The Hidden History of Plasma Cosmology

There have been a good few posts on plasma cosmology recently, so I figured I would write out a brief history of what it is and where its coming from. As there is far too much material on Plasma cosmology to put in a single post i'll try to keep it concise and explain it in simple terms.


The chances are you have never even heard of plasma cosmology. This is because it challenges the very core of Big Bang Cosmology, which nearly all of modern cosmology is based on. Mainstream science, for the most part, looks on the universe as electrically neutral and purely mechanical; a place where the weak force of gravity holds fort. Plasma Cosmology, by contrast, acknowledges the electrodynamic nature of the universe. Gravity and inertia are NOT the only forces at work.

The history of science, of course, is fraught with controversy, and it is important to bear in mind that the situation today is little different. Big science organizations seem to be doing all they can to try to discredit plasma cosmologists and their findings in space, probably for fear of looking stupid themselves.


It has been shown many times that the universe is made of 99.999% plasma, and since the characteristics of plasma were not known when current models of space were made, it is a logical step to replace the old theories with new ones. This is what mainstream science is now trying to avoid for fear of looking stupid.


The electric universe

One common misconception is that Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe are completely separate theories, they are actually complementary to each other. Electricity in space is a consequence of the abundance of plasma that is now known to fill space.

While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology.

While both viewpoints permit many ideas previously excluded by Big Bang Cosmology, The Electric Universe looks at the bigger picture, and promotes more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe, from ancient mythology right up to how electricity effects our own bodies.

Both PC and EU proponents acknowledge the fact that space is NOT electrically neutral, a fact largely denied in conventional astronomy.

Although many plasma cosmologists have received many science awards, written many accepted scientific papers and contributed vast amounts of knowledge to Astronomy, their findings are now often dismissed by mainstream opinion as incorrect. However, scientific reasons as to why they are incorrect are hardly ever put forward.



Kristian Birkeland

Often considered the founder of modern Plasma cosmology along Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfven. He was a man with very similar ideas to Tesla, who also conducted many electric based experiments at the beginning of the century. The most well known are his terella experiments, where he was able to replicate many aspects of the sun using an electrically charged anode. This was hard to swallow for mainstream astronomers, as they think the sun is neutral, but the remarkable resemblance between the sun and Birkelands electric experiments is hard to deny.




The suns plasma torus;





Birkelands experiment;





They certainly look pretty similar to me. All done with electricity.

He also managed to generate what could be explained as sunspots;







And he was also able to generate an electrical type ring around the terella; which looks remarkably similar to Saturn’s rings;








(cont)

[edit on 21-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]


Mod Edit: New Forum Image Linking Policy – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 22-12-2007 by Jbird]

Birkeland also had one of the key aspects of Plasma cosmology named after him, Birkeland currents. A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted "rope-like" magnetic structure.




They are usually invisible to the naked eye, but when they become energetic enough to create plasma they become visible. Birkeland currents are what make up the aurora, the suns corona and is what causes filamentary structures in nebulae in space.


Galaxy formation

One of the best elements of plasma cosmology is the successful predictions it has made about Galaxy formation. Currently Astronomers think that gravity causes everything in space, and because their gravitational models have been so bad at accounting for the shape of galaxies they have invented mysterious things such as ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ to explain them.

Plasma cosmology takes are more realistic approach. Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation. The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids. (adsabs.harvard.edu... and adsabs.harvard.edu...)


In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate the concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament. The results speak for themselves.






This is a very embarrassing situation for astronomers, as their current gravity models still can not explain why galaxies have the shape they do. (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227; How Can Spirals Persist?)



Plasma is scaleable

This is one of plasma cosmology’s major advantages over traditional cosmology, that galactic size systems could be scaled down and simulated successfully in laboratory experiments. This could mean that we could create a mini plasma galaxy in tests and learn more about how space works. You can even draw a strong resemblance between the look of popular ‘plasma balls’ and the characteristics of the sun, and that’s a scale of millions to one.




Anthony Peratt (PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy) has done some of the best work on the possibility of accurate simulations of galactic size objects in tests, all peer reviewed, and highly cited by his peers;

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas

On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas

Simulating spiral galaxies

Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies


(cont)

[edit on 21-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

(image tags)

[edit on 22-12-2007 by Jbird]

Z-pinch Fusion


This is another embarrassment for mainstream astronomy. It was over seventy years ago when Eddington first proposed that the sun and other bodies were powered by nuclear fusion. Since then there has not been one experiment that has achieved continual nuclear fusion, not even one.

In contrast to this Z-pinch fusion in high energy plasma has been tested in laboratories, and is capable of giving out just as much energy as nuclear fusion creates. This is done by creating strong electric currents and magnetic fields, which are able to release tremendous amounts of energy from atoms. If mainstream astronomers admitted that they got it wrong, and it is Z-pinch fusion that powers everything in space, then they would stop getting the billions of dollars of cash they get every year to try to achieve it. That is why they are so hesitant to use Z pinch fusion in any of their models.

Sandia’s Z-pinch machine; en.wikipedia.org...




Many plasma cosmologists think that it is likely that the sun and stars are powered externally by particles that undergo Z pinch fusion, not nuclear fuel.


Electric Stars


This is the most controversial theory of the Electric universe, and by far the most interesting. Good basic website; www.electric-cosmos.org...

Problems with the current model of the sun are as follows:

* Missing neutrinos
* Temperature of the halo-like corona is 300 times that of surface
* Rotates faster at equator, faster on surface
* Solar wind accelerates upon leaving the Sun
* Sunspots reveal cooler interior
* Sunspots travel faster than surrounding surface
* Sunspot penumbra (interior walls) reveal structured filaments

An eletcrical model would solve many of these problems.

Some good material on electrically powered stars at; www.electric-cosmos.org...
www.kronos-press.com...
www.plasma-universe.com...


The only website I have seen against this concept is from Anti Electric-Universe activist and self-styled debunker, Timothy Thompson. He attempts a critique of the Electric Sun model here; www.tim-thompson.com...

Don Scott, professor of electrical engineering, demolishes his arguments here; www.electric-cosmos.org...

This quote from Donald’s above rebuttal does well to conclude where plasma cosmology is at the moment;

We stand at a time in scientific history that will be embarrassing to look back on from the vantage point of the next century. An entire subgroup of science consisting of a majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists is now – and has been – smugly ignoring the fruits of 150 or so years of electrical science. This subgroup feels perfectly confident in postulating the existence of processes and entities that cannot be verified experimentally in earthbound labs. “But that doesn’t mean those processes can’t happen in space,” they say. When there are perfectly valid electrical explanations for certain phenomena, it is irresponsible to ignore those explanations and invent ‘new science’ to avoid using them. People will ask, years from now, “How could they have ignored electricity in space when it was staring them in the face?”

Call it what you will, Plasma Cosmology, the Electric Universe or the Electric Sky – the thrust of what was started by Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfvén, and Irving Langmuir (each of whom were awarded Nobel Prizes for their work) continues. And it will take more than the confrontational, parochial, pompous smoke screens of pseudoskeptics such as Tim Thompson to stop it.
Donald E. Scott – Ph.D.

For a complete list of most plasma cosmology concepts look here; www.plasma-universe.com... and click on the 'all articles' link on the left.

The evidence for electricity in space is now undeniable

[edit on 21-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Excellent presentation!

I hope this goes a long way towards clearing the misconceptions that have been floating around on this site with regards to plasma cosmology. Too many things are over-attributed to it that it just makes me shake my head and smile.

The mods should give you a round of applause for this quality presentation.

I agree that a closer look is needed into this subject area. Thank you for posting on this, for our further enlightenment.

While it will require more time than I can devote at the moment, this is an idea I have long wanted to take a closer examination of.

I will return here soon and follow your links out in more detail. Good work.

Excellent post.

I think more in the science forum on these boards need to read into this as they appear to be a part of that "mainstream physics" schematic.

Yeah I watched that 1 hour doco someone posted in a thread last night about this topic. I'm really getting into this and want to learn more.

Are there any serious flaws in this theory? What do skeptics say in regards to the electric universe?
Some of the points do seem to make sense.

I would be dissapointed about the black holes though. The electric universe just makes them seem pretty boring.

Fascinating Thread ZeuZZ!!!

This is a very interesting subject which definitely needs more attention.
The early plasma experiments are amazing.

Without detracting from the seriousness of this topic,I loved this bit:

" This is one of plasma cosmology’s major advantages over traditional cosmology, that galactic size systems could be scaled down and simulated successfully in laboratory experiments. This could mean that we could create a mini plasma galaxy in tests and learn more about how space works."

This could be awesome,maybe we could end up being able to simulate a mini universe in a lab...
And maybe just maybe,we already live in one!!!
Ouch..My head
Great thread

Edit to add:The Z machine is awesome looking in action on this giant picture(1.7mb)

www.sandia.gov...

Tesla would be drooling over that I bet..

[edit on 22-12-2007 by Silcone Synapse]

Plasma cosmology was created at around the cosmic microwave background was discovered, and the big bang was thus gaining acceptance. Thus the scientists really wouldn’t have had a reason to “feel stupid” if plasma cosmology had been promising. It would have been seen as just a competing theory, or even have won out.

Although many plasma cosmologists have received many science awards, written many accepted scientific papers and contributed vast amounts of knowledge to Astronomy, their findings are now often dismissed by mainstream opinion as incorrect. However, scientific reasons as to why they are incorrect are hardly ever put forward.

Almost all papers written on plasma cosmology have been written in their own journal. That really doesn’t say much for the quality of the research.

This was hard to swallow for mainstream astronomers, as they think the sun is neutral, but the remarkable resemblance between the sun and Birkelands electric experiments is hard to deny.

Grainy photos compared to pictures of astronomical objects hardly counts as evidence.

This is another embarrassment for mainstream astronomy. It was over seventy years ago when Eddington first proposed that the sun and other bodies were powered by nuclear fusion. Since then there has not been one experiment that has achieved continual nuclear fusion, not even one.

So. The type of sustained nuclear fusion happening in the sun requires more mass then can be found on earth, and we certainly know that nuclear fusion can happen so it is hardly an embarrassment when its just practical barriers that are getting in the way. Attempts at sustained nuclear fusion here on earth require other methods to be used.

You speak as though plasma cosmology has made many accurate predictions. The theory can’t even do a good job at explaining the cosmic microwave background. The thing about the electric force is that it cancels out at large scales. Even if the protons and electrons are all separated, this still happens when you get far enough away. Gravity however, does not have this problem, which is why despite the forces weakness, it rules the universe at a large scale.

Originally posted by Lethys
Plasma cosmology was created at around the cosmic microwave background was discovered, and the big bang was thus gaining acceptance. Thus the scientists really wouldn’t have had a reason to “feel stupid” if plasma cosmology had been promising. It would have been seen as just a competing theory, or even have won out.

Hannes Alfven was the person who really started the concept of plasma cosmology back in the 1970's.

Why are you saying " if plasma cosmology had been promising" as if its in the past tense? Plasma cosmology is here, and very real. There are hundreds of scientists that now endorse this altenative viewpoint against big bang cosmology (cosmologystatement.org...). 99.999% of the universe is plasma, even the space between the earth and sun is a plasma, and hardly any current models include any of the tested characteristics of plasma. There are huge electrostatic forces in plasma, much stronger than gravity, yet astronomers still use the theory of gravity for everything. They rely on only equations for the motion of fluids inside gas, and do not account for electromagnetic forces that we now know exist in plasma everywhere in space.

Almost all papers written on plasma cosmology have been written in their own journal. That really doesn’t say much for the quality of the research.

Give me a break. Here's just a few science papers on plasma cosmology, all peer revieved and all published in well established journals;

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, 1996

Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, 1995

The role of particle beams and electrical currents in the plasma universe Laser and Particle Beams, vol. 6, Aug. 1988

Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986

Magnetosphere -ionosphere interactions —near-Earth manifestations of the plasma Universe IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986

Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Plasma science. Publication Date: Dec. 2003

Cosmology in the plasma universe Laser and Particle Beams, vol. 6, Aug. 1988

Model of the plasma universe IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986

Grainy photos compared to pictures of astronomical objects hardly counts as evidence.

Are you saying that birkeland currents are not real? please do some research. Even wikipedia says that birkeland currents exist, and has quite an extensive article on them; en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 22-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Originally posted by Lethys
Plasma cosmology was created at around the cosmic microwave background
was discovered, and the big bang was thus gaining acceptance. Thus the scientists really wouldn’t have had a reason to “feel stupid” if plasma cosmology had been promising. It would have been seen as just a competing theory, or even have won out.

No plasma cosmology roots begin well before, the terrella experiments those grainy pictures you refer to is well documented performed a hundred years ago.

Although many plasma cosmologists have received many science awards, written many accepted scientific papers and contributed vast amounts of knowledge to Astronomy, their findings are now often dismissed by mainstream opinion as incorrect. However, scientific reasons as to why they are incorrect are hardly ever put forward.

I'd be happy to hear some of those scientific reasons? dark matter, dark energy, strange matter black holes, dirty snowballs in space, neutron stars and the big bang and expanding universe is not real science.

Almost all papers written on plasma cosmology have been written in their own journal. That really doesn’t say much for the quality of the research.

Not exactly true but there's reasons why it's not often heard about.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

cosmologystatement.org...

So. The type of sustained nuclear fusion happening in the sun requires more mass then can be found on earth, and we certainly know that nuclear fusion can happen so it is hardly an embarrassment when its just practical barriers that are getting in the way. Attempts at sustained nuclear fusion here on earth require other methods to be used.

That's right, those different methods involve plasma z-pinch, every mystery connected with the nuclear fusion model of the sun is a natural result of the electric model, it just so happens that Birkelands hundred year old experiments confirm this as well as the data pouring back in over the last few years.

You speak as though plasma cosmology has made many accurate predictions. The theory can’t even do a good job at explaining the cosmic microwave background. The thing about the electric force is that it cancels out at large scales. Even if the protons and electrons are all separated, this still happens when you get far enough away. Gravity however, does not have this problem, which is why despite the forces weakness, it rules the universe at a large scale.

Actually it has made several accurate predictions, also the CMB was predicted far more accurately by both steady state and plasma cosmologists than those of the big bangers, some who predicted as much as 50 degrees!!
And plasma cosmology does have a valid explanation, if you call nothing exploding as an explanation, then well.... I prefer this one.

Plasma theory of the CBR predict absorption of radio waves, which is observed
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. It has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from the COBE sattelite. Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption has been demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect. New observations have shown the exact same absorption at a wavelength of 850 microns, just as predicted by plasma theory.

www.bigbangneverhappened.org...

The vast extent magnetic fields exist in space is well accepted, only electric currents generate magnetic fields. Birkeland currents can extend for hundreds of light years or more. The galactic spiral arms are currents of energy. Galaxy formation by electric currents through plasma. I think that's a big enough scale.
The visible universe is 99.999% plasma I think plasma physicists should have a say, should they not?

[edit on 22-12-2007 by squiz]

we certainly know that nuclear fusion can happen so it is hardly an embarrassment when its just practical barriers that are getting in the way. Attempts at sustained nuclear fusion here on earth require other methods to be used.

You can try to worm your way out of it all you want. There have been billions of pounds spent on trying to achieve nulclesr fusion, not one sucessful attempt. The stages required for the particles to undergo fusion have, such as stage three (2H + 1H → 3He + γ + 5.49), but continuos fusion has never been achieved. It may not even be possible.

FACT: nuclear fusion has never been achieved.

FACT: Z-pinch fusion has been achieved.

You speak as though plasma cosmology has made many accurate predictions.

It has made many. Quite a few more than normal astronomy i might add. They seem to be more and more surprised at everything they discover in space.

Hannes Alfven predicted that double raido sources could form out in space, and he was proved right later when it was confirmed by hubble. Filamentary structures in nebulae were predicted by Birkeland. Wallace thronhill made many succesful predictions about comet Tempel 1 and its impact causing an electrical discharge. There are many more.

The theory can’t even do a good job at explaining the cosmic microwave background.

And you think that the 'Big Bang' is a good explanation? was it so loud it damaged your brain? trust me, no sane astronomer believes in the Big Bang theory anymore. This paper just about sums up where the big bang is now; ieeexplore.ieee.org...

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. [..]

[..]The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.

Why do scientists feel the need to work backwards from something that happened so long ago? in my opinion (and many others) the big bang is holding back modern astronomy. That is why plasma cosmology is so appealing, it doesn't need to start or finish, you just add to the model as time goes by without the restraints of someting that happened billions of years ago.

The thing about the electric force is that it cancels out at large scales.

Thats odd, lightning certainly looks like a real effect on earth to me, and thats certainly caused by charge separation.

Even if the protons and electrons are all separated, this still happens when you get far enough away.

Sort of correct. Capacitance is a differencial concept, so you have to state the capacitance in relation to something. You could claim anything is neutral if you can choose the paramenters of reference, but on a localized scale there is always plenty of charge separation. That is one of the fundamental properites of plasma.

Gravity however, does not have this problem, which is why despite the forces weakness, it rules the universe at a large scale.

Gravity has one more even bigger problem. No one has ever found what causes gravity, how it works, or its relation to any of the other forces. Thats a pretty big problem.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Here's a vid I found that may help, serves as a good introduction.

I just posted a bibliography I put together several years ago for a seminar I gave on Plasma Cosmology. You can find it on the front page of my website here:
www.soundintent.com...

All of the papers are in some manner related to the subject, either directly or indirectly. This is but a small sample.

Mainstream adherents can continue denying reality all they want. If they would only start to do a little research from the proper perspective, they would not be so quick to dismiss Plasma Cosmology.

Originally posted by Ionized
I just posted a bibliography I put together several years ago for a seminar I gave on Plasma Cosmology. You can find it on the front page of my website here:
www.soundintent.com...

All of the papers are in some manner related to the subject, either directly or indirectly. This is but a small sample.

Thankyou, that is a very fine list of papers. I have not seen half of them before, especially most of the foreign ones.

They'll certainly come in handy in the future

ZeuZZ, Squiz, Ionized-

Finally something to wrap our minds around. Thank you for your contributions to this subject matter. This is the stuff that makes ATS worth coming to. I've read thru the recent threads about this and EU theory and I must say that I'm very intrigued by it all.

Plasma Cosmology definitely needs some serious consideration and more airtime imo. This topic is a new one for me but I'm honestly hooked and you all present it in a manner that is fairly easy to digest, not much heartburn. It will take some time to go thru the material that you've all provided but I'm going to try to get thru it.

I like the idea that it can be scaled down and possibly studied in a lab. I do believe that the Universe repeats itself on all scales. It's the land of infinity. And it's beginning to seem to me that plasma and electricity are the 2 main ingredients to binding it all together into one cohesive system.

Thanks guys, I look forward to your continued contributions.

reply to post by squiz


A good video as an overall summary of the basic idea. I recommend it to those needing to get a beginners grasp of the history and concept behind this idea.

Good contribution to our understanding this.

Interesting thread. Science is in many ways like religion in the sense that it refutes anything that is contrary to preconceived notions. This explain why "new" sciences get such a bum wrap from Newtonian idealists...

I thoroughly enjoyed your post,Zeus. I flagged it and starred it.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 24-12-2007 by xxxALIVE]

[edit on 24-12-2007 by xxxALIVE]