The white widow model: A new scenario for the birth of Type Ia supernovae

Oct 26, 2012
Optical and X-ray Composite Image of SNR 0509-67.5. Credit: NASA, ESA, and B. Schaefer and A. Pagnotta

J. Craig Wheeler has studied the exploding stars called supernovae for more than four decades. Now he has a new idea on the identity of the "parents" of one of the most important types of supernovae—the Type Ia, those used as "standard candles" in cosmology studies that led to the discovery of dark energy, the mysterious force causing the universe's expansion to speed up. 

Wheeler lays out his case for supernova parentage in the current issue of The . He explains why he thinks the parents of Type Ia could be a made up of (the burnt-out remnant of a Sun-like star) and a particular type of small star called an "M dwarf." 

In the paper, he explains that current theories for Type Ia parents don't correctly match up with telescope data on actual supernovae. 

There are two main models today that attempt to explain how are born. One is called a "single-degenerate model," in which a binary star is made up of a degenerate, or , called a white dwarf paired with a younger star. Over time, as the orbit each other, the white dwarf's gravity siphons gas from the atmosphere of its partner star until the white dwarf becomes so massive and dense that it ignites, triggering an immense

Wheeler wrote the first scientific paper invoking this idea in 1971. Astronomers have been trying to identify what type of star the partner must be ever since. 

The other, more recent, theory for building a Type Ia supernova is known as the "double-degenerate model." Here, it takes two white dwarfs in a binary system spiraling together and colliding to create a Type Ia supernova. 

The telescope data support neither completely, Wheeler says. 

The remnant of Tycho's Supernova was also searched for a left-behind partner star without success. Credit: from NASA.

Astronomers have carefully observed supernovae for decades. In the best-case scenario, a supernova is watched from the time it is discovered and becomes extremely bright, until its fades from view. Its light signature, or spectrum, changes over that time. Any models of supernova parents must reproduce an evolving spectrum that matches that of actual supernovae. 

"I believe that the spectra have to be respected," Wheeler said. "The really high-order constraint [on a supernova model] is to get the spectral evolution correct. That is, you've got to get all the bumps and wiggles, and they've got to be in the right place at the right times." 

Telescope observations in the last few years have considerably narrowed the possibilities on which models work, he said, "putting tighter and tighter constraints on whether any companion star exists and what kind of star it can be." 

Now, Wheeler thinks maybe a new twist on the single-degenerate model can fill the bill. He says pairing the white dwarf with an M dwarf could do the trick. 

"M dwarfs are the most common star in the galaxy, and are the second-most common star in the galaxy," he said. "And there's lots of M dwarf-white dwarf binary systems. Do they make Type Ia supernovas? That's another question." 

In the paper, he lays out evidence why he thinks the M dwarf is a good candidate: 

First, M dwarfs are dim. In recent years, astronomers using large telescopes have looked hard at the gaseous remnants left behind by Type Ia supernovae for the partner star that would be left behind after the white dwarf detonated. "One thing blows up as a supernova, the other thing's got to be left behind," Wheeler said. "Where is it? We don't see it." 

Small, red M dwarfs are dim enough to work—even the most massive M dwarf would not show up on Hubble Space Telescope observations. And it's even possible, Wheeler said, that the white dwarf could have devoured the entire M dwarf before the white dwarf exploded. M dwarfs don't have heavy cores to leave behind. 

Wheeler calls this scenario a "white widow system," a play on words referencing the stellar binaries known as "black widow systems," in which a neutron star eats its stellar companion. In the "white widow" case, the predator is a white dwarf. 

The second reason the M dwarf is likely the white dwarf's co-parent in producing Type Ia supernovae is that M dwarfs are magnetic. "They flare, they do all sorts of crazy things," Wheeler said. His thought experiment supposes that the white dwarf is magnetic as well. "That's the thrust of the paper, to think about what happens if both stars are magnetic," he said. 

Though astronomers studying other types of stars have included magnetic fields in their theories, "it's just a completely different part of parameter space to bring in the role of magnetic fields in the supernova game," Wheeler said. But "it is the way nature works. Things are magnetic. The Sun is magnetic; the Earth is magnetic. The magnetic fields are there. Are they big enough to do something?" 

