• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

  1. What has this got to do with cosmology?
  2. Why "past electrical interactions" when there are new craters formed all the time?
  3. Why are you commiting the "looks like X thus must be X" logical fallacy?
  4. You do realize that a meteorite hitting a planet or moon releases a lot of energy? IMHO there may be some craters that actually have discharge patterns etched in the surface. So what?


1. Is not our solar system an extasion of cosmology?
2. Have you seen any carters formed recently, I mean "see" the impactor hit the ground?
3. "looks like X thus must be X" logical fallacy? WTF!!! the "mainstream" don't?? :boggled:
4. :footinmou !!!!!????
 
The Man has decided to join us in this disccusion

Ok.

Well rejoin the discussion would be a more accurate statement, but that is neither here nor there.

So working from the reasoning that our own solar system, at some point in time, was created and added to (i.e. did not condense out of a primal molecular cloud under gravity alone in one event) then there should be some form of evidence of the past electrical interactions.

Created? It would seem that how our solar system developed would be the critical aspect of the “prior electrical system” and was that not Alfvén’s inference in that quote, not to mention your own by stipulating “did not condense out of a primal molecular cloud under gravity”. It would seem that how such a “prior electrical system” might result in the development of our solar system, what happened to that “prior electrical system” and not only why gravity dominates that system now why it might have been an insufficient explanation of that development, would be required before looking for evidence of some specific theory or model.

These forms of evidence should be visible on nearly all bodies in our Sun system and nearly all bodies in Jupiter and Saturn's systems as well.

Lets look at some pictures shall we, (and no mainstream carry on that looking at pics is not proof of something)

Well poof of what? Looking at pictures to find “proof” of what you not only have made up your mind about as the cause but also to reinforce the bias you referred to as “reasoning” is just proof of prejudice.

Ok lets start close to home,

Soupdragon42's excellent video:
Planetary Scars (Extended version) Plasma Cosmology


Michael Goodspeed's excellent article The Craters Are Electric

Z. Dahlen Parker's work on
SPIDERY SCARS FROM ELECTRIC DISCHARGES
TO DUST COVERED CRT
PROVIDE A CLUE TO FORMATION
OF SIMILAR FEATURES ON PLANETARY BODIES


JstagenElectrical-discharge machining a paper in Japanese, but still with relevant pictures.

And just for some balance some mainstream articles on impacts ans scars

[qimg]http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn13257/dn13257-1_250.jpg[/qimg] (Image: NASA/JHUAPL/CIW)

Bizarre spider scar found on Mercury's surface




Lunar Impact Crater Geology and Structure



Just for starters before we move onto the other planets in our solar system.

So how could there be any sort of charging/discharging going on?

See post 1808

How about for “starters” go back to the start? How did that “prior electrical system” result in the condensation of the plants and Sun, what happened to it? If gravity is sufficient to drive the system now, why was it insufficient before? Ashes are ashes and dust is dust. So what if one assumes it is pixy snot and elf dandruff then says "see pixy snot and elf dandruff in this picture". You need a model first then actively try to refute that model whether that model incorporates pixy snot and elf dandruff or not.

Now I’m sorry to say that I am unable to read you’re linked martial at this time as I am leaving where I am currently at, but I will check it out. However I must say that given the explicitly expressed bias presented before presenting your evidence it leaves me dubious that such material will be presented in an objective fashion by proponents actively attempting to refute their own conclusions.
 
The Man wrote:
How about for “starters” go back to the start? How did that “prior electrical system” result in the condensation of the plants and Sun, what happened to it? If gravity is sufficient to drive the system now, why was it insufficient before? Ashes are ashes and dust is dust. So what if one assumes it is pixy snot and elf dandruff then says "see pixy snot and elf dandruff in this picture". You need a model first then actively try to refute that model whether that model incorporates pixy snot and elf dandruff or not.

Now I’m sorry to say that I am unable to read you’re linked martial at this time as I am leaving where I am currently at, but I will check it out. However I must say that given the explicitly expressed bias presented before presenting your evidence it leaves me dubious that such material will be presented in an objective fashion by proponents actively attempting to refute their own conclusions.

OK

What is matter? Wiki
Scientific definition

A definition of "matter" that is based upon its physical and chemical structure is: matter is made up of what atoms and molecules are made of, meaning anything made of protons, neutrons, and electrons.[citation needed] This definition is consistent with the BIPM definition of "amount of substance" above, but is more specific about the constituents of matter (and unconcerned about the unit mole). Further discussion appears below in the discussion section and in the description of the quarks and leptons definition. As an example of matter under this definition, genetic information is carried by a long molecule called DNA, which is copied and inherited across generations. It is matter under this definition because it is made of atoms, not by virtue of having mass or occupying space. At the microscopic level, the constituent "particles" of matter such as protons, neutrons and electrons are actually matter waves (or fields) which obey the laws of quantum mechanics.

