Electric Universe Model.

[Probos76]

Hi, everybody. I´m new at the forum, so hello again. My name is Ric and I´m from Spain.

There´s a lot of controversy around the Gravitational model of the Universe.

Do you believe in Electricity?. Would you believe a Nobel Prize on Physics?...

Just follow the links and open your mind to a new exciting world.

----> Electric Universe (http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/electricity-in-space): Hannes Alfvén (nobel Prize 1970). Follow also the links on the web.

"Yet there is one great branch of physics which up to now has told us little or nothing about astronomy. That branch, is electricity. It is rather astonishing that this phenomenon, which has been so exhaustively studied on the earth, has been of so little help in the celestial sphere. Electricity has illuminated our cities but has shed no light on stellar phenomena; it has linked the earth with a dense net, of communications but has given no information about the universe around us."



----> Electric Universe (http://www.the-electric-universe.info): Dr. Phys. Eng. László Körtvélyessy. (the same posture)

"...In plasma-stars the heat motion pushes the light electrons faster outwards than inwards. The much slower ions remain in and near the core. The photon-pressure and the neutrinos also make the core positive and the surface negative..."


----> Electric Cosmos (http://www.electric-cosmos.org): (even more)

"...In the last half of the 20th century an ongoing debate ensued between "mainstream" astrophysicists and Swedish plasma physicist - electrical engineer (and Nobel prize winner), Hannes Alfvén. Alfvén considered himself to be, first and foremost, an electrical power engineer and rather enjoyed the accusation of being an "outsider to astrophysics" thrown at him by theoretical cosmologists. He was an expert in a research field they had never studied."



And there´s a lot more involved...

[russ_watters]

The basic flaw in EC is that electromagnetism is a short-range force and gravity is a long range force: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

So in order for electromagnetism to be the dominant force on the galactic scale, the universe would need to be filled with a pretty high density plasma (which, of course, would still have gravitational implications...).

[Starship]

Both gravity and electromagnetism are considered to be long-range but electromagnetism is considered much more stronger.

But who knows right? No theory can really explain the so-called crashing 'force' at the earth's center.

[selfAdjoint]

Electromagnetism is affected by cancellations caused by opposite charges, so it's rare in nature for very large concentration of EM force to exist. Gravitation doesn't have opposite charges so it can build without limit just by accumulating mass charges (baryons). I don't know what more explanation you want, aside from spherical symmetry, for the force at the center of the earth.

[misskitty]

Stupid questions for 100: What is the biggest difference between electromagnetism and the electricity Probos76 was talking about?

Again pardon the ignorance of a high school student: what is the core of earth made of and how does it all stay together (since the centre has been mentioned once or twice.)

[Berislav]

So in order for electromagnetism to be the dominant force on the galactic scale, the universe would need to be filled with a pretty high density plasma (which, of course, would still have gravitational implications...).

Solving the Einstein field equations for a charge filled universe would be a fun and most likely mathematically demanding exercise, in any case. Homogenity and isotropy still applying, of course.
I wonder what form would the stress-energy tensor take for this universe.

[ohwilleke]

The big problem is that there aren't any significant phenomena that we need electro-magnetism to explain (with the sole exception of zero point energy ideas that flow from QED as a possible explainations for dark energy).

While gravity and observed visible matter don't square at the galactic level, both dark matter and MOND address this discrepency, while an electromagnetic field would not. Conventional GR does an excellent job of explaining what we observe at most sub-galactic scales.

Also, electromagnetism is relatively easy to observe. Telescopes and radiotelescopes observe electro-magentic emissions in the form of photons on a regular basis. If there were significant cosmological electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of Earth we would have detected them long ago. Stars (and many planets) do have magentic fields, but, the effects tend to be quite local.

[misskitty]

Ok, that would be really good explanination if I possesed the knowledge to understand what you are talking about. I'm sorry if I seems horribly ignorant and senseless, but I really don't have the background to fully understand what you mean.

By the way, Berislav welcome to PF! :smile: Here's a query for you concerning your post; what is the stress-energy tensor thingy you mentioned? :bugeye:

[Hurkyl]

To say it more explicitly..

