Geospace scientists are already embracing the idea of an electric universe.

[Michael]

It looks like the people who study Earth & Space Science are ready and eager to come out in support of EU/PC theory:

Electric Currents in Outer Space Run the Show - Eos

Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond

It is now understood that outer space is fundamentally electrical in nature.

Excellent! I'm very interested in reading the first chapter of the book that is available online for free. From briefly glancing through it, it looks like they've documented some of the early historical background in support of the concept of electricity in space, including Birkeland's work. Very cool! FYI, here's the link to the first chapter of the book:

https://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/91/11193244/1119324491-8.pdf

It looks like the electric cat is already out of the bag with Geospace scientists. I'm excited to read though the PDF this weekend.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do hope you're not disappointed.

 

[Michael]

I do hope you're not disappointed.

Only at the price of the book.

I did learn a few things about the history of the study of aurora prior to Birkeland. It's a pity the free PDF only includes the first chapter, but it was certainly worth the read. It was actually pretty encouraging to see that at least some space scientists are already embracing the idea that space is fundamentally electrical in nature.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...It was actually pretty encouraging to see that at least some space scientists are already embracing the idea that space is fundamentally electrical in nature.

They've been studying it for years.

 

[Michael]

They've been studying it for years.

Who are "they"? You can't even discuss the concept that space is fundamentally electrical in nature at the astronomy forum at Reddit:

/r/Astronomy is a science based sub. Pseudoscience (Creationism, Electric Universe, Flat Earthism, Ancient Aliens, Moon Landing conspiracy, etc...) will be removed.

The same is true at most astronomy websites. It's an instant banning offense to even post published material by Alfven or Peratt in fact.

Read this first, re posting "Electric Universe" ideas here

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Who is "they"? You can't even discuss the concept that space is fundamentally electrical in nature at the astronomy forum at Reddit:

The same is true at most astronomy websites. It's an instant banning offense to even post published material by Alfven or Peratt in fact.

Read this first, re posting "Electric Universe" ideas here

'They' are space scientists, cosmologists, astrophysicists, etc.

As I understand it, the problem is with what are considered to be the pseudoscientific claims and ideas of supporters of the "Electric Universe" cult; i.e. not that electricity and plasma don't have major roles in the universe, but that they don't have the roles claimed for them by those supporters.

From what I've seen of the contributions from EU supporters, I can't say I blame them.

 

[Michael]

'They' are space scientists, cosmologists, astrophysicists, etc.

No, otherwise posting published papers by Hannes Alfven or Anthony Peratt wouldn't earn one a ban at astronomy based websites.

As I understand it, the problem is with what are considered to be the pseudoscientific claims and ideas of supporters of the "Electric Universe" cult;

Your (and their) constant misuse of derogatory terms like "pseudoscientific" and "cult" applied to published and peer reviewed materials, and working laboratory models are irrational considering that the LCDM model is based on four different metaphysical claims which lack any cause/effect justification in any lab. Almost none of currently popular astronomy model is based upon empirical laboratory physics. It's not even logical to "throwing stones" like that, or banning people simply for not sharing one's belief in metaphysical constructs. It's not as though atheists are banned here simply for lacking belief in God, and there are in fact empirical definitions of God.

i.e. not that electricity and plasma don't have major roles in the universe, but that they don't have the roles claimed for them by those supporters.

Even if the role of electricity in space isn't exactly what is currently proposed by some (or even all) EU/PC supporters, so what? How is that any different than the possibility of LCMD supporters being wrong about the role of "dark" things in space? At least the core concept of electricity in space *can* be tested in the lab, and various models are being tested in lab, and they produce viable physical results rather than null results on a continuous basis as is the case for dark matter.

From what I've seen of the contributions from EU supporters, I can't say I blame them.

I doubt that you really even understand Birkeland's solar model or Alfven's cosmology model frankly.

