for a fusion process that is still a net producer of electrical current. Alfven also began his 'expansion" model with equal amounts of matter/antimatter which might also help to explain a source of current. There are still lot's of options to consider even with Juergen's anode model.

Admittedly I personally prefer Birkeland's internally powered cathode model since it *easily* explains where the current comes from, along with matching up nicely with comics rays bombarding our solar system, and electron beams (strahl) coming from the sun.

Suffice to say however that even Juergen's original concepts are still more physically viable than the LCDM model of cosmology.

[Michael Mozina]

The main bedrock of your hypothesis... is a mistery?

Quite a brutal weakness...

It is not a weakness, it is a strength, because it is a realistic appraisal of the current state of human knowledge. The Universe is a mystery and Science is a methodology to understand it one step at a time.
Would you rather have some ridiculous "Theory of Everything"? or creation ex nihilo?
IMHOP it is better to know that you don't know, than to think you know something which is wrong.

Ya, I think somewhere along the line the mainstream lost their ability to even question themselves at all.

That's one of the great strengths of the EU/PC concepts (plural). There are still some important unresolved questions and nobody professes to have it all figured out yet. I think that's a much healthier place to be than pretending to understand to "know" when the universe began, and how things happened down to the last fraction of a second. Talk about mainstream ego run amuck. I really get sick and tired of hearing them claim to "know" that dark energy exists, or "know" that dark matter exists. They know nothing of the sort.

I think humility and and honest "I don't know" is a *lot* better than pretending to know when the universe was created, and how it was created.

[antosarai]

In 2013 there was a lot of talk about Kevin Kelley, football head coach of Pulaski Academy, a high school in Arkansas. His team almost never punts, even on 4th and 40, and almost always kicks onside after scores. He has solid theoretic reasons for his tactics, his team was 77-17 up to 2013, with two state championship appearances. I mean, weird tactics, waaay off the box, but they work.

Far as I know, no NCAA team, much less the NFL, ever even considered trying to test such tactics; when asked, they all just dismissed them a priori as useless for higher level football. But I digress...


Just to make it clear, I don't root for EU, PC, etc., nor do I root for mainstream cosmology. I have no dog in this race.

For some years now I've been trying to 'visualize' a network of circuits that would primarily link and rule the cosmos. But then there's no circuit without some generator. When Mr. Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén conceived his electric universe he imagined antimatter annihilation as a possible energy source. That didn't work and he then chose fusion. Mr. Mozina proposes diverse methods, in an on the stars (I would love to read an explanation how can a star convert its spin in electric energy). To my surprise though, these days most just disregard the matter, they apparently seem satisfied with just ignoring generators. A brutal mistake, me thinks...

[Michael Mozina]

For some years now I've been trying to 'visualize' a network of circuits that would primarily link and rule the cosmos. But then there's no circuit without some generator. When Mr. Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén conceived his electric universe he imagined antimatter annihilation as a possible energy source. That didn't work and he then chose fusion. Mr. Mozina proposes diverse methods, in an on the stars (I would love to read an explanation how can a star convert its spin in electric energy). To my surprise though, these days most just disregard the matter, they apparently seem satisfied with just ignoring generators. A brutal mistake, me thinks...

If you look up the term "homopolar generator Alfven" you'll discover that it was Alfven who came up with that idea, not me. Every sun is essentially a Faraday disk that converts solar rotational energy into electrical current. Essentially the sun's magnetic field rotates inside of a surrounding plasma body (conductor) and it induces current in the surrounding plasma. Alfven also assumed that suns were net fusion generators and he essentially used the standard solar model with some circuit modifications at the surface of the sun. His model too would assume that suns act as net generators of energy and electrical current, although indeed 'ambiplasma' might contribute to the total net energy. I didn't get the impressions that matter/antimatter reactions were required to sustain the current in Alfven's cosmology model however.