EM from an source whose net charge is zero is, I believe, an inverse quartic force at best. In other words, it dies off very rapidly. Thus, the label "short-range".

[Gokul43201]

Correction :

To say it more explicitly..

EM from an source (other than a dipole) whose net charge is zero is, I believe, an inverse quartic force at best. In other words, it dies off very rapidly. Thus, the label "short-range".

[hellfire]

The big problem is that there aren't any significant phenomena that we need electro-magnetism to explainYou may be right, but I think that currently one cannot be completely sure that magnetism does not play an important role in galaxy formation, which is currently not well understood.

[Probos76]

"Why Do Astrophysicists Ignore Electrical Phenomena? When such a firm foundation has been laid for continued work in the electrical properties of the universe, why do "mainstream" astrophysicists continue to ignore this field of study and, instead, patch up their failing "gravity only" models with more and more arcane, invented theoretical fictions? Why do conventional astronomers and cosmologists systematically exclude electric fields and currents from not only their consideration, but fromtheir curricula? Why do they intentionally ignore the fact that many here-to-fore "unexplained" phenomena are quite simply explained by recognizing the existence of electric fields and currents in solar and galactic plasma?
The answer is this:

Magnetism was known to exist in the middle ages. They knew, even back then, that a piece of iron could act on another - at a distance.

But, the early astronomers (like their modern brethern) were simply unaware of electrical phenomena. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) had already mathematically explained the shape of the orbits of the planets when Isaac Newton published his treatise on gravity in 1687. Once that occurred, nothing more was needed to explain and predict the planetary motions that could be observed in those days. Everything was solved.

This, of course, was all long before Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) flew his kite in a thunder storm or James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed his equations relating magnetic and electric fields. But, electric fields were difficult to measure. And astronomers didn't know they needed to know about them. So, they never got included in the "accepted" model of how the solar system or the cosmos works.

That is why, to this day, most astrophysicists have never taken courses in electromagnetic field theory or experimental plasma discharges. They attempt to describe the actions of plasma by means of equations that are applicable only to fluids like water - and magnetic effects. This is what Alfven called "magneto-hydrodynamics". They do not realize, as he did, that the prefix "magneto" implies "electro". And that, in turn, explains why astrophysicists blithely talk about stellar "winds", "vortex trails", and "bow shocks" instead of electrical currents in plasmas, electrical fields, z-pinches, and double layers. It also explains why they make wrong claims about how magnetic fields must "pile-up", "merge", and "recombine" - they are simply uneducated in, and therefore "mystified" by, this now well known area of engineering science."

extracted from: electric-cosmos.org (electric plasma) (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm)

[misskitty]

How do things become magnetic in the first place and how does electricity factor into the equation?

[Probos76]

Maybe this could help too...

"Superglue Of Planet Formation: Sticky Ice" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325232305.htm)



and (fake?): "LUTEC1000" (http://www.lutec.com.au/how.htm)

"We are not claiming to violate the physics laws of conservation of energy. However, we are saying that there is a lot that science doesn't know about permanent magnets and that we are harnessing the power of permanent magnets in this motor and generator to produce Free Energy without any consumable fuel source being required. The Hummingbird motor and Sundance Generator both use energy from powerful permanent magnets."

extracted from :The Sundance Generator (http://www.ftn.info/mainsite/Slide_Show1.htm)


the net is full of info. :smile:

[Chronos]

Plasma cosmology? Where is all the missing 'plasma' in the IGM you need to make that model viable? I somehow find the notion of 'dark plasma' even less satisfying than 'dark matter'.

[Chronos]

Maybe this could help too...

"Superglue Of Planet Formation: Sticky Ice" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325232305.htm)

and (fake?): "LUTEC1000" (http://www.lutec.com.au/how.htm)

"We are not claiming to violate the physics laws of conservation of energy. However, we are saying that there is a lot that science doesn't know about permanent magnets and that we are harnessing the power of permanent magnets in this motor and generator to produce Free Energy without any consumable fuel source being required. The Hummingbird motor and Sundance Generator both use energy from powerful permanent magnets."

extracted from :The Sundance Generator (http://www.ftn.info/mainsite/Slide_Show1.htm)

the net is full of info. :smile:And pastures are full of cowpies. Have you mailed off your $19.99 for the plans to build your very own 'Hummingbird motor", or "Sundance Generator"?

