Can Electricity Travel Through Space on Astrophysical Jets? (mdpi.com) 313
Slashdot reader Chris Reeve writes: An October 2017 paper titled Electric Currents along Astrophysical Jets reports that "Several researchers have reported direct evidence for large scale electric currents along astrophysical jets." A review of the citations at the end of that paper and others (here and here, for instance) would seem to suggest that one of the great Internet science debates has finally been settled: Electricity does indeed travel through space over vast cosmic distances.
What has been interesting to watch about this unexpected development is that science journalists have so far not explicitly reported this as a shift in theory, and commenters on sites like phys.org appear to deny that any change has even occurred: "The jets have been shown not to be electric currents, the energy and the physics involved are certainly not electromagnetic." This comment completely rejecting these new findings was highly rated by other phys.org readers, suggesting that the failure to explicitly report this as a change in theory has left this controversial topic in a highly confused state.
The paper summarizes what it calls "observational evidence for the existence of large scale electric currents and their associated grand design helical magnetic fields in kpc-scale astrophysical jets." And the original submitter details the history of the question in a follow-up comment arguing that at our current moment in time, "a mistaken bias against electricity in space continues to dominate conversations."
What has been interesting to watch about this unexpected development is that science journalists have so far not explicitly reported this as a shift in theory, and commenters on sites like phys.org appear to deny that any change has even occurred: "The jets have been shown not to be electric currents, the energy and the physics involved are certainly not electromagnetic." This comment completely rejecting these new findings was highly rated by other phys.org readers, suggesting that the failure to explicitly report this as a change in theory has left this controversial topic in a highly confused state.
The paper summarizes what it calls "observational evidence for the existence of large scale electric currents and their associated grand design helical magnetic fields in kpc-scale astrophysical jets." And the original submitter details the history of the question in a follow-up comment arguing that at our current moment in time, "a mistaken bias against electricity in space continues to dominate conversations."
An epic failure in science journalism (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear Slashdot Community,
Some 11 years ago, I watched a curious thing happen in the comments of a Slashdot article [slashdot.org], and it would forever change my life. I watched on as members of the tech community labeled as pseudoscience the simple idea that electricity can travel through space over plasma (and actually do stuff of importance at the largest observable scales). Since that day, I have systematically tracked this electricity in space debate, and I have come to view the reporting on this topic as the greatest science journalism failure of our time.
To review, a plasma is just a gas with some percentage of unbound charged particles. We call it plasma, rather than gas, because it observably behaves differently. With less than even just 1% ionization, the ionospheric gas is observed to respond to electromagnetic fields. In the laboratory, plasmas can form into very complex structures like filaments. These filaments exhibit a long-range attraction and short-range repulsion with one another, which causes them to pair up without combining. Careful inspection of a novelty plasma globe will reveal that the filaments will tend to separate when they come into contact with the glass. The filaments can also link up with one another into very complex networks. All of this complexity is rather remarkable given that we are just talking about the "fourth" state of matter.
Now, let's review the current state of this electricity in space debate as it should be reported by science journalists.
1. It is not widely known, but definitely a fact that proper galactic rotation curves were simulated in the early 80's on government supercomputers [plasma-universe.com] by one of the world's leading plasma physicists, without the need for any dark matter. The reason that the arms appear to rotate as almost fixed plates, in this view, is that they are conducting electrical currents [everythingselectric.com].
Galactic expert, Tim Thompson, has claimed that Peratt's decision to publish in IEEE was an attempt to avoid scrutiny. He admitted that no galactic researcher has ever read IEEE and they wouldn't know that the journal even exists (it's the largest technical organization in the world); and Thompson even went so far as to advise that galactic researchers intentionally avoid reading IEEE. You can see an annotated snapshot of his online forum post here. [google.com]
2. We have been left with the impression that the CMB can only be explained as a remnant of the Big Bang expansion. This is simply not true:
That quote comes from one of the world's leading plasma physicists, Anthony L. Peratt (Physics of the Plasma Universe, Second Edition, 2015, p.33-34.) Peratt would go on to publish a paper [arxiv.org] revealing more than a hundred local hydrogen filament structures which he claimed correlate with structures in the WMAP cosmic microwave background.
