[_ Old Earth _] Electric Universe theory & Plasma cosmology

[Vaccine]

"It is often joked that science progresses in three stages:
1. New theories are ignored and/or ridiculed
2. Their importance is denied
3. It is pretended that the new theory was known all along
The trouble is, many a true word is spoken in jest, and right now we seem to be somewhere betweens stages 1 and 2. For how much longer can the importance of Cosmical Electrodynamics be overlooked?"

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/forward.html

From what I've read electric universe theory and plasma cosmology are making predictions and explaining observable phenomenon better than gravitational models. Where gravity can only attract, electric forces can attract and repel. They point out that with only gravity to work with we need 3 theories to explain gravity, Quantum physics on the microscopic scale, Relativity on the macro-scale (stars, galaxies, universe) and classic Newton laws of motion on the planetary scale. In the electric universe theory gravity is viewed as a weak electric force but electric forces can both attract and repel, giving scientists more tools for explaining power. These forces are also scalable, meaning how these forces explain protons, neutrons and electrons on the microscopic scale, also work on a planetary scale as well as the macro scale such as galaxies, stars, and the universe. One theory to replace the other 3.

"The cosmic theatre has outgrown the Newtonian stage, and we need a larger setting to understand the broader cosmic drama. Instead of a vision of isolated bodies turning gear-like in a vacuum, we need a vision of electrical circuits embedded in a conducting medium whose components drive each other and may be in resonance. We have left the familiar world of solids, liquids and gasses. We have entered a world of plasma, where the rules are different and more complex. We now live in an Electric Universe."

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html

"The visible universe is a theater of charged particles. A dance of electrons and protons holds it together. We see its rhythms and geometries in microscopic detail, even as its music plays out across the cosmos: atoms and molecules joined by the electric force; stars and galaxies organized and energized by the same force; and on our little planet Earth, living organisms animated by the electricity of life. No empty space exists. Everything we now see is connected by the universal dance of charged particles."
~David Talbott, The Thunderbolts Project


They pointed out how in school we are taught matter can be liquid, solid, or gas, but little is mentioned about the 4th state of matter, plasma. 99.99% of the visible universe matter is in the form of plasma. Plasma cosmology offers simpler explanations for pulsars, features of the sun, comets and galaxies. It also explains observable phenomenon in the universe without dark matter or dark energy. Some believe plasma cosmology revives the steady state universe but others believe a young universe resolves many issues. It will be interesting to see where these new theories go.
Read more here:
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html

 

[Barbarian]

From what I've read electric universe theory and plasma cosmology are making predictions and explaining observable phenomenon better than gravitational models.

You might talk to NASA. Space craft are navigated with the assumption that gravity and inertia are the two things that determine speed and direction. So far, it's always worked. The "solar sail" technology depends on the solar wind of charged particles, but the process by which the solar wind is generated is denied to exist by most "electric universe" people. I'd point to this in the literature, but there doesn't seem to be any articles by them in the literature. It seems to be entirely internet blogs or vanity press.

Where gravity can only attract, electric forces can attract and repel.

So far, no NASA spacecraft have encountered measurable electrical forces, attractive or repulsive. Normally science starts with an observed phenomenon, and then devises a theory to explain it, depending on evidence gathered in the process of testing ideas about the phenomenon. These guys have ideas about a phenomenon yet to be observed.

They point out that with only gravity to work with we need 3 theories to explain gravity,

?

Quantum physics on the microscopic scale,

There's not even a theory of quantum gravity. Some ideas, which are as of yet, not confirmed.

Relativity on the macro-scale (stars, galaxies, universe)

Newtonian physics nicely describes the interactions of the Milky Way with the Magellanic Clouds (small galaxies that orbit the Milky Way in accord with Newtonian gravity)

and classic Newton laws of motion on the planetary scale

Relativistic effects were observed in our solar system before relativity was proposed by Einstein. An example:
A long-standing problem in the study of the Solar System was that the orbit of Mercury did not behave as required by Newton's equations...This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, without any adjustments whatsoever, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html

As you see, it's not three theories of gravitation.

In the electric universe theory gravity is viewed as a weak electric force but electric forces can both attract and repel, giving scientists more tools for explaining power. These forces are also scalable, meaning how these forces explain protons, neutrons and electrons on the microscopic scale, also work on a planetary scale as well as the macro scale such as galaxies, stars, and the universe. One theory to replace the other 3.

Another problem is the denial of fusion in the Sun as the mechanism for heat and light. But this has been confirmed as the predicted neutrino flux which is a consequence of fusion, has been verified:
To date, only the first experiment has collected data. However, the team has compared its results with the results of a Japanese experiment dubbed “Super-Kamiokande,” which detected all three varieties of neutrinos.6 The data showed that the so-called missing neutrinos were not really missing after all but had simply converted from electron neutrinos into tau and muon neutrinos. The two studies indicate that solar neutrinos flow at 5.4 ±1.0 million neutrinos cm-2 sec-1, a measurement close enough to resolve the neutrino problem.7


Solving the solar neutrino problem gives astronomers confidence in their understanding of the Sun. The neutrino flux shows physicists how the Sun’s output of light has remained very steady over the last 50,000 years, and will continue to do so for the next 50,000 years—a requirement for human existence.


The solution also affirms the nuclear fusion model for other stars. This confirms that the oldest stars in Earth’s galaxy are about 13 billion years old, as the big bang creation model predicts.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/missing-solar-neutrinos-found

"The cosmic theatre has outgrown the Newtonian stage, and we need a larger setting to understand the broader cosmic drama. Instead of a vision of isolated bodies turning gear-like in a vacuum, we need a vision of electrical circuits embedded in a conducting medium whose components drive each other and may be in resonance. We have left the familiar world of solids, liquids and gasses. We have entered a world of plasma, where the rules are different and more complex. We now live in an Electric Universe."

Want to see some plasma? Build a fire. The primary difference between plasma and gases, is that a large proportion of the atoms in plasma are ionized. This means that the ions can respond to an electrical potential:

However, we don't see that at work in the solar system; our spacecraft navigate precisely over millions of kilometers, without any regard for electrical charge. It just doesn't measurably affect the way the spacecraft move.

 

[Vaccine]

You might talk to NASA. Space craft are navigated with the assumption that gravity and inertia are the two things that determine speed and direction. So far, it's always worked.

It doesn't deny gravity, merely redefines it as a weak electromagnetic force. It gives physicists more tools to explain phenomenon. For example:
"In January 2005 our Sun produced a few more surprises. On 20th Jan, in particular, it produced a coronal mass ejection (CME) that achieved velocities incomparably greater than anything astronomers had seen before. It normally takes more than 24 hours for the charged particles of a solar outburst to reach the Earth, but this CME achieved it in just thirty minutes. Earth (some 96 million miles from the Sun) was immersed in what NASA scientists called 'the most intense proton storm in decades'. Proton storms get their name from the 'rain' of positively charged particles that can hit the Earth.
A NASA headline article concluded, 'How they were accelerated, however, remains a mystery'. From a plasma perspective, of course, this phenomenon is less mysterious."
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html

The "solar sail" technology depends on the solar wind of charged particles, but the process by which the solar wind is generated is denied to exist by most "electric universe" people.