I wouldn't suggest that anyone is ignoring the power supply issues as it relates to EU/PC theory. We all think about it. I'd simply note that there are various options to consider and I don't think you can rule out an anode solar configuration based strictly on that issue alone.

Again however, I do tend to favor Birkeland internally powered cathode model in terms of the generator aspects, but more importantly based on solar wind observations and cosmic ray observations. I do think Birkeland was correct that 'space" (AKA cosmic rays) are net positive with respect to the solar surface. It's also the case that electron beams have been observed coming from the sun, which today are referred to as "strahl" electrons which move at much higher speeds than ordinary solar wind, just as Birkeland's model predicts. The internal "transmutation of elements" process is the net energy source of his model, not necessarily the cosmic rays bombarding the solar system.

I'd also suggest that it's pretty much a given that *all* cosmology models will include unanswered questions which from a skeptics perspective will tend to look like brutal deficiencies. I'm stunned for instance that not a single LCDM proponent or professional astronomer can name so much as a single source of "dark energy", let alone explain how it retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume when it makes up nearly 70 percent of their model. I'd "think" that a gross violation of the conservation of energy laws is a pretty brutal deficiency of their model, but they don't seem to think so. Ditto for not having a clue what "dark matter" might be and for being at odds with the standard model of particle physics. Again, I suppose judging cosmology models is bound to leave one scratching their head, regardless of the model.

I don't think you have to look very hard to see the current flow channels in space. The massive sized filaments that the mainstream associates with 'dark matter' are essentially the largest of those current flow channels. Whereas current naturally produces filaments in plasma, and is likely to result in objects being oriented along those current carrying filaments, the mainstream model offers no logical explanation for things like quasars being oriented with the filaments over billions of light years.

https://phys.org/news/2014-11-spooky-al ... years.html

Just to make it clear, I don't root for EU, PC, etc., nor do I root for mainstream cosmology. I have no dog in this race.

IMO that's good, and it's good that you're willing to ask these kinds of important questions about all models. The one other thing I'd note is that the mainstream astronomy community cannot handle an open and honest public scientific debate on these issues which is why they simply ban EU/PC proponents from their websites entirely. I've been banned for instance on mainstream websites simply for posting a link to a published scientific paper by Peratt, and even for simply being associated with EU/PC theory and being publicly accused of being an EU/PC "witch" without so much as posting anything 'pro EU' to the forum at all. That suggests to me that their model contains many more brutal deficiencies than anything related to EU/PC theory. I'd love to see a mainstream astronomer come over to the plasma cosmology forum on Reddit and attept to support the LCDM model and try to poke some holes in EU/PC theory. Alas however, I really don't think most of them even understand EU/PC theory well enough to debate it in public. The few attempts I've seen on astronomer's blogs to portray the EU/PC model have been absolute scientific disasters. They have ridiculously false ideas about EU/PC theory or they willfully misrepresent it, or both. The last blog attack on the EU/PC model by a mainstream astronomer that I read actually tried to claim that EU solar models predicted "no neutrinos", and not a single so called "professional" tried to correct them, which simply demonstrates a gross ignorance of the topic in general and wide spread professional incompetence to boot.

[Michael Mozina]

Here's what I mean about professional incompetence and/or willful misrepresentations of EU/PC theory and of my statements by the mainstream:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75123471

I notice how over at EU central they have decided to rewrite the laws of physics by claiming the electromagnetic force is generated by electric currents in order to get around the Debye length limitation on the range of the electromagnetic force.

Actually, no. Anytime you have a current flowing through a Birkeland current, you have a magnetic field that forms around the current which acts to repel or attract any other magnetic field around any other Birkeland current in space.

Their argument being since electrical currents travel further than the Debye length there is no limitation on the range of the electromagnetic force!!!

That part he only sort of got right, but he kludged it too. The argument I *actually* used was that *since* Birkeland currents in space generate magnetic fields around them, and they are *massive* in length, they can attract and repulse other magnetic fields around other Birkeland currents and the Debye length is utterly irrelevant.

