Is it used to explain gravity as an effect caused by parallel moving like charges? Is it simply a theory that puts an electric field everywhere present in space? is it a valid theory or is it more of a hypothesis?
I'm not sure I'd be quite so hard on Alfven - those quotes don't imply to me that he buys into the EC idea. He's saying maybe a magnetic field permeates all of space, but he is not saying that it is the cause of what we now consider to be gravitational interactions. The link focused mostly on attempting to explain sunspots in what seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable way.Nereid said:Alfvén indeed did great work on plasmas, and much of his work is of the highest quality.
Does it follow that everything a great scientist says and thinks is spot on? No, and to base a claim on nothing more than the writings of such a person amounts to an authority-based approach.
And it's just here that I have a problem. If one wants to read up on Alfvén, then please give a link to a reputable site where you can get hold of his publications. IMHO, a "Catastrophism" website is exactly NOT where you would go to do that.My intention was to direct the original creator of this thread to an an introductory site and an "authority" in the ideas he is asking about. I offer the forum an alternate view of what other posters understand belongs not to real science.
On this we probably agree, and if any PF member is interested in starting a thread in which we can discuss Alfvén's work, from a physics/astrophysics perspective (including the extent to which good observational results are consistent with his theories and hypotheses), then I will gladly join.I believe a final answer has not been reached yet about the validity or worth of Alfvén's teories or hypothesis in this case. In this sense I'm not even sure if this thread belongs in the "Scepticism and debunking" forum if it being there means it is unworthy of cosideration.
Except Russ that this Alfvén quote is from a website whose primary purpose (it seems to me) is to push a particular kind of pseudoscience as hard as it can.In short, I don't think that quote has anything at all to do with EC "Theory". It reminds me of the out-of-context ether quotes of Einstein that ether theorists like to throw around.
Yes - with your clarification, I think we're on the same page here.Nereid said:Except Russ that this Alfvén quote is from a website whose primary purpose (it seems to me) is to push a particular kind of pseudoscience as hard as it can.
In this I agree and will be more careful in the future. If I find a better website I will post it here in case anyone is interested.Nereid said:If one wants to read up on Alfvén, then please give a link to a reputable site where you can get hold of his publications. IMHO, a "Catastrophism" website is exactly NOT where you would go to do that.
Nothing at all wrong with this!whats so bad about hypothesizing that a magnetic or electric field is present everywhere in space?
Then perhaps we could take a good, hard look at the TB of astronomical data?What if there is?
What do you think? The equations and physics may be a little hairy, but they're not secret - when you fire up you favourite maths program, and plug in your 'best observational data', what sorts of things should you expect to see? Do you see these things?Could we even sense it?
Indeed, why not?[...] then there should be a magnetic field everywhere in space, right? Everybody accepts that there is a gravitational field everywhere in space, so why not a magnetic or electric field also?
Perhaps you should re-read the relevant crackpot websites ... particularly things like the Sun being powered by giant, galactic electric currents, which generate light in double layers at the photosphere (and not nuclear reactions in the core), or the Earth being formed by z-pinches - there are lots and lots of good observational data that are strongly inconsistent with these ideas.what's to "crazy" or "crackpot" about this theory?
Good luck to you Starship!Starship said:I'm also working on a theory to combine gravity with magnetism.
I think that the CMBR is not the redshifted photons from the big bang. It's the electromagnetic fields of the quantum vacuum (the ground state of the quantum vaccum). If the sun is charged it really solves the puzzle.
The electric cosmos theory is a scientific concept that proposes the idea that electricity, rather than gravity, is the dominant force in the universe. It suggests that electric currents and electromagnetic fields play a significant role in the formation and behavior of celestial bodies and structures.
The electric cosmos theory challenges the traditional understanding of the universe, which is based on the principles of gravity and the Big Bang theory. It suggests that electricity is a more powerful force than gravity and can explain many observed phenomena that the traditional theories cannot.
There is evidence from various fields of science, including astrophysics, plasma physics, and geology, that supports the electric cosmos theory. This includes observations of electromagnetic activity in space, the discovery of electric currents in plasma, and the formation of structures that cannot be explained by gravity alone.
The electric cosmos theory proposes that electric currents and electromagnetic forces play a significant role in the formation of celestial bodies, such as stars, planets, and galaxies. It suggests that these bodies are formed through the interactions of electrically charged particles, rather than solely through the force of gravity.
The electric cosmos theory is still a relatively new and controversial concept in the scientific community. While some scientists have embraced it, others remain skeptical and continue to support traditional theories. Further research and evidence are needed to fully validate the electric cosmos theory and gain widespread acceptance among the scientific community.