They don't deny solar wind. Their view a different process creates it.
"Because the sun is seen to emit roughly equal quantities of ions and electrons, the solar wind is considered electrically neutral in mainstream circles. This is wrong. In reality it is a huge bipolar electric current, and the terms solar wind and solar radiation result from the fact that the mainstream refuses to acknowledge electricity in space.
Moreover, plasmas react with the extensive magnetic field lines in our solar system, and when conducting fluids flow through a magnetic field a dynamo can be created, with the electrical energy needed to drive the current taken from any relative motion. This is consistent with the laws of physics: If a closed circuit exists, parts of which are moving through a magnetic field while other parts are not, an electric current will arise. This is how dynamos work."
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tech.html

"The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun's energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun." Ralph E. Juergens (1980)

"Are stars powered from within, or does the power come from elsewhere? This was the question asked by Sir Arthur Eddington in the 1920s. He settled for the former, and this laid the foundation for current mainstream models. Ralph Juergens asked the question again in the 1970s, and opted for the latter. According to Juergens, stars shine because they are connected to electric circuitry within galaxies. An electric star's brightness thus depends on the power of the electric current feeding it, not on the amount of nuclear fuel available to burn.

Stars thus behave as anodes in a galactic glow discharge. The many surface phenomena that can be seen on the Sun -- hot corona, sunspots, prominences, flares, et al -- can all be explained by an electric Sun, but are more difficult to understand from a nuclear point of view. Nuclear reactions take place on the surface, not in the core, perhaps explaining why neutrino numbers vary with sunspot cycles, and these reactions are almost certainly produced in the same way that we produce them in the lab -- by accelerating particles in an electric field."
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html

I'd point to this in the literature, but there doesn't seem to be any articles by them in the literature. It seems to be entirely internet blogs or vanity press.

They mostly publish peer reviewed articles at the IEEE:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/logi...lore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=45495
They explain it here:

"A number of leading Scientists, Electrical Engineers, and Independent Researchers decided to voice their concerns in 2004, and signed a petition attached to the Open Letter. It raised a number of issues, and was dubbed 'An Open Letter to Closed Minds' in some quarters.

It was published in the New Scientist, May 22, 2004, and can be viewed here
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

The letter focussed on a number of areas of concern, notably the Big Bang's increasing reliance on hypothetical entities, a reluctance to consider alternative views, and the effective bias of the Peer Review system, dominated as it is by 'Big Bangers'."
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/forward.html

These guys have ideas about a phenomenon yet to be observed.

Their ideas have been observed. The problem is most astrophysicists know little about plasma. This is a computer simulation of plasma made with only electrical forces, no gravity:

Kinda looks like a spiral galaxy? In gravitational models, the spiral arms of galaxies would fly off into space. This is why dark energy and dark matter were proposed. They prop up a dying big bang theory.

Another example:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/03/06/cosmic-seeds-shatter-star-formation-theory-space-news/

"Previous theories proposed that high-mass stars form within massive isolated “cores” weighing at least 100 times the mass of the Sun. These new results show that that is not the case. The data also demonstrate that massive stars aren’t born alone but in groups."
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/...ls-how-small-cosmic-seeds-grow-into-big-stars

The big bang theory is falsified again by predicting stars form alone and weigh at least 100 times the mass of our sun. They can form with as little as 1/4 the mass our sun and in groups. This is normally how stars are formed in plasma cosmology.

Another problem is the denial of fusion in the Sun as the mechanism for heat and light. But this has been confirmed as the predicted neutrino flux which is a consequence of fusion, has been verified:
To date, only the first experiment has collected data. However, the team has compared its results with the results of a Japanese experiment dubbed “Super-Kamiokande,” which detected all three varieties of neutrinos.6 The data showed that the so-called missing neutrinos were not really missing after all but had simply converted from electron neutrinos into tau and muon neutrinos. The two studies indicate that solar neutrinos flow at 5.4 ±1.0 million neutrinos cm-2 sec-1, a measurement close enough to resolve the neutrino problem.7

Solving the solar neutrino problem gives astronomers confidence in their understanding of the Sun. The neutrino flux shows physicists how the Sun’s output of light has remained very steady over the last 50,000 years, and will continue to do so for the next 50,000 years—a requirement for human existence.

The solution also affirms the nuclear fusion model for other stars. This confirms that the oldest stars in Earth’s galaxy are about 13 billion years old, as the big bang creation model predicts.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/missing-solar-neutrinos-found

The problem is they didn't detect actually detect Neutrinos, they don't have any mass. They assume neutrinos exist, therefore they are the only possible explanation for what they detected. A bit of circular reasoning there.

Want to see some plasma? Build a fire. The primary difference between plasma and gases, is that a large proportion of the atoms in plasma are ionized. This means that the ions can respond to an electrical potential:
However, we don't see that at work in the solar system;

99.99% of the matter in the universe is plasma, it's exactly what we see in the universe.

 

[Vaccine]

I thought I'd mention how plasma cosmology relates to Christianity.
Plasma cosmology radically changes ideas how planets and stars are formed and the age of the universe. Gravity is a weak force, taking a lot of time to accomplish anything. Electric forces on the other hand are strong and can cause things to happen quickly. With only the slow weak force of gravity to explain the formation of planets and stars, the idea of an accretion disc, gravity causing collapse and rotation over millions of years to form galaxies, stars, and planets was the best explanation.

In plasma cosmology Planets, stars, and galaxies would form quickly, not slowly, even in a matter of days. Everything in the universe is connected electrically. In a gravity only model, stars form first and planets follow. In plasma cosmology planets forming before stars is the norm. If electric universe theory is true any attempt to date the universe presents a challenge. The primer fields render useless radiometric dating due to electrical interference. Things would happen quickly, not slowly so the 13.7 billion year estimate is obsolete. To be fair, some proponents of plasma cosmology believe there is no way to tell the age of the universe and so revives the steady state model with an infinitely old universe, but that idea brings many problems with it, while a relatively young universe solves many issues.


"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power." Heb 1:3

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You might talk to NASA. Space craft are navigated with the assumption that gravity and inertia are the two things that determine speed and direction. So far, it's always worked.

It doesn't deny gravity, merely redefines it as a weak electromagnetic force.

Gravity, the weak force, and electromagnetic force are three different things. Demonstrably so. But the point is that the supposed electromagnetic forces that these people believe make the solar system work, are ignored by NASA. Only gravity needs to be taken into account in order to navigate spacecraft. So there's no evidence for the imagined effect.

It gives physicists more tools to explain phenomenon. For example:
"In January 2005 our Sun produced a few more surprises. On 20th Jan, in particular, it produced a coronal mass ejection (CME) that achieved velocities incomparably greater than anything astronomers had seen before. It normally takes more than 24 hours for the charged particles of a solar outburst to reach the Earth, but this CME achieved it in just thirty minutes. Earth (some 96 million miles from the Sun) was immersed in what NASA scientists called 'the most intense proton storm in decades'. Proton storms get their name from the 'rain' of positively charged particles that can hit the Earth.
A NASA headline article concluded, 'How they were accelerated, however, remains a mystery'. From a plasma perspective, of course, this phenomenon is less mysterious."

I notice that it wasn't predicted by your guys, and they can't explain why it happened. On the other hand, physics explains the process and indeed predicts such phenomena.

Barbarian observes:
The "solar sail" technology depends on the solar wind of charged particles, but the process by which the solar wind is generated is denied to exist by most "electric universe" people.

They don't deny solar wind.

They deny the process that causes it.

"Because the sun is seen to emit roughly equal quantities of ions and electrons, the solar wind is considered electrically neutral in mainstream circles.

Clearly, they don't understand this. Ions can be positively or negatively charged. Electrons are always negatively charged. The statement makes no sense.

