Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote: Explain tomahawks more...
A tokamak is a nuclear fusion reactor based on the magnetic pinch effect, where they get plasma whizzing around in a large circle, pinched into an annular ring by a powerful magnetic field in toroidal form. So it's a toroidal plasmoid. This is the only way to produce sustained nuclear fusion in the laboratory here on Earth, because the extremely hot plasma is confined by magnetic fields, not a solid container (which would melt at such high temperatures). And they're very definitely getting fusion out of these things, so we know they work. They're just not practical, because the power that they need to generate the magnetic confinement is more than the power that they recover from the heat produced by the fusion. So it's a net loss of energy. Nevertheless, the principle works.
The relevance is that if a star gets to rotating at relativistic velocities, the plasma will similarly get pinched, and fusion will occur. This doesn't sound like such a likely scenario, but it solves a problem that to my knowledge cannot be solved in any other way. The exotic stars (such as white dwarfs) produce gamma rays, which are indicative of nuclear fusion. We are told that the only way to get the pressures necessary for fusion in a star is by gravitational confinement. So there has to be a huge amount of overlying matter, pressing down hard enough to fuse light elements into heavy ones. The problem with that is that gamma rays are easily absorbed by even the thinnest of dust clouds. Even the Earth's atmosphere is thick enough to block gamma ray sources from space. We only found out about stellar gamma rays after NASA launched a satellite to monitor the Soviet Union's compliance with the ban on nuclear testing, and as soon as they turned on the gamma ray detector, they started picking up all kinds of sources. So how can nuclear fusion occur in space by gravitational confinement, when the pressure is caused by a gas cloud thinner than the Earth's atmosphere? Well, it can't. Otherwise, the surface of the Earth would be a nuclear fusion reactor, and we probably wouldn't be debating its properties. To my knowledge, the only other force that can confine matter to the point of nuclear fusion is the magnetic force, like in a tokamak, and magnetic fields don't block gamma rays. So IMO, all of the sustained gamma ray sources in space can only be "natural tokamaks", where relativistic angular velocities are pinching matter into fusable annular rings. This is consistent with the fact that gamma ray source (such as white dwarfs) have incredibly powerful magnetic fields, which can only be generated by extremely rapid rotation.
But this doesn't help in explaining stars that have very weak magnetic fields, such as the Sun, where the average field is merely twice as strong as the Earth's. And the Sun isn't a sustained gamma ray source. So we need a different model for stars like that, which is where CFDLs come into play.
viscount aero wrote: ...and what do you mean by current-free double layers? Isn't that a paradox?
Charged double-layers, without any current flowing between them, definitely begin life as a paradox. The opposite charges should recombine, and then they ain't double-layers anymore. In the presence of a great deal of resistance, you can get a sustained charge separation. But this isn't relevant in the study of the Sun, since 6000+ K plasma is an excellent conductor, so there goes the resistance, and charged double-layers shouldn't be possible. If the plasma was rotating at relativistic velocities, magnetic pressure between oppositely charged layers would keep them separate. (This is the corollary of the magnetic pinch effect. Like charges are compressed, but opposite charges are repelled. So you can get double-layers in relativistic charge streams.) But the Sun's equatorial velocity is only 2 km/s, which is nowhere near relativistic. So is there anything else that can keep charges separate, without any resistance, and without any magnetic pressure?
To my knowledge, there's only one other way, but it fulfills all of the requirements: electron degeneracy pressure. Essentially, when matter is subjected to extreme pressure, the atoms are forced too close together for the electron shells. So the shells fail, the electrons are expelled. When all of the atoms in the vicinity are too close together for electrons, the electrons are pressed all of the way out of the matter, leaving positive ions behind. In the case of the Sun, the core is positively charged by the extreme pressure, surrounded by a negative double-layer just outside the core, comprised of the electrons that were expelled from the core. Thus there is a charge separation, and an enormous electric field between the positive core and the negative double-layer. But the charges can't recombine, because the pressure won't allow it. So the charge separation is stable. In other words, there are charged double-layers, but there isn't any current flowing between them, hence they are current-free double-layers (CFDLs).
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote: Explain tomahawks more...
A tokamak is a nuclear fusion reactor based on the magnetic pinch effect, where they get plasma whizzing around in a large circle, pinched into an annular ring by a powerful magnetic field in toroidal form. So it's a toroidal plasmoid. This is the only way to produce sustained nuclear fusion in the laboratory here on Earth, because the extremely hot plasma is confined by magnetic fields, not a solid container (which would melt at such high temperatures). And they're very definitely getting fusion out of these things, so we know they work. They're just not practical, because the power that they need to generate the magnetic confinement is more than the power that they recover from the heat produced by the fusion. So it's a net loss of energy. Nevertheless, the principle works.
ok cool.
The relevance is that if a star gets to rotating at relativistic velocities, the plasma will similarly get pinched, and fusion will occur. This doesn't sound like such a likely scenario, but it solves a problem that to my knowledge cannot be solved in any other way. The exotic stars (such as white dwarfs) produce gamma rays, which are indicative of nuclear fusion. We are told that the only way to get the pressures necessary for fusion in a star is by gravitational confinement. So there has to be a huge amount of overlying matter, pressing down hard enough to fuse light elements into heavy ones. The problem with that is that gamma rays are easily absorbed by even the thinnest of dust clouds. Even the Earth's atmosphere is thick enough to block gamma ray sources from space. We only found out about stellar gamma rays after NASA launched a satellite to monitor the Soviet Union's compliance with the ban on nuclear testing, and as soon as they turned on the gamma ray detector, they started picking up all kinds of sources. So how can nuclear fusion occur in space by gravitational confinement, when the pressure is caused by a gas cloud thinner than the Earth's atmosphere? Well, it can't. Otherwise, the surface of the Earth would be a nuclear fusion reactor, and we probably wouldn't be debating its properties. To my knowledge, the only other force that can confine matter to the point of nuclear fusion is the magnetic force, like in a tokamak, and magnetic fields don't block gamma rays. So IMO, all of the sustained gamma ray sources in space can only be "natural tokamaks", where relativistic angular velocities are pinching matter into fusable annular rings. This is consistent with the fact that gamma ray source (such as white dwarfs) have incredibly powerful magnetic fields, which can only be generated by extremely rapid rotation.
