@0warrior4life I am not your research assistant, but if you were serious about wanting to learn more you probably wouldn't have adopted such a sarcastic tone.
Try Thunderbolts(dot)info or Plasmauniverse(dot)com for links to the plethora of relevant peer reveiwed materials.
Everything is a marketing campaign. Stephen Hawking engages in mass marketing as a Knight of the Anglican Church in the promotion of Creationist theory of Big Bang. The work of Plasma Cosmology is based on the works of Hannes Alfven and most recently Anthony Peratt and there is a host of Plasma Physicists that adopt the view of Plasma Cosmology as well. Dr. Scott is the author of many Electrical Engineering text books used in many Universities.
@orrerystar How exactly is it that being the author of undergraduate textbooks on electrical engineering (ie designing circuitry) lends any expertice or leverage to whatever "dr" Scott (whoever he is) thinks about cosmology and astronomy?
This is Pseudoscience. Plasma Cosmology has been falsified on more than one occasion. The only people that cling to this theory and champion it are these pseudoscientists and the uneducated.
People need to actually read up on this stuff. Plasma Cosmology is bogus.
The purpose of intelligent technological species is the preservation of biospheres and habitats when the native planets and stars are no longer able to do so. Meditate on this for a while. It takes a while to understand the implications from religion to physics. Or maybe the ultimate survival adaptation did just happen by accident so what. There's a God trying to get born here :)
Science doesn't have anything to do with being happy with explanations. What is true is true... demonstrably. Science is not philosophy (in the modern sense of the word). Anyone who thinks otherwise has no business discussing science at all.
@supowit You cannot escape philosophy. Science is just another term for the philosophical discipline known as empiricism. Science is essentially a methodology for observing things, but we still have to deal with the application and interpretation of the information that results.
@alaric63 It is important to understand the limitations of mathematics, so an understanding of the historic epicycles problem is strongly recommended. This demonstrates - unequivocally - that mathematical proofs do not equate to empirical proofs.
I've recently read "The Voyager probes appear to have entered a strange realm of frothy magnetic bubbles." which based on standard theory was "surprising."
I'm wondering how or if this fits into plasma cosmology?
@Klaatu2Too@Klaatu2Too The frothy bubbles are plasma cells, and magnetism cannot exist in isolation - it goes hand in hand with electricity, hence the term electromagnetism. Best. Soup
So I wasn't actually insulting you when I said you weren't educated... I was attacking the dumbfuck maker of the video.
You took it upon yourself to be a jackass by attacking me.
Now, I've answered your dumb questions.
Now you can go and properly fuck yourself. You've successfully made me ashamed of liberals for being equally as impressionable and stupid as conservatives.
Plasma cosmology was begun by a very bright man, but Plasma cosmology is not accepted in the scientific community for a reason. It isn't verified... in fact, it is falsified by the theories that we already know to be correct by experimentation.
Now, a bunch of scientifically illiterate crackpots cling to it simply BECAUSE it is not mainstream, and cite its creator, a Nobel Prize winner (for other things) as validation. Sorry, but that is a fallacy of appeal to authority.
The apparently filamentous nature of the universe is just where visible matter has coagulated to form galaxies.
So what this has to do with plasma cosmology is ... well, nothing. Plasma theory does not make specific predictions about the expected state of the universe. Such predictions have already been verified time and again through the ACCEPTED theories of phsyics, like stellar fusion, big bang, and so forth.
"If objects make a dip in space time, as is represented in the graphics I see when gravity is the subject, what is that surface? What makes the well?"
The space-time curvature is represented on two dimensional graphics as a kind of divet. That is the best we can do in terms of representation, because we cannot depict the four dimensions of space warping. But it is mathematically describable, and verified by phenomena like gravitational lensing, which is a prediction of relativity
No, you are not the most uneducated person here. You are at least on equal footing with the person that made the video. And that is saying very little.
@supowit How about you go fuck yourself. Your'e seriously attacking me you douchebag? I guess your so smart you don't have to supply any answers. I wasn't up to having a battle of wits with a shithead, so move out of the way and let somebody answer my questions. Or are you a troll? If you are, ignore the above because you'd be a pathetic loser then.
And like usual, you knuckleheads that subscribe to this nonsense do so only because it is non-mainstream... not because you have a clue about what plasma is. And, invariably, the people that want to stomp all over the work of real physicists (who are all SMARTER than they are), do so because they are severely lacking in basic reasoning and mathematical skills.
@soupdragon42 They call Zero Point Energy "Dark Energy" because they don't want to take the time to explain how it works. The worst of it, they added Dark Forces to the mix. Force is Force, a Force doesn't have an opposite like Dark Force. Fantasy is creaping into the theories of the Mainstream in a surprising rate. There's no such thing as Dark Energy or negative energy, but there is such a thing as Zero Point Energy.
Science is about proving theories, based on empirical data. Trying to make up some shit about dark matter and dark energy is the same thing as saying God exist, we just can't see it.
For all who exalt mathematics above all common sense observations, do you even understand what Einstein, himself, stated? "To the extent that the laws of mathematics refers to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality." -Albert Einstein-
@soupdragon42 Plasma is typically the basic building block of the universe a.k.a., the element hydrogen, which in fact makes up 75% of the elemental mass of the universe. The highest of the electromagnetic spectrum is gamma, which when acted upon with resistance produce elementary particles. Some with energies in the Tera(trillion) electron volts, see Milagro Observatory. In theory only radioactive planets and stars over time will produce large new rings further away from the surface.
I have researched this controversy with awe. In reading the comments here I am amazed at how many people doubt or outright ridicule the 'Electric Model'.
I am of the opinion that the data acquired by the experiments performed by scientists who don't seem to be motivated by funding or institution, is kicking the shit out of CMB, 'neutron stars', the 'big bang', black holes, and the list goes on.
PSEUDOSCIENCE!!!! Electromagnetism alone cant explain black holes, what about neutrons, neutron stars, quantum foam, gravity it'self, which are all unaffected by your electromagnetism in the slightest? I mean you're wiping observation with your ass... Nice try at dumbing us down, good music choice... BLAH
Very interesting for plasma to play such a major part in our Universe it would have to be continuously forming the geometry of spacetime. This is possible if time is formed at the most fundamental level by the collapsing and reforming of the wave function forming Einstein’s curvature of spacetime. This would make Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle the same uncertainty that we have with any future event.
The standard model reminds me of one of those old fifty's Bob Hope movies where the hero gets shot and then takes two agonizing hrs to die. Only to reappear the next week. Don't need dark matter or energy once you take an honest look at Nassim Herramein's fractal blackhole postulates. Too bad dogma trumps wisdom.
Of course the electrical model denies gravitational fusion, that's kind of the point of it being a separate model. What factual inaccuracies are proposed. Did you even read and understand how the electric model explains numerous steady state features of the Sun that cannot, and have not been explained by any variation of the standard model. Like solar temp minimum, the existence of the corona, sun spots and the solar wind? (to name a few) The Standard Model of physics is at a loss for all these.
I have the book The Electric Universe. Fascinating theory really. I'm using a version of this cosmology as the backdrop for my novel. Consequently, It better turn out to be right goddamnit! LOL Great video SoupDragon!
My universe will be brazenly devoid of such things as dark matter, black holes, time travel, artificial intelligence (which I hold as ultimately impossible), space warping and anything super-natural like God, the undead, mind-reading or magic. Fantasy can keep those things.
@Nelapidae There has been recent research that suggests it may be possible "consciousness" is an effect of a complex electromagnetic field in our brains, which if true would make artificial intelligence more likely and make mind reading a real possibility.
This would also affect such theories as universal consciousness and theories of a supreme deity - the "conscious" universe itself is "God" perhaps? The universe did create everything within it through natural forces, including human life...
@supowit Modern cosmology is certainly not verifiable top-to-bottom. If it were, there would not be unknown entities. There is NO scientific theory in any field that is verifiable top-to-bottom. If everything were verifiable, all variables would be known and there would never again be a report to come from NASA saying we learned something new. I agree there may be crackpots espousing PC, but so too with theoretical physics. Like wormholes, parallel universes and time travel.
