How Does Plasma Cosmology Explain the Sun's Function?

[Ivan Seeking]

Alright, but if I see anymore YouTube videos or books listed that's it. It will be a permanent ban.

This is not the type of subject where a YouTube video is ever appropriate.

 

[iantresman]

Alright, but if I see anymore YouTube videos or books listed that's it. It will be a permanent ban.

This is not the type of subject where a YouTube video is ever appropriate.

Thank you for you consideration. How about academic books, such as those published by University Presses, and academic publishers, eg. Spinger.

I believe that the YouTube reference was to a Norwegian-produced documentary film that featured the likes of people like Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, the Burbidges and Nobel Laureate Kary B. Mullis, so not your typical YouTube fare.

 

[Astronuc]

Thank you for you consideration. How about academic books, such as those published by University Presses, and academic publishers, eg. Spinger.

A truly scientific and technical (text) book (by a reputable publisher e.g. a university press, or Springer, Kluwer, Pearson, Wiley, McGraw-Hill, . . .) with quantitative or mathematical descriptions of theory and experimental evidence in astrophysics/plasma physics would seem permissible, but I defer to Ivan. What is not permissible are books of words only that make qualitative and subjective statements. Carl Sagan's COSMOS book would not be permissible.

[/QUOTE]I believe that the YouTube reference was to a Norwegian-produced documentary film that featured the likes of people like Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, the Burbidges and Nobel Laureate Kary B. Mullis, so not your typical YouTube fare.[/QUOTE] But if they talk in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, that is not appropriate hear. Scientists often talk about their work in a manner in which lay people can understand, and that does not involve rigorous scientific or mathematical statements.

BTW, I've been looking into IEEE's position on EU/PU/PC, and they do not appear to have one. I will be contacting the Nuclear and Plasma Science group, of which I was a member for nearly 2 decades. I don't ever remember any endorsements of particular cosmological theories. I have recently found some rather misleading statements, which to the uninformed reader, would imply some endorsement or support on the part of IEEE concerning EU/PU/PC. I think those folks might be pretty upset to see IEEE being misrepresented at some of the websites and forums.

 

[iantresman]

BTW, I've been looking into IEEE's position on EU/PU/PC, and they do not appear to have one. I will be contacting the Nuclear and Plasma Science group, of which I was a member for nearly 2 decades. I don't ever remember any endorsements of particular cosmological theories. I have recently found some rather misleading statements, which to the uninformed reader, would imply some endorsement or support on the part of IEEE concerning EU/PU/PC. I think those folks might be pretty upset to see IEEE being misrepresented at some of the websites and forums.

I wouldn't expect the IEEE, or anyone else, to endorse any position on cosmology. But that's not say that there is not some kind of "support" (eg financial). Unfortunately I don't know which Web site comments you are referring to. I note (all emphasis mine):

• Discussing the IEEE International Workshop on Plasma Cosmology held in La Jolla, California, on February 20-22, 1989, it is noted that "The sponsorship of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society and the financial support of NASA is gratefully acknowledged and appreciated." (Guest Editorial, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Publication Date: Feb 1990, Volume: 18, Issue: 1, Page(s): 2-4 (http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/TPUeditorial.1990.pdf , PDF)
  .
• "This special issue of the international journal of cosmic physics, Astrophysics and Space Science, contains invited contributions delivered at the Second IEEE International Workshop on Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, held from 10 to 12 May 1993 in Princeton, New Jersey. The Workshop was sponsored by the NSF Division of Atmospheric Sciences, NASA Headquarters, Space Physics Division, and the Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers." -- Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 227, No. 1/2/ May 1995, http://www.springerlink.com/content/k850503t7608/

While Electric Universe people endorse and support the Plasma Universe, there is very little in peer reviewed journals specifically on the Electric Universe.

Edit by Ivan: Inappropriate links deleted.

 

[Astronuc]

I wouldn't expect the IEEE, or anyone else, to endorse any position on cosmology. But that's not say that there is not some kind of "support" (eg financial). Unfortunately I don't know which Web site comments you are referring to. I note (all emphasis mine):

Holoscience is one, but there are others. I found them while looking for an official position of IEEE on Plasma Cosmology.