[Probos76]

I haven´t seen they ask for money on none of the links I´ve posted...they ask for patience!. where is the trick?

[ohwilleke]

That is why, to this day, most astrophysicists have never taken courses in electromagnetic field theory or experimental plasma discharges. They attempt to describe the actions of plasma by means of equations that are applicable only to fluids like water - and magnetic effects. This is what Alfven called "magneto-hydrodynamics". They do not realize, as he did, that the prefix "magneto" implies "electro". And that, in turn, explains why astrophysicists blithely talk about stellar "winds", "vortex trails", and "bow shocks" instead of electrical currents in plasmas, electrical fields, z-pinches, and double layers. It also explains why they make wrong claims about how magnetic fields must "pile-up", "merge", and "recombine" - they are simply uneducated in, and therefore "mystified" by, this now well known area of engineering science."[/I][/URL]

I defy you to find one professional astrophysicist who has never taken a course in electromagnetic field theory. Hell, I've taken a course in electromagnetic field theory and I'm a lawyer. Electromagnetic field theory is part of every first year physics course, and almost every physics major, including astrophysicists, will take one or two advanced courses on the subject as well.

The fact that custom and tradition results the use of different language in the astrophysics community, which is prone to be a bit more romantic in the way it describes things, to describe phenomena than that of electrical engineers, in no way reflects a lack of knowledge on the part of astrophysicists. It simply reflects the fact the astrophysicists have a less sophisticated audience for much of their work than electrical engineers do.

There is a reason that they made a mini-series about the Cosmos and didn't make a mini-series about transformer design.

[Locrian]

I haven´t seen they ask for money on none of the links I´ve posted...they ask for patience!. where is the trick?

Heh, send an email to their customer service reps and see what happens next.

Another thread containing free energy from permanent magnets. People have been trying that for 120 years. There's a thread on it every couple of weeks. None of them ever work. Our societies failure to learn from past mistakes is frightening.

Ursula was right; time really does travel in circles.

[Starship]

Electromagnetism is affected by cancellations caused by opposite charges, so it's rare in nature for very large concentration of EM force to exist. Gravitation doesn't have opposite charges so it can build without limit just by accumulating mass charges (baryons). I don't know what more explanation you want, aside from spherical symmetry, for the force at the center of the earth.

As Einstein said (and i believe he was correct), there is no evidence for a gravitational force. Mark McCutcheon, in his book 'the final theory' (http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm), believes he found a way to explain gravitation with the other 3 fundamental interactions (which are quite well known to us). His book is very controversial among mainstream science but he could be very right.

[Locrian]

His book is not controversial among mainstream scientists. I challenge you to find journal papers that argue against it, for it, or mention it in any way.

It isn't science, and therefore hasn't been controversial or otherwise among people who deal in science.

[Probos76]

Heh, send an email to their customer service reps and see what happens next.

I already did it (I had nothing to lose). I wrote them asking for a multilingual web and this was the answer:

"Thanks Ricardo, we will look into it.

Regards

John"

That´s all. I´hm not new at the Internet and I´m not stupid (not enough) for realizing when someone is trying to fool me. I think there´s an interesting point in all of this. What brought to this forum was the curiosity. I want to know your opinion about this issue because, even when I´m not Physic (I´m Architect), I need to know what´s going on. Don´t ask me why but the first time I studied the atom I saw a symmetry between Micro and Macrocosms and I couldn´t believe that electricity had nothing to do with Macrocosms. A month ago I started to look for those who might had that heretic idea. I found what I´ve posted here before, my surprise was found that a Noble Prize was its biggest defensor. As I don´t have the knowledge for trying to understand it I came here looking for illumination. If you think I´m interfering in the forum just let me know and I will not post more anything else.