"Modern cosmology is certainly not verifiable top-to-bottom. If it were, there would not be unknown entities. There is NO scientific theory in any field that is verifiabl"
You're an idiot. You do realize this statement makes no sense.
Being verified "from top to bottom" means that whatever PUBLISHED theories are out there regarding modern cosmology are verified by both observation and mathematical models.
ANd if you are suggesting that Plamsa theory is verifiable through observation, then perhaps you should direct your attention to string theory.
THe trouble with superstring theory, the melding quantum mechanics and relativity, only mathematical predictions are currently, or may ever be possible. Direct observation verifying ST is unlikely, and perhaps may be impossible. Since the behavior of plasmas on a quantum scale is governed by the probabilities of QM, PC has the same problem.
@supowit Electric sun model is radical and I was skeptical at first, but the theory is very intriguing and is based on real science. electric-cosmos org / sun htm
@supowit what are the factual inaccuracies? You do realize that graviational fusion in the sun is not verified. We have achieved fusion on earth (non-gravitationally) to simulate the model the mathematical physics proposed to occur in the sun, but have never verified fusion in a star. In fact, we have never observed the entire fusion process of Hydrogen to Helium on earth, just the separate parts. Did you even read the article I gave to you?
The biggest problem with PC is not that the idea that charged particles influence the behavior of large bodies. This is actually common sense. The problem instead is the fact that people latch onto fringe theories like this, and deny all revealed scientific fact as though it were some sort of conspiracy.
I mean, look... people are telling me that stellar fusion doesn't exist! That the sun is heated from the outside.
The existence of cosmic plasmas and their influence over the behaviors of galaxies in NO WAY undermines the scientific revelations of the 21st century. Nor does it undermine the Big Bang... Big Bang proponents do not deny the possible role of plasma phenomena, but the inference of the existence of the "first" singularity is now undeniable. Plasma theories do not undo that. That would be like saying if a new force was discovered that theories of gravity are wrong.
@supowit Although I never thought I would say this to someone supporting the mainstream scientific view of anything; your arguments are stubborn and make you sound like a five-year-old. Please grow up. Stop trying to cause problems - your views are more pseudoscience than reality. Real science is based on observation and experimentation. If experimentation is not possible, constant re-evaluation of theories is necessary.
"If experimentation is not possible, constant re-evaluation of theories is necessary."
You are a moron. Which modern cosmology or astrophysics theory has not been experimented on? I bet I can name an experiment for any theory you name, with the exception of M Theory (string theory).
I love plasma Cosmology. Conventional cosmology is looking mainly at Einstein's universe rather than the real universe. It's like playing a roll playing game. Cosmologists should be ashamed of themselves for being sucked into neo-theology and the ancestor worship of Einstein.
Ok, I seem to have stumbled on an entire niche of videos on Plasma Cosmology. Can someone please tell me if this is a Coast to Coast conspiracy theory topic like the NWO and UFOs?
I'm not sure how seriously I should be taking this, and I'm frankly not sure why anyone would be on a crusade to convince technically illiterate laymen of an esoteric minority cosmological hypothesis that is considered outdated and speculative (at best) by the modern scientific community.
Plasma Cosmology (PC)was proposed by real scientists as an alternative cosmological model to the standard Big Bang gravity only model. No conspiracy theories involved. PC is based only on science that is already demonstrable in laboratories, experiments and astronomical observation. There are however expanded PC theories known as Electrical Universe (EU) which are far more speculative. As such, their explanations range from plausible to extremely radical.
@entyrion Youtube bug, My previous comment was directed to you. The Electrical Universe theories are far more speculative, and conspiracy theorists have latched onto it, giving EU and by association, Plasma Cosmology, a bad name. PC is a sound theory, it only requires you to view the cosmos in a different light. As an EE, I found PC to be extremely compelling. I don't have the physics back ground to back it up, but I am very convinced by the evidence of PC for its legitimacy.
@0rthogonal I assume you are mainly referring to catastrophism and Saturnian Theory, which while I admit do involve some speculation(like all sciences do) it is based on physical evidence in regards to mythology. Others have viewed mythology and realized the vast connectedness of it but having been unable to come up with a conventional theory that explains that world wide unity of myth they dismissed it as fairytales.
Providing an explanation for this unity of myth is a conspiracy theory?
@Masta420 I should have said "providing a PC based/inspired theory to explain this unity of myth".
Last I checked most of science was about studying and trying to explain things that are largely unknown and developing theories to explain them, but doing so in regards to mythology from a Plasma perspective is not real science?
If mainstream science were to put some resources into the research of such matters perhaps there wouldn't be so much speculation involved in it still.
@Masta420 I didn't mean to intend that linking mythological archetypes to realworld phenomena is a conspiracy theory. I think that part is very fascinating, but extraordinarily difficult to prove. I was thinking more along the lines of the folks linking HARP to earthquakes (even if earthquakes ultimately prove to be an electrical phenomena) and the crank science of the mind/body connection. Just browse the Thunderbolts forums and you'll see plenty of crank idea's.
Opponents of the Plasma Universe theory often attempt to misconstrue the theory to make it seem like it rejects the notion of gravitational forces in the universe completely when in actuality the Plasma Universe theory recognizes both Gravitational and Electrodynamic/magnetic forces in the universe but simply points out the commonsense fact that the cosmic electrical systems/forces in place are so much more powerful than gravity it's foolish to think it's irrelevant and gravity is dominant.
I saw criticism on the "big bang ", you think ?? !! The big bang was first regarded as an explosion, this didn't work so an expansion of space time was implemented. Great vid.
but relativity has nothing to do with this, in fact i have never heard the explanation in the Plasma Cosmology theory that can explain more visually than Special Invariance (relativity, as he later reluctantly dubbed his work) the way in which the speed of electromagnetic waves elude the apparent threads of "space" and "time" by always travelling at the same speed. i can easilly put this into a scenario a 10 year old would udnerstand for you, can you refute his theories in such a manner?
well, is this proven wrong? or are you just saying it's wrong? And also.. isn't dark matters precense detected by it's gravitational pull? Please, correct me if i'm wrong here. And give me some sources of why this standard model is wrong?
Alfven thought he was Galileo, and was wrong. Dr. Arp is also not Gelileo.
Still, the concept and idea may very well be on the right track. I do not totally agree with the Plasma-verse, but I also do not agree with the silencing of the idea. Science grows by ideas. Dark Matter/Energy sure seems to be a dead end.
I am a artist that uses a fractal program-apophysis and can duplacate many cosmic displays we see in the space photos-plasma feilds display many scared geometry basics princables also found in many crop circles-the wrapping and bundleling of DNA also requires these very same mathmatics-electric design holds the key to everything-energy never dies,it reorgaizes to suit a new enviorment- done with mathmatics often scared geometry quickly becomes aparent-22grams of electroplasma found peace THXZ!
As far as the 4 elements (fire, water, air, and earth) are concerned, plasma defines the element of fire best. I used to wonder about those elements alot and could readily see solids, gases, and liquids, but the element of fire was a little elusive until now.
This is genius. If this theory does lead to the T.O.E then it should be explored. Cosmology has fallen flat recently with dark matter and dark energy, which should be easily detectable if they are interacting with matter, as with the rotations of galaxies. Great Work!
Yes, plasma is the first state of matter, and constitutes 99% plus of the universe. However, because plasma is strongly influenced by electromganetism (EM), its behaviours easily dominate weak gravitational forces. In fact EM is 10 ^ 39 more powerful than gravity. Can g and inertia really dominate in a universe that crackles and hums with electricity? The filamentary (EM-Plasma) structure of the universe which we now observe clearly indicates otherwise.
WTF is the Physics and Cosmology community focused in on Dark Energy & Matter, and I think "they" are trying to determine that dark matter is nearly massless but there is so much of it,in universe.