If a magnetic white dwarf and a magnetic M dwarf are in a binary star pair, Wheeler said, their opposite magnetic poles would attract, and they would become tidally and magnetically locked into a rotation in which the same side of each always faces the other and the poles point directly at one another. In this case, the white dwarf still pulls material off of the M dwarf, but the material would build up on a single spot on the white dwarf that pointed right back at the M dwarf, irradiating it and driving off even more mass, consuming the M dwarf and leading to an eventual explosion. 

Explore further: Next-generation Thirty Meter Telescope begins construction in Hawaii

Related Stories

Supernova progenitor found?

Aug 03, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Type Ia supernovae are violent stellar explosions. Observations of their brightness are used to determine distances in the universe and have shown scientists that the universe is expanding at ...

Binary white dwarf stars

May 04, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- When a star like our sun gets to be very old, after another seven billion years or so, it will no longer be able to sustain burning its nuclear fuel.

Team finds Type Ia supernovae parents

Aug 11, 2011

Type Ia supernovae are violent stellar explosions whose brightness is used to determine distances in the universe. Observing these objects to billions of light years away has led to the discovery that the universe is expanding ...

Our galaxy might hold thousands of ticking 'time bombs'

Sep 06, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the Hollywood blockbuster "Speed," a bomb on a bus is rigged to blow up if the bus slows down below 50 miles per hour. The premise - slow down and you explode - makes for a great action ...

One supernova type, two different sources

May 07, 2012

The exploding stars known as Type Ia supernovae serve an important role in measuring the universe, and were used to discover the existence of dark energy. They're bright enough to see across large distances, ...

Recommended for you

Astronomers measure weight of galaxies, expansion of universe

2 hours ago

Astronomers at the University of British Columbia have collaborated with international researchers to calculate the precise mass of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, dispelling the notion that the two galaxies have similar ...

Mysterious molecules in space

13 hours ago

Over the vast, empty reaches of interstellar space, countless small molecules tumble quietly though the cold vacuum. Forged in the fusion furnaces of ancient stars and ejected into space when those stars ...

Comet Jacques makes a 'questionable' appearance

Jul 28, 2014

What an awesome photo! Italian amateur astronomer Rolando Ligustri nailed it earlier today using a remote telescope in New Mexico and wide-field 4-inch (106 mm) refractor. Currently the brightest comet in ...

Image: Our flocculent neighbour, the spiral galaxy M33

Jul 28, 2014

The spiral galaxy M33, also known as the Triangulum Galaxy, is one of our closest cosmic neighbours, just three million light-years away. Home to some forty billion stars, it is the third largest in the ...

Image: Chandra's view of the Tycho Supernova remnant

Jul 25, 2014

More than four centuries after Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe first observed the supernova that bears his name, the supernova remnant it created is now a bright source of X-rays. The supersonic expansion of ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 26, 2012
"His thought experiment supposes that the white dwarf is magnetic as well. "That's the thrust of the paper, to think about what happens if both stars are magnetic," he said."

Thought experiment? Please, someone point me in the direction of even ONE star that doesn't have a magnetic field. If their models don't include the electromagnetic factors of stars their models will never work. There is very likely a reason the spectral analysis of supernova are so similar to that of lightning.

A2G
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2012
I can see there is another comment from an EU freak, but my filter set at 1.1 protects me again. It is like walking down the street and you see dog crap on the side walk. You don't have to step in it or pick it up to know it is dog crap. You just avoid it.

The EU mixes truth and outright fantasy and then presents it in such a way that leads the reader to believe that "plasma physicists" have given their endorsement of the EU theory. Yet not ONE real plasma physicist does.

As far as I can see Halton Arp and others they mention actually oppose the EU theory even though the EU sites write as though Arp et al endorse them. No credible scientist endorses the complete EU theory. As I wrote before, of course some parts of what they write is true, but the conclusion is wrong.

The guys actually writing for the EU sites are actually "technology enthusiasts" or the like. But not ONE true scientist writes for or endorses the EU fantasy.

The EU is dishonest at its core.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 26, 2012
Distinctions Between Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals

From suppressedscience.net, by Sydney Harris,

#2- The intellectual is evidently motivated by a disinterested love of truth; the pseudo is interested in being right, or being thought to be right, whether he is or not.

