The Hidden History of Plasma Cosmology

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


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

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


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


The electric universe

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

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

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

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

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



Kristian Birkeland

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




The suns plasma torus;





Birkelands experiment;





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

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







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








(cont)

[edit on 21-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]


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


[edit on 22-12-2007 by Jbird]

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




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


Galaxy formation

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

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


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






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



Plasma is scaleable

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




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

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas

On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas

Simulating spiral galaxies

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


(cont)

[edit on 21-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

(image tags)

[edit on 22-12-2007 by Jbird]

Z-pinch Fusion


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

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

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




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


Electric Stars


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



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


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

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

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





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

The evidence for electricity in space is now undeniable

[edit on 21-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Excellent presentation!

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent post.

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

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

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

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

Fascinating Thread ZeuZZ!!!

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

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



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

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

www.sandia.gov...

Tesla would be drooling over that I bet..

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

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




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




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




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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



[edit on 22-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

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



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



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



cosmologystatement.org...



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



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



www.bigbangneverhappened.org...

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

[edit on 22-12-2007 by squiz]

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

FACT: nuclear fusion has never been achieved.

FACT: Z-pinch fusion has been achieved.




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

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



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



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



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



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



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

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

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

YouTube Link

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

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

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

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

They'll certainly come in handy in the future

ZeuZZ, Squiz, Ionized-

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

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

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

Thanks guys, I look forward to your continued contributions.

reply to post by squiz

---

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

Good contribution to our understanding this.

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

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

[edit on 24-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 24-12-2007 by xxxALIVE]

[edit on 24-12-2007 by xxxALIVE]