There is no good explantion of the continued accleration of galaxies in the Universe which defies gravity which should slow down in inflation but it's speeding up. Would EM-Plasma account for this acceleration? Anyways thanks for your answer I am collating while watching Star Trek on SF channel.
The alleged expansion of the universe is based on a very tenuous interpretation of Redshift, let alone the alleged acceleration of same. Look up the work of Halton Arp, which based on observation, not ideology.
Well you sound like a Hoyle Steady state fan, There is much evidence for inflation, Cosmic Background radition, Redshift yes. Also I don't know if Black holes are beside the point in reference to EM but the intense gravity of blackholes are more powerfull then even EM. I may also have this incorrect but some theorists state that gravity has been leaking from the universe, (they are testing this now) well if that is the case then gravity was much more intense in the past.
I have yet to hear from anybody why it has to be either a gravitonal based Universe or an EM Universe. Why can't both be merged, Gravity explains motion, planetary orbits, Stars, EM explains away Dark Energy. Why does it have to be an either/or proposition?
This video isn't saying it can't be both. Modern Cosmology completely ignores plasmas role unless they are talking about Neutron Stars. This is what this video is saying. There are things kept from you. All matter still produces the weak force of Gravity however the dominate force is Electromagnetism but it is far from simple. The electromagnetism creates waves on the Ether that plays a role in planetary orbits.
I totaly agree. It is curious to me why the body scientific chooses to ignore Plasma Cosmolgy. It's fascinating and lord knows there are a lot of missing pieces in Gravitional Model such as Dark Energy.
Dark Matter is the blank cheque required to balance the failing equations. It is required to balance the huge lack of mass required for gravity to work, and is therefore a ridiculous kludge!
@soupdragon42 I agree. Money makes people dishonest. There equations are wrong but they continue to lie so that they get paid. We are better off not paying them even if they are right. Who cares if you understand the Universe, one only needs to be in balance with nature & we need to save our money.
@wavepsychic That's my philosophy also. The argument that wins is the argument that is government funded. The taxpayer is forced to pay for the support of a belief system often contrary to his own personal beliefs.
A little math skill makes even the most complex sounding standard astronomy theories EASY to verify. The only excuse anyone can have for rejecting solar fusion theory, or any other modern theory of astronomy, is an indefensible weakness at algebra and calculus.
@supowit Some 'scientists' gather in a secret room; they won't let you in there. They hook up two dozen or so lasers, point them at one spot, and energize them with enough electricity to light a small town. Then they emerge from the room and announce to the press that they achieved fussion for a fraction of a second. In twenty more years, fussion power will be a reality! All they need is a few billion more dollars. Can't you spot the fraud here? They never achieved fussion. They are lying.
And besides, what you said earlier was "fusion has never been demonstrated in a laboratory."
You seem to think that we have never witnessed fusion at all. And you are still confused because you are still mixing up the nuclear process of fusion with COLD FUSION.
Nuclear fusion has been demonstrated COUNTLESS times. Ever heard of particle accelerators?
Great, done.
Cold fusion is the one with lasers. And yes, it does work.
@supowit Who do you mean by 'we'? I have never witnessed fusion in a lab.
Show me truck, bus, auto, ship or plane that runs on fusion. Show me an electrical power plant that runs on fusion. And even then, you would have to let me look inside. I can't just take your word for it.
Yes, I have heard of particle accelerators; a big, expensive toy for a select few physicists to play with, paid with public money. Which is exactly my point: Why should i fund your theoretical research?
skepticism is good. unfortunately, your skepticism is a product of ignorance.
fusion is achieved by accelerating small nuclei at each other with particle accelerators. These experiments date back to the 70's or so. I think your knowledge is a little outdated.
"Accelerator-based light-ion fusion is a technique using particle accelerators to achieve particle kinetic energies sufficient to induce light-ion fusion reactions. Accelerating light ions is relatively easy, and can be done in an efficient manner—all it takes is a vacuum tube, a pair of electrodes, and a high-voltage transformer; fusion can be observed with as little as 10 kV between electrodes. The key problem with accelerator-based fusion is the input to output ratio."
@supowit I know a scam when I see one. Thirty years ago, the scientists said, 'in twenty years, we'll have fusion power." OK, it's thirty years later, and they are still saying, "Give us another twenty years and we'll have fusion power." Come on. How long before you figure out that these scientists have a lifetime career of this? It's a scam. For all I know, fission power is a fake. They don't let me into their nuclear power plants to see.
Bullshit. The reason plasma cosmology is ignored is simply because it doesn't offer a model with which observations can be explained. Worse, each and every claim in plasma cosmology has been falsified already. Give it up already.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Really are you serious? You honestly think that current theories explain our observations about planets, the sun and galaxies? You must be joking! They need invisible Dark matter to explain the the rotation of galaxies. They need invisible convection currents too explain sun spots. They need hypothetical super nova and galactic collisions too explain planets and moons. Modern Science is the study of invisibles. You might as well be studying god!
Even if something is invisible, we can see still determine its effects. Or did you ever see an electron? The problem with plasma cosmology is that it predicts certain effects we simply don't see occurring in the real world, and offers no explanation whatsoever for effects we *do* see. It's dead on arrival.
not quite, the moon beckons an electric blanket from the earth's magnetotail every full moon, why dont you search up nasa's take on this. yes, magnetotail is a real thing and not the stuff of rpgs. yes, the earth has a magnetosphere, yes for this to be possible there must be plasma fricking everywhere
this single fact gives plasma cosmology an interesting kick.. "oh yeah we didnt send astronaughts that day because moondust becomes an electric dragon"
and yes you do need plasma for that, because for the fluid to generate a magnetic current it must be subject to an electrical one, ionized gases being the inevitable output; perhaps it seems more sensible today to assume that planets act as isolated magnets in the vastness of space, which is a pity considering how beautiful the electrical properties of comets and asteroids are, and how they must be dirty snowballs to agree with standard theory
No, it screams "the evidence points in that direction."
"for the fluid to generate a magnetic current it must be subject to an electrical one"
No, you need a electrically conducting fluid, which *can* be a plasma. On the earth, though, it's liquid iron. Look op magnetohydrodynamics while you're at it.
Um, no. Newton and Keppler solved the problem of the planetary orbits. Keppler with a mathematical representation of the orbits in elipses, and Newton with F=Gm1*m2/R^2.
Which, by the way, holds true for ALL orbital systems.
And modern cosmology does NOT ignore plasma! That statement doesn't even make sense! The point of cosmology is to investigate and explain the origin and evolution of the universe.
@supowit You think Scientist have everything all figured out with math huh? You try to give my rational mind the run around with these abstract mathematical equations but it is not working. If these equations have everything all figured out then whats with all the X's in there equations like Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, Anti Matter, Gage Bozons, higgs fields, convention currents and god particles? These are not proven facts, these are wild cards and fantasies.
@supowit I do not need too know what you are talking about. Math is NO substitute for observation and experimentation. You're view have all been fixed for you. So you can not see things any other way.
@supowit Thanks. I'm really not in the mood to fight. You can think whatever you want, so allow me to do the same. I am just trying to make sense of how stuff works, leave me to it, whether I am right or wrong.
I was just annoyed at how immaturely you were handling your argument. That's a big red flag - getting defensive.
@supowit PC advocates do not deny Keppler's/Newton's laws for gravitational planetary systems, I don't know where you get that. The equations work perfectly fine for non-electrical systems, and they have never said otherwise... do you even know what PC is?
I never said they did. One of THEM intimated that plasmic charge influenced the motions of the planets in some significant manner, and my point was that there is zero evidence for that. Planetary motion is adequately modeled through mechanics.
@supowit Plasmic discharge influencing planetary motion is part of Electric Universe theory, not PC. Next point. Current standard model cosmological theory is not backed up by observation. Dark Matter/Dark Energy and black holes are NOT observed or predicted by cosmological theory. They never have been. They are all A Posteriori ad hoc model adjustments. None of them were predicted by any model. They are only used to explain observations. Their direct observation has not been seen.