[Starship]

His book is not controversial among mainstream scientists. I challenge you to find journal papers that argue against it, for it, or mention it in any way.

It isn't science, and therefore hasn't been controversial or otherwise among people who deal in science.

Yes because he confuses between work and work function which is something entirely different. But he right on several things:

1. It's still unknown why two masses seperated in space tend to accelerate toward one another.

2. What is time if not energy (because we measure time by seconds)?

He brings up several points for reconsideration.

[Locrian]

That post was awfully light on journal citations. When you say that his book is controversial among mainstream scientists, you must mean that someone, somewhere, is debating it in mainstream science. Since mainstream science uses journal publications (and a couple of other odd publications) as their primary debate forum, there must be numerous examples of mainstream scientists mentioning him.

So how about a dozen or two examples?

[Starship]

That post was awfully light on journal citations. When you say that his book is controversial among mainstream scientists, you must mean that someone, somewhere, is debating it in mainstream science. Since mainstream science uses journal publications (and a couple of other odd publications) as their primary debate forum, there must be numerous examples of mainstream scientists mentioning him.

So how about a dozen or two examples?

Either scientists don't see his book as science or they just don't have an adequate answer. Maybe both. I think that he might be right and we are wrong.

I think McCutcheon is right on at least one thing. Evidence does not support a gravitational force.

[Berislav]

His book is very controversial among mainstream science but he could be very right.
It's not controversial, in fact I think that's it's ridiculed (assuming that a serious scientists has actually noticed it and has the inclination to point his/her finger and laugh). There are only three equations in his book (in the part that's free, anyway). The one which is a reccuring theme is Einstein's mass-energy relation. The other two are the equation for centripical force and something resembling Kepler's 2nd law. His claim that gravity can not act faster than light, shows a lack of knowledge of virtual particles and their characteristics. I think, with all due respect, that Mr. McCutcheon should learn more about modern physics before he tries to construct a theory (speculative model) of everything.

even when I´m not Physic
Niether am I. But I have the decency to yield to an authority. If a group of experts were to tell me that the theory I am advocating is wrong (or has nothing to do with science), I would believe them.

By the way, Berislav welcome to PF!
Thank you.

what is the stress-energy tensor thingy you mentioned?
Well, for a so-called perfect fluid in special relativity it's:

T_{ab}=\rho u_a u_b + P(\eta_{ab} + u_a u_b)
where \rho and P are simply functions describing the mass-energy density and pressure of the fluid as measured in the rest frame of the fluid, u^a is a unit timelike (can be thought as slower than light) vector field which represents the 4-velocity (relativistic form of velocity) of the fluid, and \eta_{ab} is the Minkowskian metric (which simply states that spacetime has three spatial dimensions and one time dimension and is flat).

For "my" hypothetical charge filled universe I think that it should simply be:

T_{ab}=\rho u_a u_b + P(g_{ab} + u_a u_b) + \frac{1}{4 \pi} [F_{ab} F_b^c-\frac{1}{4}g_{ab} F_{de}F^{de}]

With the current density 4-vector j^a being non-zero, of course.
I surmise that \rho should be modified so that \partial^a T_{ab}=0 . I believe that homogenity and isotropy would provide sufficient constraints to provide a metric.

The stress-energy-momentum tensor can be thought of as a thingy (tensor) which describes the distribution of matter.

P.S.

I am interested in solving the Einstein field equations for this universe. Note, that I know that that's not the universe in which we live. I would like to solve them because I find it an interesting and challenging exercise. If no one objects I would like to post questions about the procedure in this thread.

