ITN: Primordial Deep Space Magnetic Fields

[CraigS]

In the News:

Universal, primordial magnetic fields discovered in deep space

Scientists from the California Institute of Technology and UCLA have discovered evidence of "universal ubiquitous magnetic fields" that have permeated deep space between galaxies since the time of the Big Bang.
…
"We found the signs of primordial magnetic fields in deep space between galaxies," Ando said.
…
Physicists have hypothesized for many years that a universal magnetic field should permeate deep space between galaxies, but there was no way to observe it or measure it until now.
...
"Because space is filled with background radiation left over from the Big Bang, as well as emitted from galaxies, high-energy photons emitted by a distant source can interact with the background photons and convert into electron-positron pairs, which interact in their turn and convert back into a group of photons somewhat later,"

They compiled a composite image of 170 black holes and began to ponder why the images weren't as sharp as expected.

I wonder if this might lead to an explanation of redshift anomalies from Quasars ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Maybe.....having e-p pairs popping into and out of existence from high energy photons emitted from the quasars colliding with others in the back/foreground would probably cause some anomaly in the redshift, if not taken into account.

The EU will love this, you watch the "charge separation" come out and rear its head..."no magnetic fields without a flow of charge" they'll say

[CraigS]

Interesting. I have the paper (haven't read it yet).

I wonder how this meshes with the thread I posted the other day about the possibility that Intergalactic Magnetic fields may originate from SR's spacetime distortions ..

"Origin of magnetic fields may lie in special relativity's spacetime distortions"

Must be a reasonably hot topic.

Will read up & report later.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Your friends won't be happy about this (from the paper's Introduction) ..

Intergalactic magnetic fields (IGMF) had not been measured until now, despite their importance for gamma-ray and cosmic-ray astronomy and their likely connection to the primordial fields that could have seeded the stronger magnetic fields observed in galaxies, Sun, and Earth. This is because IGMF are too small for conventional astronomical probes, such as Zeeman splitting or Faraday rotation.

Unlike the fields in galaxies, which are believed to have been amplified by the dynamo action of the large-scale convective motions of gas, the fields in voids remain low, close to their primordial values modified only by the relatively small contribution of the fields leaking out of galaxies (Kronberg 1994; Grasso & Rubinstein 2001; Widrow 2002; Kulsrud & Zweibel 2008).

The observational and theoretical upper bounds on IGMF constrain their magnitudes to be below 10∧−9 G (Barrow, Ferreira & Silk 1997), whereas any value above ∼10∧−30 G is sufficient to explain the ∼ μG Galactic magnetic fields generation by the dynamo mechanism (Davis, Lilley & T ̈ornkvist 1999).

One can detect such extremely weak fields using high-energy gamma rays (Aharonian, Coppi & Volk 1994; Plaga 1995).

Chuckle, chuckle …

Interesting to see them putting a value to the field strengths.

Cheers
PS: That should read ten to the minus 9 Gauss and ten to the minus 30 Gauss.
Also, 1 Tesla (SI Units) = 1000 Gauss (cgs Units).

[renormalised (Carl)]

They're no friends of mine!!!

Your average galactic magnetic field is in the nanotesla range in strength...barely even there!!!!. As they say, it's even worse for fields in the IGMF. You'd have a better chance of detecting the field around a bar magnet from 10 billion light years than you would of finding an IGMF.

[CraigS]

Yep.

It almost qualifies as a Higgs field .. or aether .. or a quantum field (?).

Like perhaps, what ended up as a Big Bang ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

The tiny bit of magnetite in a pigeons brain has a bigger field. Some humans have this as well as has been shown by experiment. They have an innate sense of direction! I once found the only western pub in Tsukuba Japan by following my nose!

Bert

[snas (Stuart)]

Bert

I always thought that I had an excellent innate sense of direction. Even when I was working on a little 2 250 000 acre cattle station in the territory where I had never been before. We were droving cattle from the top of the property back to a set of yards. The aboriginal stockmen knew the property very well and had certainly been there way longer than I had. They said, we gotta go dis way. I said, no, we gotta go that way. Wiser heads prevailed and we went their way. After several hours, we came out of the scrub into a clearing and there, about 3km to our west, was the windmill where the set of yards was, right where I said we should have been heading.
But a few years later I went to work in England.On my first day at work there I was sent to assist a cow in labour. Go down this road, then head north on the motorway I was told. So I went down the road and promptly headed south. Not because I could see the sun and therefore assumed that was north (well, the sun had always been to my north at home). The sun was nowhere to be seen. it was my innate sense of direction that "knew" that way was north. It took me a few months to get my head around British direction. Then I went to go surfing in Cornwall and stood, for the first time in my life, on a west coast. That stuffed me up again. Coast had always been east.
Hmm, no wonder I never bumped into you in a Japanese pub.