@supowit I do understand the malleable nature of scientific theories, but you forget that the point of a scientific theory is to explain all observable phenomena with known variables and then be able to explain newly observed phenomena without significant modification. Cosmology has numerous unknown entities to explain current observations, and continues to create more as new observations contradict the model. It's just like Ptolemaic epicycles, adding more one more layer on top of another.
@supowit The inability to predict new phenomena, or be able to explain current phenomena is the sign of a poor scientific theory. Scientific theory is based on facts, not conjectures (hypothesis are conjectures based on data). With the latest WMAP data, the cosmologists confidently proclaim that they can account and observe less than 5% of the universe... that's barely a step above creationists.
"The inability to predict new phenomena, or be able to explain current phenomena is the sign of a poor scientific theory."
You're an idiot. Relativity predicts oodles of phenomena that were observed afterward. But since you just ignore those observations (graviational lensing and time relativity experiments just to name a couple), they have no meaning to you.
Go back to school. Take some physics courses, and stop being retarded.
@supowit I've probably taken more formal physics courses than you. Gravitational lensing is BS. They have only "detected" it in the lower plasma atmosphere around the sun. They cannot/have not seen any sign of it above the Sun's chromosphere. They have mistaken refraction in the Sun's atmospheric plasma, with lensing. Read this article, it will explain everything. extinctionshift(dot)com/SignificantFindings(DOT)htm Also, personal insults don't help your argument.
What are you even talking about? If this is what you learned in an astronomy class, you must have gone to Dumbfuck University.
And I can insult idiots like yourself all I want. I would put money on the fact that your math skills are shit.
Did you read the abstract from the Harvard article at the bottom? It absolutely DOES NOT AGREE with the conclusions of that bullshit article you linked.
@supowit No one's talking about astronomy, maybe that's your problem. We're talking about Cosmology. You still haven't addressed the Electric Sun model. Why are you hiding from it. You can't deny the fact that the model intrinsically explains what the fusion model can only address through ad hoc assumptions.
facepalm. There is no response to the idiot claims of the electric sun model. If you even think about denying gravitational fusion, you're finished. This model is too well verified. So forget it. You're living in fantasy land if you think that 1) the existence of plasma accounts for nuclear transmutation, and 2) that the gravitational model is inadequate and lacks evidence. You need more schooling if that's the case.
What do you think of Bill Gaede's theories?
L1ber8ted 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@L1ber8ted Quirky
soupdragon42 1 week ago
@soupdragon42 Haha, oh do elaborate! :)
L1ber8ted 1 week ago
You realize that there is an a lot of evidence supporting the lambda cold-dark matter hypothesis right?
amarmirza08 2 weeks ago
@amarmirza08 Ideology, not evidence.
soupdragon42 1 week ago
I ask you to give me just one scientific reference to back this view ..
0warrior4life 1 month ago
@0warrior4life I am not your research assistant, but if you were serious about wanting to learn more you probably wouldn't have adopted such a sarcastic tone.
Try Thunderbolts(dot)info or Plasmauniverse(dot)com for links to the plethora of relevant peer reveiwed materials.
soupdragon42 1 month ago
@soupdragon42
I checked them and I didnt find any scientific work, all i saw was a very good marketing campaign
0warrior4life 1 month ago 2
@0warrior4life
Everything is a marketing campaign. Stephen Hawking engages in mass marketing as a Knight of the Anglican Church in the promotion of Creationist theory of Big Bang. The work of Plasma Cosmology is based on the works of Hannes Alfven and most recently Anthony Peratt and there is a host of Plasma Physicists that adopt the view of Plasma Cosmology as well. Dr. Scott is the author of many Electrical Engineering text books used in many Universities.
orrerystar 4 weeks ago
@orrerystar How exactly is it that being the author of undergraduate textbooks on electrical engineering (ie designing circuitry) lends any expertice or leverage to whatever "dr" Scott (whoever he is) thinks about cosmology and astronomy?
SuperShiningSun 5 days ago
This is Pseudoscience. Plasma Cosmology has been falsified on more than one occasion. The only people that cling to this theory and champion it are these pseudoscientists and the uneducated.
People need to actually read up on this stuff. Plasma Cosmology is bogus.
GoongalaGoongala 2 months ago
@GoongalaGoongala Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful comment. Where do you live? On the dark side of the moon?
soupdragon42 2 months ago
@GoongalaGoongala
Reference a single falsification of Plasma Cosmology. I bet you can't find any.
orrerystar 4 weeks ago
The "music" drives me nuts.
DanishCartoonist100 3 months ago
@DanishCartoonist100 Not everybody likes the music, but you can turn it down. Sorry. Soup
soupdragon42 2 months ago
The purpose of intelligent technological species is the preservation of biospheres and habitats when the native planets and stars are no longer able to do so. Meditate on this for a while. It takes a while to understand the implications from religion to physics. Or maybe the ultimate survival adaptation did just happen by accident so what. There's a God trying to get born here :)
vladdrac88 4 months ago
@supowit
and you're happy with that are you?
andielines 5 months ago
@andielines
Science doesn't have anything to do with being happy with explanations. What is true is true... demonstrably. Science is not philosophy (in the modern sense of the word). Anyone who thinks otherwise has no business discussing science at all.
supowit 5 months ago
@supowit You cannot escape philosophy. Science is just another term for the philosophical discipline known as empiricism. Science is essentially a methodology for observing things, but we still have to deal with the application and interpretation of the information that results.
soupdragon42 2 months ago
So the guy was right then....
the one who said;
'Beware of mathematicians, particularly when they are right.'
alaric63 7 months ago
@alaric63 Yes. Math is very important, but it must be ancillary, not dominant. We should not put the cart before the horse, in other words.
soupdragon42 7 months ago
Epicycle....hmmm....
Nope... no data on that...
..is that like an Epic Motorcycle?...
Let me add that to the growing list of things to google....
woo-hoo!
alaric63 7 months ago
@alaric63 It is important to understand the limitations of mathematics, so an understanding of the historic epicycles problem is strongly recommended. This demonstrates - unequivocally - that mathematical proofs do not equate to empirical proofs.
soupdragon42 7 months ago
I've recently read "The Voyager probes appear to have entered a strange realm of frothy magnetic bubbles." which based on standard theory was "surprising."
I'm wondering how or if this fits into plasma cosmology?
Klaatu2Too 8 months ago
@Klaatu2Too @Klaatu2Too The frothy bubbles are plasma cells, and magnetism cannot exist in isolation - it goes hand in hand with electricity, hence the term electromagnetism. Best. Soup
soupdragon42 8 months ago
This video is excellent to introduce the subject.
The subject of COSMOLOGY is a borderland between Sciences and Philosophy.
This subject attracts all mankind in search of direction to provide Unity in many diversified fields.Vidyardhi nanduri
viswagsena108 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeNitro94
So I wasn't actually insulting you when I said you weren't educated... I was attacking the dumbfuck maker of the video.
You took it upon yourself to be a jackass by attacking me.
Now, I've answered your dumb questions.
Now you can go and properly fuck yourself. You've successfully made me ashamed of liberals for being equally as impressionable and stupid as conservatives.
supowit 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeNitro94
Plasma cosmology was begun by a very bright man, but Plasma cosmology is not accepted in the scientific community for a reason. It isn't verified... in fact, it is falsified by the theories that we already know to be correct by experimentation.
Now, a bunch of scientifically illiterate crackpots cling to it simply BECAUSE it is not mainstream, and cite its creator, a Nobel Prize winner (for other things) as validation. Sorry, but that is a fallacy of appeal to authority.
supowit 11 months ago
Comment removed
supowit 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeNitro94
The apparently filamentous nature of the universe is just where visible matter has coagulated to form galaxies.