It will be interesting to read your findings, and to note whether the individuals you contact are speaking for themselves, or representing the "official" line of any organisation.

Professional socities offer position statements, but it is done according to bylaws and rules, usually handled by the Executive committee responsible for the topic.

IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society supports conferences and workshops on Nuclear and Plasma Sciences and professionals are welcome to present papers about their work. That does not imply any approval or endorsement of the work. The same goes for NASA, which may also provide financial support for some research.

"Electric Space" was the name of a series of commended public exhibitions

Electric Space is a concept the public can handle. Electricity is familiar. If NASA wrote "Plasma Science or Astrophysics", it would likely be a turnoff to the general public. Use of "Electric Space" does not imply an acceptance of "Electric Universe".

No one here disputes the existence of plasmas in space, particularly in stars, and where there are plasma (high ionized gas) there are electric currents, and interactions between E and B fields (which necessarily go together). The main issue we have is the erroneous (even false) claim(s) as to the significance of electric currents in space.

 

[ZapperZ]

iantresman: just out of curiosity, is there a particular reason why you are so pushing this? I mean, you can't just woke up one morning and decided to devote a lot of effort into not only producing a webpage promoting this, but also going into online forums and argued for it. I may have misread or misinterpreted something in this thread, but I thought you said that you yourself aren't an expert in this field. If this is true, then I'm puzzled by the almost devotional level you have for this particular area.

Zz.

 

[iantresman]

Professional socities offer position statements, but it is done according to bylaws and rules, usually handled by the Executive committee responsible for the topic.

IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society supports conferences and workshops on Nuclear and Plasma Sciences and professionals are welcome to present papers about their work. That does not imply any approval or endorsement of the work. The same goes for NASA, which may also provide financial support for some research.

Sure. Their published areas of interest include "space plasmas"(http://www.ieee.org/organizations/society/nps.html )

Electric Space is a concept the public can handle. Electricity is familiar. If NASA wrote "Plasma Science or Astrophysics", it would likely be a turnoff to the general public. Use of "Electric Space" does not imply an acceptance of "Electric Universe".

No one here disputes the existence of plasmas in space, particularly in stars, and where there are plasma (high ionized gas) there are electric currents, and interactions between E and B fields (which necessarily go together). The main issue we have is the erroneous (even false) claim(s) as to the significance of electric currents in space.

I guess it depends on how you define "significant". Alfvén discussed this matter in (and I know an electric field is not an electric current):

• Alfvén, H. "On the Importance of Electric Fields in the Magnetosphere and Interplanetary Space" (1967) Space Science Reviews, Volume 7, Issue 2-3, pp. 140-148 (Article online in full)
  .
• "Chapter 2: Electric currents in space plasmas" Cosmic Plasma, Publ. 1981. Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 82 (1981) Springer Verlag. ISBN 90-277-1151-8.

I think this suggests that there are some scientists who consider that electric currents are significant in space plasma in certain cases, not just in solar and magnetospheric plasmas. I recognise that other scientists do not.

 

[iantresman]

iantresman: just out of curiosity, is there a particular reason why you are so pushing this? I mean, you can't just woke up one morning and decided to devote a lot of effort into not only producing a webpage promoting this, but also going into online forums and argued for it. I may have misread or misinterpreted something in this thread, but I thought you said that you yourself aren't an expert in this field. If this is true, then I'm puzzled by the almost devotional level you have for this particular area.

It's a subject I'm interested in. I read about Alfvén's Plasma Universe some time ago, found there was relatively little information about it on the Web (compared to more mainstream subjects), found there was also some misunderstandings on it, and decided that a Web site predominantly supported by peer-reviewed material would make it easier for people to assess it for themselves.

I am further interested by how people react to the Plasma Universe. On the one hand, the science is generally published in peer-reviewed journals by respectable plasma physicists; on the other hand, we are discussing this in a "Scepticism and debunking" forum of the PF Lounge, that doesn't even make it into the "Other Science" section.

