Plasmas Rule All

[erich]

Have you all heard of Wallace Thornhill and these folks?

 

Their theory seems to be that electric plasmas rule the cosmos , no Dark matter or energy needed, the multi disciplined team provides collaborations for almost everyone; astronomic and terrestrial plasmas, Chaos and catastrophism , Myths, Climate change, ball lightning.............

 

Thunderbolts.info http://www.thunderbolts.info/

 

This view of Nova remnant is interesting:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=88edua1k

 

 

 

Regards

Erich

[Mercedes Benzene]

Hmmm...

no. I have never heard that.

Interesting though...

[Harry Costas]

Hello Erich

 

Thank you for the above links

 

other links

 

http://www.cips.mpg.de/cips_home.html

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.pdf

http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/

 

there is alot of info on this topic.

 

In my opinion it is the Key Topic to resolve many theories in cosmology and explain many observations.

 

The above links are just a few and not limited by them.

[erich]

Don't these two recent findings of X-rays, Y-rays and neutrons in CG lightning lend support to the Electric Universe idea?

 

Joe Dwyer Paper:

http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf

 

 

Russian Science News

http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2005-09-13-5_65_e.htm

[erich]

What are the implications of this finding to the Electric Universe Theory?:

 

Heavy hydrogen find alters galaxy formation theory

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4117430.html

 

 

Erich J. Knight

[erich]

posted on 08/16/2006 5:25 AM by Extropia to http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html

 

The problems with black holes keeps piling up...

 

BABY STAR FOUND NEAR GALAXY'S VIOLENT CENTRE,

 

'The youngest star ever found near the Milky Way's centre is deepening a mystery over how stars could take shape in such a turbulent environment.

 

Several groups of massive stars have been found within 100 light years of the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's centre. The innermost stars lie in a group less than 3 light years from the black hole and appear to be just 6 million years old, based on the spectra of their light.

 

But the existence of such young stars so close to the black hole has long puzzled astronomers. That is because calculations suggest that gas clouds at such distances should be torn apart by the black hole's gravity before they ever condense to form stars.

 

And it appears the stars could not have migrated there from more peaceful birthplaces- the stars are too young to have had time to travel from very far away.

 

Now, astronomers led by Tom Geballe of Gemini Observatory, Hawaii, have shown that one of the stars in the innermost cluster seems to be younger than the rest, adding to the mystery.

 

Using the Gemini North telescope to obtain a spectrum of the star, called IRS 8*, they estimate it is only 3.5 million years old.

 

It also appears to be massive and bright, with an estimated mass 45 times that of the Sun and 350,000 times the sun's brightness. This would make it the youngest and most massive star in the group.

 

"If IRS 8* is single, its origin is highly uncertain".

 

But the researchers acknowledge that it is possible that IRS 8* is actually a pair of stars orbiting so close to each other that telescopes cannot resolve the individual stars. In this case, the stars would have exchanged a lot of matter with one another, changing their chemical evolution so they only masquerade as a single young, massive star.

 

The researchers hope to obtain a more detailed spectrum that could distinguish between the single and binary scenarios'.- New Scientist.

 

None of these mysterious observations trouble EU. A star could quite easily form near the centre of the Milky Way, because there is no black hole but rather synchotron radiation that is an experimentally-proven outcome of the homopolar-motor generator model of galaxies. No need for black holes, no need for dark matter either.

 

The idea of assigning age groups to stars (this one is young, that one is old) is entirely fictitious from the ES point-of-view. Stars do not climb up the HR diagram as they burn their reserves of fuel. Rather, they leap from position to position as the current density impinging on their surface changes strength. The fact that some stars have been observed jumping position on the HR digram (IMPOSSIBLE according to mainstream theory but a predictable outcome of ES) speaks volumes.

 

In the ES model, a star's mass and brightness has nothing to do with age and everything to do with the current density impinging on its surface (well, that affects its brightness, not its mass). The intense plasma discharges at the surface that give rise to starshine also synthesize metals that continually rain down into the star's depths. It is perfectly possible for a star to have the brightness and mass of an old star (according to fusion theory) but also have the metal content of a new star (again, according to prevailing theory) for the simple reason that stars do not age- the Birkland currents powering them simply grow/weaken their output.

 

I look forward to the next 'mystery' that further strengthen's EU's case.

[Aireal]

Erich

 

Yes I have heard of them. For some unknown reason, their work and any simular work that does not support the Big Bang theory gets blacklisted from mainstream sources, or at least ingnored. There has been a lot of work in that field and others that do not recieve the atention they deserve.

 

Here is a link to an article by Noble Prize winning physicist Brian Josephson on censorship in Physics Preprint Archive. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-censorship-nobel-prize-laureate.htm

 

Even Noble Prize Laureate recipents are not immune to censorship when their ideas go against the mainstream.