What is plasma? Wiki
In physics and chemistry, plasma is a partially ionized gas, in which a certain proportion of electrons are free rather than being bound to an atom or molecule. The ability of the positive and negative charges to move somewhat independently makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma therefore has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids or gases and is considered to be a distinct state of matter. Plasma typically takes the form of neutral gas-like clouds, as seen, for example, in the case of stars. Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a container, but unlike gas, in the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers (see section 3, below).

Plasma was first identified in a Crookes tube, and so described by Sir William Crookes in 1879 (he called it "radiant matter").[1] The nature of the Crookes tube "cathode ray" matter was subsequently identified by British physicist Sir J.J. Thomson in 1897,[2] and dubbed "plasma" by Irving Langmuir in 1928,[3] perhaps because it reminded him of a blood plasma.[4] Langmuir wrote:

Except near the electrodes, where there are sheaths containing very few electrons, the ionized gas contains ions and electrons in about equal numbers so that the resultant space charge is very small. We shall use the name plasma to describe this region containing balanced charges of ions and electrons.[3]

So, I'm along the lines that our Plasma Sun (99.98% of a solar system) formed in plasma pinch and via Marklund convection matter was formed from the constituent plasma i.e.
Marklund clarifies:

In my paper in Nature the plasma convects radially inwards, with the normal E x B/B2 velocity, towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube. During this convection inwards, the different chemical constituents of the plasma, each having its specific ionization potential, enter into a progressively cooler region. The plasma constituents will recombine and become neutral, and thus no longer under the influence of the electromagnetic forcing. The ionization potentials will thus determine where the different species will be deposited, or stopped in their motion."[4]
Seems electricity would be far more efficient that gravity as a chemical differentiation mechanism.

Could Alfvén be correct in his statement that the solar system are the ashes of the prior electrical/plasma system?

Ashes are not ashes, in this case it's ashes are MATTER and dust to dust, unless it's a dusty plasma!

Maybe! :cool:
 
Last edited:
That's even weirder than I had guessed... it's kind of fascinating, even. I mean, how do you get into something like that in the first place?

Zeuzzz, sol88 - any comments?

By not having a narrow mind helps, not implying your is (narrow) but in general why would astronomers/cosmologists/astrophysicist have any interest in what our ancient culture recorded in stone, including non technology advanced cultures such as the one the surrounds me-North western Australian Aborigines! Some of the rock art I've seen made me wonder.

And once you wonder...well if need to try and satisfy that wonderment!

Most of the work has been done by Immanuel Velikovsky and expanded Donald Scott's "Symbols of an alien sky"

See some youtube vids here please try and watch all parts

And the landscape that surrounds me here, "looks" tortured, like some formations on Mars!

Ever seen the movie Australia, well the set for the homestead was just down the road from here (and I've flown those hills, in my paraglider, it gives a unique perspective, height)

The Kimberley region of Australia

This one is interesting HERE

and

Here


And

Here

and just south from there...

and you may of heard of the Bungle Bungle's or it's local aboriginal name Purnululu? Which I interpret as ancient Fulgurites!

Fascinating whether true or not. :)

And that's the fascination with EU/PC it crosses so many scientific boundaries and disciplines and is still a coherent explanation! Where as the other theories do not! I mean what would Meteorology and Seismology have in common with Cosmology? Maybe nothing at all, but maybe they do! and this and this and...could keep going for ever but I'm slipping of topic, is PLASMA COSMOLOGY- WOO or NOT? NOT!!!

Does not make it right but it made me wonder! :)
 
Last edited:
The Man wrote:

OK

Acctualy I worte more but that’s OK.

What is matter? Wiki

I am fimilar with the definitions of matter, are you?

What is plasma? Wiki [

I am also familiar with the definitions of plasma, are you?

So, I'm along the lines that our Plasma Sun (99.98% of a solar system) formed in plasma pinch and via Marklund convection matter was formed from the constituent plasma i.e. Seems electricity would be far more efficient that gravity as a chemical differentiation mechanism.


You do understand that plasma is matter, don’t you,? Perhaps you should review those articles you linked and do some more research.

The Sun as 99.98% of our solar system by what, volume or mass? Perhaps maybe charge?

Well since we have this…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Sun, which by itself accounts for about 98.6% of the Solar System's mass.

I surmise you mean by mass.

Funny isn’t it that 98.6% of the mass of our solar system would be at the gravitational center of our solar system. It would be nice if we had a well established physical theory that could explain that development as well as why that mass remains the most highly energized plasma in our solar system. Keep looking , Sol88, and perhaps some day you will find it.