I wonder whether a non-expert interested specifically in Standard Cosmology would be described a having an "almost devotional level" of interest, and whether becoming an expert changes that?

 

[Nereid]

If those papers use observational evidence of stellar or interstellar plasmas, then they would be admissible. If however, the papers simply refer to laboratory (terrestrial) experiments, then they may not be necessarily appropriate for a discussion of plasma cosmology.

Earlier I expressed a desire to distinguish between different areas of astrophysics, namely (a) Klein's cosmology (b) Klein-Alfvén cosmology (c) Plasma Cosmology (d) The Plasma Universe (e) Plasma Astrophysics.

I was wondering whether you perceive a difference between them?

I ask because about a year ago, I emailed some people I though had written peer reviewed papers on "plasma cosmologists", to ask them if they considered themselves to be "plasma cosmologists". All said they considered themselves to be "plasma physicists" or "astrophysicists". Only one said he could also be called a "plasma cosmologists.

I appreciate your efforts on developing a consistent classification scheme, both in this post and earlier ones in this thread.

One difficulty any such efforts will face is the lack of uniformity of usage of the more common terms, not within the respective scientific communities, but among those who are PF members, and guests, both present and future.

For example, the term 'Electric Universe': it can have a meaning as bland as something like 'the almost universal use of electricity in countries with developed economies', or a synonym for 'Plasma Universe' (per your website), or 'the Sun and stars were formed by z-pinches and powered by giant interstellar Birkeland currents', and so on.

Similarly with 'Plasma Cosmology'; while not as widespread a term, it easy to find it used to mean something like 'the outline of a cosmological model in which General Relativity plays no significant role', as well as as a synonym for 'the Sun is powered by giant galaxy-wide currents'.

And even with an apparently technical term we can find problems; look at 'Birkeland currents', for example: it has a standard, technical meaning when used by those who do research into the physics of the Earth's magnetosphere ... while that term may be quite unknown to almost all other physicists, it is also quite straight-forward to define in an unambiguous way. However, the same term can be found on many 'Electric Universe' or 'Plasma Universe' websites, where it clearly has a different meaning, or range of meanings. Further, and this goes to another of Astronuc's points, it is only seldom defined (on those websites) and rarely, if ever, do any such definitions include unambiguous links to the underlying physics (such as an equation).

If only for these reasons, I think it best if PF sticks to its existing policies (as I said above).

Should anyone, new member or old, wish to discuss 'Electric Universe' or 'Plasma Universe' ideas, or ask questions about them, they should do so within the same framework as any other discussion of, or questions on, physics (or philosophy) in the relevant section of PF.

And to bore regular readers of this thread silly with yet another repetition: if your 'EU theory' idea cannot be supported by at least one paper published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal (or is a proceeding or poster at a relevant conference), do not write posts about it (at least in the main, physics, sections of PF). If in doubt, PM a Mentor.

Which brings me rather neatly full circle: in her opening post, henxan included a link to a YouTube video. I gather that several PF members - from Mentors through Science Advisors to newbies - felt the content to be nonsense, but that others felt it contained good science (or at least referred to good science). As is now clear, I hope, it is nonsense* ... but many PF members, myself included, would greatly welcome the opportunity to read papers which might change our minds.

So, how about it henxan? Do you know of any such papers? If so, why not provide references! Oh, and by the way, note that the list of papers PlasmaSphere (and, to a lesser extent, iantresman) provided do not - it seems to me - provide any support at all for the key claims made on that YouTube video.

* And, IMHO, has no place in PF[/size]

 

[ZapperZ]

It's a subject I'm interested in. I read about Alfvén's Plasma Universe some time ago, found there was relatively little information about it on the Web (compared to more mainstream subjects), found there was also some misunderstandings on it, and decided that a Web site predominantly supported by peer-reviewed material would make it easier for people to assess it for themselves.