Why do we need relativistic velocities to create fusion? Why would a star need it? Stars are not rotating at relativistic velocities. Are you alluding to believing in millisecond pulsars?
But this doesn't help in explaining stars that have very weak magnetic fields, such as the Sun, where the average field is merely twice as strong as the Earth's. And the Sun isn't a sustained gamma ray source. So we need a different model for stars like that, which is where CFDLs come into play.
Ok.
viscount aero wrote: ...and what do you mean by current-free double layers? Isn't that a paradox?
Charged double-layers, without any current flowing between them, definitely begin life as a paradox. The opposite charges should recombine, and then they ain't double-layers anymore. In the presence of a great deal of resistance, you can get a sustained charge separation. But this isn't relevant in the study of the Sun, since 6000+ K plasma is an excellent conductor, so there goes the resistance, and charged double-layers shouldn't be possible. If the plasma was rotating at relativistic velocities, magnetic pressure between oppositely charged layers would keep them separate. (This is the corollary of the magnetic pinch effect. Like charges are compressed, but opposite charges are repelled. So you can get double-layers in relativistic charge streams.) But the Sun's equatorial velocity is only 2 km/s, which is nowhere near relativistic. So is there anything else that can keep charges separate, without any resistance, and without any magnetic pressure?
To my knowledge, there's only one other way, but it fulfills all of the requirements: electron degeneracy pressure. Essentially, when matter is subjected to extreme pressure, the atoms are forced too close together for the electron shells. So the shells fail, the electrons are expelled. When all of the atoms in the vicinity are too close together for electrons, the electrons are pressed all of the way out of the matter, leaving positive ions behind. In the case of the Sun, the core is positively charged by the extreme pressure, surrounded by a negative double-layer just outside the core, comprised of the electrons that were expelled from the core. Thus there is a charge separation, and an enormous electric field between the positive core and the negative double-layer. But the charges can't recombine, because the pressure won't allow it. So the charge separation is stable. In other words, there are charged double-layers, but there isn't any current flowing between them, hence they are current-free double-layers (CFDLs). This all contradicts and appears to falsify all of EU theory then, at least its stellar model which is intimately connected to the "galactic circuit' premise. You must not believe in EU theory to claim all of the entire post you have here. There isn't enough resistance in space for charge sep to even happen so you cannot possibly believe in anything that this site promotes! LOL! Why are you here? EDIT: to my knowledge the highest point of resistance occurs at the socket/outlet, not in the wires. Would the Sun itself not be this point of resistance?
CharlesChandler
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote: Why do we need relativistic velocities to create fusion?
We need relativistic velocities to get fusion with the magnetic pinch effect, because only then does the force from the magnetic field approach that of the electrostatic repulsion between the like charges that are going to fuse. This is because the strength of a magnetic field generated by moving electric charges is a function of the speed at which they are moving. At rest there is no field. At a slow speed, there is a weak field. Only approaching the speed of light does the magnetic attraction between like charges approach the strength of the electrostatic repulsion between those like charges.
Since accelerating particles to near the speed of light is extremely difficult, tokamaks use another trick that doesn't require such high speeds — they also apply a poloidal magnetic field, which throws the particles into a spin, in addition to the circular path around the annular ring. The spin gets the particles to collide, and that's what actually causes the fusion.
In space, the primary toroidal magnetic field would come from the rotating particles themselves, and the secondary magnetic field that would cause the particles to spin would be the galactic field.
viscount aero wrote: Why would a star need it?
A star doesn't necessarily need to create fusion by the magnetic pinch effect — there are other ways, such as gravitational confinement (i.e., fusion at the center of a very heavy star), or the impact of a large object, which instantaneously creates the temperatures and pressures necessary for fusion (i.e., inertial confinement). But in both gravitational and inertial confinement, the fusion is buried deep under a whole bunch of other stuff, which will block the gamma rays. So any time we observe gamma ray sources, we know two things: fusion is occurring, and there wasn't anything in the way to block the gamma rays. That rules out gravitational and inertial confinement, leaving magnetic confinement as the only possibility.
viscount aero wrote: Stars are not rotating at relativistic velocities.
Well, they aren't conventionally thought to do so, and the Sun certainly isn't. But white dwarfs have magnetic fields that have been measured at over 100 million Gauss, and I'm contending that such unbelievable fields could only be generated by stars rotating at relativistic velocities. And white dwarfs are gamma ray sources.
viscount aero wrote: Are you alluding to believing in millisecond pulsars?
I believe that millisecond pulsars are "natural tokamaks" (i.e., toroidal plasmoids), which emit gamma rays due to fusion from magnetic confinement. But I don't believe that the axis of rotation is itself rotating. In other words, the "rotating lighthouse beacon" thing is bogus. The fusion has simply fallen into an oscillation. Fusion tends to be self-defeating, because the release of heat causes the expansion of the plasma, which reduces the particle collisions that cause the fusion. So it's fundamentally unstable, and lends itself to oscillations, where fusion causes expansion, and then the fusion stops, but when the plasma collapses again, fusion starts back up again. So it's a sputtering nuclear fusion reactor. In laboratory tokamaks, this sputtering can be controlled by modulating the magnetic fields applied to the plasma. But out in space, a "natural tokamak" has no such control mechanism, so if it wants to, it's going to sputter.
viscount aero wrote: This all contradicts and appears to falsify all of EU theory then, at least its stellar model which is intimately connected to the "galactic circuit' premise. You must not believe in EU theory to claim all of the entire post you have here. There isn't enough resistance in space for charge sep to even happen so you cannot possibly believe in anything that this site promotes! LOL! Why are you here?
Well, let's see... I was over on the Gravity Universe board, and I kept saying, "The Universe is electric! The Universe is electric! I can prove it!" So they sent me over here. Now where do I go???
viscount aero wrote: To my knowledge the highest point of resistance occurs at the socket/outlet, not in the wires. Would the Sun itself not be this point of resistance?
The surface of the Sun is estimated to be roughly 6000 K. At that temperature, all plasmas are excellent conductors. From there, the temperature goes up, reaching over 1 MK in the corona. Past that point, the temperature cools back down again eventually, but then the interplanetary medium is too sparse to have much resistance. So I don't see much resistance anywhere in there.
meemoe_uk
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
. Nevertheless, if 1026 watts of power were flowing into the Sun to make it light up the way it does, there would be evidence, and yet we see none. If the Sun was externally powered, it would look like a plasma lamp, with sustained discharges through the void, and the footpoints of those discharges would be the brightest points on the Sun. So where are those charge streams, and bright footpoints? The answer is that they don't exist.
