• 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

I have a general question concerning any flavour of Plasma Cosmology.

Or rather, concerning any living proponent of any such flavour.

Has there been any suggested tests of PC? If so, some details please.

Some background: in all the hundreds of posts on PC, in this thread and several others; in all the papers cited in those posts I did not read a single, specific, concrete test of PC! As in, "if only astronomers would point the HST at {insert RA and Dec here}, using {insert instrument here}, they would observe {insert expectation here}, which would test the following hypothesis {insert details here}, derived from PC as follows {insert more details here}."

Generalise the HST to any of the thousands of astronomical facilities, covering wavebands from TeV gammas to ~100 MHz radio; generalise a single observation to any observational program; etc.

And not just astronomy; generalise to any space mission (e.g. what commands to send to Cassini, or MESSENGER), or any Earth-based physics facility (e.g. what signals to look for when the LHC gets up and running).

And not just current facilities; generalise to any feasible research program.

But perhaps I missed something; perhaps Thornhill or Scott have published detailed programs, and there are a half-dozen papers by Peratt and Lerner on just how they'd test PC if only they were granted telescope time, and ...

So, does any reader know of any such material/proposals?

And is any other reader curious as to why there is such a dearth of interest, by PC proponents, in actually testing their pet ideas?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
I have a general question concerning any flavour of Plasma Cosmology.

Or rather, concerning any living proponent of any such flavour.

Has there been any suggested tests of PC? If so, some details please.

Some background: in all the hundreds of posts on PC, in this thread and several others; in all the papers cited in those posts I did not read a single, specific, concrete test of PC! As in, "if only astronomers would point the HST at {insert RA and Dec here}, using {insert instrument here}, they would observe {insert expectation here}, which would test the following hypothesis {insert details here}, derived from PC as follows {insert more details here}."

Generalise the HST to any of the thousands of astronomical facilities, covering wavebands from TeV gammas to ~100 MHz radio; generalise a single observation to any observational program; etc.

And not just astronomy; generalise to any space mission (e.g. what commands to send to Cassini, or MESSENGER), or any Earth-based physics facility (e.g. what signals to look for when the LHC gets up and running).

And not just current facilities; generalise to any feasible research program.

But perhaps I missed something; perhaps Thornhill or Scott have published detailed programs, and there are a half-dozen papers by Peratt and Lerner on just how they'd test PC if only they were granted telescope time, and ...

So, does any reader know of any such material/proposals?

And is any other reader curious as to why there is such a dearth of interest, by PC proponents, in actually testing their pet ideas?
Click to expand...


DRD, do you really want to go there?

Shall we start with K.Birkeland's predictions? which were verified in 1959?

Maybe we could have a little chat about N.Tesla and his prediction on the Schumann resonance as well as radio waves from space?

They have stood the test of time!

When we look with any of our instruments we "see" the signs of electrical phenomena, but because it was assumed for so long that space is electricaly neutral and Gravity was the only known force....well the rest is history!

let's just "look" @ a picture shall we

070412-square-nebula.jpg
April 12, 2007—The next time you feel like everything is spinning out of control, remember that there are some things in the universe that are still in flawless order.

Infrared cameras at two observatories recently took this composite image of the Red Square Nebula, a rare cloud of dust and gas so symmetrical that a scientist deemed it "almost perfect."

Few other such nebula have been detected—among them the Red Rectangle Nebula in the constellation Monoceros—but what causes the phenomena has been poorly understood.

Scientists say the new image shows the Red Square to be a bipolar nebula, with stellar winds blowing cone-shaped jets away from its hot central star.

The cloud's extreme symmetry also suggests that the star, known as MWC 922, is in a relatively calm corner of space, with little turbulence to disturb the formation.

Similar forces are probably what shaped the Red Rectangle, astronomers say, and there may be many more of these formations in space than had previously been believed.

The astronomers who captured the image—Peter Tuthill of the University of Sydney and J.P. Lloyd of Cornell University—report their findings in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.
Click to expand...
LINK

Gravitational phenomenon or electrical phenomenon?
 
Or shall we dig out W.Thornhill's predictions on deep imapct et cetera


predictions confirmed

In science one of the best markers for the accuracy of a model or theory is how well it predicts outcomes. This applies not only to future events but can also be applied to existing data. Below is a collection of predictions based on Electric Universe principles, which have been confirmed by observations and data. The link above provides a list of pending predictions.

At present this list concentrates on those things predicted before the event, but will be expanded in the future to cover many facets of modern astrophysics and cosmology.
Click to expand...
 
DeiRenDopa said:
I have a general question concerning any flavour of Plasma Cosmology.