Could Alfvén be correct in his statement that the solar system are the ashes of the prior electrical/plasma system?

Ashes are not ashes, in this case it's ashes are MATTER and dust to dust, unless it's a dusty plasma!

Maybe! :cool:

No, matter is matter, which includes ashes, whatever might produce an ash and plasma. You seem to be making distinctions that those definitions do not.
 
Last edited:
Tim Thompson wrote:
I already answered that question.

Which he linked to answer HERE

Tim you have answered a question with a question!

Why?

I'll try and make a little simpler for you shall I? And English is my first language! Wouldn't call my self a Linguist though! :blush:

So...Can charge separation happen in space? YES or NO!

Tim?
 
The man wrote
You do understand that plasma is matter, don’t you,?

I do! and under the influence of Em forces which again, for the slower learners, is 39 OOM greater than piss weak gravity.
Clear?

No, matter is matter, which includes ashes, whatever might produce an ash and plasma. You seem to be making distinctions that those definitions do not.

You do realize the question you original asked, don't you?

Or is your memory shot, sport?
 
So back to flat galaxy rotations

Has anybody here had a chance to read this paper

Cosmic Magnetic Fields: From Planets, to Stars and Galaxies
Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 259, 2009
K.G. Strassmeier, A.G. Kosovichev & J.E. Beckman, eds.
HERE

Abstract. Radio synchrotron emission, its polarization and its Faraday rotation are powerful tools to study the strength and structure of interstellar magnetic fields. The total intensity traces the strength and distribution of total magnetic fields. Total fields in gas-rich spiral arms and bars of nearby galaxies have strengths of 20–30 μGauss, due to the amplification of turbulent fields, and are dynamically important. In the Milky Way, the total field strength is about 6 μG near the Sun and several 100 μG in filaments near the Galactic Center. – The polarized intensity measures ordered fields with a preferred orientation, which can be regular or anisotropic fields. Ordered fields with spiral structure exist in grand-design, barred, flocculent and even in irregular galaxies.

The strongest ordered fields are found in interarm regions, sometimes forming “magnetic spiral arms” between the optical arms. Halo fields are X-shaped, probably due to outflows. – The Faraday rotation of the polarization vectors traces coherent regular fields which have a preferred direction. In some galaxies Faraday rotation reveals large-scale patterns which are signatures of
dynamo fields. However, in most galaxies the field has a complicated structure and interacts with local gas flows. In the Milky Way, diffuse polarized radio emission and Faraday rotation of the polarized emission from pulsars and background sources show many small-scale and large-scale
magnetic features, but the overall field structure in our Galaxy is still under debate.

Oh and by the way Tim Thompson, Reality check, Tusenfem or Dierendopa this question still remains unanswered? And it has been asked more than once FYI.

Why no starburst formation in the collision of (1E 0657-56) and MACS J0025.4-1222?

Thought that's what your theory would predict, from all the bumping and rubbing and general friction of the the "gas"?

And a a quote from TPOD by Tom Wilson:
Some obvious galactic features can be used to test the validity of the two theories. Have there been galaxies observed without “supermassive black holes” or without “dark matter”? Yes, there have and this should cause the community to rethink the validity of the model, but they have not.

Have there been galaxies observed with magnetic fields exhibiting patterns predicted by the Electric Universe model? Yes, there have, and in addition there have been no galaxies observed without magnetic fields.

IS that true Tim Thompson, Reality check, Tusenfem or Dierendopa?

Surely not?

Please tell me these contradictions are not true!
 
Last edited:
Well , Sol88, I have looked at your linked material as I said I would do and I must say that I do not find them compelling. Having worked in and engineering laboratory involving both mechanical (loads of up to 100 tons) and electrical (high current, over 400 amps, and high voltage, over 34 kilovolts) testing capabilities, I am well aware that mechanical impacts can sometimes appear the same as the results of an electrical discharge (particularly in insulation and semi-conductive coatings). However, I am certainly not an expert in astrophysics or impact craters.
 
The man wrote

I do! and under the influence of Em forces which again, for the slower learners, is 39 OOM greater than piss weak gravity.
Clear?

Oh right, that “piss weak gravity” that drives our gravitationally bound solar system.



You do realize the question you original asked, don't you?

Or is your memory shot, sport?

Actually, I asked a number of questions in that post and the subsequent ones, do you need to be reminded of them ‘sport’?
 
Actually, I asked a number of questions in that post and the subsequent ones, do you need to be reminded of them ‘sport’?

Yes.

Sorry my mistake the Sun is 98.6% of the Solar System's mass.

Were there others?
 