So what this has to do with plasma cosmology is ... well, nothing. Plasma theory does not make specific predictions about the expected state of the universe. Such predictions have already been verified time and again through the ACCEPTED theories of phsyics, like stellar fusion, big bang, and so forth.
supowit 11 months ago
@MikeNitro94
"If objects make a dip in space time, as is represented in the graphics I see when gravity is the subject, what is that surface? What makes the well?"
The space-time curvature is represented on two dimensional graphics as a kind of divet. That is the best we can do in terms of representation, because we cannot depict the four dimensions of space warping. But it is mathematically describable, and verified by phenomena like gravitational lensing, which is a prediction of relativity
supowit 11 months ago
Comment removed
supowit 11 months ago
Comment removed
supowit 11 months ago
Comment removed
supowit 11 months ago
Comment removed
supowit 11 months ago
@MikeNitro94
No, you are not the most uneducated person here. You are at least on equal footing with the person that made the video. And that is saying very little.
supowit 11 months ago
@supowit How about you go fuck yourself. Your'e seriously attacking me you douchebag? I guess your so smart you don't have to supply any answers. I wasn't up to having a battle of wits with a shithead, so move out of the way and let somebody answer my questions. Or are you a troll? If you are, ignore the above because you'd be a pathetic loser then.
MikeNitro94 11 months ago
@MikeNitro94
You didn't ask for any answers.
And you did the attacking. I believe the phrase "go fuck yourself" came from you.
This whole movement is an affront to the work of real scientists. And people like you are an affront to the entire intellectual community.
So, YOU can go fuck YOURself.
supowit 11 months ago
@soupdragon42
And like usual, you knuckleheads that subscribe to this nonsense do so only because it is non-mainstream... not because you have a clue about what plasma is. And, invariably, the people that want to stomp all over the work of real physicists (who are all SMARTER than they are), do so because they are severely lacking in basic reasoning and mathematical skills.
Fact.
supowit 11 months ago
@soupdragon42 They call Zero Point Energy "Dark Energy" because they don't want to take the time to explain how it works. The worst of it, they added Dark Forces to the mix. Force is Force, a Force doesn't have an opposite like Dark Force. Fantasy is creaping into the theories of the Mainstream in a surprising rate. There's no such thing as Dark Energy or negative energy, but there is such a thing as Zero Point Energy.
EltonJThe 1 year ago
Science is about proving theories, based on empirical data. Trying to make up some shit about dark matter and dark energy is the same thing as saying God exist, we just can't see it.
Zenome 1 year ago
@brownj2 You're a certified idiot.
Zenome 1 year ago
@Zenome
No, really this is bull.
brownj2 11 months ago
For all who exalt mathematics above all common sense observations, do you even understand what Einstein, himself, stated? "To the extent that the laws of mathematics refers to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality." -Albert Einstein-
A very enlightening video!
Ettenyl56 1 year ago
Thanks for the videos soupdragon!
josephmpg 1 year ago
Dark Matter?lol or hydrogen without an electron??
Aspanaut 1 year ago
@soupdragon42 Plasma is typically the basic building block of the universe a.k.a., the element hydrogen, which in fact makes up 75% of the elemental mass of the universe. The highest of the electromagnetic spectrum is gamma, which when acted upon with resistance produce elementary particles. Some with energies in the Tera(trillion) electron volts, see Milagro Observatory. In theory only radioactive planets and stars over time will produce large new rings further away from the surface.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
I have researched this controversy with awe. In reading the comments here I am amazed at how many people doubt or outright ridicule the 'Electric Model'.
I am of the opinion that the data acquired by the experiments performed by scientists who don't seem to be motivated by funding or institution, is kicking the shit out of CMB, 'neutron stars', the 'big bang', black holes, and the list goes on.
One should speak the truth, not speak at length.
Excellent Informative video.
alaric63 1 year ago
@alaric63 Is it just me, or is big bang cosmology the modern version of epicycle theory?
Incurable1488 7 months ago
PSEUDOSCIENCE!!!! Electromagnetism alone cant explain black holes, what about neutrons, neutron stars, quantum foam, gravity it'self, which are all unaffected by your electromagnetism in the slightest? I mean you're wiping observation with your ass... Nice try at dumbing us down, good music choice... BLAH
WoodlandRavah 1 year ago
Lightning is plasma too, just felt like pointing that out, great video by the way, thanks for sharing
VicTheMouth 1 year ago
Comment removed
mukelebu 1 year ago
Comment removed
mukelebu 1 year ago
I would prefer Holst; The planets. Or Beethoven's ninth symphony, last movement, as music.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
Very interesting for plasma to play such a major part in our Universe it would have to be continuously forming the geometry of spacetime. This is possible if time is formed at the most fundamental level by the collapsing and reforming of the wave function forming Einstein’s curvature of spacetime. This would make Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle the same uncertainty that we have with any future event.
nickharvey7 1 year ago
@nickharvey7 Forget space time curvature. Plasma Cosmology is based on real science, not mathematical abstraction. Move on.
soupdragon42 1 year ago 2
@soupdragon42 Thanks for the reminder Nick, lol.
scottyea 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soupdragon42
"Forget space time curvature. Plasma Cosmology is based on real science, not mathematical abstraction."
Spoken like a true math flunkie.
supowit 11 months ago
The standard model reminds me of one of those old fifty's Bob Hope movies where the hero gets shot and then takes two agonizing hrs to die. Only to reappear the next week. Don't need dark matter or energy once you take an honest look at Nassim Herramein's fractal blackhole postulates. Too bad dogma trumps wisdom.
saintron60 1 year ago
exotic matter is also hypothetical
purpleleach1 1 year ago
Of course the electrical model denies gravitational fusion, that's kind of the point of it being a separate model. What factual inaccuracies are proposed. Did you even read and understand how the electric model explains numerous steady state features of the Sun that cannot, and have not been explained by any variation of the standard model. Like solar temp minimum, the existence of the corona, sun spots and the solar wind? (to name a few) The Standard Model of physics is at a loss for all these.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
I have the book The Electric Universe. Fascinating theory really. I'm using a version of this cosmology as the backdrop for my novel. Consequently, It better turn out to be right goddamnit! LOL Great video SoupDragon!
Nelapidae 1 year ago
@Nelapidae Good idea. Science fiction should be based on science. For too long now science has been based on science fiction!
soupdragon42 1 year ago
@soupdragon42
My universe will be brazenly devoid of such things as dark matter, black holes, time travel, artificial intelligence (which I hold as ultimately impossible), space warping and anything super-natural like God, the undead, mind-reading or magic. Fantasy can keep those things.
Nelapidae 1 year ago
@Nelapidae There has been recent research that suggests it may be possible "consciousness" is an effect of a complex electromagnetic field in our brains, which if true would make artificial intelligence more likely and make mind reading a real possibility.
This would also affect such theories as universal consciousness and theories of a supreme deity - the "conscious" universe itself is "God" perhaps? The universe did create everything within it through natural forces, including human life...
Masta420 1 year ago
@Nelapidae
we can opt for a natural world accompanied by a very strange supernatural world; or we can settle for a single natural world, a very strange one.
-sophie's world
ibajem 1 year ago
@Nelapidae If it's YOUR universe, wouldn't you be God?
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
@Nelapidae
Um, don't waste your time. Plasma cosmology has been debunked as crackpottery that preys on the ignorance of non-scientists.
Where modern cosmology theories are verifiable via mathematical models from top to bottom, plasma cosmology ideas are backed by ZERO math.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit Modern cosmology is certainly not verifiable top-to-bottom. If it were, there would not be unknown entities. There is NO scientific theory in any field that is verifiable top-to-bottom. If everything were verifiable, all variables would be known and there would never again be a report to come from NASA saying we learned something new. I agree there may be crackpots espousing PC, but so too with theoretical physics. Like wormholes, parallel universes and time travel.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
@0rthogonal
"Modern cosmology is certainly not verifiable top-to-bottom. If it were, there would not be unknown entities. There is NO scientific theory in any field that is verifiabl"
You're an idiot. You do realize this statement makes no sense.