You have to admit that for most professionals in any particular field of study, studying something predominantly from the "web" isn't the best way of mastering it. Unless one actually sits down and work through the details, even simply reading published papers only gives you a superficial knowledge of the subject. And I think, this is the case. I noticed that Nereid went into great lengths to not only point out issues surrounding the references given, but also the problems with the physics content of some of them. And unless I missed it (which is entirely possible), most of your responses to her assertion have been to characterize the papers and who published it and where it was published, etc., i.e. trying to shore up the "prestige" of the paper rather than the validity of the content. This is why I thought that it was strange that you'd want to promote something that you didn't know very well in the first place.

I am further interested by how people react to the Plasma Universe. On the one hand, the science is generally published in peer-reviewed journals by respectable plasma physicists; on the other hand, we are discussing this in a "Scepticism and debunking" forum of the PF Lounge, that doesn't even make it into the "Other Science" section.

There's nothing to prevent you from doing this in peer-reviewed journals. My standard response to anyone who feels that strongly about something is to write a rebuttal to the many papers that contradict or left out important pieces of information. Without that, the strong feelings about something goes to waste and will disappear into oblivion.

From my perspective, the reason why this subject is here was because the early proponent of "Plasma Universe" in this forum used dubious sources, and continues to use such sources (webpages, YouTube video) even after being told not to. Such stubbornness relegated the discussion (not the subject matter - which is entirely a different issue) to this forum.

I wonder whether a non-expert interested specifically in Standard Cosmology would be described a having an "almost devotional level" of interest, and whether becoming an expert changes that?

It is not typical for someone who don't have a training in that field of study to devote an entire webpage such so it gets some "publicity". You have to admit, that is highly unusual, but then again, I don't normally troll personal webpage containing physics/astronomy issues. Do you do this for other science areas that do not get the recognition they deserve?

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

WARNING! Nereid attempt at levity follows!

In a light-hearted vein, I'm wondering whether there are devotees of the strong force, or the weak force.

I mean, proponents of 'EU theory' claim, falsely, that astrophysicists regard gravity as the only force worth studying, and counter-claim that 'electricity'* is really the only one (odd though that while 99.{insert more 9's here, to your taste}% of the universe is plasma, 100% is mass-energy, so gravity wins).

Surely there must be folk who believe that a plague should visit both houses; that the strong force is {insert your favourite number here} orders of magnitude stronger than electromagnetism, and that only the inconsequential neutrinos can escape the grip of the strong force (see, true believers of this cult can make just as many false claims as 'EU theorists'!)? There must be a Nobel Laureate whose work can be picked over to find juicy morsels that support these obvious truths!

And let's not neglect the weak force ... it may be weak in name, but its effects are profound, its wingéd messengers can leap tall buildings in a single bound! not only can they pass through solid walls, but even a light-year of solid lead is but tissue paper to them! Its flock vastly outnumber those of the baryons, and when the truth about dark matter (DM) is finally discovered (any day now, promise), the awesome reality of the dominance of the universe by the weak force will become clear - DM is neutralinos, the supreme embodiment of the weak force! {feel free to continue adding exclamation marks here}.

* Of course, they don't mean that; they really mean electromagnetism.[/size]

 

[ZapperZ]

And let's not neglect the weak force ... it may be weak in name, but its effects are profound, its wingéd messengers can leap tall buildings in a single bound! not only can they pass through solid walls, but even a light-year of solid lead is but tissue paper to them! Its flock vastly outnumber those of the baryons, and when the truth about dark matter (DM) is finally discovered (any day now, promise), the awesome reality of the dominance of the universe by the weak force will become clear - DM is neutralinos, the supreme embodiment of the weak force! {feel free to continue adding exclamation marks here}.

You left out one important thing, Nereid. Weak force could be responsible for CP violating events, and thus, the reason why we have matter-antimatter asymmetry in our universe today. So Weak Force rules! :)

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

Alfvén's Plasma Universe, and Birkeland

iantresman,

Alfvén was but 10 when Birkeland died. Both men played important roles in the several centuries' long history of understanding the Earth's magnetosphere, to use the modern term. In particular, Alfvén's contributions included extending some of Birkeland's work and ideas, introducing new ideas, and showing that some of Birkeland's work and ideas are inconsistent with good observational results (see http://www.phy6.org/Education/bh1-1.html" for an interesting, non-technical, summary*).

