It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Electric Universe Strikes again! Comets destroy the standard model!

page: 4
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
The Electric Universe Theory Debunked: neutrinodreaming.blogspot.co.uk...


Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why “Electric Universe Theory” had been removed. Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the “electric universe” and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the “electric universe theory”. Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the “electric universe” but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.




posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by vind21
Is this not exactly what they are saying in the video? A negative body moves into the more positively charged area around the sun and begins undergoing the process of becoming a neutral object, this causes electrical deterioration of the surface as the object tries to neutralize, sometimes the process happens to fast and the comet goes boom.....
Yes and they are saying that this is necessary to explain the comet's coma because comets are really not "dirty snowballs" and have no water ice. As my first post to this thread reveals that is false. Now could there be some hydroxyl formation from other processes besides water? I can't rule out the possibility, all I can say that the claim comets have no water ice is a lie as shown by the Tempel 1 study, and the rest of the electric comet theory is largely based on that lie.


They do indeed deny the role of electricity in the structure and evolution of the solar system, galaxy, and universe. I don't think anyone is saying that mainstream science denies the existence of electricity or electrical process. They deny it ad-hoc by theories that were created before the knowledge of pervasive electrical fields in space existed, and the exclusion of those physics from their models of extraterrestrial structures.
Here's an article on the REAL electric universe:


Many EU advocates try to claim that astrophysics ignores the effects of electric fields and currents as possible drivers of astrophysical phenomena. Once they do this, EU advocates try to hijack the discoveries of legitimate researchers, claiming success for their theories with any mention of currents in mainstream astrophysics. Yet electric currents and fields are discussed throughout the professional astrophysical literature, predating much of the Electric Universe....
-Pannekoek-Rosseland Field...
-Offset Rotating Magnetic Dipoles...
-Charge-separation by radiation pressure...
-Black Hole Electrodynamics...
-Currents...

All these mechanisms create the charge separations and currents using energy from other processes, usually gravity. The charge-separation itself is not the original energy process but can create non-thermal distributions of charged particles....

In one recent e-mail discussion, a correspondent claimed that EU advocates use all of these processes. However, aside from an indirect reference in Thornhill (2007) (Thornhill references a paper at mentions the Pannekoek-Rosseland field), I have found none. I would be interested to discover if EU advocates use such processes as the offset dipole or charge separation by radiation pressure. Considering how much of this early work was done by astronomers, it would suggest that the EU advocates knew they were making false statements when claiming astronomers ignore electric processes.
So do you know you're making false statements? Or are you just parroting what you heard somewhere on an unreliable website?


In many of their other videos this point is made. EU will bash your head over and over with the idea that the vast majority of comets and asteroids have terrestrial origins and are on the order of 20-15k years old generated during a time of solar unrest.
Another claim without evidence? Or is there a scientific paper supporting this claim?


Originally posted by wildespace
The Electric Universe Theory Debunked: neutrinodreaming.blogspot.co.uk...


They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the “electric universe theory”.
Yes it's quote mining in the documentary this thread is about for sure. They say scientists didn't expect a certain result and that somehow supports the electric comet idea when it doesn't. They even quoted a scientist who said we know there's water ice in the comets, it's just well hidden as if it's supposed to support electric comets, when the Tempel 1 paper I cited shows the scientific detail about why he was correct, and the electric comet idea is incorrect. Talk about twisting citations...that's an example.


edit on 21-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Oannes
 


If comets are electric than the Panspermia model is highly likely. They would serve as a catalyst.

Care to explain this in a little more detail? Why do you think a universe in which everything carries a non-zero electric charge would be more hospitable to life? Life doesn't like electric shocks.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Im a believer in the electric universe. I believe gravity is a form of electric field explaining my theory behind this in this thread I wrote.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Im a believer in the electric universe. I believe gravity is a form of electric field explaining my theory behind this in this thread I wrote.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Your theory is to simple it treats the universe as if its 2 dimensional you would need to expand your theory to cover the 4 dimensions of space and then your explanation kind of falls apart Though i will tell you way to think out side the box.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Electric Universe Theory rests mostly on the shoulders of two people: David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill. Let's take a closer look at these two.