Stuart

[snas (Stuart)]

By the way, when I told the poms that the cattle station I had worked on was 5 times bigger than the area within the M25 (motorway circling London), they said I was lying.

But, I wasn't

Stuart

[renormalised (Carl)]

Get a load of this bunch of science illiterate twits trying to understand something they have no idea about....

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB...php?f=3&t=3732

Alex hasn't a clue....neither he or the others have probably even read the article and understood what it says. It's pretty obvious from their statements.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Get a load of this bunch of science illiterate twits trying to understand something they have no idea about....

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB...php?f=3&t=3732

Alex hasn't a clue....neither he or the others have probably even read the article and understood what it says. It's pretty obvious from their statements.

So, they seem to have fogotten that the subject is about Intergalactic Magnetic Fields … from the paper (as distinct from the article):

Unlike the fields in galaxies, which are believed to have been amplified by the dynamo action of the large-scale convective motions of gas

Alex then jumps on the band-wagon and explains the distortion of a distant black hole 'image' as being due to the magnetic field interference disrupting photons. He does this with a picture of a quasar followed by some plasma looking thingy .. the implication being that the plasma thingy IS what mainstream thinks of as a black hole … and then reverses the spin by saying that the plasma thingy IS the black hole and mainstream has got cause & effect mixed up, because that's what the holy scriptures tell him.

Then of course, to triumph over all, (and win his domination game play) he shows mainstream that, out of his benevolence, he sees that mainstream will eventually get there … someday.

Then we end up with a closing photo of a plasmaball in Wiki which is used by Wiki as an example to explain the term "anisotropy", because plasma balls do display 'Magnetic anisotropy' quite nicely.

What a screw around and changes in spin to deflect anyone from delving into the mish-mash of issues and coming to a mainstream view !

Man he must be drawing some kind of huge salary from doing this !!
Wonder where it comes from ?

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by avandonk

The tiny bit of magnetite in a pigeons brain has a bigger field. Some humans have this as well as has been shown by experiment. They have an innate sense of direction! I once found the only western pub in Tsukuba Japan by following my nose!

Bert

And that was despite the fact that you just arrived there from southern hemisphere?
It must have been something else apart from magnetic field that your nose was telling you

Originally Posted by snas

.... I went to go surfing in Cornwall and stood, for the first time in my life, on a west coast. That stuffed me up again. Coast had always been east.
Hmm, no wonder I never bumped into you in a Japanese pub.

I was extremely and hopelessly disoriented for more than a year after migrating here to Melbourne from Europe... Always mixing directions, until I bought me a compass... But on my first business trip to North (to HK and Macau) I felt like at home instantly, always knowing which direction I am facing.

These days I am OK...

[avandonk]

It was mere chance Bojan I will admit it. Everybody at the Synchrotron said the chances of me finding the place were miniscule. The place was run by an expatriate Aussie and a Canadian They were open but could not sell alcoholic drinks until 6PM. The strange thing was like nearly everything in Japan they could legally give me free drinks and if I decided to pay later it was totally up to me, it was not obligatory. Needless to say after 6PM I paid for all the previous drinks for one simple reason I would not get any more drinks! Even the Japanese blokes at the Synchrotron were amazed I found the place. Galactic magnetic fields had nothing to do with it. It was blind faith that got me there!
Or at least I was blind when I left!

Bert

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Hi Craig, it might be best to clarify a few things as you are reading threads with an audience that might be more well versed in PC literature... so some confusion might arise.

Originally Posted by CraigS

So, they seem to have fogotten that the subject is about Intergalactic Magnetic Fields … from the paper (as distinct from the article):

No. This is an expected feature of plasma cosmology. Those who have absorbed the PC literature are well aware of the intergalactic nature of these fields, as described by Alfven, Peratt. There is also no confusion that the "intergalactic" magnetic fields may or may not be directly connected with the nucleus being studied. The irony is that the "expected" magnetic fields are getting "in the way" of photographing a "gravity-blackhole".