Given that, I'm curious to know why your website gives such prominence to Birkeland, and, in particular, seems to present, quite uncritically, much of Birkeland's work on space plasmas that Alfvén showed was inconsistent with both theory (which Alfvén developed) and remote observation (and, later, in situ observation), not to mention Alfvén's ideas of the Plasma Universe (especially where Alfvén developed his own models and ideas that are quite incompatible with Birkeland's, such as the rings of Saturn).

* From your extensive knowledge of Alfvén's work, do you feel there's anything significantly mis-stated, or omitted?[/size]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thank you for you consideration. How about academic books, such as those published by University Presses, and academic publishers, eg. Spinger.

Academic textbooks are fine. The goal is to ensure that only academically sound sources are used. As long as we meet this requirement we should be fine.

 

[iantresman]

One difficulty any such efforts will face is the lack of uniformity of usage of the more common terms, not within the respective scientific communities, but among those who are PF members, and guests, both present and future.

For example, the term 'Electric Universe': it can have a meaning as bland as something like 'the almost universal use of electricity in countries with developed economies', or a synonym for 'Plasma Universe' (per your website), or 'the Sun and stars were formed by z-pinches and powered by giant interstellar Birkeland currents', and so on.

Do I really have "Electric Universe" as a synonym for "Plasma Universe" on my Web site? I have tried very hard not to imply this, as I am aware of differences. Can you give me a link to the page? And likewise, "the Sun and stars were formed by z-pinches" is language I would hopefully not use on the site, unless one of my contributers has added this.

You are quite correct that formal terminology is a problem. If I mention, for example, the heliospheric current sheet, usually there is no problem. But if I mention it in the same sentence as the Electric Universe, it becomes crackpottery.

Edit by Ivan: Link deleted. One again, please do not link anything but academic resources.

 

[Astronuc]

Do I really have "Electric Universe" as a synonym for "Plasma Universe" on my Web site? I have tried very hard not to imply this, as I am aware of differences. Can you give me a link to the page? And likewise, "the Sun and stars were formed by z-pinches" is language I would hopefully not use on the site, unless one of my contributers has added this.

You are quite correct that formal terminology is a problem. If I mention, for example, the heliospheric current sheet, usually there is no problem. But if I mention it in the same sentence as the Electric Universe, it becomes crackpottery.

Ian, the problem is not your site, but rather all the other sites and folks out there on the internet. One problem we have at PF is trying to differentiate by what each new guest means by EU/PU/PC. So we need to pin down each term and determine any overlaps.

We see problems with all three, as we understand them, and particular EU, which is clearly contradicted by observations.

 

[iantresman]

And even with an apparently technical term we can find problems; look at 'Birkeland currents', for example: it has a standard, technical meaning when used by those who do research into the physics of the Earth's magnetosphere ... while that term may be quite unknown to almost all other physicists, it is also quite straight-forward to define in an unambiguous way.

I agree with you that Birkeland currents more commonly refer to auroral field-aligned currnets, but perhaps this is because it is a more common area of research. As Hannes Alfvén wrote (my emphasis):

".. it was [Alex] Dessler who discovered the electric currents that Birkeland had predicted. Dessler called them "Birkeland currents," a term that is now generally accepted and sometimes generalized to mean all currents parallel to the magnetic fields. I think that it is such a great achievement by Dessler to have interpreted the magnetospheric data in what we now know is the correct way that the currents should be called Birkeland-Dessler currents." Alfven, Hannes, "http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ITPS...14..779A"", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793. (p.787)​

Michael Gedalin and William Peter write about:

"galactic-sized Birkeland current filaments" -- Gedalin, M.; Peter, W., "http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ITPS...20..740G"" (1982) IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 20, No. 6, p. 740-744​

Anthony L. Peratt wites :

"that pinched Birkeland currents also occur in cometary magntospheres" -- Peratt, Anthony L., "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas" (1996) Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 242, Issue 1-2, pp. 93-163
​

However, the same term can be found on many 'Electric Universe' or 'Plasma Universe' websites, where it clearly has a different meaning, or range of meanings.