This is wrong. In reality it is a huge bipolar electric current, and the terms solar wind and solar radiation result from the fact that the mainstream refuses to acknowledge electricity in space.

The fact that spacecraft can be moved with great precision, using nothing but gravity, does tend to make people doubt that the imagined effect exists, yes.

Moreover, plasmas react with the extensive magnetic field lines in our solar system, and when conducting fluids flow through a magnetic field a dynamo can be created, with the electrical energy needed to drive the current taken from any relative motion. This is consistent with the laws of physics: If a closed circuit exists, parts of which are moving through a magnetic field while other parts are not, an electric current will arise. This is how dynamos work."

The problem for your guys is that no one can observe the supposed phenomenon in the solar system.

"The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun's energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun." Ralph E. Juergens (1980)

In fact, the confirmation of the expected neutrino flux settled that.

An electric star's brightness thus depends on the power of the electric current feeding it, not on the amount of nuclear fuel available to burn.

Again, this is contrary to the evidence. The distribution of elements in stars is nicely correlated with the rate at which fusion takes place. Incidentally, it is possible to reproduce the fusion reaction in a star. It's called a thermonuclear bomb. You just need the sort of temperatures and pressures that would be present in a star from gravitational effects.

Barbarian observes:
I'd point to this in the literature, but there doesn't seem to be any articles by them in the literature. It seems to be entirely internet blogs or vanity press.

They mostly publish peer reviewed articles at the IEEE:

Nothing in the literature? That's what I said. This is vanity press.

Barbarian observes:
These guys have ideas about a phenomenon yet to be observed.

Their ideas have been observed.

No. The fact that NASA very precisely navigates spacecraft around the solar system with no regard for any of these imaginary effects makes that clear.

The problem is most astrophysicists know little about plasma.

In a single journal of astrophysics,(http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/) I found one thousand, seven hundred, seventy-three articles on plasma. Since stars are made of plasma, plasma physics is one of the most important subjects in astrophysics.

The big bang theory is falsified again by predicting stars form alone and weigh at least 100 times the mass of our sun.

Wrong and wrong. Astrophysics predicted that stars would form in groups along shock waves of supernovae. That prediction has recently been confirmed:

http://www.rockymountainstars.com/Star_Formation.htm

The Trifid is alive with star formation; violent stellar winds erupt from baby stars creating large voids in the interstellar material. With the help of WISE, astronomers can dissect the region. The blue stars are comparatively old stars that lie between the nebula and Earth. The reddish region above the Trifid Nebula is dust and gas being heated by baby stars and the entire region is surrounded by the green haze of hydrogen gas.
http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/baby-stars-erupt-to-life-in-triffid-nebula-140203.htm

They can form with as little as 1/4 the mass our sun and in groups. This is normally how stars are formed in plasma cosmology.

That's another strike against your belief, then. Most stars are pretty much like the Sun. Smaller stars...

Stars of different masses are thought to form by slightly different mechanisms. The theory of low-mass star formation, which is well-supported by a plethora of observations, suggests that low-mass stars form by the gravitational collapse of rotating density enhancements within molecular clouds. As described above, the collapse of a rotating cloud of gas and dust leads to the formation of an accretion disk through which matter is channeled onto a central protostar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation


Another problem is the denial of fusion in the Sun as the mechanism for heat and light. But this has been confirmed as the predicted neutrino flux which is a consequence of fusion, has been verified:To date, only the first experiment has collected data. However, the team has compared its results with the results of a Japanese experiment dubbed “Super-Kamiokande,” which detected all three varieties of neutrinos.6 The data showed that the so-called missing neutrinos were not really missing after all but had simply converted from electron neutrinos into tau and muon neutrinos. The two studies indicate that solar neutrinos flow at 5.4 ±1.0 million neutrinos cm-2 sec-1, a measurement close enough to resolve the neutrino problem.7

Solving the solar neutrino problem gives astronomers confidence in their understanding of the Sun. The neutrino flux shows physicists how the Sun’s output of light has remained very steady over the last 50,000 years, and will continue to do so for the next 50,000 years—a requirement for human existence.

The solution also affirms the nuclear fusion model for other stars. This confirms that the oldest stars in Earth’s galaxy are about 13 billion years old, as the big bang creation model predicts.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/missing-solar-neutrinos-found
​

The problem is they didn't detect actually detect Neutrinos, they don't have any mass.

We can't directly detect electrons, either. But we can design experiments that can detect them, which is what happened. The predicted neutrinos were found.

Barbarian observes:

Want to see some plasma? Build a fire. The primary difference between plasma and gases, is that a large proportion of the atoms in plasma are ionized. This means that the ions can respond to an electrical potential:
However, we don't see that at work in the solar system;​

99.99% of the matter in the universe is plasma, it's exactly what we see in the universe.

What we don't see is the effects your guys predict. NASA navigates spacecraft very precisely with no regard to the imagined forces in which you believe.

 

[Claudya]

Hrm... does that mean if I drop something of the same electromagnetic charge as earth has it'll fall upward and will be lying under the ceiling of the room?

 

[Vaccine]

I guess people just don't like new ideas. Science moves on though. Since 99.99% of the matter in the universe is plasma, it's inevitable plasma cosmology will replace gravitational models based solely on math. This is mathematically possible:

Ptolemy's model wasn't rejected because his math was wrong. It was rejected because the observations don't match the math. Here is Einstein's math vs the observations:

The math (red line) doesn't match the observations (white line). Ptolemy's model was rejected because of that fatal flaw. Instead of rejecting gravitational models, unprovable things like dark matter and dark energy are invoked to explain the discrepancy. It's only a matter of time before the old guard is replaced with a new one though. Since plasma cosmology offers explanations with less assumptions, it's a very good candidate. Here is a computer simulation of plasma based on electric forces, not gravity:

The electric universe model the math matches the observations.

 

[Barbarian]

Fact is, the imagined electrical forces your guys suppose to be in the solar system, aren't there. In fact, only gravity and inertia need to be considered when navigating spacecraft in the solar system.

Which pretty much puts an end to the idea.

And of course, what we don't yet know, isn't evidence for anything.

I guess people just don't like new ideas. Science moves on though. Since 99.99% of the matter in the universe is plasma, it's inevitable plasma cosmology will replace gravitational models based solely on math.

Unfortunately for the electric guys, plasma has mass, hence gravity. This is why planets revolve around the Sun. The whole thing works nicely according to Newtonian physics, with a bit of adjustment for relativistic effects like the precession of Mercury. The common rotational point (which is so close to the center of the Sun as to be negligible) fits Newton's theory to a high degree of precision.

 

[Vaccine]

Electric universe theory is not claiming gravity doesn't exist, they just properly define it and the other forces in physics. The problem in the past has been gravity is all physicists had to explain everything. To a hammer everything looks like a nail. Electric universe theory provides them more tools.

Just one of many predictions validated:
"The day of this writing, December 13, 2007, is the 140th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian-born physicist Kristian Birkeland. It was Birkeland who correctly hypothesized in the early 20th century that electric currents from the Sun power the earth's auroras. "
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm
"The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field."
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

"In testing his ideas about the Earth/Sun connection, Birkeland built a vacuum chamber and placed a magnetized metal ball called a terrella inside it, representing the Earth. He observed how the terrella behaved in its artificial, electrically charged atmosphere. In addition to solving the riddle of Earth's auroras, Birkeland's electrical experiments also uncannily simulated planetary rings and the energetic displays of cometary jets."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm

Here are some images of the cosmic web:

There are two explanations, inferring this is the structure "dark matter" (assuming it exists) would cause interstellar gas to form. Or they are just what they look like, large scale plasma filaments easily recreated in a lab.