It looks like the space plasma and solar corona are better, perhaps orders of magnitude better conductors than the sun itself.Therefore galactic current just flows around the sun. But it can still supply power to the sun via magnetic fields.
I'm not convinced 10^26 Watts power supply would show up in transmission space plasma. Industrial power lines conduct more than 10^8 Watts in a couple of cm radius of relatively very poor conductor compared to plasma and there is normally no glow. How many magnitudes of conductivity is hydrogen plasma a better conductor than aluminium? How many magnitudes of cross sectional area does a galactic current have over an industrial power line? How much more power is needed to make it glow? Are there any tricks hydrogen plasma can play to further increase its conductance? Glow comes from resistance to the motion of the electrons. At very high voltage I could imagine relativistic magnetic fields sectioning off the electrons from the ions entirely, making the plasma act like a super conductor.
With a breakdown voltage of only 1 V/m in the interplanetary medium, any trivial potential would get discharged instantaneously.
Well we do have space distances to play with. 1 V/m is a lot compared to millions of km.
Analogously, how much work can you do with the potential between the tip of a grounded wire and the Earth? That's right — none — because there is no potential between the Earth and a grounded wire! Without any resistance, there is no way to get a charge separation, and if there were, you wouldn't be able to do any work with it. So the reason for the absence of interstellar discharges isn't too much resistance — it's too little. But either way, those discharges just aren't there.
They aren't needed to explain powering of the sun. Magnetic interaction with galactic current alone can supply power to the sun.
the last time I checked, after 30 years of research, Lerner still hasn't gotten focus fusion to actually work
Depends what you mean. Lerner achieved fusion years ago. Sustained net energy is still unrealised. If you've read his work you'd know Lerner and the fusion community were refused funding for focus fusion for most of his career. Unlike the tokamak , Lerner's lack of progress wasn't due to a flawed idea. That he's achieved far better results on a shoestring budget in 3-4 years of work than the tokamak which is one of the most heavily financed and long worked on projects of all time suggests he's doing very well.
Second, if, after 30 years, it still isn't working, this can only mean that if he ever does get it working, it's going to be with an extremely rare set of circumstances, otherwise he would have already stumbled on the right combination of factors. The significance is that this "extremely rare set of circumstances" isn't likely to be happening naturally
This is true for the tokamak, but not for focus fusion. It's only true for tokamak because its had practically limitless funding and manpower for 40 years and still has no results. The analogy to Lerner's work doesn't hold.
Third, even if the theory were correct, and the practice were easy, it wouldn't apply to stars like the Sun. Focus fusion relies on the magnetic pinch effect to consolidate matter (at least in principle), which requires relativistic velocities to generate a magnetic field that can compete with the electrostatic repulsion inherent in fusion. And yet the particle velocities in the Sun are nowhere near relativistic.
Lerner's device uses a small magnetic field to help plasmoids form. Once currents are in close proximity they fall into an energy well via Ampere's force law. The giga-tesla magnetic field required for fusion forms naturally at the nano scale at the bottom of the energy well. The temperature of the sun is not the temperature of sustained fusion because fusion energy is dispersed to neighbouring non fusing matter. This burning of a tiny fraction of the available fuel over time and dispersion is common feature of all solar models and can't be used to discredit models. How long would the sun last under your model if all the potential fuel ignited at the same instance?
Furthermore, the magnetic fields that are measured at the surface of the Sun are not consistent with any sort of toroidal plasmoid (focus fusion or otherwise).
Plasma is such a good conductor it resembles a super conductor. Super conductors expel all magnetic fields from their conducting medium. This leaves the possibility wide open that the active plasma around the sun has expelled what would be a very powerful magnetic field. Usually in practice in the labs on Earth we see the expelled magnetic field as a strengthened external magnetic field. But where has the magnetic field of active plasma around the sun gone? Further away from the sun is just more plasma ( less active ) which again wants to expel magnetic fields. So I think the active plasma around the sun does something we're not used to. It expels its magnetic field towards the sun. The sun itself is internally probably a good conductor, so again its wants to externalise magnetic fields. This way, a powerful magnetic field is concentrated into a thin radius near the surface of the sun, creating a huge energy potential. Any charged particles moving into this magnetic field will gain energy equivalent to a high energy particle collision.
I believe that exotic stars (e.g., white dwarfs, quasars, etc.) are toroidal plasmoids, and there, we do see incredible magnetic fields (> 100 million Gauss!). Yet the average field in the Sun is just 1 Gauss. A refrigerator magnetic has a stronger field, and it isn't a nuclear fusion reactor.
Yes, it could be such objects are powering the sun, while the sun isn't producing net power to the galactic circuit. Net sinks and sources.
So focus fusion might one day explain a rare star, but it will never be a standard stellar model. (Sorry, viscount, but that's my opinion. )
It doesn't need to be. The only stuff focus fusion requires are the objects that have astro-physical jets, which resemble plasmoid collapse, i.e. the exotic objects. Everything else including our sun and planets, might merely be trying ( i.e. being helped by external current ) to be a self sustained focus fusion reactor but failing due to insufficient attributes.
Thanks Charles, even if you don't agree with a word of this post, I rationalized a few new ideas to write it.
meemoe_uk
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
in addition to the stuff i said about magnetic fields last post :
Because plasma isn't quite a super conductor, there is a residual heliocentric magnetic field throut the solar system. Also close to the sun we see the super strong magnetic field frequently pop out some filaments in to the corona. The pressure and variability of the field and the galactic current causes them to tussle for space.
On the subject of solar polar current filaments interfaces, with recent evidence discrediting it, Bob Johnson pointed out that Alfven's earlier models of current density look correct. Current travelling along galactic filaments whirlpools in and out of the corona but doesn't jump over the double layer into the sun, and doesn't concentrate to a polar filament.
Plasma should in theory handle, and we do seem to see the eddying 'surface' currents near the sun which super conductors require to expel magnetic fields. Also, a solar double layer near the surface is generally accepted by the EU community.