David Talbott is an author and comparative mythologist, linking ancient symbols and writings with the proposition that the events allegedly described in them were actually witnessed by man in our historical past. Talbott received his B.S. from Portland State University, where he majored in education and political science. He also completed a year of graduate work in Urban Studies. He is the author of several books related to comparative mythology and alternative histories of the solar system, inspired by the controversial theorist Immanuel Velikovsky.

Wallace Thornhill graduated in Physics at Melbourne University in 1964 and began postgraduate studies with Prof. Victor Hopper’s upper atmosphere research group. Before entering university, he had been inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky through his controversial best-selling book, Worlds in Collision. Wallace realised that there is no career for a "heretic" in academia, so he went to work for 11 years with IBM Australia, working on the first computer graphics system in Australia, and as the technical support for computing facilities.

As you can see, neither of them is a professional physicist. It seems they haven't really been doing anything apart from writings books, releasing videos, and doing conventions to spread their ideas. Has anything from them been submitted to the scientific community and peer-reviewed? Or is the scientific community inherently corrupt and "damaged" so that the only way true science can progress is by converting the public through books and websites?

edit on 22-6-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


I have looked all over the place for a paper on the electric universe theory and i cant find one. Seems like this whole theory is just nothing but hot air theres books videos but not 1 scientific paper anywhere. So this tells me this is nothing more then people trying to make money on the gullible.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 

Actually, this electric-universe nonsense is well on its way out.

At one time, ATS would have an EU thread every week or so. Most of them were put up by mnemeth1, who is posting in this thread as AnarchoCapitalist. Other EU proponents among the membership included squiz (who is mostly into 'debunking' evolution nowadays in the O&C forum) and ZeuZZ. There was even a member whose handle was ElectricUniverse.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

In many of their other videos this point is made. EU will bash your head over and over with the idea that the vast majority of comets and asteroids have terrestrial origins and are on the order of 20-15k years old generated during a time of solar unrest.
Another claim without evidence? Or is there a scientific paper supporting this claim?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
Certainly not any that I am aware of, I made the statement as it is repeated in many of their videos over and over and over. I was not claiming this to be true I was addressing our conversation on a previous thread, I cerntialy don't expect you to watch through all the videos on thunderbolts etc, myself having done so, I am aware of how often them make this claim and was simply relaying the information.


If you were directing your comment to the creators of the video, the evidence they present, is mainly circumstantial ala 'look what I can do' as they demonstrate similar physical characteristics and composition of features of solar bodies to those produced on a smaller scale in labs.






Many EU advocates try to claim that astrophysics ignores the effects of electric fields and currents as possible drivers of astrophysical phenomena. Once they do this, EU advocates try to hijack the discoveries of legitimate researchers, claiming success for their theories with any mention of currents in mainstream astrophysics. Yet electric currents and fields are discussed throughout the professional astrophysical literature, predating much of the Electric Universe....


The existence of charged particles and electromagnetic fields in space is accepted in both the Gravity Model and the Electric Model. But the emphasis placed on them and their behavior is one distinctive difference between the models. We will therefore discuss magnetic fields next. -- thunderbolt.info

So right off we see the debunkers claims are certainly exaggerated.

Alas tho, this is not a debate on the EU as a whole mainly on the relevance of the information presented in the video. Arbitrageur is really the only person over these 4 pages that has provided anything worth talking about on that topic.

I got a reply from tallbot after submitting your quick rebuttle and source, here it is:

Many thanks for the note. This is, in fact, the kind of response we were hoping for in anticipation of strong objections from folks informed on some of the technical issues. I can assure you I'll be like a dog with a bone on this one. The underlying issue may come down to the source of µm-sized, pristine water particles. This was not the common idea of the internal constituents of comets, and one of the questions will be the ability of an intensely energetic electric discharge on silicates, as implied by the stupendous energies of the "impact" blast, to electrochemically create pristinely pure water vapor (single µm particles) in just a few seconds. While I'm not ready to bet on a particular answer, I can't see how, with the deep erosion of the Tempel 1 surface along ridges MANY METERS deep—the instruments would have failed to see water ice at the newly exposed regions. Same goes for the source regions of jets, where the supposed vents would presumably reveal the subterranean ices. But yes, perhaps I'm missing something here, and it could be very valuable to us to hear what the best critics have to say. What we generally seek to avoid is the clamor of the more juvenile critics who prefer to shoot first and ask questions later.





Actually, this electric-universe nonsense is well on its way out.