Last edited:
It all actually grew out of a peculiar pseudo-velikovskian cult of Saturnists. They argue that Earth used to orbit Saturn, which is bad enough, but did so in a "polar configuration", where Saturn would appear to be fixed in Earth's sky over the north pole. in the absence of some external torque, that's impossible. So they postulated that electromagnetic forces provide that torque. They imagined visual phenomena like the Biblical "pillar of fire" as a glowing plasma tower, an electric discharge connecting planets. Those people grew into the EU people. Their founding fathers, as far as I can tell, are electrical engineer Don Scott, and physicist Wallace Thornhill (who has a BS or BA in physics, but spent his career in computer system management).

Wow!! Cool, Tim!!
Thanks for always giving interesting background stories.
 
First up thank you Tusenfem on your excellent post on what The Buneman instability is

So, Sol88 I showed you mine, will you show you yours now?

Please give a mathematical description of a star begin kept in orbit around the centre of the galaxy. Please include both gravity and EM forces. Should not be too difficult an exercise and maybe Peratt has already written it down for you, then you only need to copy and paste.

Waiting in anticipation to see yours.

1005
 
So back to flat galaxy rotations

Has anybody here had a chance to read this paper

Cosmic Magnetic Fields: From Planets, to Stars and Galaxies
Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 259, 2009
K.G. Strassmeier, A.G. Kosovichev & J.E. Beckman, eds.
HERE

Have not read it but know about these things. Interesting, and .....

Oh and by the way Tim Thompson, Reality check, Tusenfem or Dierendopa this question still remains unanswered? And it has been asked more than once FYI.

Why no starburst formation in the collision of (1E 0657-56) and MACS J0025.4-1222?

Really care to quote the message in which this question was posed?
You're just making this up as you go, now YOU answer my question above, that I have asked at least 3 times before.

Thought that's what your theory would predict, from all the bumping and rubbing and general friction of the the "gas"?

And a a quote from TPOD by Tom Wilson:

IS that true Tim Thompson, Reality check, Tusenfem or Dierendopa?

Surely not?

Please tell me these contradictions are not true!

Why no starburst? Maybe because it is a collision of clusters? I hope you know the difference between galaxies and clusters. So, no, "our theory" would NOT predict starburst in this collision of two clusters.

Mainstream (real) science has NEVER EVER claimed that there is no galactic magnetic field. Once more, one of your delusions.

And with as many galaxies as there are, there are bound to be some that have less dark matter then others. As we don't know what exactly dark matter is, it is rather difficult to find out why at the moment.

But surely YOU can come up with a nice model in which EM forces are the cause. Please show us.
 
Oh right, that “piss weak gravity” that drives our gravitationally bound solar system.

Nonononononono!!!!!!!!! The Man, you don't understand!
EM forces are 1037 times stronger than gravity, and thus the solar system is kept together with a bit of grav and a buckload of EM.

Sol88 is going to explain and calculate it all in his next message! He promised me, and I am sure he will keep his promises.
 
So back to flat galaxy rotations

Has anybody here had a chance to read this paper

Cosmic Magnetic Fields: From Planets, to Stars and Galaxies
Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 259, 2009
K.G. Strassmeier, A.G. Kosovichev & J.E. Beckman, eds. HERE
A nice abstract of the "Measuring interstellar magnetic fields by radio synchrotron emission" paper that you have obviously not read - no mention of flat galaxy rotations.
Of course astronomers have known that galaxies have magnetic fields for many years. This is a paper on measuring them. ArXiv has 11,558 preprints containing the text "galactic magnetic fields".

And yes these weak galactic magnetic fields do have order, e.g. they are stronger at the center of galaxies and weaker at the edges.

Oh and by the way Tim Thompson, Reality check, Tusenfem or Dierendopa this question still remains unanswered? And it has been asked more than once FYI.

Why no starburst formation in the collision of (1E 0657-56) and MACS J0025.4-1222?

Thought that's what your theory would predict, from all the bumping and rubbing and general friction of the the "gas"?
No one answered because that answer is obvious and we did not want to embarrass you.
But since you asked for it:
Starburst formation happens in the collisions of galaxies. You have not read or been able to understand the posts or the links. You thus are ignorant of the fact that the observations are collisions of galactic clusters.

And a quote from TPOD by Tom Wilson:
No citations from Tom Wilson (he is a PC proponent and so this is expected). Galaxies do not need super-massive black holes to form or rotate (they are actually a minor part of a galaxy) so that part of the quote is wrong.


Sol88: Can you give us a list of the galaxies that have been observed to have no dark matter?
 
1. Is not our solar system an extasion of cosmology?
2. Have you seen any carters formed recently, I mean "see" the impactor hit the ground?
3. "looks like X thus must be X" logical fallacy? WTF!!! the "mainstream" don't?? :boggled:
4. :footinmou !!!!!????
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. The mainstream has actual data.
4. :footinmou !!!!!????
 

Back
Top Bottom