Or rather, concerning any living proponent of any such flavour.

Has there been any suggested tests of PC? If so, some details please.

Some background: in all the hundreds of posts on PC, in this thread and several others; in all the papers cited in those posts I did not read a single, specific, concrete test of PC! As in, "if only astronomers would point the HST at {insert RA and Dec here}, using {insert instrument here}, they would observe {insert expectation here}, which would test the following hypothesis {insert details here}, derived from PC as follows {insert more details here}."

Generalise the HST to any of the thousands of astronomical facilities, covering wavebands from TeV gammas to ~100 MHz radio; generalise a single observation to any observational program; etc.

And not just astronomy; generalise to any space mission (e.g. what commands to send to Cassini, or MESSENGER), or any Earth-based physics facility (e.g. what signals to look for when the LHC gets up and running).

And not just current facilities; generalise to any feasible research program.

But perhaps I missed something; perhaps Thornhill or Scott have published detailed programs, and there are a half-dozen papers by Peratt and Lerner on just how they'd test PC if only they were granted telescope time, and ...

So, does any reader know of any such material/proposals?

And is any other reader curious as to why there is such a dearth of interest, by PC proponents, in actually testing their pet ideas?
Click to expand...

Well the usual counter argument, I infer from what I have read on these threads, is the lack of funding or resources to get that ‘testing’ done. As I have said before, for funding, just write a book called “Big Bang Cures They Don’t Want You to Know About” and have Kevin Trudeau do an infomercial, but just don’t let him do the accounting. As most of us know, some who have actually been involved in testing ideas (even our own), some ideas can be tested with minimal expenditure, effort and with existing data, but of course you need an idea to be tested. As you note DRD, most PC/EU claims are such generalizations and we have seen a consistent problem on these threads just trying to pin down what constitutes EU/PC that testing is superfluous until you have something to test. So it remains up to the PC/EU proponents to come up with falsifiable tests. Until then it is not science but just woo and of course a falsifiable test puts one’s idea at risk of being falsified. So I see no mystery as to why such testing is avoided.
 
Or maybe you would like to coment on these, DRD?


Predictions pending

Below is a list of predictions based on Electric Universe principles which are yet to be confirmed/refuted. The link above provides a list of confirmed predictions.
Click to expand...

Which one shall we talk about, DRD?

Are we allowed to ask them same question on the predictions of the mainstream?

say Black holes? Weren't they predicted to be so powerful nothing can escape there immense gravity?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Now you are just being ignorant.
The reason that the protoplanetary disks (dust clouds) form and create stars and planets is gravity.


Lightning (electricity) is the thing that melts dust particles. As far as I know, gravity is the thing that sticks the melted particles together and keeps them together to form chrondites.
But if you want static electricity discharges to be the mechanism for the formation of chrondites then it is.
So what?


Yes I do.


No it is not.


Surf on dude!!!!

So when are you going to get back to plasma cosmology instead of this standard stellar stuff?
Click to expand...

Oh please RC, how many protostellar disk have been observed?

The physorg.com article comments:

When the Stardust mission returned to Earth with samples from the comet Wild 2 in 2006, scientists knew the material would provide new clues about the formation of our solar system, but they didn't know exactly how.

New research by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and collaborators reveals that, in addition to containing material that formed very close to the young sun, the dust from Wild 2 also is missing ingredients that would be expected in comet dust. Surprisingly, the Wild 2 comet sample better resembles a meteorite from the asteroid belt rather than an ancient, unaltered comet.

Comets are expected to contain large amounts of the most primitive material in the solar system, a treasure trove of stardust from other stars and other ancient materials. But in the case of Wild 2, that simply is not the case.

By comparing the Stardust samples to cometary interplanetary dust particles (CP IDPs), the team found that two silicate materials normally found in cometary IDPs, together with other primitive materials including presolar stardust grains from other stars, have not been found in the abundances that might be expected in a Kuiper Belt comet like Wild 2. [...] the Stardust material resembles chondritic meteorites from the asteroid belt. [Emphasis added]

This appears to be yet another notch in the belt of physicist Wal Thornhill and other contributing Electric Universe proponents. We look forward to further tests on the samples and further confirmation of these theories from independent lines of inquiry.
Click to expand...
lINK

RC Thornhill predicted that comets will be essentially the same as asteroids, he was right while the mission scientist where "surprised"!
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Shall I tell you about confirmation bias? Science is not about confirmation testing it is about falsification testing that fails to, well, falsify. Actively trying to disprove a theory is what PC/EU lacks, well, besides a consistent theory.
Click to expand...