Sparky
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
aero:
that natural weather on other planets doesn't exist apart from lighting and "arc machining" in EU theory. It is as if weather on the Earth doesn't actually exist either! EU theory miraculously abandons nearly ALL conventional physics by trying to explain nearly everything as a "plasma" event. Don't you find that a bit ridiculous?
I will address this over generalization one last time.
IF that were all true, it would be ridiculous! But, apart from those members who are still dealing with the betrayal by the standard model, all aspects of physics is dealt with, at some level of competence.
What you may be ignoring is the "alternative" explanation of EU, not as dogmatic, but as something to consider, whether there is strong evidence for it or not. I think it is appropriate to state an EU alternative perspective, especially when standard model gives nonsense explanations.
Some here view differing cosmologies as a consensus struggle. Largest consensus wins and is correct. Give it all another 200 years to sort out. By then the CC model of star production will be standard model within the consensus, and my RCL comet will have worked out, despite the seemingly insurmountable lack of logic and supporting data.
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Are you alluding to believing in millisecond pulsars?
I believe that millisecond pulsars are "natural tokamaks" (i.e., toroidal plasmoids), which emit gamma rays due to fusion from magnetic confinement. But I don't believe that the axis of rotation is itself rotating. In other words, the "rotating lighthouse beacon" thing is bogus. The fusion has simply fallen into an oscillation. Fusion tends to be self-defeating, because the release of heat causes the expansion of the plasma, which reduces the particle collisions that cause the fusion. So it's fundamentally unstable, and lends itself to oscillations, where fusion causes expansion, and then the fusion stops, but when the plasma collapses again, fusion starts back up again. So it's a sputtering nuclear fusion reactor. In laboratory tokamaks, this sputtering can be controlled by modulating the magnetic fields applied to the plasma. But out in space, a "natural tokamak" has no such control mechanism, so if it wants to, it's going to sputter.
viscount aero wrote: This all contradicts and appears to falsify all of EU theory then, at least its stellar model which is intimately connected to the "galactic circuit' premise. You must not believe in EU theory to claim all of the entire post you have here. There isn't enough resistance in space for charge sep to even happen so you cannot possibly believe in anything that this site promotes! LOL! Why are you here?
Well, let's see... I was over on the Gravity Universe board, and I kept saying, "The Universe is electric! The Universe is electric! I can prove it!" So they sent me over here. Now where do I go???
So you do believe in the standard model in large part. Millisecond pulsars are verboten in EU You don't believe those are sites of electrical stress shedding charge in timed pulses? Perhaps I should ask, apart from saying "The Universe is electric! The Universe is electric!", what about that do you actually believe? Almost none of what you are saying has anything to do with the electric cosmos. Millisecond pulsars as actual spinning objects reveal a primacy of gravity. EU is not about gravity dominating the cosmos. Do you believe in the big bang, too? I'm confused as to your position. EDIT: There is actually a forum called "Gravity Universe?" LOL! They need a forum for that?
viscount aero wrote: To my knowledge the highest point of resistance occurs at the socket/outlet, not in the wires. Would the Sun itself not be this point of resistance?
CharlesChandler wrote: The surface of the Sun is estimated to be roughly 6000 K. At that temperature, all plasmas are excellent conductors. From there, the temperature goes up, reaching over 1 MK in the corona. Past that point, the temperature cools back down again eventually, but then the interplanetary medium is too sparse to have much resistance. So I don't see much resistance anywhere in there.
I'm confused again as I have thought this through a bit more. Room temperature things can be excellent conductors--like your own body or a piece of copper. Also, super-cooled things can be superconductors. And electricity flows (or is inhibited) in all of these conditions. I don't see how something at any temperature necessarily disqualifies it from creating conductance or resistance. Moreover, if the superheated pure plasma state poses no resistance at all, or virtually none, then why do you insist that "The Universe is electric! The Universe is electric!" when apparently it cannot be. Plasma itself cannot be electric. So why do you believe it is?
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
Sparky wrote: aero:
that natural weather on other planets doesn't exist apart from lighting and "arc machining" in EU theory. It is as if weather on the Earth doesn't actually exist either! EU theory miraculously abandons nearly ALL conventional physics by trying to explain nearly everything as a "plasma" event. Don't you find that a bit ridiculous?
I will address this over generalization one last time.
IF that were all true, it would be ridiculous! But, apart from those members who are still dealing with the betrayal by the standard model, all aspects of physics is dealt with, at some level of competence.
Relax Criticising EU doesn't mean that I "believe in the standard model".
Sparky wrote: What you may be ignoring is the "alternative" explanation of EU, not as dogmatic, but as something to consider, whether there is strong evidence for it or not. I think it is appropriate to state an EU alternative perspective, especially when standard model gives nonsense explanations.
You are implying there is an alternative EU model. So are you admitting that the "regular" EU model is dogmatic? Good because I agree--it is dogmatic
Sparky wrote: Some here view differing cosmologies as a consensus struggle. Largest consensus wins and is correct. Give it all another 200 years to sort out. By then the CC model of star production will be standard model within the consensus, and my RCL comet will have worked out, despite the seemingly insurmountable lack of logic and supporting data.
I don't quite follow that but I'm assuming you're saying to "Give it time" and it will "sort out." Ok I agree But you seem to be admitting that "regular EU" theory is dogmatic as it basically ignores and insists that natural weather and most physics is false and irrelevant! As it stands now, water and its domain of behavior is virtually invisible to the EU theory--even on the Earth! Were the EU theory actually true, fully and completely, then there would be no such science as meteorology! Weather doesn't exist in the EU community.
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Why do we need relativistic velocities to create fusion?
We need relativistic velocities to get fusion with the magnetic pinch effect, because only then does the force from the magnetic field approach that of the electrostatic repulsion between the like charges that are going to fuse. This is because the strength of a magnetic field generated by moving electric charges is a function of the speed at which they are moving. At rest there is no field. At a slow speed, there is a weak field. Only approaching the speed of light does the magnetic attraction between like charges approach the strength of the electrostatic repulsion between those like charges.
Since accelerating particles to near the speed of light is extremely difficult, tokamaks use another trick that doesn't require such high speeds — they also apply a poloidal magnetic field, which throws the particles into a spin, in addition to the circular path around the annular ring. The spin gets the particles to collide, and that's what actually causes the fusion.
In space, the primary toroidal magnetic field would come from the rotating particles themselves, and the secondary magnetic field that would cause the particles to spin would be the galactic field..