[misskitty]

I'd be interested in following what you'd be posting and if you could add some explanation for what everything is and what it means I'd be extremely egar to learn about what it is you are trying to solve.:bugeye:

If you don't mind trying to explane it to a high school student who is beyond interested. :blushing:

[misskitty]

Probos: I read your article. It was pretty interesting from the parts I understood. I would like to make sure I understand the basic concept though. So molecules and water freeze so quickly that they become polarized by the low temperatures and they also become mechanically inelastic? Does that sound right? :confused:

[Starship]

It's not controversial, in fact I think that's it's ridiculed (assuming that a serious scientists has actually noticed it and has the inclination to point his/her finger and laugh). There are only three equations in his book (in the part that's free, anyway). The one which is a reccuring theme is Einstein's mass-energy relation. The other two are the equation for centripical force and something resembling Kepler's 2nd law. His claim that gravity can not act faster than light, shows a lack of knowledge of virtual particles and their characteristics. I think, with all due respect, that Mr. McCutcheon should learn more about modern physics before he tries to construct a theory (speculative model) of everything.

Yes he confuses between work and work function. Another confusion he makes is between force and work. Force doesn't do any work because it's not conserved. Energy is conserved, force is not. "Exerting a force" is not the same as "doing work".

[Berislav]

I'd be interested in following what you'd be posting and if you could add some explanation for what everything is and what it means I'd be extremely egar to learn about what it is you are trying to solve
Well, I (think I) basically wrote the stress-energy tensor for a charged perfect fluid. The fluid itself is the source of the electromagnetic field.
Maxwell's equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_equation) in special relativity are expressed by the rank-2 tensor (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tensor.html) F^{ab}. You can see it (with some subscripts raised or superscript lowered in the stress-energy tensor expression.

The total stress-energy tensor must be conserved ( \partial^a T_{ab}=0 ). This fact and the fact that we impose upon this universe to be homgeneous (roughly speaking, it's density doesn't change from place to place) and isotropic (on a large scale the universe in every direction is the same) could be used to determine the spacetime exactly. When mathematically expressed through the use of space-like (spatial) hypersurfaces (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypersurface.html) homogenity implies that there exists an isometry (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Isometry.html) of the metric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor) for any two points on the same hypersurface (at the same instance of coordinate time). Thus no point is different from another.
While isotropy implies that at each point for which there exists a congruence of timelike curves (observers) with
tangents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_calculus) there exists an isometry of the metric which leaves the point and the tangent of the time-like curve fixed but rotates two spatial tangent vectors into each other. Thus there is no preferred direction.

It is then should be possible to solve the Einstein field equations (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EinsteinFieldEquations.html) for a universe filled with a charged fluid.

If you don't mind trying to explane it to a high school student who is beyond interested.
I'm a high school student, as well. If you want I can tell you which books I read, but it would be better, if you asked a physicist for literature recommendations.
See, also, this link, which you might find interesting: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html

[Nereid]

While the topic of the nature of plasmas in astrophysics is fascinating, and likely hundreds of full-time professionals are engaged in research on phenomena such as jets, the solar wind, Jovian aurorae, magnetars, filaments in the ISM, etc, 'the electric universe' or 'electric cosmos' a la Thorton and Scott belong in PF's Theory Development section.

McCutcheon's ideas may be interesting, but they are clearly not science (and in any case, are easily shown to be inconsistent with good experimental and observational results).

[Probos76]

Someone who explains me this please: "The Vallée Synergetic Generator" (http://jlnlabs.imars.com/vsg/index.htm)

[russ_watters]

In a word: nonsense.

[Locrian]

Either scientists don't see his book as science or they just don't have an adequate answer.

Initially you were trying to make a case that his work was contraversial. Unable to provide an example of where, in mainstream science, it is creating controversy, you seem now to be making excuses for why it isn't controversial.

I find it interesting that the one thing you say he got right is the one idea that he most certainly didn't think up himself; it was suggested almost a century ago. I wonder; if the only idea an entire book gets right is something almost a hundred years old, how succesful is it?

I suppose different people set the bar for success at different heights.

[Probos76]

What do you think about the "Hannes Alfvén – Nobel Lecture" (December 11, 1970): Plasma Physics, Space Research and the Origin of the Solar System. (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.html)

[russ_watters]

What do you think about the "Hannes Alfvén – Nobel Lecture" (December 11, 1970): Plasma Physics, Space Research and the Origin of the Solar System. (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.html) I only skimmed it, but it looks like "real" plasma physics to me. It has nothing to do with EC.