Being verified "from top to bottom" means that whatever PUBLISHED theories are out there regarding modern cosmology are verified by both observation and mathematical models.
supowit 1 year ago
@0rthogonal
ANd if you are suggesting that Plamsa theory is verifiable through observation, then perhaps you should direct your attention to string theory.
THe trouble with superstring theory, the melding quantum mechanics and relativity, only mathematical predictions are currently, or may ever be possible. Direct observation verifying ST is unlikely, and perhaps may be impossible. Since the behavior of plasmas on a quantum scale is governed by the probabilities of QM, PC has the same problem.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit Electric sun model is radical and I was skeptical at first, but the theory is very intriguing and is based on real science. electric-cosmos org / sun htm
0rthogonal 1 year ago
@0rthogonal
The electric model of the sun that denies gravitational fusion is loaded with factual inaccuracies. Look it up.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit what are the factual inaccuracies? You do realize that graviational fusion in the sun is not verified. We have achieved fusion on earth (non-gravitationally) to simulate the model the mathematical physics proposed to occur in the sun, but have never verified fusion in a star. In fact, we have never observed the entire fusion process of Hydrogen to Helium on earth, just the separate parts. Did you even read the article I gave to you?
0rthogonal 1 year ago
@0rthogonal
The biggest problem with PC is not that the idea that charged particles influence the behavior of large bodies. This is actually common sense. The problem instead is the fact that people latch onto fringe theories like this, and deny all revealed scientific fact as though it were some sort of conspiracy.
I mean, look... people are telling me that stellar fusion doesn't exist! That the sun is heated from the outside.
That's fucking crazy talk!
supowit 1 year ago
@0rthogonal
The existence of cosmic plasmas and their influence over the behaviors of galaxies in NO WAY undermines the scientific revelations of the 21st century. Nor does it undermine the Big Bang... Big Bang proponents do not deny the possible role of plasma phenomena, but the inference of the existence of the "first" singularity is now undeniable. Plasma theories do not undo that. That would be like saying if a new force was discovered that theories of gravity are wrong.
It's nonsense!
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit Although I never thought I would say this to someone supporting the mainstream scientific view of anything; your arguments are stubborn and make you sound like a five-year-old. Please grow up. Stop trying to cause problems - your views are more pseudoscience than reality. Real science is based on observation and experimentation. If experimentation is not possible, constant re-evaluation of theories is necessary.
It appears it is you who are uneducated.
chylerreckeaolgodhul 11 months ago
@chylerreckeaolgodhul
"If experimentation is not possible, constant re-evaluation of theories is necessary."
You are a moron. Which modern cosmology or astrophysics theory has not been experimented on? I bet I can name an experiment for any theory you name, with the exception of M Theory (string theory).
supowit 11 months ago
@supowit That's good because math is where the scientists hide their fraud.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
@Nelapidae
Furthermore, fake science of this sort just feeds the mathematically bereft minds of stupid people.
"Hey look, kids... science with no math!"
There is no such thing. Mathematics is the language of science. It is nonsense to think of one without the other.
supowit 1 year ago
I love plasma Cosmology. Conventional cosmology is looking mainly at Einstein's universe rather than the real universe. It's like playing a roll playing game. Cosmologists should be ashamed of themselves for being sucked into neo-theology and the ancestor worship of Einstein.
realscience1 1 year ago
Doesn't "The Rodin Solution" solve all mathematical physic pertaining to cosmology etc?
YSBCITTAR 1 year ago
@YSBCITTAR In a word, no!
soupdragon42 1 year ago
@soupdragon42 So to you the Rodin Solution is all BS?
YSBCITTAR 1 year ago
Ok, I seem to have stumbled on an entire niche of videos on Plasma Cosmology. Can someone please tell me if this is a Coast to Coast conspiracy theory topic like the NWO and UFOs?
I'm not sure how seriously I should be taking this, and I'm frankly not sure why anyone would be on a crusade to convince technically illiterate laymen of an esoteric minority cosmological hypothesis that is considered outdated and speculative (at best) by the modern scientific community.
entyrion 1 year ago
Plasma Cosmology (PC)was proposed by real scientists as an alternative cosmological model to the standard Big Bang gravity only model. No conspiracy theories involved. PC is based only on science that is already demonstrable in laboratories, experiments and astronomical observation. There are however expanded PC theories known as Electrical Universe (EU) which are far more speculative. As such, their explanations range from plausible to extremely radical.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
@entyrion Youtube bug, My previous comment was directed to you. The Electrical Universe theories are far more speculative, and conspiracy theorists have latched onto it, giving EU and by association, Plasma Cosmology, a bad name. PC is a sound theory, it only requires you to view the cosmos in a different light. As an EE, I found PC to be extremely compelling. I don't have the physics back ground to back it up, but I am very convinced by the evidence of PC for its legitimacy.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
@0rthogonal I assume you are mainly referring to catastrophism and Saturnian Theory, which while I admit do involve some speculation(like all sciences do) it is based on physical evidence in regards to mythology. Others have viewed mythology and realized the vast connectedness of it but having been unable to come up with a conventional theory that explains that world wide unity of myth they dismissed it as fairytales.
Providing an explanation for this unity of myth is a conspiracy theory?
Masta420 1 year ago
@Masta420 I should have said "providing a PC based/inspired theory to explain this unity of myth".
Last I checked most of science was about studying and trying to explain things that are largely unknown and developing theories to explain them, but doing so in regards to mythology from a Plasma perspective is not real science?
If mainstream science were to put some resources into the research of such matters perhaps there wouldn't be so much speculation involved in it still.
Masta420 1 year ago
@Masta420 I didn't mean to intend that linking mythological archetypes to realworld phenomena is a conspiracy theory. I think that part is very fascinating, but extraordinarily difficult to prove. I was thinking more along the lines of the folks linking HARP to earthquakes (even if earthquakes ultimately prove to be an electrical phenomena) and the crank science of the mind/body connection. Just browse the Thunderbolts forums and you'll see plenty of crank idea's.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
Comment removed
0rthogonal 1 year ago
Comment removed
0rthogonal 1 year ago
Opponents of the Plasma Universe theory often attempt to misconstrue the theory to make it seem like it rejects the notion of gravitational forces in the universe completely when in actuality the Plasma Universe theory recognizes both Gravitational and Electrodynamic/magnetic forces in the universe but simply points out the commonsense fact that the cosmic electrical systems/forces in place are so much more powerful than gravity it's foolish to think it's irrelevant and gravity is dominant.
Masta420 1 year ago
I saw criticism on the "big bang ", you think ?? !! The big bang was first regarded as an explosion, this didn't work so an expansion of space time was implemented. Great vid.
strikenetter 2 years ago
Makszi: The first song is a remix of "Silence" by Delrium.
Soupdragon: please update your descriptions with "music by", which you have done for some of the videos.
CrabHunter 2 years ago
I meant the first song that plays P.S.
Makszi 2 years ago
Okay soupdragon42, I know I ragged on you for your music to other videos but what song is this?! o.O
Makszi 2 years ago
but relativity has nothing to do with this, in fact i have never heard the explanation in the Plasma Cosmology theory that can explain more visually than Special Invariance (relativity, as he later reluctantly dubbed his work) the way in which the speed of electromagnetic waves elude the apparent threads of "space" and "time" by always travelling at the same speed. i can easilly put this into a scenario a 10 year old would udnerstand for you, can you refute his theories in such a manner?
ibajem 2 years ago
You are simply spouting the mainstream view, which is now known to be wrong. Move on!
soupdragon42 2 years ago
well, is this proven wrong? or are you just saying it's wrong? And also.. isn't dark matters precense detected by it's gravitational pull? Please, correct me if i'm wrong here. And give me some sources of why this standard model is wrong?
heiheiheiblei 2 years ago
Alfven thought he was Galileo, and was wrong. Dr. Arp is also not Gelileo.
Still, the concept and idea may very well be on the right track. I do not totally agree with the Plasma-verse, but I also do not agree with the silencing of the idea. Science grows by ideas. Dark Matter/Energy sure seems to be a dead end.