But does that not imply an electrical circuit behind the mag field, ie, charge sep?
You must take into account that the cosmos itself is the most efficient particle accelerator. Gamma rays are such an example of naturally occurring and virtually infinitely supplied relativistic particle streams. There is an overabundance of this stuff.
viscount aero wrote: Why would a star need it?
CharlesChandler wrote: A star doesn't necessarily need to create fusion by the magnetic pinch effect — there are other ways, such as gravitational confinement (i.e., fusion at the center of a very heavy star), or the impact of a large object, which instantaneously creates the temperatures and pressures necessary for fusion (i.e., inertial confinement). But in both gravitational and inertial confinement, the fusion is buried deep under a whole bunch of other stuff, which will block the gamma rays. So any time we observe gamma ray sources, we know two things: fusion is occurring, and there wasn't anything in the way to block the gamma rays. That rules out gravitational and inertial confinement, leaving magnetic confinement as the only possibility.
Then which comes first, the mag field or the circuit? Fusion is probably occurring at the Sun's corona as it is in the millions of degrees and stands off of the Sun's body. Is this not a region of rarefied stellar atmosphere that is impinged upon my gamma and cosmic rays in perpetuity--accelerated by the Sun's gravity? It is diffuse but highly energetic and would explain why the Sun is hotter on the outside than the inside, ie, we have the alleged relativistic conditions constantly at the corona. If the Sun is the anode and the impinging particles are the cathode then we have a circuit. Just as wires don't glow red hot when conducting neither does the entire surrounding cosmic environment. Only the "nodes" are luminous (the Stars and regions of nebulae).
viscount aero wrote: Stars are not rotating at relativistic velocities.
CharlesChandler wrote: Well, they aren't conventionally thought to do so, and the Sun certainly isn't. But white dwarfs have magnetic fields that have been measured at over 100 million Gauss, and I'm contending that such unbelievable fields could only be generated by stars rotating at relativistic velocities. And white dwarfs are gamma ray sources.
But what if axial rotation of stars is not the linchpin of acceleration of particles? These particles would need to continually shed and fly off the star for the gamma rays to propagate. Gamma rays are at c. Spinning bodies, even at milliseconds, are not at c. How does the c happen? It cannot be from axial spin.
viscount aero wrote: Are you alluding to believing in millisecond pulsars?
CharlesChandler wrote: I believe that millisecond pulsars are "natural tokamaks" (i.e., toroidal plasmoids), which emit gamma rays due to fusion from magnetic confinement. But I don't believe that the axis of rotation is itself rotating. In other words, the "rotating lighthouse beacon" thing is bogus.
But above you suggest there is an axial spin of tremendous speed.
CharlesChandler wrote: The fusion has simply fallen into an oscillation.
What does that mean?
CharlesChandler wrote: Fusion tends to be self-defeating, because the release of heat causes the expansion of the plasma, which reduces the particle collisions that cause the fusion. So it's fundamentally unstable, and lends itself to oscillations, where fusion causes expansion, and then the fusion stops, but when the plasma collapses again, fusion starts back up again. So it's a sputtering nuclear fusion reactor. In laboratory tokamaks, this sputtering can be controlled by modulating the magnetic fields applied to the plasma. But out in space, a "natural tokamak" has no such control mechanism, so if it wants to, it's going to sputter.
Hence, the "millisecond pulsar", ie, the sputtering (if I am following you correctly). Maybe nature does this as a natural mechanism; it is a natural tokamak.
Sparky
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
You two need to get a room!
Or at least get into the correct thread.
The absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
charles wrote: We need relativistic velocities to get fusion with the magnetic pinch effect
That's not true, at least in the sense we don't need to start the process with relativistic electrons. electrons have strong intrinsic magnetic fields regardless of their velocity. When they move together under voltage, they spin into alignment and their magnetic fields stack. Ampere's force law works at very low current and voltage.
CharlesChandler
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
It's arguable that the collisions would be so violent that this single-channel configuration wouldn't be stable. So perhaps the electrons would burrow through the positive ions, creating their own sub-channel. Inside this channel, there would be no resistance, while on the edges, there would be particle collisions. This would likely develop a sheath of positive ions accelerated by electron drag in the same direction as the electrons. Since opposite charges traveling in the same direction generate opposing magnetic fields, they repel each other. So the electron stream will gain a sheath of positive ions traveling in the same direction, though this wouldn't be such a stable configuration
meemoe_uk wrote: It looks like the space plasma and solar corona are better, perhaps orders of magnitude better conductors than the sun itself. Therefore galactic current just flows around the sun.
That's an excellent point. Most people seem to think that a perfect vacuum is a perfect resistor, when actually, it's a perfect conductor, and yes, space itself should be an excellent conductor — even better than the 6000+ K hydrogen plasma on the surface of the Sun. More on that below, but for now, the first question begged by this realization is whether or not a galactic current would flow through the heliosphere at all. The interstellar medium is less dense, and therefore an even better conductor, than the heliosphere.
meemoe_uk wrote: But it can still supply power to the sun via magnetic fields.
I'm not going to rule this out, but it will take a diagram to identify the actual configuration that you're proposing, so it can be evaluated. If the above is correct, the current doesn't even go through the heliosphere, which means that whatever magnetic field is powering the Sun is also powering us (?) begging the question of why we don't sense it. Or do we, and we just don't realize it?
meemoe_uk wrote: I'm not convinced 10^26 Watts power supply would show up in transmission space plasma. Industrial power lines conduct more than 10^8 Watts in a couple of cm radius of relatively very poor conductor compared to plasma and there is normally no glow. How many magnitudes of conductivity is hydrogen plasma a better conductor than aluminium? How many magnitudes of cross sectional area does a galactic current have over an industrial power line? How much more power is needed to make it glow? Are there any tricks hydrogen plasma can play to further increase its conductance? Glow comes from resistance to the motion of the electrons. At very high voltage I could imagine relativistic magnetic fields sectioning off the electrons from the ions entirely, making the plasma act like a super conductor.
Indeed! Since you actually seem to understand plasma discharges, let's work this through and see what we get.
Given sufficient voltage to initiate a dark discharge, from some point to some point, such that the discharge flows in some sort of proximity to the Sun, and given that 10^26 Watts are supplied (somehow) to the Sun, what would be the characteristics of that discharge?
