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: 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: 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: (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...es/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

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! Here's a query for you concerning your post; what is the stress-energy tensor thingy you mentioned?

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

You 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)

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"



and (fake?): "LUTEC1000"

"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


the net is full of info.

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

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"?