From what I see, it is alive and well and gaining support. Even on the debunker sites there are small rebuttles debunking the debunkers. I mean just read the comment lines on those pages....it's hand over fist of this guy posted a paper that says.....but then this guy posted a paper that says....there's no agreement on any of this stuff simply best guesses based on evidence and observation, I don't see anything definitive.

Also the vast majority of their information is available free of charge, as I said before, there are no emerald tablets.

As an aside, I am aware of the lack of published papers by the representative talking heads of the EU. I do not see a problem with basing conclusions off other peoples research, which is what most researchers do these days anyhow. If the EU had a working peer reviewed theory we would not be having this discussion heh.


edit on 24-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by vind21
I got a reply from Tallbot after submitting your quick rebuttle and source, here it is:


Many thanks for the note. This is, in fact, the kind of response we were hoping for in anticipation of strong objections from folks informed on some of the technical issues. I can assure you I'll be like a dog with a bone on this one. The underlying issue may come down to the source of µm-sized, pristine water particles. This was not the common idea of the internal constituents of comets, and one of the questions will be the ability of an intensely energetic electric discharge on silicates, as implied by the stupendous energies of the "impact" blast, to electrochemically create pristinely pure water vapor (single µm particles) in just a few seconds. While I'm not ready to bet on a particular answer, I can't see how, with the deep erosion of the Tempel 1 surface along ridges MANY METERS deep—the instruments would have failed to see water ice at the newly exposed regions.
The devil is in the detail. While the Tempel 1 impact showed a dry outer ~1m and tens of meters below that contained water ice, it's not exactly true that there was zero water ice observed on the surface, rather it was found only on about 300,000 square feet of the comet's 45 square mile surface area:

Deep Impact mission discovers ice on Tempel 1 Comet

Key among the team’s most recent findings is that water ice exists on the surface of the comet....

The water ice is located in three thin patches covering approximately 300,000 square feet of Tempel 1. The comet’s surface area is about 45 square miles.

“We didn’t expect to find significant concentrations of ice in certain areas,” Sunshine said. “That really came as a surprise.” In addition, it was discovered that water ice made up only 6 percent of the material found at these locations. “It’s like a skating rink of icy dirt,” Schultz said.
Note Dr. Sunshine didn't expect to find the water ice on the surface, but they found it. Apparently Talbot was expecting it, so maybe Talbot was right to expect some? There is some on the surface, but apparently not a lot.


As an aside, I am aware of the lack of published papers by the representative talking heads of the EU. I do not see a problem with basing conclusions off other peoples research, which is what most researchers do these days anyhow. If the EU had a working peer reviewed theory we would not be having this discussion heh.
Not necessarily. Poplawski published a peer-reviewed paper saying we may all be living inside a giant black hole. Just because a paper is peer reviewed doesn't mean everyone accepts it, it only means that it's achieved some minimal level of credibility to make it even worth discussing. I suspect most scientists are skeptical about us living inside a giant black hole even though the idea has been published in a peer reviewed paper.

Are We Living Inside a Black Hole?



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I see the discussion being centered on water ice, but what about other frozen volatiles, like methane, CO2 or CO? Even when a comet contains very little water ice, it might contain a significant amount of other "ices".



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
I see the discussion being centered on water ice, but what about other frozen volatiles, like methane, CO2 or CO? Even when a comet contains very little water ice, it might contain a significant amount of other "ices".
Did you watch the documentary?

CO and CO2 wouldn't explain the observed amounts of hydroxyl which is OH, a big discussion topic in the documentary. For example:

www.newscientist.com...

The icy body is shedding gas and dust as it nears the Sun, whose ultraviolet light breaks apart the comet's water molecules into hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl (OH) molecules. Swift's Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope (UVOT), which can detect the hydroxyl molecules, found that they fill a cloud more than 400,000 km across.
There are lots of other substances in the coma (as in the "dirty" part of "dirty snowball"), but there's a lot of hydroxyl which isn't as likely to come from CO or CO2 as it is from H2O.


edit on 24-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
Electric Universe Theory rests mostly on the shoulders of two people: David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill. Let's take a closer look at these two.


Just to clear up this flat out lie, here's just a few of the papers and scientists who support EU theory. Plasma cosmology arose out of Alfven's work. Alfven won the Nobel Prize for his work in plasma physics.