Brantoc 2 years ago
whats the name of the song???
DeViLiN888 3 years ago
I am a artist that uses a fractal program-apophysis and can duplacate many cosmic displays we see in the space photos-plasma feilds display many scared geometry basics princables also found in many crop circles-the wrapping and bundleling of DNA also requires these very same mathmatics-electric design holds the key to everything-energy never dies,it reorgaizes to suit a new enviorment- done with mathmatics often scared geometry quickly becomes aparent-22grams of electroplasma found peace THXZ!
wizardangel 3 years ago
As far as the 4 elements (fire, water, air, and earth) are concerned, plasma defines the element of fire best. I used to wonder about those elements alot and could readily see solids, gases, and liquids, but the element of fire was a little elusive until now.
HerbDangerous 3 years ago
This video explained absolutely nothing and was a complete waste of time. State your hypothesis and supporting evidence.
majorvoltage 3 years ago
This is a YouTube vid -- an introduction to the emerging paradigm. It is not a peer reviewed paper. What do you expect in < 10 mins?
soupdragon42 3 years ago
What has distance got to do with it? They both fall of with the square of the distance? Read a textbook or two...
soupdragon42 3 years ago
Did you intend that reply for someone else?
majorvoltage 3 years ago
Why not self-educate yourself:
holoscience . com
electric-cosmos . org
plasmacosmology . net
theone6837 3 years ago
This is genius. If this theory does lead to the T.O.E then it should be explored. Cosmology has fallen flat recently with dark matter and dark energy, which should be easily detectable if they are interacting with matter, as with the rotations of galaxies. Great Work!
mjkr1988 3 years ago
Somebody correct me but I thought Plasma was a "State" of matter gravity being a force and the only matter in gravity is the unproven gravitons.
valhala56 3 years ago
Yes, plasma is the first state of matter, and constitutes 99% plus of the universe. However, because plasma is strongly influenced by electromganetism (EM), its behaviours easily dominate weak gravitational forces. In fact EM is 10 ^ 39 more powerful than gravity. Can g and inertia really dominate in a universe that crackles and hums with electricity? The filamentary (EM-Plasma) structure of the universe which we now observe clearly indicates otherwise.
soupdragon42 3 years ago
WTF is the Physics and Cosmology community focused in on Dark Energy & Matter, and I think "they" are trying to determine that dark matter is nearly massless but there is so much of it,in universe.
There is no good explantion of the continued accleration of galaxies in the Universe which defies gravity which should slow down in inflation but it's speeding up. Would EM-Plasma account for this acceleration? Anyways thanks for your answer I am collating while watching Star Trek on SF channel.
valhala56 3 years ago
The alleged expansion of the universe is based on a very tenuous interpretation of Redshift, let alone the alleged acceleration of same. Look up the work of Halton Arp, which based on observation, not ideology.
soupdragon42 3 years ago
Well you sound like a Hoyle Steady state fan, There is much evidence for inflation, Cosmic Background radition, Redshift yes. Also I don't know if Black holes are beside the point in reference to EM but the intense gravity of blackholes are more powerfull then even EM. I may also have this incorrect but some theorists state that gravity has been leaking from the universe, (they are testing this now) well if that is the case then gravity was much more intense in the past.
valhala56 3 years ago
EM is 10^39 more powerful than gravity...over comparatively short distances.
kanajlo 3 years ago
I have yet to hear from anybody why it has to be either a gravitonal based Universe or an EM Universe. Why can't both be merged, Gravity explains motion, planetary orbits, Stars, EM explains away Dark Energy. Why does it have to be an either/or proposition?
valhala56 3 years ago 2
This video isn't saying it can't be both. Modern Cosmology completely ignores plasmas role unless they are talking about Neutron Stars. This is what this video is saying. There are things kept from you. All matter still produces the weak force of Gravity however the dominate force is Electromagnetism but it is far from simple. The electromagnetism creates waves on the Ether that plays a role in planetary orbits.
wavepsychic 2 years ago
I totaly agree. It is curious to me why the body scientific chooses to ignore Plasma Cosmolgy. It's fascinating and lord knows there are a lot of missing pieces in Gravitional Model such as Dark Energy.
valhala56 2 years ago
Then we can agree that Plasma Cosmology has a lot of Merit and gravity also plays a part as well. But its mostly the Electromagnetic Force.
wavepsychic 2 years ago
Dark Matter is the blank cheque required to balance the failing equations. It is required to balance the huge lack of mass required for gravity to work, and is therefore a ridiculous kludge!
soupdragon42 2 years ago
@soupdragon42 I agree. Money makes people dishonest. There equations are wrong but they continue to lie so that they get paid. We are better off not paying them even if they are right. Who cares if you understand the Universe, one only needs to be in balance with nature & we need to save our money.
wavepsychic 2 years ago
@wavepsychic That's my philosophy also. The argument that wins is the argument that is government funded. The taxpayer is forced to pay for the support of a belief system often contrary to his own personal beliefs.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
@recoveringcultmember
You
Must
Be
Joking
A little math skill makes even the most complex sounding standard astronomy theories EASY to verify. The only excuse anyone can have for rejecting solar fusion theory, or any other modern theory of astronomy, is an indefensible weakness at algebra and calculus.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit One good reason to reject the fusion theory is that fusion had never been demonstrated in a laboratory.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
@recoveringcultmember
Um.You are confused. That is possibly the dumbest comment I've everseen.
Perhaps you are referring to COLD fusion, which requires an activation temperature of 10,000,000 K or so?
Nuclear fusion is well understood and observable. Ever heard of nuclei colliders?
Or how about this little tidbit
blogs. columbiaspectator . com/newsroom/?p=1301
Or do you think you're smarter than MIT researchers?
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit Some 'scientists' gather in a secret room; they won't let you in there. They hook up two dozen or so lasers, point them at one spot, and energize them with enough electricity to light a small town. Then they emerge from the room and announce to the press that they achieved fussion for a fraction of a second. In twenty more years, fussion power will be a reality! All they need is a few billion more dollars. Can't you spot the fraud here? They never achieved fussion. They are lying.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
@recoveringcultmember
I assume you are joking.
And besides, what you said earlier was "fusion has never been demonstrated in a laboratory."
You seem to think that we have never witnessed fusion at all. And you are still confused because you are still mixing up the nuclear process of fusion with COLD FUSION.
Nuclear fusion has been demonstrated COUNTLESS times. Ever heard of particle accelerators?
Great, done.
Cold fusion is the one with lasers. And yes, it does work.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit Who do you mean by 'we'? I have never witnessed fusion in a lab.
Show me truck, bus, auto, ship or plane that runs on fusion. Show me an electrical power plant that runs on fusion. And even then, you would have to let me look inside. I can't just take your word for it.
Yes, I have heard of particle accelerators; a big, expensive toy for a select few physicists to play with, paid with public money. Which is exactly my point: Why should i fund your theoretical research?
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago 2
@recoveringcultmember
skepticism is good. unfortunately, your skepticism is a product of ignorance.
fusion is achieved by accelerating small nuclei at each other with particle accelerators. These experiments date back to the 70's or so. I think your knowledge is a little outdated.
Read on...
supowit 1 year ago
"Accelerator-based light-ion fusion is a technique using particle accelerators to achieve particle kinetic energies sufficient to induce light-ion fusion reactions. Accelerating light ions is relatively easy, and can be done in an efficient manner—all it takes is a vacuum tube, a pair of electrodes, and a high-voltage transformer; fusion can be observed with as little as 10 kV between electrodes. The key problem with accelerator-based fusion is the input to output ratio."
supowit 1 year ago
@recoveringcultmember
The reason you don't know that fusion is easily achievable is because
1) you don't really know what fusion is
2) your understanding of particle physics is nonexistent
3) your math skills are too low to understand force and energy interactions in nuclear reactions
4) you buy into cult fads, a pattern of behavior evidence by your online handle
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit I know a scam when I see one. Thirty years ago, the scientists said, 'in twenty years, we'll have fusion power." OK, it's thirty years later, and they are still saying, "Give us another twenty years and we'll have fusion power." Come on. How long before you figure out that these scientists have a lifetime career of this? It's a scam. For all I know, fission power is a fake. They don't let me into their nuclear power plants to see.
recoveringcultmember 1 year ago
@recoveringcultmember
AMazing.
supowit 1 year ago
@recoveringcultmember Citiues under the sea, holidays on the moon, it's all a post-dated cheque, and we're accepting it.
scottyea 1 year ago
@wavepsychic
"There are things kept from you."