Applying Occams razor here:
-dark matter is unproven, it's assumed.
-the structures dark matter would cause are unknown, just assumed.

-the properties of plasma are known
-they are scalable from the atomic level to the atmosphere
-assuming they are scalable to a galactic scale.

The one with the least assumptions is the better explanation.

 

[Barbarian]

Electric universe theory is not claiming gravity doesn't exist, they just properly define it and the other forces in physics.

"Properly" would require that we have some evidence the imagined effects exist. As you know, we have found that they don't exist in the solar system, since they have no effect at all on the space craft that navigate it, or the bodies that exist in it.

The problem in the past has been gravity is all physicists had to explain everything.

The four forces have been well-characterized for a long time. It's just that electricity won't do what you want it to do.

Just one of many predictions validated:
"The day of this writing, December 13, 2007, is the 140th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian-born physicist Kristian Birkeland. It was Birkeland who correctly hypothesized in the early 20th century that electric currents from the Sun power the earth's auroras. "

That's wrong. Not currents. Birkeland was wrong:
How do we know what causes auroras?

In 1895, a Norwegian physicist named Kristian Birkeland addressed the queston of what causes auroras. Birkeland believed that auroras were caused by electrons from the sun that interacted with the Earth's magnetic field. To test this, he placed a spherical magnet called a terrella inside a vacuum chamber. He also had an electron gun inside the chamber. When he turned on the gun, electrons interacted with the magnet's field and produced an artificial aurora, supporting his hypothesis.

Birkeland's artificial aurora didn't show the characteristic oval ring. The auroral ring was actually predicted by a Japanese graduate student named Shun-ichi Akasofu in 1964. He examined photographs of auroras and concluded that auroras were rings. So, why weren't Birkeland's auroras oval? Birkeland thought the electrons that excited the oxygen and nitrogen ions came directly from the sun. Only when satellites began to study auroras and measure the magnetosphere did scientists figure out that the electrons came from the magnetosphere itself. When this idea was placed in mathematical models, auroral rings could be explained.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/aurora2.htm

This was predicted by James van Allen at the University of Iowa, and later confirmed by the Explorer and Pioneer satellites in the
There are two explanations, inferring this is the structure "dark matter" (assuming it exists) would cause interstellar gas to form. Or they are just what they look like, large scale plasma filaments easily recreated in a lab.

Experimental science can explain the aurora while the electric universe assumptions cannot.

Applying Occams razor here:

The electric universe people assume that the solar system works by an assumed mechanism.
But navigation in the solar system only requires that one consider inertia and gravity.

The one with the least assumptions is the better explanation.

Which is why you won't find electric universe papers in journals of astrophysics.

 

[Barbarian]

Electric universe theory is not claiming gravity doesn't exist, they just properly define it and the other forces in physics.

"Properly" would require that we have some evidence the imagined effects exist. As you know, we have found that they don't exist in the solar system, since they have no effect at all on the space craft that navigate it, or the bodies that exist in it.

The problem in the past has been gravity is all physicists had to explain everything.

The four forces have been well-characterized for a long time. It's just that electricity won't do what you want it to do.

Just one of many predictions validated:
"The day of this writing, December 13, 2007, is the 140th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian-born physicist Kristian Birkeland. It was Birkeland who correctly hypothesized in the early 20th century that electric currents from the Sun power the earth's auroras. "

That's wrong. Not currents. Birkeland was wrong:
How do we know what causes auroras?

In 1895, a Norwegian physicist named Kristian Birkeland addressed the queston of what causes auroras. Birkeland believed that auroras were caused by electrons from the sun that interacted with the Earth's magnetic field. To test this, he placed a spherical magnet called a terrella inside a vacuum chamber. He also had an electron gun inside the chamber. When he turned on the gun, electrons interacted with the magnet's field and produced an artificial aurora, supporting his hypothesis.


Birkeland's artificial aurora didn't show the characteristic oval ring. The auroral ring was actually predicted by a Japanese graduate student named Shun-ichi Akasofu in 1964. He examined photographs of auroras and concluded that auroras were rings. So, why weren't Birkeland's auroras oval? Birkeland thought the electrons that excited the oxygen and nitrogen ions came directly from the sun. Only when satellites began to study auroras and measure the magnetosphere did scientists figure out that the electrons came from the magnetosphere itself. When this idea was placed in mathematical models, auroral rings could be explained.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/aurora2.htm

This was predicted by James van Allen at the University of Iowa, and later confirmed by the Explorer and Pioneer satellites in the late 50s.

 

[Vaccine]

"Properly" would require that we have some evidence the imagined effects exist.

They aren't imagined:
"We present radio emission, polarization, and Faraday rotation maps of the radio jet of the galaxy 3C303. From this data we derive the magnetoplasma and electrodynamic parameters of this 50 kpc long jet. For a ∼2 kiloparsec segment of this jet we obtain, for the first time, a direct determination of a galactic-scale electric current (∼3 ×10 18A) , and its direction−positive away from the AGN. Our analysis strongly supports a model where the jet energy flow is mainly electromagnetic"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1397v2.pdf


Another example of plasma physics:

That's not an image of our sun, it's a lab simulation of plasma.
"Simulating Astrophysical Jets in the Laboratory" Courtesy Prof. Paul Bellan, KTTP & Caltech

As you know, we have found that they don't exist in the solar system, since they have no effect at all on the space craft that navigate it, or the bodies that exist in it.

Not true, plasma exists in our solar system, our sun being the biggest source.

Navigation is effected by more than just gravity:
"The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth-flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-Band and X-Band Doppler and ranging telemetry. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted velocity increase of over 13 mm/s during flybys"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

The four forces have been well-characterized for a long time. It's just that electricity won't do what you want it to do.

It's a misconception of EU theory to think it negates "gravity". Nobody doubts they have been able to mathematically characterize the observations for a long time. But exactly what gravity is has been elusive.
"Hitherto, we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity"
"Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis"

Explaining the observations in terms of math still doesn't explain the cause. Calling gravity a "force" explains nothing. They can explain what 'gravity' does, but they can't explain what 'gravity' is. Is gravity a particle? A wave?
This video explains it better than I can:

Experimental science can explain the aurora while the electric universe assumptions cannot.

Not quite. Birkeland was only wrong about where the electrons came from:
"Birkeland thought the electrons that excited the oxygen and nitrogen ions came directly from the sun".
"scientists figure out that the electrons came from the magnetosphere itself"

The electric universe model correctly explains them:
"This indicates (it was later realized) that large electric currents were associated with the aurora, flowing in the region where auroral light originated. Kristian Birkeland (1908)[14] deduced that the currents flowed in the east-west directions along the auroral arc, and such currents, flowing from the dayside toward (approximately) midnight were later named "auroral electrojets"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora

Which is why you won't find electric universe papers in journals of astrophysics.

See above.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1397v2.pdf

See also:
"Plasma behavior has been studied extensively in laboratory experiments for over 100 years. There is a large body of published research on plasma behavior by various laboratories and professional organizations, including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), which is the largest technical professional organization in the world today. The IEEE publishes a journal, Transactions on Plasma Science."
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/25/essential-guide-to-the-eu-chapter-3/

From what I've read Big Bang theory (BBT) is on it's way out and will be replaced by plasma cosmology within 10 years. Considering 99.99% of matter in the universe is plasma, the math of plasma physics matches the observations (see post #7), and predictions made about comets have turned out to be true this will be the dominant cosmology soon.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, noting that the predicted "plasma effects" weren't detected during numerous space flights:
"Properly" would require that we have some evidence the imagined effects exist.