Do local analogs of Lyman Break Galaxies exist?
Scarpa R., Falomo R., Lerner E. ,arXiv:0706.2948v1 [astro-ph]

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
Scott D. E., IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 35, No. 4, August 2007

On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
Falthammar C. ,Eos, Vol. 88, No. 15, pp.169–170, 10 April 2007

Cosmic Plasma
Alfven H. ,Cosmic Plasma ,ISBN 90-277-1151-8

On Frozen-In Field Lines And Field-Line Reconnnection
Alfven H. ,Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 81, No 22, August 1st 1976, 4019-4021

Double layers and circuits in astrophysics
Alfven, Hannes 10.1109/TPS.1986.4316626

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies
Peratt A. L. ,IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986

Dense plasma focus for laboratory astrophysics
H. R. Yousefi 1,* , W. Thornhill, Iranian Physical Journal, 2-4, 17-20 (2009)

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets
Peratt A .L. , IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986

The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe
Peratt A .L. , Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491, 1988

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale.
Peratt A .L. ,Astrophys. & Space Sci., Vol. 256, pp. 51-75, 1998

David Hilbert And The Origin Of The “Schwarzschild Solution”
Antoci S. ,arXiv:physics/0310104 v1 21 Oct 2003

The singular points of Einstein’s universe
Brillouin M. ,arXiv:physics/0002009 v1 3 Feb 2000

Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)
Juergens R. E. ,Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1, Fall 1982

Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part 2)
Juergens R. E. ,Kronos Vol. VIII No. 2, Winter 1983

A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
Scott D. E. ,ICOPS 2007. IEEE 34th International Conference on Plasma Science, 2007

The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars
Thornhill W. ,IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. 35, N.4, pp.832-844, August 2007

An electrically powered binary star?
Wu K. ,et al. ,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 331 (2002) 221

Detection of dusty plasma near the E-ring of Saturn
Wahlund J. E. ,Planet. Space Sci.,Vol. 57, Issues 14-15,pp.1795-1806, December 2009

On the theory of comet tails.
Alfven H. ,Tellus, 9, 92 (1957)

Electromagnetic Effects And The Structure Of Saturn’s Rings
Alfven H. ,Lunar and Planetary Institute Meetings, 1981

Microwave Generation from Filamentation and Vortex Formation within Magnetically Confined Electron Beams,
Peratt A. L. and Snell C. M. ,Physical Review Letters, 54, pp. 1167-1170, 1985

Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas – a brief review
Fälthammar C., Geofísica Internacional, Vol. 43, Num. 2, pp. 225-239, 2004

Filamentation of Volcanic Plumes on the Jovian Satellite Io,
Peratt A. L. and Dessler A. J. ,Astrophys. Space Sci. 144, pp. 451-461, 1988

Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies
Arp H., et al, Max-Planck-Institut fÄur Astrophysik, preprint 2010

The nature of QSO redshifts
Stockton, A. ,ApJ, Part 1, vol. 223, p. 747-751, 753-757, 1 August 1978

Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion
Lopez-Corredoira M. , Gutierrez C. M. ,Astron.Astrophys. 390 L15, 2002

Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
Russel D. G. ,Astrophys. & Space Sci.,Vol.298, No. 4, pp. 577-602, August 2005

Further Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
Russell D. G. ,Astrophys. & Space Sci.,Vol. 299, No. 4,pp. 387-403, October 2005

Discrete Intrinsic Redshifts from Quasars to Normal Galaxies
Bell M. B ,arXiv:astro-ph/0211091v1 5 Nov 2002

Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy
Roy S. ,et al. ,arXiv:astro-ph/0701071v, January 2007

Propagation of light in low-pressure ionized and atomic hydrogen: application to astrophysics
Moret-Bailly, J. ,Plasma Science. IEEE Trans., vol. 31, issue 6, pp. 1215-1222, December 2003

On The Problem Of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
Lerner E. ,Astrophys. & Space Sci.,Vol. 227, p.145-149, May 1995

Plasma Model Of Microwave Background And Primordial Elements
Lerner E., Laser and Particle Beams, Vol 6, Part 3, p.457-469, 1988

The Speed of Gravity – What the Experiments Say
Flandern, T. Physics Letters A 250:1-11, 1998

What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity
Flandern T., Apeiron, Montreal, 1998


edit on 6/25/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
Plasma cosmology arose out of Alfven's work.