The armchair experts at EU central don’t seem to understand it is the electromotive force that drives a current.

This statement is a great example of willful misrepresentation of EU/PC theory, and of my personal statements. It's ironic too.

Never would I personally try to ignore or deny the fact that electric fields can and do drive current in space. It's the *mainstream* that does this sort of thing, and they do it *constantly*. Case in point:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ent-found/

Here we have a perfect example of a 10^18 amp current flowing through space, traveling over 150,000 light years, and not a peep from them about the electric fields that create them. Why? Because they claim that 'black holes' generate the currents, apparently willfully ignorant of the fact that even Alfven's homopolar generator model is consistent with that idea, and the rotation of the objects magnetic field will necessarily induce currents in the surrounding plasma.

I've also spent *years* explaining to sjastro that the sun is also electrically *charged* with respect to space. No EU/PC solar model denies the existence of this electric field that drives and sustains solar wind, yet the mainstream denies this field and tries to pass off the solar wind as being "quasi-neutral" when in fact it's a "current carrying" plasma.

So sjastro is intentionally *misrepresenting* my statements, and "projecting" his own ingorance upon me personally. This is *so* typical.

If an electric current generates an electromagnetic force then conversely no current means there is no electromagnetic force.

That's absolutely *not* what I said, that's a dishonest strawman. It's also an irrelevant strawman in the context of my previous post because obviously there *is* current present in the example I cited, so there is *necessarily* a magnetic field present as well. In fact there are 10^18 amps of current flowing through that filament so there is necessarily electromagnetic force caused by that current, regardless of how he figures the Birkeland current is being generated.

Notice how sjastro twisted my words like a pretzel to suit himself. I simply noted that since a current is present over 150,000 light years, and they generate magnetic fields that attract or repulse other currents, the Debye length is is utterly irrelevant to the existence of EM force in space, sometimes over *massive* distances.

This violates the conservation of charge as electrostatic forces still exist without a current; it is the ludicrous outcome that ions and electrons have no charges when there is no current!!

Only sjastro's blatant strawman argument violates conservation of charge because never did I personally try to suggest that electrostatic force cannot exist without current. He flat out lied about what I said. I simply noted that it can be applied to *larger scale objects* rather than to individual particles.

This is sort of a typical unethical strawman argument by sjastro, a "method" of debate he's become absolutely infamous for in fact.

The problem with his entire argument (besides the fact he lied about what I really said) is that the currents have been *measured* to exist, to the tune of 10^18 amps, right where Peratt's models predicted. It's therefore generating electromagnetic force of *hundreds of thousands of light years*! This is *so* typical of the unethical debate practices used by the mainstream.

This strays into the territory of EU nonsense which is not Plasma Cosmology.

No, this strays into the territory of strawman arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I said, or anything to do with EU or PC theory, assuming one tries to separate them in the first place, which I do not personally try to do.

I can appreciate Anthony Peratt’s comments in labelling EU as anti-science if their comments are taken seriously as being representative of Plasma Cosmology as it does irreparable damage to the reputation of individuals such as Peratt.

I'm absolutely sure that whatever Peratt's feelings might be about what he calls "electric universe" theories have nothing whatsoever to do with sjastro's strawman arguments.

I suspect it has more to do with solar models and Velikovki's ideas rather than sjastro's strawman.

Plasma Cosmology has enough problems with being contradicted by observation let alone being hijacked by the EU.

This is an entirely irrational argument since the only "cosmology" arguments associated with EU/PC theory come from Alfven, Peratt and Bruce since other authors really didn't try to apply circuit theory to space as a whole.

But this is just the start of the blatant misrepresentations or willful ignorance demonstrated by sjastro:

I have not found a reason why Plasma Cosmology ignores the Debye length so let’s assume it plays no role.
Since the gravitational force is 10ˉ³⁹ times smaller than the electromagnetic force.

Fgrav./Felect. = 10ˉ³⁹ ≈ 0 → Fgrav. = 0.

