When geniuses like Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and Isaac
Newton (1643-1727) formulated their theories very little
was known about electricity. (Oil and gas provided the
lighting back then.) A treatise had been written on
magnetism, and some magnetism is incorporated in astronomical
models, but the basis of mainstream theories remain
the same -- they rely on gravity and inertia. They work
on the mistaken premise that space is electrically sterile.
The situation changed briefly in the late 1800s and
early 1900s when electromganetism was thought the most
likely route to a better understanding of space. Indeed,
the scientific press was awash with such speculation
at the time. However, something happened, and it became
taboo to discuss EM in space. Albert Einstein, for example,
did not so much as mention EM in his Relativity theories,
and his mathematical theories effectively removed the
concept of the aether.
Magnetic Reconnection and Frozen-in Magnetic
These erroneous concepts are probably
the biggest source of confusion in mainstream circles.
Ironically, the concept of Frozen-in Magnetic Fields
was first proposed by Hannes Alfven, but he quickly
realised his mistake, and explained the error. Unfortunately,
he was surprised to find that the error persisted, and
later in life he wished he had spent more time correcting
Magnetic Fields are never frozen into
a plasma. This is just a symptom of mainstream science
refusing to acknowledge electric currents (energy transfer)
in space. They prefer to talk in terms of magnetic ropes
et al, as the idea of electricity in space would open
up a can of worms for them. They simpy refuse to face
this fact to any meaningful extent. Furthermore, magnetic
field lines do not reconnect or merge after they break
down and release energy.
Don Scott, a retired professor of electrical
engineering, explains the issues in more detail here
Belief is known to have a profound
affect on perception. Witness the fact that euphemisms
are employed to conform to the inertia of prior belief.
The mainstream prefers to talk in terms of ion storms
and electron rains rather than acknowledging the existence
of electrical phenomena in space. See the technical
section for explanations of some common misconceptions.
So many astronomical phenomena scream 'Electricity',
but sophistry is all too often employed to interpret
them within the existing paradigm.
Filamentary Birkeland currents in plasma, and double
layers et al are not even recognised in mainstream cosmology,
let alone understood! And they call it the queen of
'Charge separation in space is not possible'
Well, this is the mainstream view.
Because the attractive electrical forces between electrons
and ions are 39 orders of magnitude greater than the
gravitational attraction between their masses, it is
assumed that these particles quickly find each other
It is wrong, however, as we now observe
charge separation in space. It is therefore important
to stress that we should be working backwards from observation,
and not extrapolating from some idealised theoretical
starting point. Theories of the plasma universe do not
begin with neutral matter. They begin with the observation
that charges are already separated.
While GR is amenable to math -- if we allow for the
fact that so many space probes have suffered inexplicable
crashes and anomalous accelerations -- the situation
with electrodynamics is less simple. How would we go
about measuring the voltage of the earth, for example,
when voltage is a relative figure? Would we measure
the voltage in relation to The Sun or The Moon? And
how could we do this? Running a cable between any two
planets presents technical difficulties, whereas problems
with GR calculations are simply plugged with exotic
Science versus Math
Unfortunately, the current cosmological scene is dominated
by mathematicians, not scientists, and electromagnetism
is notoriously difficult to model mathematically, so
they prefer to close their eyes to it. See bad astronomy
versus good science, below.
Electrodynamics versus Fluid Dynamics
Another common trick is to refer
to electrodynamic phenomena in terms really only appropriate
to fluid dynamics. 'Electron Rains' and 'Ion Storms'
are prime examples. These are clearly electrodynamic
phenomena, as are 'Magnetic Ropes'. Magnetic ropes are
in fact Birkeland currents. See technical for further
Bad Astronomy versus Good Science
Phil Plait, the self-proclaimed
Bad Astronomer, is an unrepentant critic of the Electric
Universe. He recently launched another attack on the
EU model, by proxy, claiming that astronomy does not
fields. This is a straw man, as no such claim has been
"Magnetism is a very important topic
in astrophysics (despite some pseudo-scientists lying
and saying this force is ignored), but its not well-understood.
Its fiendishly complex, so much so that its
a joke in stronomy." Phil Plait
The real issue is that the relationship between magnetic
fields and electric currents is being overlooked, and
this is a critical omission
"In order to understand the phenomena
in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not
only the magnetic but also the electric field and the
electric currents." Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate
In other words, magnetism cannot be viewed in isolation.
At least Plait admits their fear of magnetism in the
process, which is the big giveaway.
the kinetic theory of ordinary Gases
"Newton was unaware of plasma. Today his disciples
spend years in training learning when and how to shut
their eyes to it." Mel Acheson
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."