I am reminded of the use of the word "gas" (as in hot ball of gas), where in solar physics it means "plasma", a word with quite a specific meaning. See for example, Leon Golub, Jay M. Pasachoff, "Nearest Star: The Surprising Science of Our Sun" (2001), Harvard University Press. We all know what is meant, even the sun does not contain gas.

Further, and this goes to another of Astronuc's points, it is only seldom defined (on those websites) and rarely, if ever, do any such definitions include unambiguous links to the underlying physics (such as an equation).

And likewise, this very forum does not require links to the underlying physics for every reply that is posted.

 

[iantresman]

You have to admit that for most professionals in any particular field of study, studying something predominantly from the "web" isn't the best way of mastering it. Unless one actually sits down and work through the details, even simply reading published papers only gives you a superficial knowledge of the subject. And I think, this is the case. I noticed that Nereid went into great lengths to not only point out issues surrounding the references given, but also the problems with the physics content of some of them. And unless I missed it (which is entirely possible), most of your responses to her assertion have been to characterize the papers and who published it and where it was published, etc., i.e. trying to shore up the "prestige" of the paper rather than the validity of the content. This is why I thought that it was strange that you'd want to promote something that you didn't know very well in the first place.

I'm in a no-win no-win situation. I can disagree with Nereid, but my status is unknown, and "my word" effectively worthless. Or I can let people judge for themselves by providing a peer reviewed citation which necessarily includes the publishing details. Since it has been hammered home that the quality of sources is important, this seems important to include.

While it may seem that I am trying to shore up the "prestige" of the paper rather than the validity of the content, I note that no-one has provided any peer-reviewed criticisms of the content in question.

 

[iantresman]

From my perspective, the reason why this subject is here was because the early proponent of "Plasma Universe" in this forum used dubious sources, and continues to use such sources (webpages, YouTube video) even after being told not to. Such stubbornness relegated the discussion (not the subject matter - which is entirely a different issue) to this forum.

I think that is indeed part of it, but also perhaps the perception that the "Plasma Universe" model is bogus, and hasn't been investigated via peer review.

 

[iantresman]

Given that, I'm curious to know why your website gives such prominence to Birkeland, and, in particular, seems to present, quite uncritically, much of Birkeland's work on space plasmas that Alfvén showed was inconsistent with both theory (which Alfvén developed) and remote observation (and, later, in situ observation), not to mention Alfvén's ideas of the Plasma Universe (especially where Alfvén developed his own models and ideas that are quite incompatible with Birkeland's, such as the rings of Saturn).

Same reason as before. It's difficult to write about a subject with giving prominence to it. In writing about Birkeland's work, I'm most interested in adding information about it, again, because a lot of this information, or collection of references, is not generally available elsewhere.

If I add to my site an article on "ring formation", I am sure I will add citations to both Birkeland and Alfvén. On my website page on Plasma Cosmology I recently added some peer-reviewed criticism I'd found on the subject, so I'm not adverse to excluding criticism.

 

[Astronuc]

And likewise, this very forum does not require links to the underlying physics for every reply that is posted.

Here at PF, peer-to-peer (pro to pro) discussions don't need an outside source. If we work with a student or someone outside the field in question, most likely there is an outside reference, e.g. hyperphysics website.

The topic of EU/PU/PC has been introduced from outside PF, and we have to struggle to understand it because different people mix terminology.

I think that is indeed part of it, but also perhaps the perception that the "Plasma Universe" model is bogus, and hasn't been investigated via peer review.

Or it has been peer reviewed and dismissed already, without substantial documentation.

If the peers in astrophysics have dismissed, would one expect PF to accept it?

Right away EU is discredited if it claims interstellar electric current power the sun. There is no evidence of substantial interstellar (filamentary) currents of the magnitude necessary. If someone mentions EU with PU/PC then it discredits PU/PC, which may be problematic themselves.