To get such a current on a scale larger than the heliosphere itself, the electric field lines would be more-or-less straight at the scale of the heliosphere. So the discharge will start out following a more-or-less straight path (not including small-scale twists due to an external magnetic field, if present). In such an electric field, the electrons will go one way, and the positive ions will go the other. The electrons accelerate more easily, due to their smaller mass, but on this scale, we'd expect all of the particles to achieve relativistic speeds, resting inertia notwithstanding. Since opposing charge streams generate the same magnetic fields, both charge streams will pinch into discrete discharge channels, and the channels will merge together, due to the magnetic pinch effect. This has opposing charge streams flowing through the same place, meaning relativistic collisions between electrons and +ions. That would certainly be visible. Fancier things can happen, but the bottom line is that if the power is being transmitted by magnetic fields, then at the very least, those would be detectable, if indeed we are able to detect the photons emitted by the Sun as a consequence.
meemoe_uk wrote: Lerner achieved fusion years ago.
Can you supply a reference for this?
meemoe_uk wrote: Lerner's device uses a small magnetic field to help plasmoids form. Once currents are in close proximity they fall into an energy well via Ampere's force law. The giga-tesla magnetic field required for fusion forms naturally at the nano scale at the bottom of the energy well.
So where is the giga-tesla magnetic field in the Sun?
meemoe_uk wrote: How long would the sun last under your model if all the potential fuel ignited at the same instance?
Well, it's one of the givens of your question that it would only last an instant. But in my model, the "fuel" is electrostatic potential, and unless otherwise disturbed (such as by a large impactor), the energy release is regulated. That's complicated, so I'll wait until I'm asked to explain that one.
meemoe_uk wrote: Super conductors expel all magnetic fields from their conducting medium.
I don't understand this.
meemoe_uk wrote: The sun itself is internally probably a good conductor, so again its wants to externalise magnetic fields. This way, a powerful magnetic field is concentrated into a thin radius near the surface of the sun, creating a huge energy potential. Any charged particles moving into this magnetic field will gain energy equivalent to a high energy particle collision.
Would we be able to measure these fields? The average field that we do measure at the surface is just 1 Gauss.
meemoe_uk wrote: The only stuff focus fusion requires are the objects that have astro-physical jets, which resemble plasmoid collapse, i.e. the exotic objects.
So a focus fusion star converts bi-polar jets into discrete plasmoids? Has this ever been observed? Jets that have not been converted have certainly been observed.
viscount aero wrote: So you do believe in the standard model in large part. Millisecond pulsars are verboten in EU You don't believe those are sites of electrical stress shedding charge in timed pulses? Perhaps I should ask, apart from saying "The Universe is electric! The Universe is electric!", what about that do you actually believe? Almost none of what you are saying has anything to do with the electric cosmos. Millisecond pulsars as actual spinning objects reveal a primacy of gravity. EU is not about gravity dominating the cosmos.
Just about the only thing that my toroidal plasmoid (i.e., "natural tokamak") model of millisecond pulsars has in common with the standard model is that they are capable of pulsing. They are magnetically confined, not gravitationally. They are toroidal, not spherical. They are made of low-density plasma, not impossibly high-density magic matter. So when I'm done, there really isn't anything left of the standard model — we're just left with the pulsating data.
But no, I don't believe that pulsars are sites of electrical stress shedding charge in timed pulses. A lightning strike here on Earth lasts longer than a millisecond, and then it takes minutes for the potential to build back up again in that portion of the cloud. Thinking that a far larger discharge could happen faster is strained, but recharging in a fraction of a millisecond is just beyond belief. Where in nature do you see this kind of rapid change from conductivity to resistance and back again, in 1/1000 of a second?
As concerns whether or not the Universe is electric, my CFDL model of the Sun (and of the Earth) is EM, and my "natural tokamak" (i.e., toroidal plasmoid) model of exotic stars is EM. So there's a lot of EM, a little bit of fusion, and just a smidgeon of gravity in these theories. Clearly, the principles of EM dominate, so yes, I wholeheartedly believe that the Universe is electric. Just not the way the EU has it. But they didn't invent EM, so they can't claim that they own it.
viscount aero wrote: Do you believe in the big bang, too?
I don't think that we have enough information to say. The redshift data are highly unreliable. In the absence of evidence, there is no reason to believe that the Universe is expanding.
viscount aero wrote: I don't see how something at any temperature necessarily disqualifies it from creating conductance or resistance.
At high temperatures, electrons are liberated in atomic collisions, and then they're free to respond to whatever electric field might be present. Hence everything becomes an excellent conductor at high temps, including hydrogen, which otherwise is one of the best resistors.
viscount aero wrote: Moreover, if the superheated pure plasma state poses no resistance at all, or virtually none, then why do you insist that "The Universe is electric! The Universe is electric!" when apparently it cannot be. Plasma itself cannot be electric. So why do you believe it is?
This is precisely the argument of the mainstream — in a highly conductive medium, there is no way to get charge separations, because there is no resistance to keep them separate. Therefore, all plasma in the Universe is quasi-neutral (i.e., the electrons have been liberated from the atoms, but they're still in the general vicinity, and any given parcel of plasma is net neutral). But this simply isn't true. Magnetic pressure can separate charges, and so can electron degeneracy pressure. Nevertheless, I owe you a compliment for perceiving the problem — most in the EU don't realize what a problem conductivity actually poses for EU theories. Galactic currents require galactic charge separations, and voltage regulators to get sustained currents, instead of instantaneous absolute discharges. None of these pieces have been identified in EU theory.
Sparky
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
>the first question begged by this realization is whether or not a galactic current would flow through the heliosphere at all.
a).Neutral things are attracted to currents. Likestatic dust collecting on a current carrying wire, the solar system would be drawn towards a galactic current. b) I think increasing plasma density improves conductivity to up a limit. Plasmas are pretty much neutral, as this is a minimum electric potential. A plasma with more ions per Cross sectional area can hold more electrons per cross sectional area, and so can have greater current density and so great current. Considering greater and greater ion densities, at some point ion - electron collisions become substantial and this resistance negates the increased conductivity. In practice though a plasma that is so dense that election ion collisions resistance is substantial will undergo thermal expansion ( or blow up as plasmas sometimes do ! ) , reducing the ion density. So too greater ion density is self correcting. c) I think ion density in inter stellar space is far lower than the optimum density for maximum current. Therefore, simply to reduce circuit resistance, galactic currents will always seek regions of higher ion density, which typically are stellar systems.
at whatever magnetic field is powering the Sun is also powering us (?)