They aren't imagined:

Entirely imaginary. The supposed electrical forces that were supposed to govern the motion of bodies in the solar system weren't there. NASA sends spacecraft across billions of kilometers of space, with very high precision, with only gravity and intertia taken into account. The imagined forces don't exist.

"We present radio emission, polarization, and Faraday rotation maps of the radio jet of the galaxy 3C303. From this data we derive the magnetoplasma and electrodynamic parameters of this 50 kpc long jet. For a ∼2 kiloparsec segment of this jet we obtain, for the first time, a direct determination of a galactic-scale electric current (∼3 ×10 18A) , and its direction−positive away from the AGN. Our analysis strongly supports a model where the jet energy flow is mainly electromagnetic"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1397v2.pdf

The existence of plasma and electromagnetic forces in extraordinary circumstances does not erase the fact that the imagined effects in the solar system don't even exist.

Another example of plasma physics:

Here's another one.

But neither of those are adequate excuses for the supposed electrical forces in the solar system, not being there.

Barbarian observes:
As you know, we have found that they don't exist in the solar system, since they have no effect at all on the space craft that navigate it, or the bodies that exist in it.

Not true

plasma exists in our solar system

In candles, too. But neither of them have a measurable effect on spacecraft. That's how it works. Or rather how it doesn't work.

Navigation is effected by more than just gravity:

Not enough to matter. For example, the solar wind adds a tiny amount of velocity to space craft moving away from the sun, and slows it by a tiny amount approaching the sun. Since it's a function of surface area, a kilometers-wide solar sail can be used to significantly accelerate a ship. But no magic plasma stuff involved. All well-recognized, standard physics.

"The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth-flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-Band and X-Band Doppler and ranging telemetry. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted velocity increase of over 13 mm/s during flybys"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

What we don't know, doesn't mean your bloggers are right. The Pioneer anomaly, for example, was recently solved and turned out to be standard physics, too. But if gravity accounts for say 10 kilometers per second of a ship's motion, and there's an anomaly of maybe 10 meters per second, isn't a 0.1% difference a demonstration that the imagined effects can't be responsible for the motion of the solar system?

Barbarian observes:
The four forces have been well-characterized for a long time. It's just that electricity won't do what you want it to do.

It's a misconception of EU theory to think it negates "gravity". Nobody doubts they have been able to mathematically characterize the observations for a long time. But exactly what gravity is has been elusive.

What it isn't is what matters. It's not electricity, and it's not plasma, and it's what makes the solar system work. That's why NASA doesn't have to take anything into account, but gravity and inertia.

(video suggested)

Sorry, if you can't explain it clearly, what makes you think it's right?

Barbarian observes:
Experimental science can explain the aurora while the electric universe assumptions cannot.

Not quite.

Precisely so.

Birkeland was only wrong about where the electrons came from:

Only. The Titanic would have made it to New York, it it only had missed that iceberg.

"Birkeland thought the electrons that excited the oxygen and nitrogen ions came directly from the sun".
"scientists figure out that the electrons came from the magnetosphere itself"

Barbarian said: ↑

Which is why you won't find electric universe papers in journals of astrophysics.​

See above.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1397v2.pdf

None of those guys endorse the electric universe story. That plasma exists doesn't mean that it makes the solar system go. As you learned, it doesn't.

From what I've read Big Bang theory (BBT) is on it's way out and will be replaced by plasma cosmology within 10 years.

Show us some of that, from journals of astrophysics. That would be worth reading. But don't bother showing us more stuff about plasma jets. That's standard cosmology, and not support for what you're trying to show.








Considering 99.99% of matter in the universe is plasma, the math of plasma physics matches the observations (see post #7), and predictions made about comets have turned out to be true this will be the dominant cosmology soon.

 

[Vaccine]

Entirely imaginary. The supposed electrical forces that were supposed to govern the motion of bodies in the solar system weren't there. NASA sends spacecraft across billions of kilometers of space, with very high precision, with only gravity and intertia taken into account. The imagined forces don't exist.

Those forces aren't 'imaginary', you even posted they are real:

The same math that characterizes the phenomenon with the candle follows the white line here:

Notice how the red line and white line overlap to a certain distance? That's why NASA has been able to navigate spacecraft, I'll bet a cookie once spacecraft get 1 or 2 light years out that will change.

(video suggested)

Sorry, if you can't explain it clearly, what makes you think it's right?

What I said was "This video explains it better than I can."
They explain how, contrary to what we've been taught, all matter is both a particle and a wave. That all matter has the property of electromagnetism. That was has been mathematically characterized as 'gravity' is actually a weak electromagnetic field. Because of that discovery, they will be able to make zero-point motors. It's really worth watching.

Show us some of that, from journals of astrophysics. That would be worth reading. But don't bother showing us more stuff about plasma jets. That's standard cosmology, and not support for what you're trying to show.

That's quite a change in position. The plasma forces were 'imagined', now they're standard cosmology? I guess the plasma cosmologists were right when they said (post #1) "3. It is pretended that the new theory was known all along"

"Big Bang supporters are fond of claiming CMB radiation as conclusive evidence for their theory, but these claims begin to look somewhat revisionist in the light of the following facts.
The background temperature of space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, based on a universe without expansion, and prior to the discovery of the CMB. Their predictions were far more accurate than models based on the Big Bang.
In 1965, two young radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, accidentally discovered the CMB using a small horn antenna. This discovery was quickly seized upon by Big Bang supporters and they were later awarded the Nobel Prize!

Here is an excellent paper (PDF) that outlines the real history of The CMB

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/bb.html#


"The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded “Galileo of the 20th century”, Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang theory is based on a misinterpretation of redshift. The redshift of a distant galaxy is measured in the light coming from that galaxy. Lines in the spectrum of that galaxy show a shift toward the red compared with the same lines from our Sun. Arp discovered that high and low redshift objects are sometimes connected by a bridge or jet of matter. So redshift cannot be a measure of distance. Most of the redshift is intrinsic to the object. But there is more: Arp found that the intrinsic redshift of a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy. In Arp’s new view of the cosmos, active galaxies “give birth” to high redshift quasars and companion galaxies. Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance. As a quasar or galaxy ages, the redshift decreases in discrete steps, or quanta."
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/synopsis-4-what-big-bang/

Famous case of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603. A bridge of ejected material stretches
out from the main galaxy to connect to a smaller companion galaxy with twice the
redshift. Two quasars with much higher redshifts also appear to have been ejected
along with this bridge. Image credit: López-Corredoira M., Gutiérrez C. M., 2002,
“Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting
the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion”, A&A, 390, L15.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Entirely imaginary. The supposed electrical forces that were supposed to govern the motion of bodies in the solar system weren't there. NASA sends spacecraft across billions of kilometers of space, with very high precision, with only gravity and intertia taken into account. The imagined forces don't exist.

Those forces aren't 'imaginary'

If they were real, then NASA would have to consider them when navigating spacecraft. But they don't, because the effects are purely imaginary.

you even posted they are real:

So are Van der Walls forces, but you don't have to consider them for space flights, either. The imaginary part is the assumption that if they work at scales of a few centimeters, then they must work at the scale of millions of kilometers.