In other words the gravitational force is negligible and can be ignored.

For a two body system such as a binary star system this might be promising as both gravitational and electromagnetic forces follow the inverse square law but there is a serious problem.
Not only must each star have opposite charges to be an attractive force but the charge of each star is orbiting within the magnetic field of the other star.

This is a completely false statement, and a great example of professional incompetence. Gravity *cannot* be ignored. It can play a lesser role in some instance, and a greater role in others, but it cannot be "ignored". It's also utterly wrong to claim that suns have to have opposite charges to be in orbit around each other.

It's *entirely possible* for gravity to *attract* to solar masses of the same charge and cause them to orbit one another. The outer 'charge' with respect to space may have relatively negligible effect, simply repelling them *slightly*, while gravity binds them rather tightly. This is what I mean by professional incompentence. Either they simply do not understand what EU/PC theory is about, or they willfully misrepresent it. EU/PC theory does *not* deny the role of gravity. It simply uses it *with* EM fields to explain the universe and doesn't try to deny the role of *electricity* in space!

This leads to synchrotron radiation which is a loss in orbital energy which is the sum of the potential and kinetic energies.
This results in the stars spiralling into each other.

Actually suns are constantly shedding mass over time, reducing the role of gravity over time, and the charges act to repulse them anyway. Epic failure on sjastro's part to grasp even the *basic* concepts of EU/PC theory. I have to either assume he's incompetent, or he's ethically challenged, but either way it's not making him look good.

Adding a third star adds to the complications because it will have the same charge as one of the other stars leading to a repulsive force.

No, it will have the same charge as the other two stars and will repulse them all slightly, though gravity may still keep them bound together. Again, he's not even properly explaining how *any* EU/PC solar model works, regardless of which one you start with. If sun's are anodes with respect to space, they're *all anodes*. If the suns have a cathode surface with respect to space, they're all cathodes. Nobody I'm aware of in the EU/PC community is trying to "mix and match" anode and cathode solar models! Sheesh.

In a nutshell electromagnetic forces cannot form bound structures at large scales such as solar systems, binary stars, star clusters, galaxies or galaxy clusters.

Again, this is utterly false. Stars are probably bound by gravity regardless of which cosmology model one embraces, and their "surface charge" would simply act a bit like the "non zero constant" in Einstein's static universe theory, helping to "repel" stars and galaxies "slightly".

Virtually everything that sjastro said was either blatantly false, or willfully 'made up' on his part. None of it *correctly* reflects anything I've said in this thread, or correctly describes any solar model configuration associated with EU/PC theory. It's all pure made up BS.

This what I mean about astronomers being unable to handle an *honest* scientific debate on this topic. sjastro wasn't even being *honest* about what I said in the first place and he wasn't *honestly* critiquing any EU/PC solar model either. There was nothing honest or accurate about anything in his entire post.

[JP Michael]

Michael, would you be able to overview the argument as to why "Debye Length" supposedly refutes the role of electricity in space?

Non-physicists like me really need the additional explanation.

Can you explain:

1. What is a "Debye Length"
2. Where do "Debye Lengths" usually occur, and under what conditions.
3. Why these conditions are not met in cosmic space plasmas conducting electric current.

Cheers,
JP.

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, would you be able to overview the argument as to why "Debye Length" supposedly refutes the role of electricity in space?

Non-physicists like me really need the additional explanation.

Can you explain:

1. What is a "Debye Length"
2. Where do "Debye Lengths" usually occur, and under what conditions.
3. Why these conditions are not met in cosmic space plasmas conducting electric current.