Would one accept that interstellar medium (ISM) is mostly neutral atoms (rather than ions and free electrons) at a temperature of about 3.7 K, which is too cold to sustain a substantial plasma and free electrons? We see radiofrequency, but there is no significant UV or visible light that one would expect to find from recombination if there were huge currents of free electrons flowing through ISM.

What Birkeland did in the lab does not necessarily apply directly to space. The EM phenomena are similar but not the same.

We do fusion on the Earth in experiments and thermonuclear weapons, but we use DD or DT, and perhaps a few others. This is not the same process in the sun, which is based on the pp-chain and CNO cycle, and at much higher particle densities, which we could never achieve in the lab. They are both fusion processes, but under very different conditions.

 

[iantresman]

Ian, the problem is not your site, but rather all the other sites and folks out there on the internet. One problem we have at PF is trying to differentiate by what each new guest means by EU/PU/PC. So we need to pin down each term and determine any overlaps.

Thanks for the clarification, I wasn't sure.

We see problems with all three, as we understand them, and particular EU, which is clearly contradicted by observations.

Sounds like a good example of where being more specific with the claims and observation would be scientifically useful. I am aware that the Electric Universe makes lots of claims, some of which are standard astrophysics.

 

[ZapperZ]

While it may seem that I am trying to shore up the "prestige" of the paper rather than the validity of the content, I note that no-one has provided any peer-reviewed criticisms of the content in question.

If I add to my site an article on "ring formation", I am sure I will add citations to both Birkeland and Alfvén. On my website page on Plasma_cosmology I recently added some peer-reviewed criticism I'd found on the subject, so I'm not adverse to excluding criticism.

Aren't these self-contradictory?

Besides, I thought that is what Nereid has been doing all along, questioning the validity of several of your points based on a number of sources that has been provided. Furthermore, there is a main point that has been said by both Astronuc and Nereid - that just because there is subject on plasma physics within astrophysics and cosmology, doesn't mean that those papers automatically support your "plasma cosmology" scenario. That is one issue that you should pay attention to, because that was also the impression I got from the very beginning of this. Somehow, just the word "plasma" appearing in a paper on astrophysics seems to be used as valid references to support this thing. This is bogus.

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

Do I really have "Electric Universe" as a synonym for "Plasma Universe" on my Web site? I have tried very hard not to imply this, as I am aware of differences. Can you give me a link to the page? And likewise, "the Sun and stars were formed by z-pinches" is language I would hopefully not use on the site, unless one of my contributers has added this.

You are quite correct that formal terminology is a problem. If I mention, for example, the heliospheric current sheet, usually there is no problem. But if I mention it in the same sentence as the Electric Universe, it becomes crackpottery.

As Astronuc said, it's not about your website, but about the topic of this thread - what should PF do about posts referencing one or other of these terms.

I think we're starting to spin our wheels on this one; at least I thought my suggestion was clear, and I thought you'd agreed with it - no special rules*.

The post of mine you are quoting was merely me tidying up some loose ends, elaborating on why no classification scheme (other than that based on published papers, etc) would work. Or, saying the same thing another way, it doesn't matter how you - or anyone else for that matter - chooses to slice & dice definitions of PU, PC, EU, ... the mere existence of a wide range of meanings that guests and members may bring to PF pretty much dooms any such classification scheme to ineffectiveness.

* Of course, these are not decisions for you or I to make ...[/size]

 

[Nereid]

[snip]

While it may seem that I am trying to shore up the "prestige" of the paper rather than the validity of the content, I note that no-one has provided any peer-reviewed criticisms of the content in question.

And nor should you expect to find any such here, in this S&D thread!

At least, that's how I understood the scope of this thread - it's an open discussion on what to do about material that PF members may post, concerning 'Electric Universe' (etc).

Part of the confusion, perhaps, is that this discussion has moved on from the OP, and the first few posts in the thread were a little wobbly.