#6- The intellectual seeks light from whatever source, realizing that ideas are no respecters of persons and turn up in the most unexpected places from the most improbable people; the pseudo accepts ideas, when he does, only from experts and specialists and certified authorities.

#8- The intellectual recognizes that opposites are not always contradictory, and may indeed reinforce each other; the pseudo paints a picture in black and white, right or wrong, leaving no room for a contrary viewpoint.

#10- The intellectual is courageous in opposing majority opinion, even when it jeopardizes his position; the pseudo slavishly follows "the most reliable authorities" in his field sneering at heresies.
A2G
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2012
Then when presented with the FACT that not ONE credible scientist will have anything to do with them, the EU kooks will instead of pointing to a true scientist that sides with them, that change the subject to avoid the FACTS.

This in not what true scientists do. They answer the objections put to them with a scientific reason as to how what was just said is incorrect.

Name just ONE scientist that is actually associated with the EU drivel. Just ONE. Why in the world of billions of people can there not be found one real scientist who sides with them?

Could it be that they are just wrong and a true scientist spots this immediately?

Go look at the EU site and see what their guru predicted about Io. Then he goes on to proudly proclaim that all he predicted was found to be true. But not one of his predictions of Io is correct. Not one. But the guru of the cult has brainwashed himself into believing what he was right. That is why NOT ONE true scientist will have anything to do with them.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2012
#6
A2G
3 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2012
#11 An idiot is not a problem until he deceives himself into believing he is smart and tries to teach others.
A2G
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2012
To summarize the EU crowd.

#1.No scientists.
#2.No experiments.
#3.A poor understanding of plasma and electricity.
#4.Total willingness to deceive and lie if necessary to support their beliefs.
#5.Predict things and then when they don't go as they predicted they will either a.change the subject. b.blame NASA for modifying photos or data. c.claim they were right all along.
#6 Get their facts from anyone or anything without regard as to the source, and then often mis-apply what they just read.
#7 Openly willing to insult some of the most intelligent people on this planet.
#8 Totally delusional.
#9 Charge you $ to download their crap BS while real scientists share their information freely unless there are Patents etc on the line.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 26, 2012
BTW, Wal Thornhill is a physicist, Don Scott is a retired professor of electrical engineering (UofMass-Amherst, 30yrs). There is also a long list of scientists that took part in their conference last Janurary, 'The Human Story' and are going to take part in their conference in 2013, 'The Tipping Point'. So, as with many of your other comments, this one is spurious at best.
A2G
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2012
BULLSHIT. Wal Thornhill got a B.S. in physics and electronics. He never got any degrees after that. All the EU websites write around this issue. A physicist gets a PHD in physics. He does not have that and therefore is NOT a physicist.

More lies and deception from the EU crowd.
A2G
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2012
If you have qualified scientists then where are their resumes listing their degrees and where they graduated from with that degree. That is why it is not Dr. Wal Thornhill, because he is not.

You can have ten thousand people at your little get together. That does not mean anything.

They get a lot of people at star-trek conventions as well.
A2G
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2012
If the crap on the EU sites was accurate then I wouldn't care about the degrees. But the fact is they don't know what they are talking about and are dishonest in how they say things to get around that fact. Then constantly beating the drum about how the mainstream is f''ked up. How they are brave and unafraid of going against the tide.

Look at the Einstein-Bohr debates. They just wrote about the issue at hand. The EU does not do that. They spend more time talking bad about the brilliant scientists that they get the data from that they then use to promote their own theory.

Every article ever written by an EU proponent has that central feature. The conspiracy of mainstream AP and Cosmology to keep the truth? of the EU suppressed, or at least fail to acknowledge it.

Does Halton Arp who is obviously willing to go against the mainstream side with the EU. NO, he does not. But the EU sites would lead you to believe he does.

That is deception and a lie. The truth will find you out.

A2G
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2012
Another reason I am so hard on the EU proponents is because of the work and experiments that I have undertaken for many years. After all those years of work we are about to publish it all. I can see the writing on the wall already. They will take all of our work and results and try and twist it to fit their crap and then tell everyone who will listen, "See, we were right all along." That is why we are putting a disclaimer on all our research that says we do NOT agree with the EU theory at all.