Yeah mate go for it!!! Science is not about confirmation testing it is about falsification testing???? WTF!!

Tell me a little about how they "confirmed" black holes?

:blush::blush::blush:
 
Sol88 said:
DRD, do you really want to go there?

Shall we start with K.Birkeland's predictions? which were verified in 1959?
Click to expand...
Yes - lets derail this thread even further.

Sol88 said:
Maybe we could have a little chat about N.Tesla and his prediction on the Schumann resonance as well as radio waves from space?
Click to expand...
Yes - lets derail this thread even further.

Sol88 said:
When we look with any of our instruments we "see" the signs of electrical phenomena, but because it was assumed for so long that space is electricaly neutral and Gravity was the only known force....well the rest is history!

let's just "look" @ a picture shall we

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~gek...onalgeographic_files/070412-square-nebula.jpg LINK

Gravitational phenomenon or electrical phenomenon?
Click to expand...
Both (better link Red Rectangle Nebula).
There is no dispute that there are "electrical phenomenon" (you seem to reserve this phrase for electrostatic or non-plasma effects) observed.

It has never been assumed that "space" (I assume you mean the matter that is in space) is electrically neutral. The term you are looking for is "quasi neutral" which means that plasmas are neutral overall (at large scales), e.g. see Quasi-neutrality in the Plasma Universe wiki. Basically plasmas are neutral for lengths greater than their Debye length. For the intergalactic medium this is 10 kilometers or 0.000000000001 light years.

So what has this to do with this thread?

You have never posted an observation of "electrical phenomenon" or plasma phenomenon on a cosmological scale.
Could this be because plasma phenomena does not exist on a cosmological scale?
 
Sol88 said:
Oh please RC, how many protostellar disk have been observed?
Click to expand...
Lots (more than 1 and less than infinity)

Sol88 said:
lINK

RC Thornhill predicted that comets will be essentially the same as asteroids, he was right while the mission scientist where "surprised"!
Click to expand...
The article is about results from one comet Wild 2 (not comets in general). The surprise that Wild 2 has a tail (and so should be an icy comet) but has a composition more like an asteroid. So instead of being a dirty snowball, this comet turns out to be an icy rock.

Have you realized that plasma cosmology is scientific woo and given up on it :jaw-dropp ?
 
RC wrote
It has never been assumed that "space" (I assume you mean the matter that is in space) is electrically neutral. The term you are looking for is "quasi neutral" which means that plasmas are neutral overall (at large scales), e.g. see Quasi-neutrality in the Plasma Universe wiki. Basically plasmas are neutral for lengths greater than their Debye length. For the intergalactic medium this is 10 kilometers or 0.000000000001 light years.
Click to expand...


And it's not very hard to violate that quasi-neutrality, hell just stick a moon in the quasi-neutral flow and see what happens!

As for derailing the threads, DRD asked, I told him!
 
Sol88 said:
Are we allowed to ask them same question on the predictions of the mainstream?

say Black holes? Weren't they predicted to be so powerful nothing can escape there immense gravity?
Click to expand...
That is correct and there has been no observation of anything escaping from inside the event horizon of a black hole.

FYI:

Matter vanishes into the event horizon. This means that astronomers can compare observations of black hole candidates to objects that definitely have surfaces, i.e. neutron stars. Type I X-ray bursts are a characteristic of matter hitting a surface, e.g. they are seen when matter from accrual disks impact the surface of neutron stars.

For some reason any in-falling matter from the accrual disk of Sagittarius A* and the observed black hole candidates are not hitting a surface. So either there is no in-falling matter (unlikely) or we have an event horizon. For example see these papers
 
Sol88 said:
And it's not very hard to violate that quasi-neutrality, hell just stick a moon in the quasi-neutral flow and see what happens!
Click to expand...
That is right.
And for bigger scales use a star.
And for even bigger scales use a black hole.
And for even bigger scales use a super-massive black hole.
And now you are still a factor of 100 below the smallest scale that is cosmological.

What are you going to use to violate quasi-neutrality at cosmological scales, Sol88?

Sol88 said:
As for derailing the threads, DRD asked, I told him!
Click to expand...
You may be right - I will leave him to answer the Electric Universe woo.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Yeah mate go for it!!! Science is not about confirmation testing it is about falsification testing???? WTF!!

Tell me a little about how they "confirmed" black holes?

:blush::blush::blush:
Click to expand...