The same math that characterizes the phenomenon with the candle follows the white line here:

Don't see how. Show us your calculations.

Notice how the red line and white line overlap to a certain distance? That's why NASA has been able to navigate spacecraft,

So if the effect is negligible over millions of astronomical units, what happened to all those predictions about it's effect within the solar system? You've got some explaining to do now.

I'll bet a cookie once spacecraft get 1 or 2 light years out that will change.

You lose. Your curve, if it says what you claim it does, indicates that the imagined effect is negligible out to about 10,000 light years. But the fact is, if it's electrical, and can work like that, the rotation should be slower, not faster. Let's see your math on that, and the assumptions you made calculating that curve.

(video suggested)

Barbarian asks:
Sorry, if you can't explain it clearly, what makes you think it's right?

What I said was "This video explains it better than I can."

Well, explain it, then.

They explain how, contrary to what we've been taught, all matter is both a particle and a wave.

They're a little confused. Electromagnetic radiation is both a particle and a wave. Or more precisely, electromagnetic radiation sometimes exhibits properties of waves and sometimes exhibits properties of particles. The truth probably is that we are looking at two manifestations of something that exists in dimensions we can't access.

That all matter has the property of electromagnetism.

Electromagnetism isn't a property; it's a force. Negative electrons are held around the nucleus by the positive charges in the nucleus. They don't crash into the nucleus, because that would bring them to a zero energy state, which is not possible for electrons. They can, however, occasionally pass through the nucleus.

That was has been mathematically characterized as 'gravity' is actually a weak electromagnetic field.

Nope. For example, such fields affect differently charged particles differently. (The Sun, if it was bound by an electromagnetic field, would not emit both positively and negatively charged, particles, BTW) Gravity makes no such distinctions. Charging a bit of matter will not affect it's mass, which is what you would have to do to make gravity "see" it differently.

Because of that discovery, they will be able to make zero-point motors. It's really worth watching.

Perpetual motion machines are a hoot. As are trolls and hobbits.

The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum

R. L. Jaffe
(Submitted on 21 Mar 2005)
In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidence that the zero point energies of quantum fields are "real''. On the contrary, Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as \alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of \alpha, corresponds to the \alpha\to\infty limit.
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); Astrophysics (astro-ph); High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Phys.Rev. D72 (2005) 021301


Barbarian suggests:
Show us some of that, from journals of astrophysics. That would be worth reading. But don't bother showing us more stuff about plasma jets. That's standard cosmology, and not support for what you're trying to show.

That's quite a change in position.

Nope. You're confusing what goes on in relativistic ejection of matter from the center of a galaxy, with gravity.

The plasma forces were 'imagined',

Yep. It turns out, as you just learned, that NASA can navigate about the solar system with no thought at all to those forces.

now they're standard cosmology?

See above. You're confusing different things.

In 1965, two young radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, accidentally discovered the CMB using a small horn antenna. This discovery was quickly seized upon by Big Bang supporters and they were later awarded the Nobel Prize!

They had no idea what it was. An associate happened to know, that it was exactly the temperature of the predicted microwave background from the big bang.

"The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded “Galileo of the 20th century”, Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding.

See above. The fact that the microwave background had been predicted long before it was discovered, pretty much cemented things in place. The observed expansion of the universe is well-defined.

The Big Bang theory is based on a misinterpretation of redshift. The redshift of a distant galaxy is measured in the light coming from that galaxy. Lines in the spectrum of that galaxy show a shift toward the red compared with the same lines from our Sun. Arp discovered that high and low redshift objects are sometimes connected by a bridge or jet of matter. So redshift cannot be a measure of distance.

Galaxies edge on to us, show the same effect.

• When observing spiral galaxies, the side spinning toward us will have a slight blueshift relative to the side spinning away from us (see Tully–Fisher relation).
• Blazars are known to propel relativistic jets toward us, emitting synchrotron radiation and bremsstrahlung that appears blueshifted.

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

So the cosmic red shift is a general Doppler effect, showing the expansion of the universe. But there are also doppler effects from proper motion, such as the blue shift of the Andromeda galaxy, moving toward us. Your argument is a confusion between those two effects. And yes, distant galaxies are red-shifted, but if they are edge-on with respect to us, the leading edge is slightly less red-shifted, and the trailing edge is slightly more red-shifted, again from proper motion, not cosmic expansion.

Most of the redshift is intrinsic to the object.

Nope. That's been tested and it's wrong. Distance is the biggest issue, apart from proper motion and a few relativistic effects like Bremsstrahlung radiation.

Famous case of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603. A bridge of ejected material stretches
out from the main galaxy to connect to a smaller companion galaxy with twice the
redshift. Two quasars with much higher redshifts also appear to have been ejected
along with this bridge. Image credit: López-Corredoira M., Gutiérrez C. M., 2002,
“Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting
the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion”, A&A, 390, L15.
This is more interesting than you suspect. Suffice to say, few astronomers think it's support for your ideas. Here's some discussion of the issue, and some other facts, most of which are not consistent with electromagnetic forces being a significant mover:
http://arijmaki.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/ngc-7603-the-discordant-redshift-system/

 

[Vaccine]

If they were real, then NASA would have to consider them when navigating spacecraft. But they don't, because the effects are purely imaginary.

Newton's laws of motion are not overturned by these theories. It's a misconception to think so.
NASA does have to account for more than gravity:
"The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth-flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-Band and X-Band Doppler and ranging telemetry. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted velocity increase of over 13 mm/s during flybys"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

Don't see how. Show us your calculations.

Here is Einstein's math vs what is actually observed:

His math matches to a point, after that distance gravity is too weak a force. According to the math, galaxies should not exist, the radial arms would fly off into space. But they don't, spiral galaxies are very common. When the math conflicts with the observations, that's falsification. It doesn't ,mean Einstein was wrong about everything, just his characterization of gravity.
By contrast, when they characterize plasma (mathematically) in a computer simulation, this is what they get:

They're a little confused. Electromagnetic radiation is both a particle and a wave. Or more precisely, electromagnetic radiation sometimes exhibits properties of waves and sometimes exhibits properties of particles. The truth probably is that we are looking at two manifestations of something that exists in dimensions we can't access.

They made a new discovery that resolves the issue. They discovered all matter exhibits the properties of waves and particles, and not just some of the time. The primer fields theory is a new discovery that reconciles physics on the quantum scale with the macro scale. The simple discovery a particle's electromagnetic properties aren't like a flat bar magnet but actually 3 dimensional bowl shape allows them to demonstrate all matter has the property of both a particle and a wave. No need to invoke extra dimensions or dark energy to hide our ignorance.

They had no idea what it was. An associate happened to know, that it was exactly the temperature of the predicted microwave background from the big bang.

That's very misleading, what they predicted was a smooth isotropic temperature, which they thought they had with this:

View attachment 4338

However, with better equipment and clearer images this is what the cosmic background radiation looks like:
View attachment 4339

So it turns out it's not the smooth isotropic temperature they predicted.

The fact that the microwave background had been predicted long before it was discovered, pretty much cemented things in place. The observed expansion of the universe is well-defined.

See above, the prediction don't match the observations. See below, the redshift data doesn't support an expanding universe.

Galaxies edge on to us, show the same effect.

• When observing spiral galaxies, the side spinning toward us will have a slight blueshift relative to the side spinning away from us (see Tully–Fisher relation).
• Blazars are known to propel relativistic jets toward us, emitting synchrotron radiation and bremsstrahlung that appears blueshifted.