Cheers,
JP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_length

Essentially the Debye length defines the net electrostatic effect between particles in plasma. The arguments as to why it refutes anything are simply irrational as far as I can tell. Originally the concept was championed by "RealityCheck", the Pope of EU/PC *disinformation*. The rest of the petty cardinals and deacons of disinformation seem to parrot just about everything RC says without respect to the value of any of his scientific arguments. Most of RC comments are simply wrong, just like this one, and they are meaningless nonsense. We see from observation that Birkeland currents can travel for hundreds of thousands of light years through intergalactic space, and Birkeland currents generate magnetic fields around them which can (and do) generate EM force that has effects on other currents. There's no logical reason why the Debye length has any relevance at all to EU/PC theory, but alas the disinformation hater posse tends to repeat that same lame argument over and over again. I've seen variations on the same theme, and none of them make any actual scientific sense.

This false argument as well as RC's claim that 'discharges' cannot happen in plasma because of some personal need he has about a dialectric breakdown are about the two lamest argument's I've seen. Simple current flow pattern changes in plasma result in "discharges", so that arugment is also ridiculous. Suffice to say that none of the hater posse has a clue about real physics and therefore they simply repeat the BS the hear from the disinformation officer in chief, RC, and his boy blunder jonesdave. Those two are completely clueless when it comes to plasma physics.

[Michael Mozina]

To really understand *any* subject, it's necessary to actual "study" it, preferably from a textbook. It takes time and effort to really comprehend a complex scientific topic like cosmology. It can literally take *years* of focused effort to become competent in something like cosmology. I took formal classes in college in astronomy, albeit before "dark energy" was invented, and before metaphysical concepts "inflation" became popular. I've since spent *decades* reading various papers and books related to the big bang model(s). I would *never* try to play the role of a "public skeptic" of any cosmology model without first making a concerted and good faith effort to correctly understand it.

When I heard about EU/PC theory in 2005 I came over to this forum and asked what kinds of books I should read and what authors I should research. I had already run into Kiristian Birkeland's work and I had already begun to read his two volume set. It took me *months* of part time effort just to wade through that material. It was suggested to me that I study Alfven's work, and read the book Comic Plasma, so I spent over $100 on his book and I read that book too. Peratt's work was also suggested to me, as well as the work of Bruce and Juergen's. Scott's book was suggested, Thornhill's book was suggested, and Lerner's book was suggested too. I eventually read all of their books as well (just papers by Juergens). It cost me quite a bit of money and *lots* of time to read though that body of work.

Once I was done going though those materials I had a much better idea of the complexities of the topic of EU/PC theory. I finally understood that there were at least *three* fundamentally different solar models which had been suggested and studied under the umbrella of EU/PC theory, not just one. I discovered that while Alfven supported an "expansion" model, Lerner seemed to prefer a static universe concept. It literally took me years to become comfortable with this topic, just like it took me years to understand the LCDM model.

In my experiences of discussing these cosmology topics around the internet, one of the first things that became very clear to me is that most so called "skeptics" of EU theory have never bothered to read anything from any of the relevant authors associated with EU/PC theory. Evidently all their effort at studying this topic amounts to reading just a few website pages they found when they typed "electric universe debunked" on Google. The problem is that most of that online material is simply wrong and inaccurate to begin with. The average person however would never know that unless they'd spent the time to read the real work for themselves, but of course they never do. I think over the years I've only met a handful of astronomers who have actually read Alfven's book Cosmic plasma, or Birkeland's book, and even fewer who've read Peratt's book, which is *by far* the best and most complete mathematical resource on PC theory.

What I read on the internet to "debunk" EU/PC theory is pretty much nothing but erroneous garbage. I kept hearing astronomers and "skeptics" falsely claiming that there was "no math to support EU/PC theory". That's been false for more than a century because Birkeland's work is absolutely *loaded* with math, and Peratt's mathematical presentatoin is simply overwhelming. It took me *months* of concerted effort to get through Peratt's papers and his book, and some parts of it were simply over my head in terms of the mathematical nuances. I guess the ignorant skeptic of EU/PC theory irrationally believes that if they personally never bothered to read any of the relevant published materials, including the math, then it must not exist! The EU/PC "skeptics" tend to be lazy and ignorant by choice.