As I think was said, several times, by several PF Mentors, earlier in this thread, the time for a discussion of the content of any 'EU/PU/PC/Birkeland currents/etc' papers will come ... once the scope is clarified.

 

[Nereid]

Same reason as before. It's difficult to write about a subject with giving prominence to it. In writing about Birkeland's work, I'm most interested in adding information about it, again, because a lot of this information, or collection of references, is not generally available elsewhere.

If I add to my site an article on "ring formation", I am sure I will add citations to both Birkeland and Alfvén. On my website page on Plasma Cosmology I recently added some peer-reviewed criticism I'd found on the subject, so I'm not adverse to excluding criticism.

Thanks for the clarification.

I am not trying to tell you how to run your website, nor suggesting that there should be any relationship between PF and it.

I acknowledge that my question is off-topic; I was (and still am, to some extent) merely curious about what I saw as apparent inconsistencies.

With your clarification, I see that your site's objectives are only partially related to contemporary science; you are as much interested (it seems) in the history of one small part of science as its actual content.

 

[Nereid]

One other thing I think should be clarified ... if any PF member wishes to ask questions about something 'EU-like' (or any other term), or wishes to propose, for discussion, some 'EU theory', to what extent is it permissible to include links to website's like iantresman's, or the holoscience one Astronuc mentioned?

I'm curious about this because a) it seems some PF members who posted to this thread got themselves into hot water by doing something like this, and b) https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" may not be 100% clear (for example, when does such a link constitute 'advertising', in these days of cynical linklist building, to boost one's Google rank, for example?).

FWIW, given the virtually unmitigated attacks on science (and scientists) that some of the sites which PF members may consider linking to (many of such sites prominently feature terms like Electric Universe, Plasma Universe, Birkeland currents, etc), and the amount of venom, vitriol, bombast, etc that they are drenched in, my own, personal view is that PF members should be extremely careful posting such links. And when in doubt, as the guidelines state, they should PM a mentor and ask for advice first. But, to repeat, that's just my personal view.

 

[iantresman]

Or it has been peer reviewed and dismissed already, without substantial documentation.

If the peers in astrophysics have dismissed, would one expect PF to accept it?

I would expect something published in peer reviewed journals.

Would one accept that interstellar medium (ISM) is mostly neutral atoms (rather than ions and free electrons) at a temperature of about 3.7 K

Some sources suggest that interstellar medium includes ionized interstellar gas (ie. plasma) at temperatures up to 5 x 10⁵K (ref), whose magnetic fields are generated by electric currents (ref), and that it may form its own current sheet (ref), and that even the molecular clouds may show electric currents (ref).

 

[iantresman]

Aren't these self-contradictory?

Criticism is not necessarily a refutation. Recall that Chapman criticised Birkeland's model of the aurora for 50 years before in situ satellite observations decided the matter.

Besides, I thought that is what Nereid has been doing all along, questioning the validity of several of your points based on a number of sources that has been provided. Furthermore, there is a main point that has been said by both Astronuc and Nereid - that just because there is subject on plasma physics within astrophysics and cosmology, doesn't mean that those papers automatically support your "plasma cosmology" scenario. That is one issue that you should pay attention to, because that was also the impression I got from the very beginning of this. Somehow, just the word "plasma" appearing in a paper on astrophysics seems to be used as valid references to support this thing. This is bogus.

Agreed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One other thing I think should be clarified ... if any PF member wishes to ask questions about something 'EU-like' (or any other term), or wishes to propose, for discussion, some 'EU theory', to what extent is it permissible to include links to website's like iantresman's, or the holoscience one Astronuc mentioned?

The basic rule of thumb is that blogs and other non-professional websites are not persmissible. If there is no blogging and if no unpublished papers are linked, then that particular site may be acceptable. From what I've seen, very few sites would meet this standard. Obviously something like the IPCC or NOAA would be acceptable [as random examples].

If a person has a question specific to information found at one of these sites, then in most cases the question can be posed without the need for a link. In the case that this is not possible, I would suggest running the link past the moderator and explain the problem.