What may also challenge mainstream "gas" model is that the galaxies seem to align their rotation and essentially form knots on Intergalactic birkeland currents. This can be found from the anisotrophy link you mentioned, have a look around on that wiki entry. The galactic rotation anisotropies are expected features of this PC model. Again this is well know to PCers and the majority of the audience at TB, and part of the danger of Carl mining from differing intended audiences to form a psuedo-skeptical argument.

Originally Posted by CraigS

Alex then jumps on the band-wagon and explains the distortion of a distant black hole 'image' as being due to the magnetic field interference disrupting photons. He does this with a picture of a quasar followed by some plasma looking thingy .. the implication being that the plasma thingy IS what mainstream thinks of as a black hole … and then reverses the spin by saying that the plasma thingy IS the black hole and mainstream has got cause & effect mixed up, because that's what the holy scriptures tell him.

Again Alfven and Peratt have described their models. The "cause and effect" mixup is that with the PC hypothesis, galaxies are fed current from outside and are not "powered by" the hypothesised black hole.

Notably this z-pinch behaviour can be both computer modeled, and experimented with in the lab. You have no doubt seen the image of a z-pinch i posted. Why quote Lerner so much, well he amongst other groups is currently using these natural instabilities of plasma to form pinches to; produce temperatures required for fusion and also to model in the lab the waveforms of solar activity.

Originally Posted by CraigS

Then of course, to triumph over all, (and win his domination game play) he shows mainstream that, out of his benevolence, he sees that mainstream will eventually get there … someday.

No game play, the models and cause and effect are clearly different.
1) Gravity dominated galaxy formation models have do not make predictions of galaxy alignment
2) PC it is a clear lab demonstrated feature

Originally Posted by CraigS

Then we end up with a closing photo of a plasmaball in Wiki which is used by Wiki as an example to explain the term "anisotropy", because plasma balls do display 'Magnetic anisotropy' quite nicely.

nice pictures aye.... now... put some pinched plasma activity or knots in those 'flux toobs' and youll have the picture for the model of galaxy-rotation-axis anisotropy. Can gravity neutral gas models predict that?

Originally Posted by CraigS

What a screw around and changes in spin to deflect anyone from delving into the mish-mash of issues and coming to a mainstream view !

Man he must be drawing some kind of huge salary from doing this !!
Wonder where it comes from ?

Cheers

The audience at TB is well aware of the PC models and so would understand many of these existing dichotomies, i accept IIS-ers may not be, thus causing some uncomfort to you and those who are only familiar with neutral "gas" style models.

The two models are different, and testable predictions exist between them. These observations come as no "surprise" to the existing bank of PC literature.

The name calling and suggestion that my passionate curiosity, to explore this model amongst others, is fueled by a monetary benefit is just distracting nonsense.

All the best,

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Hi Craig, it might be best to clarify a few things as you are reading threads with an audience that might be more well versed in PC literature... so some confusion might arise.

Originally Posted by CraigS

So, they seem to have fogotten that the subject is about Intergalactic Magnetic Fields … from the paper (as distinct from the article):

No. This is an expected feature of plasma cosmology. Those who have absorbed the PC literature are well aware of the intergalactic nature of these fields, as described by Alfven, Peratt.

What may also challenge a mainstream "gas" model is that the galaxies align their rotation and essentially form knots on Intergalactic birkeland currents. This can be found from the anisotrophy link you mentioned. The galactic rotation anisotropies are expected features of this model. Again this is well know to PCers and the majority of the audience at TB.

Originally Posted by CraigS

Alex then jumps on the band-wagon and explains the distortion of a distant black hole 'image' as being due to the magnetic field interference disrupting photons. He does this with a picture of a quasar followed by some plasma looking thingy .. the implication being that the plasma thingy IS what mainstream thinks of as a black hole … and then reverses the spin by saying that the plasma thingy IS the black hole and mainstream has got cause & effect mixed up, because that's what the holy scriptures tell him.

Again Alfven and Peratt have described their models. The "cause and effect" mixup is that with the PC hypothesis, galaxies are fed current from outside and are not "powered by" the hypothesised black hole.

Notably this behaviour can be both computer modeled, and experimented with in the lab. You have no doubt seen the image of a z-pinch i posted.

Originally Posted by CraigS

Then of course, to triumph over all, (and win his domination game play) he shows mainstream that, out of his benevolence, he sees that mainstream will eventually get there … someday.