No each body gets its own private subsurface magnetic field. Although some of them of planets and moons are too weak to count. Something I've not got quite right and I should straighten out, this internal magnetic field I'm proposing, while I'm saying it's well expelled from the plasma surrounding the sun, and so has a distinct border just below the sun's surface, its not nearly as cleanly expelled from the sun's internals, so its spread out inside the sun, but its mostly concentrated near the surface. Another thing, this is zero pole magnetic field. Nature only prohibits monopole magnetics, all other non negative numbers are allowed. You occasionally hear of quadrapole and octopole magnets. But in fact any highschool physics student has studied zero pole magnets. The magnetic field around a long straight current carrying wire doesn't have a pole, just a circular direction. This is the case for my subsurface magnetic field. It's basically a magnetic field obeying the right hand grip rule, but on the inside of the 'hollow wire' i.e. the galactic current travelling thru the solar corona. It has an axis of direction but the poles of this axis aren't considered magnetic poles ( sorry if thats confusing! ).
When looked at from equivalent amounts of input energy to produce a measured neutron output from fusion Lawrenceville Plasma Physics' results have been four times higher that that of the huge US NIF project. NIF was using the lower temperature requirement deuterium-tritium fuel. If the energy requirements for the different fuels is adjusted for, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics would have produced sixty times the neutron output to NIF's.
They used neutron counts as a measure of fusion. Achieving deutrium fusion was one of Eric's early steps towards his main goal - boron fusion. Couldn't find the official paper on Eric's deutrium fusion results. I'll have to ask on their forum if you want it.
>So where is the giga-tesla magnetic field in the Sun?
In nanoscopic plasmoids just off the subsurface magnetic field. Small bit of high energy plasma break off from the main electro-magnetic structure and fall into an ampere's force law energy well, whereby they create giga-gauss esla ( not sure which one! ) magnetic field necessary for fusion. Such plasmoids may also form in the solar corona.
I don't understand this ( refernce to super conductors and their explusion of internal magnetic fields ).
Would we be able to measure these fields? The average field that we do measure at the surface is just 1 Gauss
Don't think so. It's subsurface. Best thing to do is drill into the Earth to find the Earth's equivalent field. otherwise, what about those magnetic filaments that pop out of the sun's surface? I think they are attached to the subsurface magnetic field.
o a focus fusion star converts bi-polar jets into discrete plasmoids? Has this ever been observed? Jets that have not been converted have certainly been observed.
No, bi-polar jets are a product fusion in high energy objects, not a fuel source. The thin laminar bipolar jets are distinct from the wide radius galactic current thruput.
By the way, I think this theory is a long shot, although I can't figure out why its fatally flawed myself. If the galactic current really is supplying a lot of the sun's power then there should be a stronger magnetic field than 1 gauss, don't you agree? If you can destroy this assertion then my theory looks doubtful.
edit : Oh, looking at EU stuff I think my zero-pole circular magnetic field is the electric double layer they've been talking about for years. Perhaps its one and the same thing, or perhaps its a different and distinct aspect to it. I'm fairly confident there's magnetic field concentrated there at the double layer ) but because its a zero pole field it won't show up on the solar magnetogram like polar magnetic regions do, I wonder if there's a way to detect it
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
CharlesChandler wrote: It's arguable that the collisions would be so violent that this single-channel configuration wouldn't be stable. So perhaps the electrons would burrow through the positive ions, creating their own sub-channel. Inside this channel, there would be no resistance, while on the edges, there would be particle collisions. This would likely develop a sheath of positive ions accelerated by electron drag in the same direction as the electrons. Since opposite charges traveling in the same direction generate opposing magnetic fields, they repel each other. So the electron stream will gain a sheath of positive ions traveling in the same direction, though this wouldn't be such a stable configuration
meemoe_uk wrote: It looks like the space plasma and solar corona are better, perhaps orders of magnitude better conductors than the sun itself. Therefore galactic current just flows around the sun.
That's an excellent point. Most people seem to think that a perfect vacuum is a perfect resistor, when actually, it's a perfect conductor, and yes, space itself should be an excellent conductor — even better than the 6000+ K hydrogen plasma on the surface of the Sun. More on that below, but for now, the first question begged by this realization is whether or not a galactic current would flow through the heliosphere at all. The interstellar medium is less dense, and therefore an even better conductor, than the heliosphere.
meemoe_uk wrote: But it can still supply power to the sun via magnetic fields.
I'm not going to rule this out, but it will take a diagram to identify the actual configuration that you're proposing, so it can be evaluated. If the above is correct, the current doesn't even go through the heliosphere, which means that whatever magnetic field is powering the Sun is also powering us (?) begging the question of why we don't sense it. Or do we, and we just don't realize it?
meemoe_uk wrote: I'm not convinced 10^26 Watts power supply would show up in transmission space plasma. Industrial power lines conduct more than 10^8 Watts in a couple of cm radius of relatively very poor conductor compared to plasma and there is normally no glow. How many magnitudes of conductivity is hydrogen plasma a better conductor than aluminium? How many magnitudes of cross sectional area does a galactic current have over an industrial power line? How much more power is needed to make it glow? Are there any tricks hydrogen plasma can play to further increase its conductance? Glow comes from resistance to the motion of the electrons. At very high voltage I could imagine relativistic magnetic fields sectioning off the electrons from the ions entirely, making the plasma act like a super conductor.
Indeed! Since you actually seem to understand plasma discharges, let's work this through and see what we get.
Given sufficient voltage to initiate a dark discharge, from some point to some point, such that the discharge flows in some sort of proximity to the Sun, and given that 10^26 Watts are supplied (somehow) to the Sun, what would be the characteristics of that discharge?