[erich]

Thanks for the links Aireal,

 

To me these ideas need to be rethought in light of the new mainstream findings that I have posted on the nature of lightning and other atmospheric plasmas, new astronomic observations on quasars, black holes,and the elemental constituents of space.

 

Erich J. Knight

[Turtle]

Have you all heard of Wallace Thornhill and these folks?

 

Regards

Erich

 

I thought this all sounded familiar so I went a searchin'. Indeed I heard a fella talking about 'electric universe' & Thornhill et al on the radio. Here is a link to the show hosting the talk; if you have a Streamlink membership with them you can listen to the entire show.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/12/13.html

Interesting stuff for sure, however I don't know enough to evaluate its truth.:cup:

[erich]

I think Mr. Pye uses EU theory as a drunk uses a lamp post , for support rather than illumination.

 

His "Intervention Theory" is full of holes, the DNA and domestication arguments are particularly stupid. I hope EU doesn't get tared with this guys feathers.

[Turtle]

I think Mr. Pye uses EU theory as a drunk uses a lamp post , for support rather than illumination.

 

His "Intervention Theory" is full of holes, the DNA and domestication arguments are particularly stupid. I hope EU doesn't get tared with this guys feathers.

That's a good one I never heard before Erich; thanks for the chuckle.:hihi:

Inasmuch as your references run long, can you briefly outline the salient features of Electric Universe theory in your opinion? Let shine the light from your post so to speak.:hihi: :omg: :lightbulb :cup:

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

What If I told you that the solar model that we have been using is no longer to be used.

 

Instead of a He/iron core, we have some form of neutron plasma/superfluid matter.

 

This will give a bit of kick to the models. But! will explain better the functioning of our sun and the weather on planet earth.

 

It will aslo aid in explaining star formation and age of stars or should I say the stage of life. The stars go through many stages and some never even finish because they are pulled into black holes that are scattered around our galaxy, (millions of them BH) or pulled in at the giant black hole at the centre of the milky way.

 

http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf

[WillieB]

Erich:

 

Thanks for your thread re The Electric Universe. I enjoyed your link to holoscience.com. A position was taken that the scientific community should move away from the slavery status to higher mathematics that has gradually developed and has become the "begin-all" (rather than end-all) to any accepted reasoning process.

 

Forgive the hubris but I just wish that someone with the required depth of scientific knowlege would consider the conditions outlined in "The Incremental Universe." (see link posted below and thread posted on this forum.) It was born of sheer logic and it so thoroughly conforms to so many well known conditions that previously lacked a logical basis of explanation that I cannot but firmly believe in its basic validity. Granted that the exploration of the operations of the electric and magnetic fields is long and boring. Skip that part and take my assurance that the characteristics of the increments makes them work. Granted, it is couched in somwewhat amateurish phraseology and that it requires a goodly amount of time and concentration to appreciate its content but that shouldn't discourage a true seeker of truth. It does, in many respects, conform to the concepts of The Electric Universe, not the least of which is that the basic occupants of empty space consists of positive and negative electrical charges.

 

http://www.theincrementaluniverse.com

[erich]

Bullet Cluster Shoots hole in Electric Universe

 

This confirmation of the predicted behavior of Dark Matter may shoot some holes in the Electric Universe idea,and certainly shoots down the Intergalactic Gravity folks.

 

I thought this article summed up the implications best:

 

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/8/17

 

 

Erich J. Knight

[Aireal]

Now I am not a supporter of the electric universe, I lack sufficent knowledge of it to form an opinion, but here is my take on the article mentioned above.

 

Interesting, but it lacked in detail. They claim to have found evidience of dark matter, but the evidence seems inconclusive. They might be right, but the article offered very little in the way of facts and was rather general in nature. No other possiblities for the observations were considered, they looked for dark matter and 'found' it. Now if they supplied more detail, I may agree with the findings, but it has not put a bullet in any theories yet.

[erich]

I don't think this will suprise our EU Folks:

 

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2006/radiomagnetar/

[cwes99_03]

I have to say, that reading some of the articles the two mentioned at the outset seem to have a bit of a step-child syndrome. They largely are complaining that all the money is going to research that investigates the cosmos in relation to the Big Bang Theory.

Why shouldn't it? When 95% or more of the projects out there are designed to study something that may show an agreement to the Big Bang Theory, then shouldn't 95% of the funding go there as well.

 

In my reading I also noted that some of you as well as these two are saying that all the models are wrong and we are right, and yet they don't have a lot of backing and I didn't see anything in their article that really made me jump and say hmmmmmmmm. The article on the young star didn't mention anything about the amount of redshift measured (and redshift didn't originate with the big bang, doppler effect is well known and understood for all kinds of waves) of that young star and there is still a ton of things to be learned about the universe and the cosmos.

Big Bang is a theory, and as such probably has some flaws to be worked out. Heck the major assumptions may be wrong. Keep studying, but by all means don't complain because you haven't done enough work to obtain major funding for your research, others have studies too.