When people see our actual plasma experiments and see that people with actual plasma experience and knowledge do NOT buy the EU crap then maybe your little fantasy will finally go away.
Allex
3 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
I can see there is another comment from an EU freak, but my filter set at 1.1 protects me again.

Let me help you with that. ;)
There is very likely a reason the spectral analysis of supernova are so similar to that of lightning.

I guess it's similar in the sense it has a nice, pretty, colourful rainbow.
desko marceta
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2012
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.Scientist needed to figure this one out,ZERO.
A2G
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2012
To all the EU proponents.

If you are willing to lie and deceive in order to promote your great "truth", then your great "truth" is nothing but a lie and deception.
A2G
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2012
Then for a question for all the EU proponents. Since none of you have actually done any plasma experiments for yourself, how about you download some free software that is available for the modeling of space plasma? Google "plasma modeling software free" if you can't afford to purchase any one of the many commercially available software products.

When you do that google search you will see just how much research is actually going on with space plasma. The EU constantly whines about how no research is going on is this area and yet you will see there is a tremendous amount of real research going on in the field of plasma physics and space plasma at major institutions.

Why do EU proponents lie about this fact. Because none of the true research backs the EU concepts of how plasma works.

Lies. Lies. Lies. All in the name of their great "truth".
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2012
Maybe the Sun is a remnant of supernova and it's former M dwarf companion still exists as so-called Planet-X, while revolving it around highly eccentric path. At any case, the above study is just another step toward this hypothesis.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2012
There are experiments in the works, in addition to the terella experiments that have taken place over the last 100 years.
http://www.thunde...ric-sun/
No vacuum chambers in these experiments though, low pressure plasma discharge conditions are those employed.

There is a process that takes place in scientific discovery;
1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3. Prediction 4. Testing
The testing phase is beginning.

And who is lying?
We have over a 100 years of testing with terella experiments, in addition to that, their interdisciplinary approach uses well understood physics and findings from a wide range of scientists and disciplines. Your claim that because they reference someone's research that that somehow implies support is an outright lie, they reference research, just as every scientist is expected.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2012
And to point out a few more of your lies, I pulled these from one of their websites;

"Q. You seem to insinuate that there is a conspiracy against Plasma Cosmology!
A. Not really. As has been stated, academic circles are currently dominated by Big Bang proponents, and they tend to promote their own theories, but science will move on."

" Q.You seem to suggest that the mainstream ignores plasma physics?
A. Far from it. The point is that the mainstream thus far assigns little importance to the role of plasma and electromagnetism on cosmic scales. It is one thing to contemplate that space isn't the vacuum once predicted, but quite another to acknowledge that Plasma and its EM interactions may play a role in cosmical structures, from planets and stars to galaxies and super-clusters. The passive role of plasma assumed by the mainstream is wrong!"

"...no knowledge is complete or perfect." Carl Sagan

In no sense do EUT proponents claim to "know it all", a trait you don't share!
A2G
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2012
I have never claimed to know it all and that I why I actually do experiments to see if my concepts are correct. The EUT does not do this. The EUT continues to avoid answering questions. That is why Wal Thornhill insists on questions being presenting in writing before one of the EUT conferences. He avoids the questions that reveal what he is really about. Just as you are doing.

I suspect that you are in fact Wal Thornhill by the way you write and avoid answering direct questions. I have also caught for all to see in lie after lie. You lead people to believe that Arp is on your side, but he disagrees with the EUT entirely.

Wal Thornhill's predictions of evidence on other planets has all been proven false over and over. Every science site that allows commenting is polluted by the EUT nonsense and everywhere it is put forth it is derided by science facts.

The truth will win out. I doubt many people will be at your conferences once the truth comes out about your lies.
A2G
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2012
OK Cantdrive or Wal, whoever you are. I just checked out your SAFIRE project proposal headed up by yet another non qualified person without a degree. Then even in that SAFIRE video I see your proposal for how that experiment is going to be designed.

Are you f''ing kidding me. That will never work. But go for it.

Then of the actual footage of plasma in a vacuum chamber I see two balls that plasma goes to. BFD. So what? That means nothing. It also proves how clueless you EUT guys are on real plasma.