It did indeed. But the EU theory is not plasma cosmology.
Plasma Cosmology
edit on 25-6-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
Plasma cosmology arose out of Alfven's work.


It did indeed. But the EU theory is not plasma cosmology.
Plasma Cosmology
edit on 25-6-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)


So do you think plasma cosmology is valid, while EU theory is not?

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.

The EU theory is logical outcome of the plasma universe first postulated by Alfven.

To me, EU or PC or PU all mean the same damn thing.


edit on 6/25/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
Plasma cosmology arose out of Alfven's work.


It did indeed. But the EU theory is not plasma cosmology.
Plasma Cosmology
edit on 25-6-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)


So do you think plasma cosmology is valid, while EU theory is not?

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.

The EU theory is logical outcome of the plasma universe first postulated by Alfven.

To me, EU or PC or PU all mean the same damn thing.


Plasma cosmology is at least recognised in scientific circles as a non-standard cosmology. I haven't seen the EU being given any consideration, apart from occasional blog or correspondence. dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk...

Saying that the EU is logical outcome of the plasma universe is like saying that social Darwinism (and the ideas motivated by it, such as nazism and scientific racism) is logical outcome of Dawin's theory of natural selection. From what I've read, proponents of plasma cosmology want to distance themselves from the EU crowd. You could say that the EU is a more extreme version of the plasma cosmology, but that doesn't help it much.

P.S. some great points there: Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'
edit on 26-6-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
Plasma cosmology is at least recognised in scientific circles as a non-standard cosmology. I haven't seen the EU being given any consideration, apart from occasional blog or correspondence.


Wow, so you're citing some blog posts from a person who is completely hostile to plasma cosmology as proof of a difference between EU and PC?

I assume you disagree with both?

So what are the supposed differences between EU theory and plasma cosmology? Which parts of EU theory are crack-pottery, and which parts of PC theory are recognized as scientifically valid? Just point out a few examples of each for me please. Because from where I stand, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE - THEY MEAN THE SAME THING.

In this paper, Anthony Peratt describes the term plasma cosmology (and the term plasma universe) as stemming from the work of Birkeland, Alfven, Falthammar, Herlofson, Lehnert, Block, Carlqvist, and a host of others.

www.plasmauniverse.info...

That paper came from the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science journal, not a blog post.

Further, Alfven published a whole freaking book called "Cosmical Electrodynamics" (Electric Cosmology)

I see you clinging to this notion that plasma cosmology is some kind of crackpot theory espoused by people who tinker with electronics in their garages, but the reality is this theory is not junk science, and it has been espoused by Nobel Prize winning plasma physicists who know a hell of a lot more about the properties of space plasma than an astronomer like Tom Bridgeman ever will.

The plasma cosmology guys are engineers who work with plasma on a daily basis, in the lab, and in the simulators. They publish in engineering journals. Bridgeman is like an English teacher commenting on the French language when it comes to space plasma.

You offer blog posts as a refutation, while I offer peer-reviewed articles from some of the best engineering journals in the world. But go ahead, link me some more blog posts explaining why I'm wrong. They mean nothing.


edit on 6/26/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Plasma cosmology isn't a science plasma physics is both of you are talking about 2 different things but don't realize it. Plasma cosmology has all ready been shown not to match observations in thhe universe. Plasma physics doesn't try to replace Einstein in fact it uses his equations and recognizes gravity doesn't try to replace it.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Plasma cosmology isn't a science plasma physics is both of you are talking about 2 different things but don't realize it. Plasma cosmology has all ready been shown not to match observations in thhe universe. Plasma physics doesn't try to replace Einstein in fact it uses his equations and recognizes gravity doesn't try to replace it.


Peer reviewed reference for your claims please. Show them the real deal.

Here, I'll help you out:

www.plasmauniverse.info...

That article came from the Astrophysics and Space Science journal.



edit on 6/26/2013 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
So what are the supposed differences between EU theory and plasma cosmology? Which parts of EU theory are crack-pottery, and which parts of PC theory are recognized as scientifically valid?
EU says the sun is powered by electricity, right? I think it was Ralph Juergens who came up with that idea?

Alfvén's plasma cosmology didn't claim an electric powered sun, did it? He said the sun has electromagnetism and plasma which obviously it does. But if Alfvén objected to the nuclear fusion model for the sun's power, I missed that.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join