It would seem that people are not yet connecting the dots here between these recent admissions by astrophysicists that large-scale electric currents are real, and this faint microwave fog that is apparently coming at us from all directions. There is, without a doubt, more than one way to explain this cosmic microwave background; but you'd never know this from the science
If it takes that many words (Score:4, Insightful)
I will agree, and after reading the utter BS, not even rational, and very self and observation-contradicting commenters on phys.org who keyboard-warrior instead of do real science and make actual observations, I'm glad I didn't sign up. One might as well sign up to some alt-politics conspiracy theory site...for all the effect it'll have.
At least physorg keeps the nuts all together.. maybe one grenade....
Quoting tons of other errors doesn't make it right. Truth isn't up for vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: If it takes that many words (Score:4, Interesting)
Plasma seems to be the quintessential complex system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Although the underlying equations governing plasmas are relatively simple, plasma behavior is extraordinarily varied and subtle: the emergence of unexpected behavior from a simple model is a typical feature of a complex system. Such systems lie in some sense on the boundary between ordered and disordered behavior and cannot typically be described either by simple, smooth, mathematical functions, or by pure randomness. The spontaneous formation of interesting spatial features on a wide range of length scales is one manifestation of plasma complexity. The features are interesting, for example, because they are very sharp, spatially intermittent (the distance between features is much larger than the features themselves), or have a fractal form. Many of these features were first studied in the laboratory, and have subsequently been recognized throughout the universe."
Re: If it takes that many words (Score:2, Flamebait)
In the 80 homosexuality was Scientifically acknowledged by Scientific experts to be a disorder.
Just the opposite: In the 80's, it was scientifically acknowledged that gay males have a hypothalamus lobe structured like that of females, and lesbians have one structured like that of males. And yes, they were born that way - as queers have since the beginning of time.
By the way, gays haven't bothered me on the slightest since I got over my latent homophobia in my early 20's... but the haters and closet-homos such as yourself are another story.
Re: If it takes that many words (Score:2)
we now know Scientifically that homosexuality is completely normal.
I misread and apologize; you're spot-on with the above statement.
Re:If it takes that many words (Score:5, Interesting)
homosexuality was Scientifically acknowledged by Scientific experts to be a disorder.
Not to contradict the point you are awkwardly trying to make, but this part is wrong.
Whether or not homosexuality is classified as a disorder, or a benign variation, has little to do with science. Like the medical definition of addiction, it depends on how it affects your life.
If you live in a society where sodomy is frequently punished by death, but you keep doing it, you have an illness.
Societies fault perhaps, but an illness still. Social context can change the medical classification, without any changes in the hard science.
Re: (Score:3)
Generally we prefer that the medical definitions follow the science, as opposed to the other way around....
Re: (Score:3)
What science? The causes of homosexuality, and evolutionary advantages (if any) remain a mystery, the subject of mere speculation.
We all love to say how tolerant we are, but if science tomorrow found that homosexuality was a result of a deficiency of a particular mineral at a critical stage of development, almost every mother would be popping it down with the folic acid. (and not talking about it.) And the world might be all the poorer for it.
Re:If it takes that many words (Score:4)
There's a fair amount of scientific study of sexuality, and homosexuality in particular. The fact that homosexuality is very widespread among other species suggests the trait has some fairly general survival utility (i.e. it's normal, as asserted by the OP). Your observation that the basis of homosexuality is complex tends to agree with the idea that it plays some fairly important role.
Your observation that if a preventative supplement existed "every mother would be popping it down" is an observation about your society. Which is why we usually prefer that medical definitions follow science, rather than fashion. Admittedly, that idea isn't very old, and it's certainly not universal yet.
Re:If it takes that many words (Score:4, Informative)
The fact that homosexuality is very widespread among other species suggests the trait has some fairly general survival utility (i.e. it's normal, as asserted by the OP).
It's probably more than just a speculation at this point. [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you mean by that. Sure, there are whopping great plasma jets. Not news. But if you think this "vindicates" crackpot theories like "moon craters are caused by lighting strikes" or that is casts doubt on relativity or dark matter or whatever other post-1800s theory you have trouble accepting, well no.