No game play, the models and cause and effect are clearly different.
1) Gravity dominated galaxy formation models have do not make predictions of galaxy alignment
2) PC it is a clear lab demonstrated feature

Originally Posted by CraigS

Then we end up with a closing photo of a plasmaball in Wiki which is used by Wiki as an example to explain the term "anisotropy", because plasma balls do display 'Magnetic anisotropy' quite nicely.

nice pictures

Originally Posted by CraigS

What a screw around and changes in spin to deflect anyone from delving into the mish-mash of issues and coming to a mainstream view !

Man he must be drawing some kind of huge salary from doing this !!
Wonder where it comes from ?

Cheers

The audience at TB is well aware of the PC models and so would understand many of these existing dichotomies, i accept IIS-ers may not be, thus causing some uncomfort to you and those who are only familiar with neutral "gas" style models.

The two models are different, and testable predictions exist between them. These observations come as no "surprise" to the existing bank of PC literature.

The name calling and suggestion that my passionate curiosity, to explore this model amongst others, is fueled by a monetary benefit is just distracting nonsense.

All the best,

[CraigS]

G'Day Alex;

Welcome back.
I'll have a ponder on your clarifications before commenting further.

Actually after I wrote my analysis below, I did feel guilty for the personal comment at the end. That was uncalled for and I apologise.

In your absence however, I have followed up many, many paths you left behind previously and I just keep coming up with blanks and blind alleyways. I honestly have tried to keep an open mind on the PC material but I'm afraid it just doesn't latch.

I will have more of a think on your critique below.

Once again apologies for the personal comment.
It was out of frustration from attempting the quantum leap in thinking and having spent a considerable amount of time in so doing, with little reward for the effort.

Good of you to keep me honest. Lesson learnt.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

No. This is an expected feature of plasma cosmology. Those who have absorbed the PC literature are well aware of the intergalactic nature of these fields, as described by Alfven, Peratt. There is also no confusion that the "intergalactic" magnetic fields may or may not be directly connected with the nucleus being studied. The irony is that the "expected" magnetic fields are getting "in the way" of photographing a "gravity-blackhole".

What may also challenge mainstream "gas" model is that the galaxies seem to align their rotation and essentially form knots on Intergalactic birkeland currents. This can be found from the anisotrophy link you mentioned, have a look around on that wiki entry. The galactic rotation anisotropies are expected features of this PC model. Again this is well know to PCers and the majority of the audience at TB, and part of the danger of Carl mining from differing intended audiences to form a psuedo-skeptical argument.

Right Alex, let's put this nonsense of yours to bed once and for all, because quite frankly the amount of drivel I have seen over at Thunderbolts and here written by you and others is just more of the same old garbage I have regularly seen coming from your camp.

If you read the paper and actually understood what they had to say, you'd know it's the particle interactions caused by the fields that is the problem...i.e. the e-p pairs that are popping up and being deflected that are causing the problems (from Physics.org)....

The physicists produced a composite image of 170 giant black holes and discovered that the images were not as sharp as expected.
"Because space is filled with background radiation left over from the Big Bang, as well as emitted from galaxies, high-energy photons emitted by a distant source can interact with the background photons and convert into electron-positron pairs, which interact in their turn and convert back into a group of photons somewhat later," said Kusenko, who is also a senior scientist at the University of Tokyo's Institute for Physics and Mathematics of the Universe.
"While this process by itself does not blur the image significantly, even a small magnetic field along the way can deflect the electrons and positrons, making the image fuzzy," he said.
From such blurred images, the researchers found that the average magnetic field had a "femto-Gauss" strength, just one-quadrillionth of the Earth's magnetic field. The universal magnetic fields may have formed in the early universe shortly after the Big Bang, long before stars and galaxies formed, Ando and Kusenko said.

So, get your facts straight Alex before you go accusing me of mining from "different audiences", which is a load of nonsense to begin with. The galactic fields of Alfven and Peratt are that many orders of magnitude out of kilter it's not funny...you have actual measured fields on the order of femto gauss and smaller, whereas Peratt et al expect to see tesla range fields!!!!