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

So the cosmic red shift is a general Doppler effect, showing the expansion of the universe. But there are also doppler effects from proper motion, such as the blue shift of the Andromeda galaxy, moving toward us. Your argument is a confusion between those two effects. And yes, distant galaxies are red-shifted, but if they are edge-on with respect to us, the leading edge is slightly less red-shifted, and the trailing edge is slightly more red-shifted, again from proper motion, not cosmic expansion.

That explains a different anomaly. There are several galaxies besides NGC7603 that are linked with different redshifts which mean the universe is not expanding according to the observations.
"October 3, 2003: the big bang was proved wrong. Again. And here is the proof (image above). The galaxy, NGC 7319, is a Seyfert 2, which means it is a galaxy shrouded with such heavy dust clouds that they obscure most of the bright, active nucleus that defines a normal Seyfert galaxy. This galaxy has a redshift of 0.0225. The tiny white spot is a quasar either silhouetted in front of the opaque gas clouds or embedded in the topmost layers of the dust. The redshift of the quasar is 2.114."

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm

Famous case of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603. A bridge of ejected material stretches
out from the main galaxy to connect to a smaller companion galaxy with twice the
redshift. Two quasars with much higher redshifts also appear to have been ejected
along with this bridge. Image credit: López-Corredoira M., Gutiérrez C. M., 2002,
“Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting
the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion”, A&A, 390, L15.
This is more interesting than you suspect. Suffice to say, few astronomers think it's support for your ideas. Here's some discussion of the issue, and some other facts, most of which are not consistent with electromagnetic forces being a significant mover:
http://arijmaki.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/ngc-7603-the-discordant-redshift-system/

In case you missed it this is from your link:

"Non-cosmological redshift they couldn’t reject but there also weren’t very good explanations for it."

So that article doesn't disprove the redshift anomaly.

This is interesting:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...recent-big-bang-wave-result.html#.U2GMTVemWSo

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding "electric universe" effects:
If they were real, then NASA would have to consider them when navigating spacecraft. But they don't, because the effects are purely imaginary.

Newton's laws of motion are not overturned by these theories. It's a misconception to think so.

No kidding. But the fact remains, the imagined electric effects don't exist. NASA does not have to take them into account.

NASA does have to account for more than gravity:

Inertia, for example. And if they deploy a very large, relatively low-mass device, the solar wind. But not the imagined plasma.

"The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth-flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-Band and X-Band Doppler and ranging telemetry. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted velocity increase of over 13 mm/s during flybys"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

This is the usual dodge. If there's a tiny unknown in anything "it's proof our new theory is correct." Except it's not. You're talking an acceleration of 13 millimeters per second, in a spacecraft moving well over 2,400,000,000 millimeters per second. A discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion. Which is why they don't have to worry about it. And there are many different things that might be causing it. And the notion that such tiny effects can move planets around, is just laughable.

Barbarian observes:
So are Van der Walls forces, but you don't have to consider them for space flights, either. The imaginary part is the assumption that if they work at scales of a few centimeters, then they must work at the scale of millions of kilometers.

The same math that characterizes the phenomenon with the candle follows the white line here:

Barbarian suggests:
Don't see how. Show us your calculations.

(declines to show any math, but draws a diagram of a galaxy)

Sorry, that won't help. Show us your calculations that these forces that act at a few millimeters, can move the planets about. So far, you've claimed, but can't show, that a discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion is support for your theory. Let's see some numbers.

Barbarian observes:
They're a little confused. Electromagnetic radiation is both a particle and a wave. Or more precisely, electromagnetic radiation sometimes exhibits properties of waves and sometimes exhibits properties of particles. The truth probably is that we are looking at two manifestations of something that exists in dimensions we can't access.

They made a new discovery that resolves the issue.

Odd, one would think that would certainly merit a Nobel.

They discovered all matter exhibits the properties of waves and particles, and not just some of the time. The primer fields theory is a new discovery that reconciles physics on the quantum scale with the macro scale. The simple discovery a particle's electromagnetic properties aren't like a flat bar magnet but actually 3 dimensional bowl shape allows them to demonstrate all matter has the property of both a particle and a wave. No need to invoke extra dimensions or dark energy to hide our ignorance.

The problem is, real physicists aren't buying that, for a variety of reasons. BTW, that guy says the "electric universe" buffs have it wrong. So he's not much help for your beliefs.

I hope to work with the EU folks in the future and I have been in communication with them. But for now I must stand alone. There are currently some EU statements that are not scientifically backed by proven facts and indeed go against scientific fact. Z-pinchs are one of those statements, as is the externally powered Sun and stars.

It is an electric universe and the electricity is generated around the stars. I can prove it. How do you generate electricity here on Earth. You move magnetic fields. This is what these intrinsic bowl shaped magnetic fields do, they cause magnetic fields to move very violently past each other, i.e. MHD, and guess what happens? You get electricity and the hottest points around the Sun are exactly where the greatest magnetic turbulence would take place. This in turn leads to fusion and the fusion provides the extra kick to keep it all going and generating electricity. So these theories account for where the electricity in the universe comes from and it all matches ALL the hard data. I really believe that endless clean power is near. Don't have it all worked out yet, but I do have tech that is based on these theories that is in over twelve countries right now. It works really well and it would not work if my theories were not correct. That technology has been the main focus of my research for the last six years. The AP stuff is just cool because it provides validation of my theories.

Please carefully considered what you type here. I have. I have patiently waited six years to go public with what I have. That is six years of 80 hours per week.

http://science.skepticproject.com/forum/5497/primer-fields-needs-verifying-if-real-or-not/

Notice he scores fairly high on the Crackpot Index:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article...recent-big-bang-wave-result.html#.U2GMTVemWSo

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian said: ↑
They had no idea what it was. An associate happened to know, that it was exactly the temperature of the predicted microwave background from the big bang.

That's very misleading,

It's a fact. It was indeed precisely the temperature and frequency of the predicted big bang radiation

We still don't have a complete explanation for the "lumps" in the predicted radiation, but as you know, what people haven't yet learned, doesn't support anything.

Barbarian observes:
The fact that the microwave background had been predicted long before it was discovered, pretty much cemented things in place. The observed expansion of the universe is well-defined.

See above, the prediction don't match the observations.

As you see, it does. The background radiation is precisely what ways predicted.

See below, the redshift data doesn't support an expanding universe.

So far, it all fits.

• 
  
• When observing spiral galaxies, the side spinning toward us will have a slight blueshift relative to the side spinning away from us (see Tully–Fisher relation).
  
• Blazars are known to propel relativistic jets toward us, emitting synchrotron radiation and bremsstrahlung that appears blueshifted.

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

So the cosmic red shift is a general Doppler effect, showing the expansion of the universe. But there are also doppler effects from proper motion, such as the blue shift of the Andromeda galaxy, moving toward us. Your argument is a confusion between those two effects. And yes, distant galaxies are red-shifted, but if they are edge-on with respect to us, the leading edge is slightly less red-shifted, and the trailing edge is slightly more red-shifted, again from proper motion, not cosmic expansion.
​

That explains a different anomaly. There are several galaxies besides NGC7603 that are linked with different redshifts which mean the universe is not expanding according to the observations.

See above. You've been misled by people touting other effects that aren't part of the overall cosmic redshift. The fact that some galaxies are moving closer to us does not erase the fact that most are moving away, and the more distant ones are moving away faster.