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity and the electric force both fall off with distance squared (other forces fall off faster). Dark matter explains galaxy rotation rates, gravitational lensing, and the CMBR. Electric currents don't explain anything really.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Ok explain to me how the electric universe works on materials that are not magnetic. Gravity works on everything that has mass. Take me same physics problem and explain how it works on non ionized carbon."
You seem to be asking how electric forces at the largest scales can influence the structure of the universe, even when we are talking about neutral matter.
If you've played with an electrostatic lifter, then you basically already know the answer to this question: The air in the atmosphere is of course
Re: (Score:3)
The way that cosmology -- and scientific frameworks more generally -- have traditionally operated is that there is a solid foundation of claims which are then supplemented by a variety of -- hopefully peripheral -- conjectures and speculations. To the extent that people think that they can throw away the entire framework (e.g., the core claim that electricity dominates at the larger scales) because of the less supported conjectures and speculations (e.g., Wal Thornhill's suggestion that electrons have stru
Re:An epic failure in science journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Some bullshit theory about how the extremely macro-scale universe is predominantly shaped by the electromagnetic force is vindicated by scientific paper that indicates there's more electricity in the universe than was generally thought.
It's a lot like claiming your theory about perpetual motion cars has been vindicated because you slightly miscalculated your car's fuel economy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "It's a lot like claiming your theory about perpetual motion cars has been vindicated because you slightly miscalculated your car's fuel economy."
This really seems quite unfair. All you've done is misstated the breadth of the claims. There were 10 main points presented in the first comment [slashdot.org], so what does it mean that people are so enthusiastic when somebody misstates the breadth of the presented argument?
Re:An epic failure in science journalism (Score:4, Informative)
Or, you know, angular momentum from before formation being conserved. From your one scientific link:
When examined as a function of distance from the filament axis, a much stronger correlation is found in outer parts, suggesting that the alignment is driven by the laminar infall of gas from sheets to filaments.
Re: (Score:2)
No, his links aren't scientific. They're ridiculous on their face. It takes very little research to see why EU theories don't hold up, or just a touch of common sense.
Ultimately, you need look no further than a picture of our fucking sun, and tell me how the magical plasma universe prevents that thing from becoming a massive ball of gravitationally
Re: (Score:2)
Which is interesting.
I'm not an "electric universe" supporter, or whatever this stupid argument is about. I just saw links to an interesting cosmic phenomenon, and went "interesting!". Apology?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "To answer the is it even worth considering question, though- of course it is. And it has been, at great lengths. And plasma physics play a huge role in even standard cosmology. They just don't play a huge role in large-scale cosmology."
Let me give you a very simple example which I hope you will recognize as an earnest attempt to demonstrate how difficult it is to judge vindications when we are not actively tracking scientific controversies.
Today, for the first time, I noticed that a couple of [space.com] galaxy ar [phys.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So fine, there are electric currents. How do you get from there to such idiocy as
?
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't. In actual fact, my first sentence admitted that I have accepted there are electrical currents in space.
I don't accept that admitting electrical currents in space in any way disproves these three constructs are thoroughly invalid.
To take only one, dark matter, and one bit of very persuasive evidence. If dark matter is not real, please explain gravitational lensing.
Re: (Score:2)
Argh, extra negation there. Rephrase: I don't accept that electrical currents in space are incompatible with the existence of these three other theories. Why would a platypus mean that ducks don't exist? Please explain.
Re: (Score:2)
Lensing was introduced as a way to explain discordant redshifts. If you go back to the original papers where it was proposed, the theorists readily admit that they did not consider any alternative hypotheses. Thus, it does not make a whole lot of sense to call this a proof for anything really.
Re: (Score:2)
Save your reader some time and just rate yourself on the Crackpot Index [ucr.edu]. Admittedly, you're at least creative, using " on a quest of proving textbook theory right" instead of "hidebound reactionary" or "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
Re: (Score:2)
There were also 10,000 crackpots who were just wrong. We don't remember those guys, though I expect you can find a couple thousand of them on YouTube these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "You need to make testable predictions that differ from the current model."
There are many examples of observations at the level of planetary --> intergalactic scales which are expected in an electrical cosmology, but not in a gravitational one (and realize that it is acknowledged that gravity dominates at the smaller scales). To give a few examples ...