 

[Michael]

FYI, this is what a *working* laboratory experiment of an EU/PC solar model looks like. Compare and contrast that with all the laboratory failures of dark matter and you'll understand why I find your "cult" and "pseudoscience" claims rather ridiculous. At least EU/PC models work in the lab which is more than can be said for LCDM cause/effect claims.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, otherwise posting published papers by Hannes Alfven or Anthony Peratt wouldn't earn one a ban at astronomy based websites.



Your (and their) constant misuse of derogatory terms like "pseudoscientific" and "cult" applied to published and peer reviewed materials, and working laboratory models are irrational considering that the LCDM model is based on four different metaphysical claims which lack any cause/effect justification in any lab. Almost none of currently popular astronomy model is based upon empirical laboratory physics. It's not even logical to "throwing stones" like that, or banning people simply for not sharing one's belief in metaphysical constructs. It's not as though atheists are banned here simply for lacking belief in God, and there are in fact empirical definitions of God.



Even if the role of electricity in space isn't exactly what is currently proposed by some (or even all) EU/PC supporters, so what? How is that any different than the possibility of LCMD supporters being wrong about the role of "dark" things in space? At least the core concept of electricity in space *can* be tested in the lab, and various models are being tested in lab, and they produce viable physical results rather than null results on a continuous basis as is the case for dark matter.



I doubt that you really even understand Birkeland's solar model or Alfven's cosmology model frankly.

I know you disagree with the mainstream view, but I've been through this more than once and I'm not interested in doing it again. Arguments defended by 'whataboutism' and a belligerent attitude leave me cold.

 

[Michael]

I know you disagree with the mainstream view, but I've been through this more than once and I'm not interested in doing it again. Arguments defended by 'whataboutism' and a belligerent attitude leave me cold.

EU/PC theory is based entirely upon empirical physics and processes that are well documented in the
lab. It is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in some segments of astronomy, yet it is still shunned in other areas of astronomy. EU/PC cosmology theory is not based upon "whataboutism" nor a belligerent attitude toward science. Quite the contrary. It's fully congruent with the standard model of particle physics and fully congruent with what we've learned in the lab over the last few hundred years.

I'm just personally encouraged to finally see quotes like this from professional scientists:

It is now understood that outer space is fundamentally electrical in nature.

The universe is indeed fundamentally electrical in nature. Astronomers have embraced the *magnetic* aspects of space, but they have been reluctant and even stubborn when it comes to embracing the electricity and the current flow processes in plasma which produce the magnetic fields they observe and describe. Sooner or later mainstream astronomy will have to start embracing the electric fields and current flow processes which generate magnetic fields. Some branches are already quite willing to so so, whereas other branches are not. It's just encouraging from my perspective to see some segments of science openly embracing the electrical aspects of space. When I see them using circuit theory to describe high energy plasma discharge events in the solar atmosphere as Hannes Alfven did, I'll know that we're making real progress.

 

[Ophiolite]

I know you disagree with the mainstream view, but I've been through this more than once and I'm not interested in doing it again. Arguments defended by 'whataboutism' and a belligerent attitude leave me cold.

I have several lengthy abandoned attempts to post similar thoughts. You have encapsulated them in two sentences. (I just wish you'd done it earlier and saved me the wasted effort. )

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have several lengthy abandoned attempts to post similar thoughts. You have encapsulated them in two sentences. (I just wish you'd done it earlier and saved me the wasted effort. )

Sorry I wish I'd done it earlier too!

 

[Michael]

This thread in particular has absolutely nothing to do with 'whataboutism'. I simply noted that at least some part of the scientific community has already embraced the EU/PC concept:

It is now understood that outer space is fundamentally electrical in nature.

It seems to me that the first time that belligerence entered into the conversation started with this statement:

As I understand it, the problem is with what are considered to be the pseudoscientific claims and ideas of supporters of the "Electric Universe" cult;

There's a certain amount of irony in that statement because Hannes Alfven wrote MHD theory, and received a Nobel Prize for his efforts, and he wrote the book on Plasma Cosmology too. He personally called the whole magnetic reconnection idea "pseudoscience" and he used circuit theory and double layers to describe all high energy events in space plasma, and all plasma in general.