You have been challenged any number of times in the past to show observationally verifiable evidence for your next contention here and yet all you have done, as before is quote the same old ideological line. Alfven and Peratt have said this and that....not good enough Alex. They have no proof and neither do you. All they have is unverifiable and rather sketchy hypotheses based on dubious lab models at best, which bear no relationship to anything that has been found and all your scientifically illiterate mob have done is take the fantasy nonsense of Talbott and Thornhill and made some mish-mash of it. Pseudo-skepticism.....what's this, another byword of EU. And what makes things even worse is that you're so willing to take Peratt and Alfven at their word yet you immediately decry anyone else with a differing opinion and make comment on the invalidity of their maths. I hate to tell you this, Alex, but your "mentors" use maths too, you know. The same maths that everyone else uses. That same maths you call into question and think is unnecessary. You're full of it, you and the rest of your mob.

Again Alfven and Peratt have described their models. The "cause and effect" mixup is that with the PC hypothesis, galaxies are fed current from outside and are not "powered by" the hypothesised black hole.

Notably this z-pinch behaviour can be both computer modeled, and experimented with in the lab. You have no doubt seen the image of a z-pinch i posted. Why quote Lerner so much, well he amongst other groups is currently using these natural instabilities of plasma to form pinches to; produce temperatures required for fusion and also to model in the lab the waveforms of solar activity.

Where's this "current" coming from Alex. From "outside" the galaxies, I see. Then if that's the case, where are the magnetic fields being generated by these currents??. They most certainly wouldn't be generating femto gauss scale magnetic fields, Alex. To be able to generate the currents you propose to power stars, nebulae, galactic rotation etc etc, you'd need massive amounts of current being generated. This would generate all sorts of high energy radiation in vast and copious quantities. Where's your observational evidence, Alex. You don't have any because it doesn't exist. And, as I said previously, where is this current coming from and what is generating it. You can't say where it's coming from or what's generating it because it doesn't exist. If it did, they would have found it years ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be a moot point.

No game play, the models and cause and effect are clearly different.
1) Gravity dominated galaxy formation models have do not make predictions of galaxy alignment
2) PC it is a clear lab demonstrated feature

What a lot of complete and utter BS. In answer to your first statement, there is no alignment in the first place except that which maybe an aberration of your own observations. And as far as your second one is concerned, there is no lab tested evidence for PC or galaxy alignment whatsoever except according to the hearsay of those trying to push it.

The audience at TB is well aware of the PC models and so would understand many of these existing dichotomies, i accept IIS-ers may not be, thus causing some uncomfort to you and those who are only familiar with neutral "gas" style models.

The two models are different, and testable predictions exist between them. These observations come as no "surprise" to the existing bank of PC literature.

The audience at TB is doing nothing more than paraphrasing what Peratt, Lerner, Scott and other have said. I would seriously doubt that anyone of you would have the background to be able to actually understand the science behind it in the first place. How many of you actually have degrees in plasma physics, astrophysics or anything for that matter. Maybe a few of you have science or other degrees....basic degrees. The rest of you have nothing but high school education at best. And yet you declare yourselves competent and qualified enough to be able to make definitive pronouncements in these fields??!!!! Give me a break!!!. What amount of work and study has Peratt and Co done in astrophysics and astronomy??? Not much, or they've completely forgotten what they had been taught, if they did do any.

It's a waste of time arguing with you, Alex. All you do is roll out the same old EU/PC nonsense, post the same old diatribe with the same old examples and use the same old arguments in order to try and justify the same old nonsense that you've always had the gall to post. You have consistently dodged all attempts at getting you to cough up the proof we have asked of you, to explain it in proper scientific terms and examples of reasoning...not based on paraphrasing of others and posting links to Youtube and journal papers. Anyone can do that to make it look like they're onto something. You explain it in your own words and your own knowledge of the subjects. How much physics and astronomy do you really know, Alex?? I suspect very little. Those of us who have been arguing in the negative here having nothing to prove. Many of us have higher degrees in the fields we've been talking about. Some have degrees in related fields. That's why we get annoyed when people such as yourself come along and claim you have alternatives to accepted theory and empirical knowledge, when you have little or no background in any of it to begin with. And you expect us to just sit hear and listen to the tripe you go on with??. Until you can sit down and show us the proof based on your own understanding of the subject, not some endless stream of drivel based on quotations and dubious links to questionable sites and links to whatever journal paper you've cherry picked in order to make a mockery of the science, then forget about it entirely. And as for your proselytising, trying to make "converts" of the newbies here, that would be typical of nothing more than what EU really is....quasi-religious nonsense no better than scientology and making just as much sense.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

No. This is an expected feature of plasma cosmology. Those who have absorbed the PC literature are well aware of the intergalactic nature of these fields, as described by Alfven, Peratt.