1. The failure of the solar wind to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the Earth's orbit. In the laboratory, we accelerate charged particles wi
Re:An epic failure in science journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a physicist. You caught one, congratulations.
I think you're spending a lot of time looking at web forums and not spending any time learning actual physics. In 11 years, you could have started from scratch with a Physics BS and finished a PhD by about now. If you'd done that, you would see that actual physicists have long ago incorporated much of what you're saying we don't acknowledge, and thrown out the things that don't match actual observations. It's great to be inspired by interesting theories to enter physics. I love science fiction, and it's why I got into physics. Being a professional physicist doesn't keep me from still appreciating science fiction.
Modern models can incorporate MHD at galactic scale, along with all of the other physical interactions we know of, and so we do incorporate all those things. If you don't like the way it's done, I encourage you to go get a Physics PhD and write your own models. If you don't like the typical assumptions, spend more time coding and less time complaining. Modeling is so easy today that these questions can be posed in a homework assignment for a grad student. (Really, you're getting worked up over homework assignment level physics.)
To physicists, "The Electric Universe" is an antiquated idea, with arguments many generations out of date. You're quoting 30 year old computer models, the proceedings of a minor conference 20 years ago, and a "this is your life, Jim Dungey" review focused on 1960s physics to complain about how modern astrophysics is done. You're referencing a theorist who's a retired engineer. The detail required for a convincing publication has increased dramatically over the last few decades, vocabulary changes every few years, and an understanding of what is "mainstream" changes about every year. It's hard to keep up for full time physicists. Referencing writing published to a much lower standard than what we're used to reading is not convincing.
I've worked with an older theoretician who wanted to get a modern take on his old approach. He sponsored (paid the salary & tuition of) a grad student in a different group with modern computational resources. That's the appropriate way to make the argument you're trying to make. Instead the Electric Universe guys are pretending that 30 year old techniques and publishing standards are good enough. They're not.
Last point, I promise. IEEE is an engineering society with no astrophysics community. It is inappropriate to publish an astrophysics paper there. That's journal shopping, and it is a violation of scientific ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who has spent the time to really follow the controversy about the existence and primacy of electricity in space will immediately understand that the controversy cannot be solved by getting a Ph.D. and "writing a new model". There are lots of deep patterns at play that are effectively blocking the possibility for a conceptual revolution, e.g. a complete replacement for Big Bang Creationism, i.e. the idea that the whole physical world actually “began” some time ago; the conservation-defying
Re: (Score:2)
You've not been to the same colloquia I have. These are absolutely ideas that are discussed in physics departments. But please, tell me more about the conversations you know I have or haven't had.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "These "fudge factors" fit the data with way more than 5 sigmas."
Absolutely meaningless. You are referring to accuracy and precision when the debate is actually over the interpretation of the physical mechanism.
Re: "Inflation is currently being observed."
Absolutely incorrect. Edwin Hubble was never persuaded, and one of his protege's, Halton Arp, was able to fill a couple of books with all of the exceptions to the assumption that redshift can only have one explanation. Here is a short list of Arp's v
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: "I think you're spending a lot of time looking at web forums and not spending any time learning actual physics."
So, your suggestion for resolving the debate seems to be that I should just study one side of it.
Re: "Being a professional physicist doesn't keep me from still appreciating science fiction."
A crucial part of the process of untangling controversial science is to become fluent in the critiques of modern science. One of these critics wrote a stunning critique of what it means to be a "profession
Re:An epic failure in science journalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, you picked the wrong person to argue with here.
I spent my time in grad school leading the student government, and bringing to light the issue of the 50% of people who leave PhD programs. There is a lack of a link between dropping out and academic problems. I got bad administrators fired, I talked about this nationally, I lobbied Congress. What are you doing? Posting online?
I've chewed out Chancellors, Deans, Admirals, Grant Managers, and CEOs. I've quit jobs, left tenured positions, and put myself in financial distress to prove my points. And I'm a more successful, better scientist for it.
You don't study physics because it's too hard for you.
"Physics" isn't a side. It's work. It's offensive to use people like Jeff in your argument. He's put in the work. And the physics community ended up supporting him.