By posting that vid instead of looking like you know what you are doing, it only exposes the ignorance of the EUT to people who have actually worked with plasma. There are high school kids that have done more relavant plasma research. Just google "fusor" videos on youtube. These high school students are sharper than the EUT guys.

You still have not provided ONE name, just ONE, of anyone qualified who has any degrees relating to the EU theory.

Just give us ONE name that we can check.
A2G
2 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2012
Wal, then the super rotation seen at the equator of the Sun, we have already achieved in our experiments. Your SAFIRE thingy will never do that. You are just repeating what Birkleland did and he never saw it.

Our experiments also prove that there is a tie to internal flowing fields within the Sun, aka dynamo. So that pretty much will end the whole electric universe joke. Wal Thornhill et al, should have done some experiments before going in front of the whole world proclaiming to be "experts" above everyone else in the field.

The EUT theory does have a few things correct, but those things are not really considered to be any different in the mainstream. So that is no big deal either.

As someone who has actually completed hundreds of plasma experiments, I can guarantee that the EUT is total BS.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2012
Hi A2G. Mate, you're starting to sound as 'repetitive' and 'zealous' as those whom you attack. :) Please bear in mind that electric/magnetic phenomena occurs on scales ranging from inside stars to intertellar/galactic space distances. There are 'relict fields' already observed even in the most 'tenuous' regions of 'empty space'. In fact, my own conjecture is that the DARK MATTER observations will eventually be shown to be the cumulative 'energy-matter' gravity-effect of all the free/relict electro-magnetic radiations/fields (photons and magnetic/electric field 'sub-component particles') which have aggregated all over the place over the eons which have not been 'locked into' any of the usual 'normal features' which we have observed to date. Even in low strengths, such fields accumulating/acting over eons will inevitably produce some effects which may influence all the other lesser quantities/processes of 'normal content' we observed so far.

Very busy. Can't stay. Be cool. Cheers all.
A2G
3.3 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2012
Hi Rc, I know am being zealous. This is my life's work and it is being corrupted by the EUT crap. They claim that Hannes Alfven was one who believed as they do. One of them even uses Hannes name here.

Hannes was the father of Magnetohydrodynamics. But the EU theory does not even acknowledge the MHD aspects of Hannes Alfven for which he received the nobel prize and yet will twist what Alfven believed about MHD. Check for yourself.

In a discussion of Io Volcanoes I gave a description based on MHD and then I waited and waited for cantdrive to see that. But it went right over his head and he went back to the electric current coming from space.

Go read about MHD. Through MHD electric currents are generated by a moving magnetic field. So here a EUT proponent points to Hannes Alfven as a source and then totally misses it when the theory that Alfven was known for. This exposed how much he really understands that of which he writes. very little. Google Magnetohydrodynamics, you will see.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2012
A moving magnetic field indicates electric currents, they are one in the same, in such a scenario, there is not one without the other. That's why it's called electromagnetism, Maxwell determined this almost 200 years ago.
A2G
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2012
Cantdrive. You very clearly do NOT understand Hannes Alfven's own work, and yet you dare to use his work. I know you can read wiki, so I will a quote from their on MHD. Magnetohydrodynamics.

"The fundamental concept behind MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which in turn creates forces on the fluid and also changes the magnetic field itself."

So the moving magnetic field GENERATES the electricity and Hannes Alfven got his noble prize for this. Then you have the stupidity to try and think you understand what you are talking about.

I repeat you do NOT even understand the basic electric and magnetic connection. They are not one in the same. You can have a static magnet with no electricity. The magnet has to move to GENERATE electricity. But you can't have electricity without a magnetic field. GOT IT? Ever worked with mercury in an intense magnetic field. No of course you haven't. But I bet you can google it.
A2G
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2012
The first recorded use of the word magnetohydrodynamics is by Hannes Alfvén in 1942:

"At last some remarks are made about the transfer of momentum from the Sun to the planets, which is fundamental to the theory (§11). The importance of the magnetohydrodynamic waves in this respect are pointed out."[2]
The ebbing salty water flowing past London's Waterloo Bridge interacts with the Earth's magnetic field to produce a potential difference between the two river-banks. Michael Faraday tried this experiment in 1832 but the current was too small to measure with the equipment at the time,[3] and the river bed contributed to short-circuit the signal. However, by a similar process the voltage induced by the tide in the English Channel was measured in 1851.[4]

BUT to the EUT crowd the electricity made the water flow down the river.

