& I meant to be polite & put Tom Marking’s name in bold too .. Ah if only we could edit these posts.

“of course, I’ve touched a live nuclear weapon before too but that’s a different topic”

Now that I find pretty amazing and would like to hear more about. I checked your blog (Scanned over really,I’m afraid) but couldn’t find anything on it.)

Electric universe is in the electric chair?
Methinks: Yeah! yeah!
I’m very tired after scanning through so many posts here trying to make sense of at least some of them ..

Please excuse me if I’m incoherent right now; my brain’s turned to mush with sheer exhaustion. My maths is lousy at the best of times but one final thought on the issue of accretion disks ..

Novae – anyone mentioned them yet?

Are they not related to black hole accretion disks too – material spiralling inwards from companion star to white dwarf ..?
Could novae be relevant? Perhaps worth using as for analogy / comparison purposes?

Oh and positrons – antimatter elctrons – were used by Isaac Asimov to power his robots and were pretty well known back inthe 1930-s or was it 1950′s ..for whatever that’s worth.

On that fuzzing-over thought & note I’m heading to bed.

Btw: I like Wikipedia. You should not use it as source in a scientific paper, of course . But it provides a short and informative overview over a subject you can investigate further.

hehe
Actually I try to take each wiki article I read seperately as I expect the quality to differ from article to article. When it comes to the more well established topics and subjects, wikipedia tends to have a good overview of it. They’re also good for finding a bunch of references quickly as they list them. They have a mass vs. weight article on there, which I wish OIM and his buddies had read.

Yes, internet pages with assertions and no good references or hard numbers to back things up. Who needs stuff like that when the those pages are written by electrical engineers? They must know what they’re talking about.

One of the PC sites claimed the pioneer probes were slowing down (actual gravitational anomaly, you’ve probably heard) because of negative charge on the craft and the positive charge on the Sun. But no numbers or even any back of the envelope calculations to back things up. Lovely.

How true!

@ ND

Oh, come on – Wikipedia is not a reliable source, how dare you?
But as we have learned, books are not to be trusted, either. Probably papers are, but they wouldn’t look for them, although I gave Anaconda two links where to find them.
The ONLY reliable sources are some internetpages…. wait, internetpages?

There is a tendency of cranks not to care if other cranks (and denialists in general for that matter) have variations on their own crazy ideas, just as long as the other cranks are opposing the same perceived incorrect truth. Cranks are not honest brokers in a debate, they stand outside of it and just shovel male bovine excrement into it to try to sow confusion and doubt about real science. They don’t care if some other crank comes along and challenges the prevailing theory by tossing BS, as long as what they’re shoveling stinks. They are like adolescent punks who vandalize recently built/painted walls with graffiti. Pseudoscience is a form of intellectual vandalism!

And a lot of what they don’t know can be easily learned from wikipedia. I mean, read up kids.

Real tough guy, can’t answer an easy question: “Are there electric currents in space?”

Now, don’t get your knickers in a twist. Be advised that you will find my belated but detailed response at the “Galaxies grow from black hole seeds” thread — click on my name for the link.

Thanks for the explanation of the 10^39 number. I remember someone posting about that before, but couldn’t remember the details.

They must have rubbed that kitty with a balloon to help it overcome gravity.

Do you still deny that antimatter is a purely theoretical construct? Do you deny that antimatter has been created in the lab? Holy crap I’m starting to sound like Anaconda

Unless I’m mistaken, it was DrFlimmer who first brought up the example of the Jupiter/Io current circuit.

Also, I concur with what Tod W said in his previous two posts. He took it up on himself to say “We get it” but I just want to make it clear that I concur.

Anaconda, we *have* been open minded about your ideas and your belief in PC but you keep trying to paint us as closed minded and in denial.

As for your use of “exotics”, you’re asserting an artificial limit on physical phenomenon. There was a time when plasma would have been considered exotic! How often do you come across plasma in your daily life?! Lightning and auroras don’t count since you can’t touch them like you can the air you breath.

“Electromagnetism is 10^39 time stronger than gravity. But, that’s only on certain scales. In other scales, that does not hold true (at least, that’s what I gathered from some of the comments).”

The number comes from the comparison of the force between two protons. If you devide the electromagnetic force by the gravitational force you get:

(e^2/(4*pi*epsilon_0*r^2)) / (G*m^2/r^2) = e^2/(4*pi*epsilon_0*G*m^2)

These are all constants, insert them and you will get something that is proportional to 10^39.

If you compare the force between a proton and the earth you will find that the gravitational attraction is much bigger (even if we neglect the fact that the earth is a neutral body). But we have even greater masses in the universe (the sun is a light-weight even though it is 6 orders of magnitude more massive than the earth). So you need quite strong electrostatic fields to push a star around.
So problem with electrostatics is that you can cancel the force by inserting the same amount of the opposite charge. Mass on the other hand cannot be “equaled out”. It always adds up and you gain an even greater force. So gravity prevails forever while electromagnetic forces can be canceled with time (and they do).

Btw, Anaconda:

“My job was not to go around and around until infinity, or to go until I put in the last, but to provide a taste or flavor.”