Go away back to the corners of the internet and know that you can't compete with people like me. You're too lazy to walk into the room where the discussions happen.
Re:An epic failure in science journalism (Score:5, Informative)
Science is a very complex web of interacting theories and experiments. Any new theory has to not only explain a particular phenomena, but to not contradict a great many other experiments. This rules out a great many alternate theories. This isn't taking "sides", it is just trying to find theories that are consistent with experiments.
There is some "bias" against non-scientists, but that is because people outside of the field are unlikely to know all of the measurements that have been done. Scientists don't have infinite time, so they are not likely to be willing to do the leg-work of doing research for people who haven't already done a lot of that work themselves.
It is pretty rare for someone outside of a well established field to make a major contribution.
Scientists do try to find entirely new theories. I was at conference where one of the speakers mentioned how many theories had died the day that LIGO saw gravity waves from the neutron star collision - the measurement that gravity waves traveled at the same speed as electromagnetic radiation to very high precision, ruled out a range of alternative gravity theories.
In this case though, there are lots of effects that depend on the strength of magnetic fields in galaxies so they can't be very far from what is predicted by conventional astrophysics.
Re: (Score:2)
Which discoveries are you thinking of?
Dark energy was a very important and unexpected discovery - but I don't think it was one that could have been predicted until acceleration started to show up in high precision data. Einstein's equations included a term that could cause acceleration, but there was no reason to think it was non-zero in the modern universe until there was data.
Neutrino oscillations were an important discovery, but again no particular reason to expect them without data.
What major paradigm s
Re: (Score:2)
videos are a really inconvenient way to present technical information. Are there papers?
Very careful statistics are needed to look for correlations between high and low redshift objects. Its easy for a survey to be biased by brighter objects being counted at the same redshift were dimmer objects are missed. Then gravitational lensing will provide real correlations that need to be subtracted out.
Gravitational lensing of distant quasars by closer galaxies, and of the CMB background by closer objects (from
Re: (Score:2)
Jansky was creating a new field - he was using a new technology (radio) to perform new measurements. That is very different from having new "ideas" without any new data in a well established field. In order to have new idea, you need to understand the field as it exists, or you won't know what measurements have already been done.
There may be very interesting new astrophysics data if, for example, someone finds a way to efficiently detect dark matter. (there are some ideas based on quantum entanglement
Re: (Score:3)
One perfectly legitimate way to explain why it is rare that outsiders of a well-established field can make major contributions is with gatekeeping. In fact, that is exactly one of the points made by Dr. Gerald Pollack of the University of Washington.
Cellular and Molecular Biology 51, 815-820 (2005)
Revitalizing Science In A Risk-averse Culture: Reflections On The Syndrome And Prescriptions For Its Cure G.H. Pollack
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "I think the place to look for breakthroughs is in new science, not fields that have been extensively studied like astrophysics.People are doing laboratory scale experiments in quantum entanglement for example, so some breakthrough there is quite possible."
... problem being that we already know that there exist contradictions between some of the established disciplines (large and small scale theories), so the recipe you've provided us with here does not address the possibility of mistakes existing withi
Re:An epic failure in science journalism (Score:5, Informative)
So, your suggestion for resolving the debate seems to be that I should just study one side of it.
The suggestion is that in order to resolve the debate, you should learn what the debate actually is about, and how to evaluate the claims made on all sides. You do that by learning physics.
Physics is not a series of dogma you memorize. It is methods to analyze the world, and tools you use to examine whether a proposal actually matches up with observed reality.
If you study physics, you do not study either side of this debate. You study the tools used to determine what is actually consistent with reality, and learn to use them, and then you can use them to analyze all sides of the debate to see what actually matches up with observation.
Your "freedom" now is to treat both sides as dogma, because you do not have the tools to evaluate either side. And dogma is not physics, and physics is not dogma, so you end up doing nothing at all.
Re: (Score:3)
On the importance of learning the context of science ...
The Golem: What You Should Know About Science
Collins / Pinch
Re: (Score:3)
You're adopting a very limited view of the word "methods" that is not in line with what these two sociologists are referring to. The point of the text is to describe the social and evidential processes of science by looking at what they call disputed science.