Barbarian observes:

Famous case of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603. A bridge of ejected material stretches
out from the main galaxy to connect to a smaller companion galaxy with twice the
redshift. Two quasars with much higher redshifts also appear to have been ejected
along with this bridge. Image credit: López-Corredoira M., Gutiérrez C. M., 2002,
“Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting
the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion”, A&A, 390, L15.
This is more interesting than you suspect. Suffice to say, few astronomers think it's support for your ideas. Here's some discussion of the issue, and some other facts, most of which are not consistent with electromagnetic forces being a significant mover:
http://arijmaki.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/ngc-7603-the-discordant-redshift-system/​

In case you missed it this is from your link:

"Non-cosmological redshift they couldn’t reject but there also weren’t very good explanations for it."

Again, what is not yet know, does not prove anything at all. Isn't it starting to dawn on you that all the "proof" they claim to have are merely things not yet determined? Isn't that a bit of a tip-off for you?

This is interesting:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...recent-big-bang-wave-result.html#.U2GMTVemWSo

Yes, it could nail down the discovery of gravity waves, which is another prediction of the big bang. From your link:
Another upshot of the finding could be that dust doesn't account for all of the polarisation that BICEP2 attributed to gravitational waves – just some of it. That would help bring the BICEP2 result in line with more preliminary measurements taken by the Planck satellite last year, which hinted at weaker ripples than BICEP2 reported.

 

[Vaccine]

This is the usual dodge. If there's a tiny unknown in anything "it's proof our new theory is correct." Except it's not. You're talking an acceleration of 13 millimeters per second, in a spacecraft moving well over 2,400,000,000 millimeters per second. A discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion. Which is why they don't have to worry about it. And there are many different things that might be causing it. And the notion that such tiny effects can move planets around, is just laughable.

I wasn't presenting an anomaly as positive evidence for plasma cosmology or electric universe theory. It was directed at this comment "You might talk to NASA. Space craft are navigated with the assumption that gravity and inertia are the two things that determine speed and direction. So far, it's always worked."

Barbarian suggests:
Don't see how. Show us your calculations.

(declines to show any math, but draws a diagram of a galaxy)

It's interesting you referred to that diagram as a galaxy. It's a computer simulation (calculations) based purely on plasma physics. That a plasma simulation resembles a galaxy makes the point for me.

Sorry, that won't help. Show us your calculations that these forces that act at a few millimeters, can move the planets about. So far, you've claimed, but can't show, that a discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion is support for your theory. Let's see some numbers.

Learn about Plasma physics here
Gravity alone fails to explain galaxies. Plasma physics gives scientists more tools to explain phenomenon.

"Acceptance of the plasma universe model is now leading to drastically new views of the structure of the universe. The basic aspects of cosmological importance are: (a) the same basic laws of plasma physics hold everywhere; (b) mapping of electric fields and currents is necessary to understand cosmic plasma; (c) space is filled with a network of currents leading to the cellular and filamentary structure of matter; and (d) double layers, critical velocity, and pinch effects are of decisive importance in how cosmic evolves. A review is presented of a number of the outstanding questions of cosmology in the plasma universe"
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=45495&url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=45495

The problem is, real physicists aren't buying that, for a variety of reasons. BTW, that guy says the "electric universe" buffs have it wrong. So he's not much help for your beliefs.

Sort of like 'evolutionary' biologists are the only 'real' biologists? These guys are 'real' physicists, trying to discredit them that way only exposes a bias. They aren't from ICR or creationists as far as I know, what they are doing is bucking the status quo. When scientists reject empirical evidence in favor of ideology, they're going to be bucked. This is Darwin's legacy, scientists adhering to their theories, in spite of evidence against it. An obstacle to progress.
Yes, I saw where the primer fields guy distanced himself from EU theory. The problem is his theory supports EU whether he likes it or not. My beliefs are separate from this. Many in plasma cosmology think it revives the steady state theory. That there was no big bang 13.8 billion years ago and the universe is timeless. Where does that leave the 4.6 billion vs ~10,000 year old Earth? Or eternal? The truth is nobody KNOWS how old everything is. I rejoice in that truth.
"[Love] does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth". 1 Cor 13

It may be possible the universe is 130 billion years old but the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The inference the Earth is 4.6 billion years old is on equal footing as inferring the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. People may believe either, but neither may be claimed as fact.

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian said: ↑
They had no idea what it was. An associate happened to know, that it was exactly the temperature of the predicted microwave background from the big bang.

They shoehorned their prediction in is all. They predicted "isotropy", the reality is dipole anisotropy. Not the first time big bang theory was adapted to fit the observations.

It's a fact. It was indeed precisely the temperature and frequency of the predicted big bang radiation

Where are all the monopole magnets they predicted?

We still don't have a complete explanation for the "lumps" in the predicted radiation, but as you know, what people haven't yet learned, doesn't support anything.

With only gravity as a tool they're not likely to have a complete explanation. Plasma cosmology fits with CMBR as well as the lumps. The hot and cold spots are normal features of plasma.
"In contrast to the predictions of the Big Bang, which have been continuously falsified by observation, the predictions of plasma cosmology have continued to be verified. "
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm

Barbarian observes:
The fact that the microwave background had been predicted long before it was discovered, pretty much cemented things in place. The observed expansion of the universe is well-defined.

The late Professor Geoffrey Burbidge calls a spade a spade. He gets right to it:
From that time on, one huge danger . . . is that all of the work on the CMB has been carried on by observers who are absolutely convinced that whatever they find, they are quite sure where it came from. This has led to a bandwagon so overwhelming that alternative interpretations of the data are hardly ever mentioned, never taught, or discussed at meetings, or referred to in text books
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/11/29/common-misconception-10-why-dispute-the-big-bang/

• When observing spiral galaxies, the side spinning toward us will have a slight blueshift relative to the side spinning away from us (see Tully–Fisher relation).
• Blazars are known to propel relativistic jets toward us, emitting synchrotron radiation and bremsstrahlung that appears blueshifted.

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

So the cosmic red shift is a general Doppler effect, showing the expansion of the universe. But there are also doppler effects from proper motion, such as the blue shift of the Andromeda galaxy, moving toward us. Your argument is a confusion between those two effects. And yes, distant galaxies are red-shifted, but if they are edge-on with respect to us, the leading edge is slightly less red-shifted, and the trailing edge is slightly more red-shifted, again from proper motion, not cosmic expansion.

See above. You've been misled by people touting other effects that aren't part of the overall cosmic redshift. The fact that some galaxies are moving closer to us does not erase the fact that most are moving away, and the more distant ones are moving away faster.

As I said before, that's an entirely different anomaly. That's referring to individual, edge on galaxies. What they are talking about are galaxieS linked to one another, from various angles, with drastically different redshifts. In light of those facts, redshift cannot be a measure of distance. Which is pretty much the very foundation of big bang theory, that the universe is expanding.

Yes, it could nail down the discovery of gravity waves, which is another prediction of the big bang. From your link:
Another upshot of the finding could be that dust doesn't account for all of the polarisation that BICEP2 attributed to gravitational waves – just some of it. That would help bring the BICEP2 result in line with more preliminary measurements taken by the Planck satellite last year, which hinted at weaker ripples than BICEP2 reported.

Oh, I didn't say it didn't, I just said it was interesting. It could be "In the most extreme scenario, the finding could suggest that what looked like a groundbreaking result was only a false alarm."
Or it could be attributed to gravitational waves. I guess we will find out in October.