reply to post by mnemeth1
My "silly" theory comes from a Nobel prize winning plasma physicist.
If you are referring to Dr. Hannes Alfvén,
who won the Nobel Prize in plasma physics.
(Libertarian News, August 30 2011: Plasma Cosmology &
Electric Universe Theory)
....then, it's puzzling that you didn't mention him by name...if that is indeed the "plasma physicist" that you cited.
Is it because he died in 1995? And, therefore, is not around to be further questioned, nor to refine his "theories"?
The ubiquitous Wikipedia, first stop on discovery usually...article on Dr. Hannes
Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén (born 30 May 1908 in Norrköping, Sweden; died 2 April 1995 in Djursholm, Sweden)
Let's see....his Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded in 1970, and it was his work on
that earned him that prize.
The field of MHD was [color=gold]initiated by Hannes Alfvén, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.
Here is the Wiki snippet that is applicable to the Astrophysics side of this field of study:
The question, though is....despite the good Doctor's work in initiating this field of physics study (which has many applications beyond Astrophysics,
apparently), just how readily accept is that narrow aspect, in the larger Astrophysics scientific community? Seems that if there were any validity to
it, then there would be far more attention paid to it.
I find it interesting to note that Dr. Alfvén cultivated the genesis of these theories starting as far back as 1937. There were many, many odd and
mutually-conflicting notions in the early twentieth century, in many fields of science. The nature of the scientific method culls those that are,
while fascinating ideas, not fully formed, nor experimentally repeatable and demonstrable. Still, there are always those personalities that make
their own ideas a "pet project" of sorts, and will reject all evidence that refutes it, striving to "make it fit".
Even Einstein erred famously, with his "Cosmological Constant"...a mathematical invention to "balance" some of the equations he was working on.
To "make them fit"....he hypothesized incorrectly, as it turned out.
Of course, to Einstein's credit, he admitted his error.
Referring to the "Libertarian News" article on Dr. Alfvén again. It belies a disturbing mindset, that may account for the ardent clinging to his
work, by those with certain political leanings:
Libertarians should be particularly keen to take note of this cosmology given the massive waste of tax payer money on experiments that have
continually proven to be worthless time and time again. Plasma cosmology also offers alternative explanations for “global warming” based on
Indeed. Falls right into place, to some people's agendas....common theme: A sense of paranoia, and distrust of the "establishment". it seems a
The claims, as presented in that article at least, sound more like "pseudoscience", professed by people who really don't have the educational
degrees to fully understand it --- they just like it because it is "against" what they perceive as "those in control".
And while EU theory can provide an clear explanation for why the Sun undergoes a CME nearly every time a comet gets close to it.
A bit of an exaggeration? "Nearly every time" is a bit less than a confirming pattern, as well. In science. And, merely attempting to equate the
"nearly every time" CME with a comet's proximity, and claiming "proof" of EU, ignores the many other possibilities. To include the simple
interaction of matter (comet) with other matter (Sun stuff).
Finally, there is most certainly a lot we still do not yet know, that's the point of science...discovery. It is a fact that electricity and
magnetism are connected in some way, and part of the striving to learn more about it will lead to great discoveries. But, when it comes to the macro
scale of space, and cosmology..the suggestion that electrical currents are thrumming throughout space in any significant amounts seems to forget that
electricity needs a conductor, in order to flow. There might be localized regions in the Galaxy that are dense enough, not a virtual vacuum (as most
of it is), where this could occur. I don't think such environments would be healthy for life as we know it, though. Certainly, such a situation
would make our Solar System uninhabitable.