A review of even just the Amazon reviews would have clarified this. For example:
Re: (Score:3)
But, in science, we do not just settle for "what works" because epicycles also work; we have to identify "what works best" -- and the only way to do that in a rigorous manner is through tracking controversies. If academia -- and the people who subscribe to their preferred ideas -- want to have confidence that their preferred theories are "what works best", then they would focus more upon creating a system of checks-and-balances, in the spirit of the United States government. As things stand, there is nobo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fellow physicist here, thank you, that you took the time to make this point so extensively yet politely!
I've long ago ran out of the patience to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension? My point was that I don't care to discuss this in this forum.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately your last paragraph undermines a good deal of what you said earlier.
Prior to that, you make some interesting assertions that physicists have incorporated "all those things" (referring to what might loosely be called one of the many "electric universe" models), and you make a persuasive case for everyone to accept that the current physics models are collectively the One True Right and Only Way. It is a very good religious argument.
But then you say
IEEE is an engineering society with no astrophysics community. It is inappropriate to publish an astrophysics paper there. That's journal shopping, and it is a violation of scientific ethics
Now that is an inappropriate demonization. Lik
Re: (Score:2)
Physics isn't rhetoric. There is a right answer. And yes, we're all assholes in physics. You found us out. Congratulations.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish the idea of Einstein as an outsider had not somehow invaded popular thinking. He was a brilliant guy, and he came up with a new way to describe a set of existing observations and which also made predictions that were soon verified. He had a physics degree, just like many he had difficulty finding a teaching position. He was recognized soon after publishing a paper on special relativity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He was the article submitter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Tracking controversies does not imply that a person is "obsessed" with them, and when somebody demonstrates with a large number of examples that the tech community has a bias against electricity in space, they are hardly "ranting". If the science journalists were reporting on this subject in the properly objective manner, these ideas would have been mainstream many years ago.
Here we go (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Here we go (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes...this is accurate (Score:2)
Re: Yes...this is accurate (Score:2)
And you won't be invited.
In very much the same way that you don't get invited to "those sorts of parties," I'd imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
*warning, this can lead to rampaging mobs of repectable physicists.
Astrophisical jets ... (Score:2)
... are shaped that way because in-falling matter crossing the event horizon of a black hole causes radiation of massive proportions.
Because those particular black holes have accretion disks, out-gassing has no where to go but out the unobstructed poles.
That action causes vortexes of streaming particles and ions that travel at close to the speed of light.
Electricity is one feature (and a small factor) of the "confusion."
Re: (Score:2)
Up until 35 years ago -- for a period of two centuries -- atoms themselves were hypothetical objects which had never been directly observed. Should we have put all of chemistry, materials science, condensed matter physics, etc. on hold until then?
Re: Astrophisical jets ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never mentioned gravity, right?
So you're saying pulsars and quasars have never been observed?
Re: (Score:2)
You could study up on astrophysics and stuff.
Nothing deep, mind you.
You're spinning your wheels.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're a science denier.
Just say that and we can move along.
What is electricity? (Score:2)
It's simply charge. Scientifically 'electricity' is more of a field of study today than a thing because in science electricity has many forms with 'current' and static electricity being only two.
Electricity is not a form of energy.
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatd... [amasci.com]
Do not be misled (Score:5, Insightful)
It is telling that all papers by this author and his collaborators seem to be in a closed ecosystem of citation where they only are cited each other. I am not familiar with the "Galaxies" journal. At least one of these papers is from A&A, which *is* a real peer-reviewed journal.
There are many red herrings here. First of all, the whole "we have a model that can explain galaxy rotation curves without dark matter" is not nearly as meaningful as some seem to say it is. There is a whole host of observations explained by dark matter, in detail, and with precision. Explaining just one of them doesn't do much if you can't explain all of the rest of the observations.
Likewise, the Big Bang model has a host of observations that support it, in detail, and with numerical precision.
The "electric universe" is not something that is worth paying attention to.
For popular-level information about the problems with the whole electric universe business, see this site: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/... [rationalwiki.org]
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is this relevant?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "I am willing to admit filaments exist but they are streams of charged ions from the stars. These are moving through the magnetic field of the star or vice versa, so of course they have a current. This doesn't give rise to a force holding the galaxy together."