To my knowledge, (which may be incomplete), there is no evidence of such fields. A quote from the paper …

Intergalactic magnetic fields (IGMF) had not been measured until now, despite their importance for gamma-ray and cosmic-ray astronomy and their likely connection to the primordial fields that could have seeded the stronger magnetic fields observed in galaxies, Sun, and Earth. This is because IGMF are too small for conventional astronomical probes, such as Zeeman splitting or Faraday rotation.

Unlike the fields in galaxies, which are believed to have been amplified by the dynamo action of the large-scale convective motions of gas, the fields in voids remain low, close to their primordial values modified only by the relatively small contribution of the fields leaking out of galaxies (Kronberg 1994; Grasso & Rubinstein 2001; Widrow 2002; Kulsrud & Zweibel 2008).

The observational and theoretical upper bounds on IGMF constrain their magnitudes to be below 10∧−9 G (Barrow, Ferreira & Silk 1997), whereas any value above ∼10∧−30 G is sufficient to explain the ∼ μG Galactic magnetic fields generation by the dynamo mechanism (Davis, Lilley & T ̈ornkvist 1999).

One can detect such extremely weak fields using high-energy gamma rays (Aharonian, Coppi & Volk 1994; Plaga 1995).

What may also challenge a mainstream "gas" model is that the galaxies align their rotation and essentially form knots on Intergalactic birkeland currents. This can be found from the anisotrophy link you mentioned. The galactic rotation anisotropies are expected features of this model. Again this is well know to PCers and the majority of the audience at TB.

Once again, if there is no evidence of Intergalactic birkeland currents, then presumably, there will be no knots and hence no basis for assumptions on the cause of axis alignment ?

Again Alfven and Peratt have described their models. The "cause and effect" mixup is that with the PC hypothesis, galaxies are fed current from outside and are not "powered by" the hypothesised black hole.

Mainstream, it appears, still hasn't concluded cause and effect. Interaction, it seems. But once again .. external magnetic fields in the orders of nanoTeslas is the closest I've seen to what PC/EU guys are talking about …

Notably this behaviour can be both computer modeled, and experimented with in the lab. You have no doubt seen the image of a z-pinch i posted.

Once again, where is the evidence of these in Intergalactic space ? Eg: where are the measurements of intergalactic synchrotron radiation ? What are the magnitudes of these measurements ?

No game play, the models and cause and effect are clearly different.
1) Gravity dominated galaxy formation models have do not make predictions of galaxy alignment
2) PC it is a clear lab demonstrated feature

But no evidence of Intergalactic currents of strengths greater than nanoTesla magnitudes ?

nice pictures

Yep. That's all, though.

The audience at TB is well aware of the PC models and so would understand many of these existing dichotomies, i accept IIS-ers may not be, thus causing some uncomfort to you and those who are only familiar with neutral "gas" style models.

The issue isn't discomfort. The concern is that so many believe in that which seems to have no measured foundations in space. And then a concern about those who keep re-assuring these folk that there is.

The two models are different, and testable predictions exist between them. These observations come as no "surprise" to the existing bank of PC literature.

One of these models has no evidence at its foundations, in intergalactic space .. and its not the mainstream model.

Why don't Perratt, Alven et al sort all this out and publish in mainstream AstroPhysics publications ? Even if they get knocked back, they could publish the reasons for the knockbacks and at least gain some sympathy and hence, some respect for at least having had a go at it ! .. You know … like you … for venturing forth into this realm, yet again !

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

There's no evidence for it anywhere, Craig. The only thing they have done is taken plasma physics and misused it in order to justify their own ideas, which have little or no basis in any observational or theoretical instance. Plasma physicists know where their field applies to...otherwise you'd be getting a lot more controversy than you are at present. Most competent plasma and astrophysicists have already looked at this matter and rejected it. If it had any basis in reality, they would be studying it and giving it some consideration. Despite what they (the EU/PC crowd) might otherwise believe.

[Outbackmanyep]

I would hardly think that lab experiments could be just up-scaled to explain what happens in the real universe.
That crater-chain explanation of EU's is so funny "oh we made it in the lab so it can be done on a planet"

Hilarious!