You were just proven totally wrong by a quote from Hannes Alfven himself. hahahahhahhahahahhahhah. You are clueless.
A2G
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2012
Then I know you will jump to electrons having a magnetic component and say, "see you were wrong". Electrons do not generate usable electricity without being part of a field which is flowing. What causes that flow?

You remind me of a guy who had a proposal for my physicist buddy and me. He proudly drew a diagram of electricity going in a circle. Then he said, "so you can get the electricity going around and around in this circle and then you put a generator or something in the circle in a way to pull endless energy out of that circle of electricity going around and around.

My physicist buddy and I just looked at each other and laughed.

You have to have potential to have flow and something has to GENERATE that potential. That is what is missing from the EUT.

Where does that potential come from? A thunderbolt of the gods?

You need to be spending your time learning and not trying to teach things which you do not understand.
A2G
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2012
Question: What can you find on Gilligan's Island that you cannot find among those endorsing the "Electric Universe" theory?

Answer: A professor.

But they try and make up for it with a lot of Gilligans.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2012
So then I ask you, what is the potential that causes the magnetic field to move?
A2G
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2012
You will find out next month. Besides it is so over your head from the understanding of MHD that you have shown so far.

Then why should I try and help you when the EU crew has insulted scientist after scientist in absolutely disgusting ways. That is why I treat you the way I do. You do not see me doing that to anyone else, even if I disagree with them. That is the way true scientists do things.

I also take great offense at the EU crew always falsely misleading people as to their real backgrounds. That is dishonest to the core, and through the years I have found that if someone is willing to openly lie or mislead someone, then you can't trust anything they say or believe. Once you start to misrepresent the truth in science, you are no longer a scientist, with or without degrees. That is my main problem. You are openly misleading people as you have tried to do with me. But those who know the truth, the real scientists, immediately see the lie, for we live on the truth.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2012
I know, it's dark energy pushing the magnetic field. I was under the impression "real" scientists readily share their info and knowledge. You sound like a snake oil salesman. All talk, no action. Lot's of claims about how EU is wrong and contrived by liars and frauds, but when asked a simple question the response is "later". Who, I ask, is the charlatan? Until you are willing to answer the simple question STFU!
A2G
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2012
Hannes Alfven would be embarrassed if he knew one of the EU crew was using his name here. You don't even understand the basics of the theory of the real Hannes who starting MHD. When I used it to that Hannes without calling it MHD by name it went entirely over his head. Your entire EU theory id s non starter due to this little formula. You guys say you understand electricity, so do the math. It is a tough one, but try and keep up.

I=V/R to explain to you in case you don't know electricity like you say you do. I=current V=voltage R=resistance.

It does not matter if the circuit is 1 mm in diameter or ten trillion light years. The same formula applies.

So in that formula where does you outside energy come from?

If you really want to test Wal Thornhill Electric Sun idea then you can do it right now. Turn on a light bulb and get the current going. Now take a wire and short around the light bulb.

If the light bulb stays on you win.
A2G
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2012
I am proving by all to see that I do know what I am talking about. You unfornately are just too stupid for your own good. Look at the votes here. Look at how people rate your comments. Are they all deluded? Maybe you guys are? You have to lie about volcanoes on Io. You mislead people and openly lie.

The thing that will bring down the EUT will be the people like you pushing it. That is all it takes. Just keep posting and exposing your ignorance for all to see.

BTW the Sun is fusion powered no matter what Wal or all the rest of the EU crew believes and that is where the energy comes from for the little formula to go round and round.

All the measurements from NASA et al confirm that FACT.

You EU guys just think you can just turn off the switch and the lights will stay on. You have all lost the plot.

A2G
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2012
Then you actually asked me this,

"So then I ask you, what is the potential that causes the magnetic field to move?"

when Hannes Alfven had already answered it many years ago and I posted it not but a few comments up.

"The ebbing salty water flowing past London's Waterloo Bridge interacts with the Earth's magnetic field to produce a potential difference between the two river-banks."

So again think deeply. What makes the water flow past the bridge? Do you really want to think it is electricity? You can't be that dense. There is the potential required to make our tough little math problem go around and the light to stay on. The potential is provided in this case by gravity.