Alfvén's Programme in Solar System Physics by Stephen G. Brush, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 20, No. 6, Dec 1992
Good grief (Score:4, Insightful)
So the submitter is apparently extremely distressed regarding what goes on in internet discussion threads, both on phys.org and on Slashdot (based on his extremely long comment further up), for some reason.
My advice is - don’t get so worked up over what people say on the internet.
Re: Good grief (Score:2)
So the submitter is apparently extremely distressed...
Where did you come up with that?? So he wrote a fucking novel; that says absolutely nothing about the content or tone... which struck me as quite mild.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2+2=4 whether or not a researcher's socia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mistaken Bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
Charged endpoints (Score:2)
What was the question again? (Score:2)
Can we moderate submissions? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is clearly a troll submission. Bullshit paper in a bullshit journal. Basically the equivalent of a crackpot posting on his own blog. How did this shit get posted?
How did this shit get posted (Score:3)
Slashdot are hiring on ten year olds to do the article vetting.
Re: (Score:3)
Alfvén's Programme in Solar System Physics by Stephen G. Brush, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 20, No. 6, Dec 1992
Re: (Score:3)
If you were to actually read what the whistleblower astrophysicists are arguing, you'd observe that they would disagree with your approach. These people are risking their careers in order to convince the public to alter its focus.
The Twilight of the Scientific Age
Martín López Corredoira
Cosmologist / Astrophysicist / Philosopher / Published 50 Academic Papers, Often as Lead / Academic Whistleblower
Re: (Score:3)
Look at how narrow your focus has become. We are literally talking about some of the most complex questions man has ever asked, and you're imagining that you can reduce this very complex discussion to this single paper. In any debate like this, there are going to be winners and losers, but to produce a meaningful assessment, we have to look at the full breadth of all of the individual pieces: the claims, the critiques, the sociological patterns, psychological biases, the history of science, yes the validi
Lou Reed was right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Electricity comes from other planets.
Yeah, all these astro-folks have been asking the wrong questions about Mars:
"Is there life on Mars . . . ?", "Is there water on Mars . . . ?", "Is there oxygen on Mars . . . ?"
Instead, they should have been asking, "Is there electricity on Mars . . . ?"
This is why Elon Musk is planning to fly his Tesla to Mars. He will plug it into Mars, and see if it charges.
Then we will have the electricity on Mars question answered.
These electric astrophysical plasmatic jet thingies are also good news. We can bui
What is this pseudo-science doing on slashdot? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The mistaken idea that a rocket flew by pushing against the air behind it was a common one that many scientists of the era believed, even when Goddard had demonstrated by experiment
Really? I thought Newtonian physics was widely accepted by then.
Anyway, Goddard was in no position to laugh at them. He built the first liquid rocket with the engine at the top, thinking this would make it more stable, when basic Newtownian laws said no. He had to learn the hard way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually read the WIkipedia section you reference you will see that this "common belief" refers to a common popular (i.e. laymen's) belief as exemplified by an editorial by the New York Times editorial staff. Journalists have never been known for their scientific literacy.
This a very famous journalistic science blunder.
This post does absolutely nothing for your credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not bothering to watch the YouTube video (really, that's your "reference"?) but the rocket equation derived from Newton's laws of motion were first formulated in 1813 [wikipedia.org] by William Moore, again by William Leitch in 1861, but most famously by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in the early 1890s, and published in a well-known work in 1903.
This is all really well known.
So, no. you are profoundly ignorant about this subject. Sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "I am not bothering to watch the YouTube video"
It appears that the entire argument against electricity in space could basically be summarized with:
What is a bit strange is that this is how the person begins their response. It is of course a statement upon the person's rigor, motivation to learn, and overall process for judging disagreements in science., and most people here who are doing this are of course not so honest about it.
Re: (Score:3)
The critiques of Robert Goddard were remarkably similar.
Re: (Score:3)
Nostalgia (Score:2)
It's been decades since Slashdot had an electric universe story. Brings me back to the early '00s. Thanks for the memories Slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
I decided to stop arguing and just do my research.
Uh huh. And how'd all that Googling go?
Re: (Score:2)
We have no idea what the computers "upstairs" might run on.