Bullshit. The reason plasma cosmology is ignored is simply because it doesn't offer a model with which observations can be explained. Worse, each and every claim in plasma cosmology has been falsified already. Give it up already.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Really are you serious? You honestly think that current theories explain our observations about planets, the sun and galaxies? You must be joking! They need invisible Dark matter to explain the the rotation of galaxies. They need invisible convection currents too explain sun spots. They need hypothetical super nova and galactic collisions too explain planets and moons. Modern Science is the study of invisibles. You might as well be studying god!
wavepsychic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wavepsychic
"Modern Science is the study of invisibles."
Even if something is invisible, we can see still determine its effects. Or did you ever see an electron? The problem with plasma cosmology is that it predicts certain effects we simply don't see occurring in the real world, and offers no explanation whatsoever for effects we *do* see. It's dead on arrival.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
not quite, the moon beckons an electric blanket from the earth's magnetotail every full moon, why dont you search up nasa's take on this. yes, magnetotail is a real thing and not the stuff of rpgs. yes, the earth has a magnetosphere, yes for this to be possible there must be plasma fricking everywhere
this single fact gives plasma cosmology an interesting kick.. "oh yeah we didnt send astronaughts that day because moondust becomes an electric dragon"
ibajem 1 year ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@ibajem
"magnetotail is? a real thing "
It's a huge leap from the existence of the magnetotail to the claim that the universe is governed solely by electricity.
"the earth has a magnetosphere, yes for this to be possible there must be plasma fricking everywhere"
You don't need plasma for that. Look up the Dynamo Theory.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
it screams ad hoc
and yes you do need plasma for that, because for the fluid to generate a magnetic current it must be subject to an electrical one, ionized gases being the inevitable output; perhaps it seems more sensible today to assume that planets act as isolated magnets in the vastness of space, which is a pity considering how beautiful the electrical properties of comets and asteroids are, and how they must be dirty snowballs to agree with standard theory
ibajem 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ibajem
"it screams ad hoc"
No, it screams "the evidence points in that direction."
"for the fluid to generate a magnetic current it must be subject to an electrical one"
No, you need a electrically conducting fluid, which *can* be a plasma. On the earth, though, it's liquid iron. Look op magnetohydrodynamics while you're at it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@wavepsychic
Um, no. Newton and Keppler solved the problem of the planetary orbits. Keppler with a mathematical representation of the orbits in elipses, and Newton with F=Gm1*m2/R^2.
Which, by the way, holds true for ALL orbital systems.
And modern cosmology does NOT ignore plasma! That statement doesn't even make sense! The point of cosmology is to investigate and explain the origin and evolution of the universe.
supowit 1 year ago 7
@supowit You think Scientist have everything all figured out with math huh? You try to give my rational mind the run around with these abstract mathematical equations but it is not working. If these equations have everything all figured out then whats with all the X's in there equations like Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, Anti Matter, Gage Bozons, higgs fields, convention currents and god particles? These are not proven facts, these are wild cards and fantasies.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@wavepsychic
You have no fucking idea what I'm talking about do you. Take a few physics courses... wait, you might want to start with algebra. Dipshit.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit I do not need too know what you are talking about. Math is NO substitute for observation and experimentation. You're view have all been fixed for you. So you can not see things any other way.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@supowit "Dipshit."
Dude, GROW UP.
chylerreckeaolgodhul 11 months ago
@chylerreckeaolgodhul
Grow up? Brilliant.
supowit 11 months ago
@supowit Thanks. I'm really not in the mood to fight. You can think whatever you want, so allow me to do the same. I am just trying to make sense of how stuff works, leave me to it, whether I am right or wrong.
I was just annoyed at how immaturely you were handling your argument. That's a big red flag - getting defensive.
chylerreckeaolgodhul 11 months ago
@supowit PC advocates do not deny Keppler's/Newton's laws for gravitational planetary systems, I don't know where you get that. The equations work perfectly fine for non-electrical systems, and they have never said otherwise... do you even know what PC is?
0rthogonal 1 year ago
@0rthogonal
I never said they did. One of THEM intimated that plasmic charge influenced the motions of the planets in some significant manner, and my point was that there is zero evidence for that. Planetary motion is adequately modeled through mechanics.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit Plasmic discharge influencing planetary motion is part of Electric Universe theory, not PC. Next point. Current standard model cosmological theory is not backed up by observation. Dark Matter/Dark Energy and black holes are NOT observed or predicted by cosmological theory. They never have been. They are all A Posteriori ad hoc model adjustments. None of them were predicted by any model. They are only used to explain observations. Their direct observation has not been seen.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
@0rthogonal
"Dark Matter/Dark Energy and black holes are NOT observed or predicted by cosmological theory. "
You have no idea what you are talking about. You apparently don't understand the malleable nature of scientific theories.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit All you have to do is present a single data point for the direct observation of dark matter/dark energy or a black hole... I'm waiting.
0rthogonal 1 year ago 2
@supowit I do understand the malleable nature of scientific theories, but you forget that the point of a scientific theory is to explain all observable phenomena with known variables and then be able to explain newly observed phenomena without significant modification. Cosmology has numerous unknown entities to explain current observations, and continues to create more as new observations contradict the model. It's just like Ptolemaic epicycles, adding more one more layer on top of another.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
@supowit The inability to predict new phenomena, or be able to explain current phenomena is the sign of a poor scientific theory. Scientific theory is based on facts, not conjectures (hypothesis are conjectures based on data). With the latest WMAP data, the cosmologists confidently proclaim that they can account and observe less than 5% of the universe... that's barely a step above creationists.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@0rthogonal
You have no idea what you are talking about.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit Brilliant.
chylerreckeaolgodhul 11 months ago
@0rthogonal
"The inability to predict new phenomena, or be able to explain current phenomena is the sign of a poor scientific theory."
You're an idiot. Relativity predicts oodles of phenomena that were observed afterward. But since you just ignore those observations (graviational lensing and time relativity experiments just to name a couple), they have no meaning to you.
Go back to school. Take some physics courses, and stop being retarded.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit I've probably taken more formal physics courses than you. Gravitational lensing is BS. They have only "detected" it in the lower plasma atmosphere around the sun. They cannot/have not seen any sign of it above the Sun's chromosphere. They have mistaken refraction in the Sun's atmospheric plasma, with lensing. Read this article, it will explain everything. extinctionshift(dot)com/SignificantFindings(DOT)htm Also, personal insults don't help your argument.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
@0rthogonal
What are you even talking about? If this is what you learned in an astronomy class, you must have gone to Dumbfuck University.
And I can insult idiots like yourself all I want. I would put money on the fact that your math skills are shit.
Did you read the abstract from the Harvard article at the bottom? It absolutely DOES NOT AGREE with the conclusions of that bullshit article you linked.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit No one's talking about astronomy, maybe that's your problem. We're talking about Cosmology. You still haven't addressed the Electric Sun model. Why are you hiding from it. You can't deny the fact that the model intrinsically explains what the fusion model can only address through ad hoc assumptions.
0rthogonal 1 year ago
@0rthogonal
facepalm. There is no response to the idiot claims of the electric sun model. If you even think about denying gravitational fusion, you're finished. This model is too well verified. So forget it. You're living in fantasy land if you think that 1) the existence of plasma accounts for nuclear transmutation, and 2) that the gravitational model is inadequate and lacks evidence. You need more schooling if that's the case.
supowit 1 year ago