There now, was that so tough? Please just stop. You are your own cause's worst enemy.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2012
Alfven was clear that MHD applied only to dense plasmas such as the Sun, it does not apply to most space plasma. His protege Anthony Peratt indicated that electric currents are a natural occurrence in non-homogeneous space plasma. Those force-free currents will display dark, glow, or arc discharge mode. The currents are there, NASA acknowledges radio telescopes see them everywhere, regardless of your opinion, and have been viewed from planetary to megaparsec scales. EU theorists make no attempt to presume where these currents originate, the fact of the matter is that they are there.

You gave me an analogy that has zero relevance in a plasma discussion, especially considering gravity has such a negligible effect on plasma.

The fusion model is still very much a theory and science is not an exercise in the democratic process.
A2G
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2012
CD what you just wrote is total nonsense, but you are too blind to see that. Therefore, I have no more time for you. I have work to do. Experiments to run.

You should try some. I suggest you go to radio shack and buy a kit for kids to learn about electricity. Then you would realize how ridiculous the whole EU theory is.

Anthony Peratt spent his time looking at primitive people's rock graffiti trying to find evidence of auroras or other events in the sky. Then he took that graffiti and called it scientific recordings throughout history. Your whole thing is one big clusterfuck.
A2G
2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2012
You just don't get it. I have tried to make the point to you over and over and over in so many ways. But I will give it one more go.

I=V/R This formula requires a potential for there to be current.

This applies even with plasma in space that is ten trillion years long. So in order to have current you have to have a circuit to enable that flow. It doesn't just floooowww, no matter what some graffiti affectionado thinks. I can make an electric sun. But guess what? it goes out when you turn off the power. You have to have a source of power somewhere in the circuit to explain where the power comes from. Remember Hiroshima? There is the power of E=MC2.

In order to prove the EUT you would have to be able to not only make an electric sun, you would have to be able to run it without any external power input. Do you really think Wal Thornhill has the brains to pull that off? I assure you he does not.
A2G
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2012
CD and Hannes, or should I say Wal?

Since you obviously do not understand basic electricity lets try it this way.

We have a hose with water going through it at high speed. We take that hose and arrange it into a circle. Any size circle you want, doesn't matter. Then we have this clever valve system that allows us to instantly switch our pressure supply that created the flow in the first place so that the flowing circle of water in our hose can just keep going round and round.

How long do you think the water will keep going round and round?

In the above analogy the:

a. flow of the water = current (I)
b. the walls of the hose are most all of the resistance (R)
c. the pressure of the water in the hose is voltage (V)

So you see the EUT theory is easily disproved yet again. Until that is you can get water to flow round and round in a hose in a circle without external supply of differential pressure.

Have you got it yet? Most 9th graders would by now.

A2G
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2012
The trouble with the EUT crew is that they look at the problems facing the blackhole, DM, and DE theories in the universe. They believe that that present idea is not correct, as do many mainstream scientists. SO the EUT is not taking some heroic lone stand despite what you may think. There are very brilliant scientists who also have totally different opinions of string theory. Some think it is the answer to everything and others think it is total BS.

But the EUT Gilligan's see the problem's with the mainstream ideas and think that therefore automatically their theory is correct.

Even if you could prove that blackholes do not exist, that dark matter is a myth, and dark energy is a total farce, you still have not proven the EUT to be correct. Not at all. In fact the EUT is the easier to disprove theory I have encountered since the guy tried to convince my physicist buddy and I to make electricity go round and round in circles without any external power input.

You are just as clueless.
A2G
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2012
If you stop CD, Hannes, or Wal I will leave you alone. I will not make any comments in reference to the EUT at all. But if you keep going I am going to make you look more stupid than you already appear. I am not going to stand by and let someone corrupt the field of plasma physics, (my field) without attacking them and setting the record straight. Your best course of action is to find a new hobby. For I promise you, you are totally wrong in the total EUT theory. You have a few things correct, but the basic I=V/R destroys your theory before you even start.

So if you stop posting your nonsense I will be quiet in regards to the EUT.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2012
Hi again, A2G. Another reminder. Your water flow in hose loop example is not appropriate. The Superconducting Ring and Superfluidic Loop flow examples would be more appropriate.