To get such a current on a scale larger than the heliosphere itself, the electric field lines would be more-or-less straight at the scale of the heliosphere. So the discharge will start out following a more-or-less straight path (not including small-scale twists due to an external magnetic field, if present). In such an electric field, the electrons will go one way, and the positive ions will go the other. The electrons accelerate more easily, due to their smaller mass, but on this scale, we'd expect all of the particles to achieve relativistic speeds, resting inertia notwithstanding. Since opposing charge streams generate the same magnetic fields, both charge streams will pinch into discrete discharge channels, and the channels will merge together, due to the magnetic pinch effect. This has opposing charge streams flowing through the same place, meaning relativistic collisions between electrons and +ions. That would certainly be visible. Fancier things can happen, but the bottom line is that if the power is being transmitted by magnetic fields, then at the very least, those would be detectable, if indeed we are able to detect the photons emitted by the Sun as a consequence.
meemoe_uk wrote: Lerner achieved fusion years ago.
Can you supply a reference for this?
meemoe_uk wrote: Lerner's device uses a small magnetic field to help plasmoids form. Once currents are in close proximity they fall into an energy well via Ampere's force law. The giga-tesla magnetic field required for fusion forms naturally at the nano scale at the bottom of the energy well.
So where is the giga-tesla magnetic field in the Sun?
meemoe_uk wrote: How long would the sun last under your model if all the potential fuel ignited at the same instance?
Well, it's one of the givens of your question that it would only last an instant. But in my model, the "fuel" is electrostatic potential, and unless otherwise disturbed (such as by a large impactor), the energy release is regulated. That's complicated, so I'll wait until I'm asked to explain that one.
meemoe_uk wrote: Super conductors expel all magnetic fields from their conducting medium.
I don't understand this.
meemoe_uk wrote: The sun itself is internally probably a good conductor, so again its wants to externalise magnetic fields. This way, a powerful magnetic field is concentrated into a thin radius near the surface of the sun, creating a huge energy potential. Any charged particles moving into this magnetic field will gain energy equivalent to a high energy particle collision.
Would we be able to measure these fields? The average field that we do measure at the surface is just 1 Gauss.
meemoe_uk wrote: The only stuff focus fusion requires are the objects that have astro-physical jets, which resemble plasmoid collapse, i.e. the exotic objects.
So a focus fusion star converts bi-polar jets into discrete plasmoids? Has this ever been observed? Jets that have not been converted have certainly been observed.
viscount aero wrote: So you do believe in the standard model in large part. Millisecond pulsars are verboten in EU You don't believe those are sites of electrical stress shedding charge in timed pulses? Perhaps I should ask, apart from saying "The Universe is electric! The Universe is electric!", what about that do you actually believe? Almost none of what you are saying has anything to do with the electric cosmos. Millisecond pulsars as actual spinning objects reveal a primacy of gravity. EU is not about gravity dominating the cosmos.
Just about the only thing that my toroidal plasmoid (i.e., "natural tokamak") model of millisecond pulsars has in common with the standard model is that they are capable of pulsing. They are magnetically confined, not gravitationally. They are toroidal, not spherical. They are made of low-density plasma, not impossibly high-density magic matter. So when I'm done, there really isn't anything left of the standard model — we're just left with the pulsating data.
But no, I don't believe that pulsars are sites of electrical stress shedding charge in timed pulses. A lightning strike here on Earth lasts longer than a millisecond, and then it takes minutes for the potential to build back up again in that portion of the cloud. Thinking that a far larger discharge could happen faster is strained, but recharging in a fraction of a millisecond is just beyond belief. Where in nature do you see this kind of rapid change from conductivity to resistance and back again, in 1/1000 of a second?
As concerns whether or not the Universe is electric, my CFDL model of the Sun (and of the Earth) is EM, and my "natural tokamak" (i.e., toroidal plasmoid) model of exotic stars is EM. So there's a lot of EM, a little bit of fusion, and just a smidgeon of gravity in these theories. Clearly, the principles of EM dominate, so yes, I wholeheartedly believe that the Universe is electric. Just not the way the EU has it. But they didn't invent EM, so they can't claim that they own it.
viscount aero wrote: Do you believe in the big bang, too?
I don't think that we have enough information to say. The redshift data are highly unreliable. In the absence of evidence, there is no reason to believe that the Universe is expanding.
viscount aero wrote: I don't see how something at any temperature necessarily disqualifies it from creating conductance or resistance.
At high temperatures, electrons are liberated in atomic collisions, and then they're free to respond to whatever electric field might be present. Hence everything becomes an excellent conductor at high temps, including hydrogen, which otherwise is one of the best resistors.
viscount aero wrote: Moreover, if the superheated pure plasma state poses no resistance at all, or virtually none, then why do you insist that "The Universe is electric! The Universe is electric!" when apparently it cannot be. Plasma itself cannot be electric. So why do you believe it is?
This is precisely the argument of the mainstream — in a highly conductive medium, there is no way to get charge separations, because there is no resistance to keep them separate. Therefore, all plasma in the Universe is quasi-neutral (i.e., the electrons have been liberated from the atoms, but they're still in the general vicinity, and any given parcel of plasma is net neutral). But this simply isn't true. Magnetic pressure can separate charges, and so can electron degeneracy pressure. Nevertheless, I owe you a compliment for perceiving the problem — most in the EU don't realize what a problem conductivity actually poses for EU theories. Galactic currents require galactic charge separations, and voltage regulators to get sustained currents, instead of instantaneous absolute discharges. None of these pieces have been identified in EU theory.
I won't take time to reply to every point but my answer is "ok" and "very interesting debate here."
To my knowledge, the only other force that can confine matter to the point of nuclear fusion is the magnetic force, like in a tokamak, and magnetic fields don't block gamma rays. So IMO, all of the sustained gamma ray sources in space can only be "natural tokamaks", where relativistic angular velocities are pinching matter into fusable annular rings. This is consistent with the fact that gamma ray source (such as white dwarfs) have incredibly powerful magnetic fields, which can only be generated by extremely rapid rotation.
Why are you here?
Now where do I go???
viscount aero wrote:The surface of the Sun is estimated to be roughly 6000 K. At that temperature, all plasmas are excellent conductors. From there, the temperature goes up, reaching over 1 MK in the corona. Past that point, the temperature cools back down again eventually, but then the interplanetary medium is too sparse to have much resistance. So I don't see much resistance anywhere in there.But, apart from those members who are still dealing with the betrayal by the standard model, all aspects of physics is dealt with, at some level of competence.
Criticising EU doesn't mean that I "believe in the standard model".
Sparky wrote:You are implying there is an alternative EU model. So are you admitting that the "regular" EU model is dogmatic? Good because I agree--it is dogmatic