Your job is to answer OUR questions. There were several. The most important are probably about our links we gave you some time ago. What do you say? Have you read them as we read yours? Why are you going back to your roots and do not continue with black holes and antimatter as you’ve done before? Are you hiding behind the question of “what is primary in the universe”? It almost seems like that.

So, what about the topics YOU have to answer on?

Just to sum up what you have gone back to as a fall-back position when you would apparently rather not address the more challenging questions and responses asked of you, you claim:

* Electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental forces. No one here disagrees with that.
* Electromagnetism is active in shaping aspects of the universe. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that, either.
* Electromagnetism is 10^39 time stronger than gravity. But, that’s only on certain scales. In other scales, that does not hold true (at least, that’s what I gathered from some of the comments).
* Birkeland currents have been observed between the Sun and Earth. No one disputes that, either.

You don’t need to reiterate any of those statements. We get it. Move on to the other questions, rather than regressing to “But EM is the strongest of the FOUR FUNDAMENTAL forces!” That’s not an argument.

So, when are you going to stop repeating the same thing you’ve said numerous times before and post something new? Like, say, responding in adequate fashion to Tom Marking’s critique of Dr. Peratt’s model? Or to my questions regarding your statements on planet formation?

Also, you continue to mischaracterize Tom Marking’s statements regarding electric currents. He has said that there are Birkeland currents between the Sun and Earth because there is directly observed and measured evidence of them. He has also stated that there are electric currents in other regions of space, but not necessarily Birkeland currents; that there are different types of currents. Your posts suggest that you view all electric currents to be the same, when in fact there are differences.

You continue to argue from a position of ignorance. By that I mean that you do not understand the mathematics behind the subject, nor have you formally studied the physics involved. The end result is more of an argument from personal incredulity. Again, before you go off on more lengthy posts extolling the virtues of Plasma Cosmology and decrying the weaknesses and suppression involved in mainstream cosmology, get a decent education.

Marking states: “No, Anaconda. My prediction is astronomy will find even more exotic creatures that will make black holes look tame by comparison. What about white holes, magnetic monopoles, WIMPs, super strings? If you thought black holes were bad just wait until astronomy starts finding some of these other beasties. Then you’ll really go insane (if you are not already).”

Enough said.

Marking is into exotics. Marking doesn’t care how much you have to change the basic laws of physics — that’s okay. “String” theory, please, not one scrap of evidence has been brought forth for that theory. But if you and others get their way, you will be right, all the above will be accepted and astronomical science will be in the dark ages (if it’s not already).”

Remember, where the words “magnetic field” is mentioned in a scientific paper, as in interplanetary magnetic field, interstellar magnetic field, or galactic magnetic field, electric current is present, too.

@ IVAN3MAN:

Real tough guy, can’t answer an easy question: “Are there electric currents in space?”

Oh by the way, your statement equally applies to Marking who acknowledges Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth and Greg in Austin who states: “Nothing in that article seems to support your theory of electric currents in outer space.”

But you guys go on with you beliefs, nobody will stop you.

My job was not to go around and around until infinity, or to go until I put in the last, but to provide a taste or flavor.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

Electromagnetism has been proven to a scientific certainty in near space.
Below is a summary of what science knows:

a) In situ measurements of the properties of plasmas in the
magnetospheres, leading to the confirmation of Birkeland
field-aligned currents, double-layer acceleration of charged
particles, magnetic flux ropes in the ionospheres of planets,
and a system of currents in the magnetospheres of the outer
planets;
b) Discovery of an immense, filamentary, magnetic fieldaligned
plasma structure at the center of our galaxy;
c) Laboratory experiments duplicating the power laws of
electromagnetic radiation from extragalactic sources and
confirming the plasma processes responsible for the
acceleration of charged particles to high energies; and
d) The advent and application of multidimensional,
relativistic, and fully electromagnetic particle-in-cell
simulations to space and cosmic plasma.

You gentlemen are welcome to your denial.

Those in denial are those that rule out any significant role for a fundamental force of Nature (electromagnetism) in the structure and dynamics of the Universe. Those that have an open-mind are those that think electromagnetism should be considered side-by-side with gravity and then let the chips fall where they may, and explicitly don’t rule out the force of gravity or electromagnetism, but want science to determine by observation and measurement what those respective roles are for electromagnetism and gravity in the structure and dynamics of the Universe.

And, so far, in the exploration of near-space, electromagnetism has been observed to play a major role.

Near-space certainly hasn’t turned out to be a lonely vacuum with isolated islands of neutral matter. Such as was predicted by my interlocutors intellectual forebears before the space age.

Who among you will be the last hold-out in denial?

Amongst pseudoscience proponents, as with religion and its preachers, there is never any consensus!

I see that OiM is still going on about how gravity doesn’t exist, but rather that electromagnetism is what keeps us from flying off into space.

And Anaconda is trying to say that OiM is not really saying that gravity doesn’t exist.

Where’s the store that sells the mental blinders?

Yep! That man has totally ‘gone round the bend’!

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2100054477013501859&postID=229881176151449639

Anyway. Back to our own lives.