Everyone, please also bear in mind that when all is said and done, every new discovery makes it increasingly apparent that the universes' underlying energy-space 'primary quantum vacuum' behaves as THE ultimate form of an infinitesimal-quanta field of superconducting/superfluidic "plasma" that is neutral at base 'ground state', but separable by symmetry-breaking into flows of 'energy-space charges' at the most fundamental level/scale from which we get all the higher-order neutral/charged "plasma" etc phenomena.

Again, can't stay. Very busy. Cheers and good luck and good thinking all!
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2012
Once again you admit that you are a complete liar and fraud. You claimed to be well versed in the EUT but you clearly do NOT understand one of the basic premises of the EUT, that stars and galaxies are EXTERNALLY powered with these very birkeland currents you deny exist. NASA may call them "magnetic flux tubes", or "neutral H molecular clouds", or "galactic jets" , or in the rare case they get it right, such as correctly describing them Jupiter/Io connection, there are the radio signatures of these currents laced in a web throughout the universe. As I said, EUT proponents do not presuppose an origin for these currents, but the fact remains that they are there. I'll repeat it again, according to Anthony Peratt, birkeland currents are EXPECTED in non-homogeneous space plasma. You should know with all your "research" that when you have two adjacent plasma clouds with different potential a current will be the result.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2012
.... when you have two adjacent plasma clouds with different potential a current will be the result.


To try to reduce the pseudo-science content, let me give you a hint. Perhaps the question A2G was asking wasn't simplified enough for you: what power source generates and maintains that potential difference.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2012
Fleet,
EUT does not make any presumptions as to what started it all, the fact remains we regularly observe such scenarios of areas of plasma with different potential.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2012
Fleet,
EUT does not make any presumptions as to what started it all, ..


Trying the same strawman again? The question wasn't what "started" it but what power source maintains it. Stars radiate energy as photons, what replenishes that lost power? Without such a source, you have the classic "perpetual motion machine".

.. the fact remains we regularly observe such scenarios of areas of plasma with different potential.


What measurement technique can directly tell you the potential of a nebulae? The FACT is that we have never "observed" the electrical potential of any astronomical object. Don't make the mistake of being fooled by your own propaganda or confusing inference for observation.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2012
I'm going to borrow this from Hannes, the poster, not the dead guy.
"and yet anybody can look up plasma's VI curve, and if the curve is carefully drawn, see that V never hits zero. Hence, V/I never hits zero, hence there is some tiny R."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

As far as the potential of a nebula, the illustration at the top of this article show the areas of different potential, the temperature of the plasma indicates this;
http://phys.org/n...lar.html

And this describes those currents;
http://plasmauniv...ratt.pdf
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2012
The question wasn't what "started" it but what power source maintains it. Stars radiate energy as photons, what replenishes that lost power? Without such a source, you have the classic "perpetual motion machine".


What is the plasma cosmology explanation?

I'm going to borrow this from Hannes, the poster, not the dead guy.
"and yet anybody can look up plasma's VI curve, and if the curve is carefully drawn, see that V never hits zero. Hence, V/I never hits zero, hence there is some tiny R."


Ohms Law: R=V/I

If I=0 but "V never hits zero" then R goes to infinity. That's an original meaning for "tiny".

the fact remains we regularly observe such scenarios of areas of plasma with different potential.
What measurement technique can directly tell you the potential of a nebulae?
.. the illustration at the top of this article show the areas of different potential


OK, potential is measured in volts so show me how you calculate the voltage on different areas.
A2G
2 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2012
Fleetfoot, You are confusing the children with math problems. :)

I believe they also think a volt is a chevy. It is really hard to see why they want every one to believe that the energy is just there with no source to supply it.

About half of the stuff on their websites totally falls apart if you just go investigate the sources for yourself.

I was looking into the stuff they talk about on Io. It really couldn't be more wrong and yet Wal Thornhill believes his predictions are extremely accurate.

Delusion at its worst.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Nov 01, 2012
Fleetfoot, You are confusing the children with math problems. :)


I know, but anyone posting under the name of Hannes Alfven really should learn Ohm's Law first. I don't think he even knows he was claiming that plasma is an insulator ;-)