Tell you about confirmations in a falsifiable framework? Did you miss the part about falsification? Should you not be asking how one might falsify a black hole? Are you so fixated on confirmation that you can not understand what it means to put a theory up for falsification? Apparently that seems to be the modus operandi of PC/EU conjectures
 
Reality Check said:
Lots (more than 1 and less than infinity)


The article is about results from one comet Wild 2 (not comets in general). The surprise that Wild 2 has a tail (and so should be an icy comet) but has a composition more like an asteroid. So instead of being a dirty snowball, this comet turns out to be an icy rock.

Have you realized that plasma cosmology is scientific woo and given up on it :jaw-dropp ?
Click to expand...

How much ice did we find on 19P/Borrelly? None it was hot dry and jet black, but produced jets! No ice on the surface so it MUST be under the surface or how else do the jets form???? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Sol88 said:
How much ice did we find on 19P/Borrelly? None it was hot dry and jet black, but produced jets! No ice on the surface so it MUST be under the surface or how else do the jets form???? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
They detected water so where else did it come from???:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Deep Space 1 encounter with Comet 19P/Borrelly: Ion composition measurements by the PEPE mass spectrometer
We report in situ ion mass spectrometer measurements from the coma of Comet 19P/Borrelly, obtained during the flyby of the Deep Space I spacecraft on 22 September 2001. Cometary ions were detected at distances from ∼5.5 x 105 km to 2200 km from the nucleus of the comet. The predominant heavy ions observed during the seven minute interval about closest approach to Borrelly included OH+(at 57% of the total water-group density), H2O+ (at 29%), O+ (at 13%), CH+3 (at 5%), and CH+2 (at 4%). Of particular note is the small amount of H3O+ (<9%), as this was the most abundant molecular ion observed at closest approach to Comet Halley. This difference is due to the difference in water production rates between the two comets.
Click to expand...

One of these days you are going to shock everyone and learn how to do basic resarch (ever hear about Google?) :rolleyes::D
 
The Man said:
Tell you about confirmations in a falsifiable framework? Did you miss the part about falsification? Should you not be asking how one might falsify a black hole? Are you so fixated on confirmation that you can not understand what it means to put a theory up for falsification? Apparently that seems to be the modus operandi of PC/EU conjectures
Click to expand...

dude good try, but no dice. A black hole is unfalsifiable, and confirmation bias riengs supreme wrt abstract math and unfalsifiable predictions.

Such as

Dark matter
Dark energy
Neutron stars
Pulsars
Black holes
Nebula collapse
et cetera
 
Sol88 said:
dude good try, but no dice. A black hole is unfalsifiable, and confirmation bias riengs supreme wrt abstract math and unfalsifiable predictions.

Such as

Dark matter
Dark energy
Neutron stars
Pulsars
Black holes
Nebula collapse
et cetera
Click to expand...
A black hole is "falsifiable" - just look at an object and detect radiation from it or the impact of matter on a surface.

The rest of your list is just a list of actual observations.
 
Reality Check said:
A black hole is "falsifiable" - just look at an object and detect radiation from it or the impact of matter on a surface.

The rest of your list is just a list of actual observations.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised RC!

yes we have observed them, and then The Man's confirmation bias kicks in!
 
Reality Check said:
They detected water so where else did it come from???:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Deep Space 1 encounter with Comet 19P/Borrelly: Ion composition measurements by the PEPE mass spectrometer


One of these days you are going to shock everyone and learn how to do basic resarch (ever hear about Google?) :rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

p19/Borrely was found to be HOT and DRY, please explain?

Scientists had once described comets as dirty snowballs. Now they believe comets have less water than was previously calculated. "Icy dirtballs" is a more apt description, they say.
Click to expand...


Lumps of rock would be an even better description, made at the same time and place as chrondite asteroids! the only difference is the eccentricity of there orbits.

Like this


Comet Crystals

Comets, specifically, have nothing to do with an ancient nebular cloud of cold gas and dust that became gravitationally unstable and collapsed into the Solar System of today. Comets and their asteroid sisters are relative newcomers to the solar family and might have been blasted out of larger bodies by tremendously powerful electric discharges in the recent past. They are not "snowballs" or blobs of muddy slush, they are solid, rocky, cratered, electrically charged objects.

When Stardust arrived at Wild 2, it found that the coma contained the "signature" of water vapor, although the distribution was anomalous. The farther from the surface of the comet, the greater the amount of vapor, surely a result that is diametrically opposed to the theoretical model of sublimating ices jetting out from the nucleus. So what was the "water vapor?"

Whatever water or hydroxyl compounds that can be found in cometary comas is created there because ionized oxygen from the comet reacts with hydrogen ions streaming out from the Sun. No "jets" of water vapor spew from comets, and no icy plains have ever been observed. It is electric effects that are seen—discharges and arcs form the comet phenomena.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom