The Hidden History of Plasma Cosmology

This is a really fascinating subject! ^.^

Hello All

This is my first post,,,,,,,,,,,,keep smiling


Plasma makes up most of the universe in one form or another.

Research into plamsa properties will give us understanding of the parts within the universe.

It does not matter whether main stream is looking at it or not. The reasearch has already being going on for decades and in the hands of scientists.

reply to post by Harry Costas


Welcome to ATS and to the Space Exploration forum. Glad you stopped by.

The more we learn about the cosmos, the more we realize how little we have learned. I don't see how the principles of electricity and magnetism can be excluded from the working of the Universe. It seems to be high time we paid attention to this.

Edit to add: It's so nice to see a new poster that doesn't start off here on ATS with some lame one line post, but instead expresses an opinion. Good job.



[edit on 25-12-2007 by NGC2736]

Speaking of new posters, it was the plasma cosmology threads that provoked me to register and interact with the ATS community. I've been checking in off and on for the past few years checking on alternative news threads.

Being an astronomy buff, I found this theory to be rather insightful and stimulating. And although I've studied mostly mainstream literature on astronomy, with a few exceptions (eg; james mccanney), electric universe has only cleared up some issues I had with Big Bang Cosmology. Thank You for these Threads



-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


And welcome to you too! I'm glad that our little forum has caught your interest. To some extent, we're the unloved step children of ATS. There's more drama in many other areas, and more room to hoax and fabricate, than here. But, like the Plasma Cosmology idea, we are open to scholarly debate on any subject.

So make yourself at home and enjoy the fun.

reply to post by NGC2736


Thank You,

I do have one problem that bothers me currently with plasma cosmology, I have yet to find anything on Background Radiation. This is something that has puzzled me about Big Bang Cosmology as well.

....And I just love looking at planetary nebulae now with a new perspective on their Symetry.

-Dev

Greetings,

I have a chart I did for an inventor friend but if I embed it here it will be illegible, so I thought to offer a link and a direction to nearly the bottom of the page.

Any comments about this, called the "Holofractaline GUT," would be appreciated, as it seems that his ideas fit into the Plasma concepts and I would like to know how others feel about this...

home.earthlink.net...

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


I think I can direct you to an area that will help you in this matter. The Los Alamos National Laboratory. On their web page they have a search function, and if you type in "plasma cosmology" you will find that it is being taken very seriously by a lot of mainstream scientists.

lanl.arxiv.org...

Happy hunting.

I applaud your thread for it is new/ancient and exciting knowledge.
thinking outside the box is the only way to break out of it.
sorry I have no scientific contribution but I do think that the electric universe theories are going to help change the current state of science.

Everything is Vibration .... All is Sound/Light

oh boy.......as he scratches head in utter amazement...lol
check this crazy book and then check this crazy thead out and that mixed together with your crazy thread and my crazy thread and this is all .......well its all mad...lol...its a mad mad mad mad world...

heres the crazy book

mothershiplanding.blogspot.com...

and this crazy thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and my crazy thead

www.abovetopsecret.com...

plus many other related ones that are way too numerous to list.


sounds like they got tech out there that will just melt our brains to even think about.......oh ya and squish them too....

-Bobby


[edit on 1-1-2008 by Maya432]

Wow! A discussion on PC/EU with no mention of Emanuel Velikovsky?! Seriously if anyone knows where I might get my hands on a copy of "Worlds in Collision" I would be forever grateful. All the copies I try to purchase online seem to fall through the cracks. It's like a huge...umm what's the word...conspiracy, yeah.

Seriously though, this has always been a fascinating topic for me. Kudos to the thread starter for a very thorough and well thought out post. What I find most intriguing about PC/EU is not so much the theory itself, which is of course fascinating, but rather the mainstreams reaction, or lack thereof.

Big bang theory requires the creation of all kinds of crazy particles and dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc; things which by definition are unobservable. Convenient. Any time a crack appears in BBT some new and crazy "dark" (imaginary is the term I prefer) something or the other is created to make the equations fit the observations. I will not discuss Occam's Razor accept to say that EU/PC theories fit the observed universe much more elegantly, without resorting to any imaginary unobservables.

Now since empirical science is the touchstone of our civilization, and PC/EU is empirically superior I see only two reasons why PC/EU remains unnacepted by mainstream science.

One: It is a truth that science doesn't advance by experimentation and observation, but by one generation dying and another generation, younger and more accustomed to new theories, rising up in it's place.

Two: A conspiacy exists to keep this knowledge hidden in an effort to maintain the status quo here on Earth. What will become of our science, or the energy crisis, or climate change when we accept that our planet, our sun, the very universe we inhabit is part of one enormous electric circuit?

It is easy for us today to think we have all the answers, that our scientific knowledge is flawless and that we are indeed the pinnacle of human achievement. But we must remain humble and curious if we are to advance both socially and scientifically, and I both hope and believe that greater acceptance and investigation of these theories will be a step forward on this path.


[edit on 1-1-2008 by Orwells Ghost]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by Orwells Ghost]

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Wow! A discussion on PC/EU with no mention of Emanuel Velikovsky?!

I think you may have blown a huge hole in the credibility of this thread.

Let's hope you haven't holed it below the waterline, eh?

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Wow! A discussion on PC/EU with no mention of Emanuel Velikovsky?!

I think you may have blown a huge hole in the credibility of this thread.

Let's hope you haven't holed it below the waterline, eh?

Let's not forget that Velikovsky was writing at a time where the science of the cosmos was not quite as sophisticated as today. Take his readings for what they are; not scientific theory but a conglomeration of historical, cultural and astronomical information. What is striking about them is not that they change the scientific paradigm, but that they are non-scientific works which coroborate a scientific theory. In my opinion this interdisciplinary congruence of information is one of the things that makes PC/EU theory so compelling. Not only is PC/EU favoured by the scientific method, it is favoured by the ancient history of cultures around the globe. Is that not startling?

Theories in collision

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Let's not forget that Velikovsky was writing at a time where the science of the cosmos was not quite as sophisticated as today.

True, but I think the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates was already rather well understood - cf. Velikovsky's take on 'manna'. I read that book you're searching for, ages ago. It's drivel.

Take his readings for what they are; not scientific theory but a conglomeration of historical, cultural and astronomical information. What is striking about them is not that they change the scientific paradigm, but that they are non-scientific works which coroborate a scientific theory.

I take his writings for what they are: extravagant speculation with no scientific basis whatsoever. What scientific theory are they supposed to 'corroborate'? His ravings about planets caroming off one another like billiard-balls? That is about as unscientific as you could get.

Not only is PC/EU favoured by the scientific method, it is favoured by the ancient history of cultures around the globe. Is that not startling?

It is not true. Yes, I read the thread.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Theories in collision

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Let's not forget that Velikovsky was writing at a time where the science of the cosmos was not quite as sophisticated as today.

True, but I think the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates was already rather well understood - cf. Velikovsky's take on 'manna'. I read that book you're searching for, ages ago. It's drivel.

Take his readings for what they are; not scientific theory but a conglomeration of historical, cultural and astronomical information. What is striking about them is not that they change the scientific paradigm, but that they are non-scientific works which coroborate a scientific theory.

I take his writings for what they are: extravagant speculation with no scientific basis whatsoever. What scientific theory are they supposed to 'corroborate'? His ravings about planets caroming off one another like billiard-balls? That is about as unscientific as you could get.

Not only is PC/EU favoured by the scientific method, it is favoured by the ancient history of cultures around the globe. Is that not startling?

It is not true. Yes, I read the thread.

Confused hydrocarbons and billiard ball planets are not Velikovsky's legacy. There are countless ancient petroglyphs scattered all around the world. For some unexplained reason, around ten thousand years, ago man’s art changed from that of an agrarian hunter gather, depicting animals and fertility goddesses, to seemingly abstract cosmic depictions that bare a strange similarity to plasmas. There are ancient stories and religious tales that adhere to the known parameters of plasma physics. Are these archaic stories of battles in the heavens really just myth with no basis in reality?

Depictions of dragons in ancient mythology are eerily similar to plasma instabilities observed in laboratories. Venus is often depicted as a flaming serpent or dragon. Ancient names for Venus include the Aztec 'smoking star', the Incan 'long-haired' star, Babylonian 'bearded star', and the Egyptian 'Great Star, scattering its flame in fire'. Consider the Jovian Birkeland currents, once considered impossible until the voyager flyby of 1979 when they were right there for everyone to see. Is it so difficult to believe that Velikovsky's research actually supports the premise that the planets in the solar system and indeed the entire universe are not electrically neutral?

Velikovsky's ultimate role in PC/EU theory is not that of a theoretical physicist. He serves to point out that when our ancient ancestors looked up, they saw a very different sky from the one we see today, one filled with terror and awe, cataclysmic battles between the gods, and well...plasma. Scientific errors in his work do nothing to diminish the significance of his contribution. He wasn't right about everything. Who is? His personal theories are only insignificant from the perspective of hard analytical science. Not everything is meant to be quantified. Expand your mind; there is more to creation than numbers and elements. I encourage you to always keep an open mind about different theories, no matter how outlandish they seem given your personal world view. A kernel of heretofore unknown truth may turn up in the most unexpected of places. Referenced with some seemingly unrelated data, that kernel may just rock your world.

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
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.

And? It's been a long time since people learned about genetics and DNA, and yet we are not sequencing genetic material (yet) from scratch at this point. Does this mean that the foundations of genetics are all wrong? Hardly...

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.

You seem to be implying that the "Z-pinch fusion" is not nuclear fusion. I hope you realize that this is wrong. The Z-pinch refers to a particular way of forming the confinement field. The fusion is still same old nuclear fusion. And as interesting as it is, it in no way subtracts from the quite plausible hypothesis that it's the nuclear fusion which powers the Sun.

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.

Again, this is a misleading statement as in reality the magic word "Z-pinch" does not refer to any source of energy outside the nuclear fusion.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
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.

And? It's been a long time since people learned about genetics and DNA, and yet we are not sequencing genetic material (yet) from scratch at this point. Does this mean that the foundations of genetics are all wrong? Hardly...

Valid point. In theory, we are just a few tiny steps away from achieving nuclear fusion, its just that the experiment runs out of energy far too quickly to be sustainable. Now i dont have a problem with nuclear fusion in that sense, it may be achieved in the future, but it just seems to me that viable alternatives to how the sun produces this energy are being overlooked.

Plus i take issue with the view that the suns energy can only be created at the centre of a star, we dont really know that, that is also assumed from gravitational theories.

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.

You seem to be implying that the "Z-pinch fusion" is not nuclear fusion. I hope you realize that this is wrong. The Z-pinch refers to a particular way of forming the confinement field. The fusion is still same old nuclear fusion. And as interesting as it is, it in no way subtracts from the quite plausible hypothesis that it's the nuclear fusion which powers the Sun.

I should have been more specific. I take issue with astronomers saying that fusion only occurs at the core, i think it is more likely that fusion occurs at the surface of the sun, and throughout it. The reason that Z-pinch is not accepted is because astronomers do not accept that electric currents that strong, and moving that fast, can be inside the sun. In plasma cosmology the sun is a lot more dynamic, and formed mainly from electrical plasma characteristics. In contrast the standard model models the sun as a slowly convecting ball of gas, which i think is a flawed approach from the offset.

Something can not be gas and plasma at the same time, any more than something can be solid and gas at the same time. They are different states of matter and the sun is nearly entirely plasma, meaning that technically there is no gas or liquid in there. And since the fluid equations astronomers use are only applicable to the motion of neutral liquids and gasses, they can not be accurately applied to plasmas such as the sun.

From what we now know about the sun, from Eddingtons standard model, smooth, stable convection columns are impossible as they are currently described. The Reynolds Number is an indicator of the likelihood that smooth laminar flow can occur in a body. If the Reynolds Number exceeds a critical value, flow will be turbulent and highly complex, not in 'laminar columns' as the standard model states. The value has been shown to far in excess of what it should be.

Clearly, then, any convective motion within the sun should be violently turbulent and highly disordered. Many facile assertions to the contrary, it become increasingly obvious that the existence of photospheric granulation is explainable only in term of convection columns, only if we disregard what we know about convection. This has been recently verified by perhaps the most eminent solar astronomer of all, Dr Eugene N. Parker, (adsabs.harvard.edu... Paper: The physics of the Sun and the gateway to the stars)

the Reynolds Number [in the convection zone] is on the order of 1012 and, perhaps worse, the convection zone is vertically stratified".

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.

Again, this is a misleading statement as in reality the magic word "Z-pinch" does not refer to any source of energy outside the nuclear fusion.

Correct, but Z-pinch still requires conditions that astronomers (currently) are not willing to accept can occur in space, let alone in the sun.


[edit on 2-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
I should have been more specific. I take issue with astronomers saying that fusion only occurs at the core, i think it is more likely that fusion occurs at the surface of the sun, and throughout it. The reason that Z-pinch is not accepted is because astronomers do not accept that electric currents that strong

Well, there are other reasons. For example, you rather arbitrarily threw in the Z-pinch concept into the fray. Look at the letter "Z" in this term. It implies a cylindrical symmetry with respect to the Z-axis. All the Z-pinch apparatus are built around this idea and feature fibers, wires, etc. Sun, on the other hand, is predominantly spherical. If you propose a new model of the Sun, you better back it up with a concrete map of the field you think exists there, because otherwise there is too much talk and little substance (and I'm not trying to be mean here). There are other pretty arbitrary statements like the fusion reaction happening all over the Sun's volume. Well, calculations can be made based on the known cross sections and I don't think you'll get any output form the densities and temperatures that exist outside of the core. To get a decent reaction rate, you need BOTH density and temperature. No amount of "Z-majik" will help you generate energy unless you have these two components.


There is a viable body of data regarding the solar neutrinos:
en.wikipedia.org...
and that is explained by the Standard Model of elementary particles.

In plasma cosmology the sun is a lot more dynamic, and formed mainly from electrical plasma characteristics.

You cannot form a physical object from "characteristics".

Something can not be gas and plasma at the same time, any more than something can be solid and gas at the same time. They are different states of matter and the sun is 100% plasma, meaning that technically there is no gas there. so the fluid equations astronomers use are only applicable to the motion of neutral liquids and gasses, and can not be accurately applied to plasmas such as the sun.

Well, you don't really know what exactly the scientists are using in their models of the Sun. The matter in the Sun is indeed mostly ionized and as such a plasma, but I find it puzzling that you affirm how astronomers/scientists are ignoring that fact in their models. They are not. Plasma physics provides a lot of necessary math framework of dealing with this.

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Wow! A discussion on PC/EU with no mention of Emanuel Velikovsky?!

As much as i find his ideas interesting, i dont like to use his name due to the controversy he causes. A lot of his ideas have been disproved, some have not, but i always take caution before linking him with plasma cosmology, as there are many more established scientists that support it than Velikovsky.

There has been some more work on the ancient rock art connection to plasma formations by Anthony Peratt, which seems like an interesting take on a lot of ancient art in history; public.lanl.gov...

The rest of your points are very valid, but talk of Velikovsky should be left for another thread, i feel.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If you propose a new model of the Sun, you better back it up with a concrete map of the field you think exists there, because otherwise there is too much talk and little substance (and I'm not trying to be mean here).

you are not being mean, from what i have seen your posts have been of good nature and raising genuine scientific issues, the way i like them. When people start lumping people into groups by using separatist ideologies and making things personal, you can be sure they have lost the argument. So far there not been any. lets keep it that way.

There is currently no complete model of the suns electrics. There are a couple of quite radical ones kicking about in cyberspace, but not any definitive ones. I am really busy at the moment (I have three exams in a weeks time), once i have more time i will try to find some of the best models that have been proposed and we'll see what we think of them. (in one of the threads that has been started about electric stars, as opposed to this one, preferably)



[edit on 2-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]