Interjecting belligerent terms like "pseudoscience" and "cult" seems like the mainstreams first line of defense. Based on the content of mainstream blogs which attempt to critique EU/PC theory, their beliefs are evidently based upon their own misconceptions more than anything that is actually predicted by EU/PC theory.

Geospace scientists don't seem to have those same misconceptions, and therefore they have no resistance to describing the universe in terms of electrical activity. Sooner or later the astronomy community as a whole will come around too, but not until they start approaching the topic with an open mind.

 

[tas8831]

I know you disagree with the mainstream view, but I've been through this more than once and I'm not interested in doing it again. Arguments defended by 'whataboutism' and a belligerent attitude leave me cold.

Come on, man - he's got a youtube video! YOUTUBE!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This thread in particular has absolutely nothing to do with 'whataboutism'. I simply noted that at least some part of the scientific community has already embraced the EU/PC concept:

It seems to me that the first time that belligerence entered into the conversation started with this statement:

There's a certain amount of irony in that statement because Hannes Alfven wrote MHD theory, and received a Nobel Prize for his efforts, and he wrote the book on Plasma Cosmology too. He personally called the whole magnetic reconnection idea "pseudoscience" and he used circuit theory and double layers to describe all high energy events in space plasma, and all plasma in general.

Interjecting belligerent terms like "pseudoscience" and "cult" seems like the mainstreams first line of defense. Based on the content of mainstream blogs which attempt to critique EU/PC theory, their beliefs are evidently based upon their own misconceptions more than anything that is actually predicted by EU/PC theory.

Geospace scientists don't seem to have those same misconceptions, and therefore they have no resistance to describing the universe in terms of electrical activity. Sooner or later the astronomy community as a whole will come around too, but not until they start approaching the topic with an open mind.

My mention of 'whataboutism' referred to the general response, when your ideas are criticised, that LCDM is worse in whatever respect you think relevant, as if that's a rebuttal or a supporting argument. It isn't.

I explained why I considered many EU/PC supporters cultish - your response was more whataboutism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Come on, man - he's got a youtube video! YOUTUBE!

Maybe it will interest flat-Earthers...

 

[Michael]

Come on, man - he's got a youtube video! YOUTUBE!

Ya, and don't forget the textbook listed in the OP, entire books by Birkeland, Alfven and Peratt that are full of mathematical explanations, not to mention over a hundred published papers on the topic, plus working models which are over a century old now and which the mainstream still cannot replicate a whole century later.

This is the kind of pointless commentary that leads to belligerence on the part of EU/PC proponents by the way.

 

[Michael]

Maybe it will interest flat-Earthers...

And you actually have the audacity to blame me for for being belligerent? Wow.

 

[Michael]

My mention of 'whataboutism' referred to the general response, when your ideas are criticised, that LCDM is worse in whatever respect you think relevant, as if that's a rebuttal or a supporting argument. It isn't.

Where exactly did I do such thing in your opinion? Be specific.

I explained why I considered many EU/PC supporters cultish - your response was more whataboutism.

The OP of the thread specifically referred you to a specific textbook on the topic of Geospace science which supports the core EU/PC concept:

It is now understood that outer space is fundamentally electrical in nature.

That isn't an example "whataboutism", it's offering you evidence to support the EU/PC model. You were the one who first interjected belligerent terms into the conversation and thread, which I simply noted were very ironic statements all things considered. Is that what you're referring to?

EU/PC theory stands on it's own scientific merits, with or without any comparison to any other cosmology model. Inevitably however it becomes necessary and useful to "rank" cosmology models, and in such scenarios, any stones that you're likely to throw at EU/PC theory will almost certainly apply to, and do apply to virtually any and every cosmology model.

Anyone can claim that supporters of any cosmology model act 'cultish' and/or contain pseudoscientific concepts. Even I reject some concepts associated with EU/PC theory. So what? I also reject every metaphysical component of every other cosmology theory as well, and they all have such elements.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And you actually have the audacity to blame me for for being belligerent? Wow.

So in what way is whimsy belligerent?