A great example of the erroneous nonsense you'll read about EU/PC theory on the internet is the utterly false crap that was written by Brian Koberlein a few years ago, a then "Professor" of astrophysics (I think he has a different job now). Nothing that he wrote about electric universe theory was even remotely correct. The errors on his blog entry began with his opening two arguments when he falsely claimed that EU/PC solar models (plural) "predict no neutrinos", and he falsely asserted that a hot photosphere in an EU/PC model would only produce "lines" rather than a full light spectrum. Koberlein simply lied his ass off. Either he is professionally incompetent (possible) or more likely based on his response to my criticisms, he's unethical as hell.

That's pretty much been "par for the course' in terms of EU/PC skeptics IMO. They really don't know anything much about the topic. What they think they "know" is mostly just wrong (like professor Dave's video crap), and everything they write comes from something they read or saw on the internet somewhere.

This whole Debye length argument is more of the same nonsense. It's a pitifully weak argument put forth on some random unpublished website by some random anonymous handle, and every one of the "haters" simply repeats the same false BS.

Make no mistake about it, just as is the case with sjastro, most of what the 'EU skeptics' complain about is simply wrong from the start. Nobody denies the existence of gravity, and electromagnetism isn't the *only* thing that matters in EU/PC theory. Sjastro just parroted his Debye length argument from "RealityCheck" and he personally "made up" the concept that a binary star pair had to be attracted by EM fields and therefore the stars had to have opposite charge. That's another great example of the complete crap about EU/PC theory that is put forth by lazy, uneducated, and unethical "skeptics". EU "skeptics" aren't even real skeptics at all, they're just making it up as they go.

[Michael Mozina]

It's rather amusing watching sjastro complain about the "nasty" tone of my posts for pointing out his grossly unprofessional incompetence when he willfully misrepresents EU/PC models (like claiming it proposes oppositely charged binary stars), while he and his cohorts continue to compare EU to "flat earth" concepts and cults, call it "pseudoscience",claim it's proponents are "deceitful", and after literally spending *years* making up about a million different strawmen of my beliefs. Wow. What absolute gall.

Anyway, apparently having realized the utter stupidity of suggesting that the Debye length is a meaningful scientific argument, now his primary "beef" with EU models is that "charged" binary suns would lose energy through synchrotron radiation. Sheesh, talk about lame arguments. The sun loses tons of energy every single day in numerous ways, and again, nobody is claiming that gravity doesn't play a dominant role in *some* instances! Oy Vey. In fact binary objects in space do exchange material and they do sometimes merge as well. That's the whole basis of the gravitational wave concept in fact, albeit with "black holes" rather than suns. So much for his "stable orbit" arguments.

The other amusing part is watching him whine about a lack of math when in fact Peratt's models (and Scott's models) show that galaxy rotation patterns can and have been explained with EM influences without any need for "dark matter". There's no actual lack of math.

Meanwhile sjastro continues to promote a cosmology model that *violates known laws of physics*, not just once, but *twice*, and which has failed nearly every observational test at high redshift, including it's most recent internally self conflicted tension with the Hubble constant, and which has failed tens of billions of dollars worth of laboratory "tests" of "dark matter". Alfven even flat out called their "magnetic reconnection" models "pseudoscience" till the day he died. Talk about promoting "pseudoscience" and engaging in pure projection.

It's definitely telling that virtually all of the arguments that are used to attack EU/PC always begin and end with a false depiction of the model. EU/PC theory doesn't deny the role of gravity. It doesn't "predict" that binary star parts are oppositely charged or held together without respect to gravity. It doesn't predict that the sun emits "no neutrinos". Virtually none of their deceitful depictions of the predictions of EU/PC theory are even *close* to accurate, yet they erroneously believe themselves to be "professionals". Nothing could be further from the truth of course.

It should be noted that nobody claimed that EM fields are the basis of all orbital mechanisms, in the complete absence of gravity. That's just another of his endless string of strawman arguments.