It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
EU says the sun is powered by electricity, right? I think it was Ralph Juergens who came up with that idea?
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?
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
Originally posted by cheesy
never hear such thing sir..electrick comet..wow..tq for introduce me to new information sir..keep go on..
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.
There is a reason plasma cosmology died in the 80a and 90s we learned alot since then. Let me start by saying this we have whats known as the standard model consists of the big bang causing inflation and relativity explaining gravity. In the 90s there were still unknowns for example the standard model told us there had to be super massive black holes at the center of galaxies but we couldn't verify that. However in 2008 we did verify the standard model to be correct. And we can actually give you the point it exists in the center of the galaxy and see the effects just as predicted. We have proved dark matter exists buy using Einstein's trick of gravitational lensing, We know its there we just dont know what it is.So positive proof was confirmed in 2006 some argue 2004 since another team had similar results but were not as conclusive.And now we move on to WMAP this showed the universe is isotropic exactly in line with predictions from the big bang model. Plasma cosmology cant explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies in CMB.
This is why this whole branch of science is dead not to be confused with plasma physics which is dealing with the reactions of ionized particles. Now as the final boot so to speak there is nothing that plasma cosmology predicts that has been verified in fact quite the opposite. So why are we going to throw out a working model that makes predictions and has been verified for a theory which is incomplete at best and only hangs on by trying to convince the gullible that there in on something those nasty scientists just refuse to look at even though they did.
Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li, and D are more than 7σ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10^-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2σ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.
MONTY CHILDS, SAFIRE EXPERIMENT TO BE HIGHLIGHTED AT EU2013 A carefully constructed experiment to produce anomalous features of the Sun in the laboratory will be the subject of a presentation by Monty Childs at the upcoming conference, "ELECTRIC UNIVERSE 2013—The Tipping Point," in Albuquerque, New Mexico, January 3-6. The anomalous solar features include acceleration of charged particles away from the Sun, heating of the upper atmosphere or corona, polar jets, simultaneous arcing in different hemispheres, super rotation of the equatorial atmosphere, and more. Can a "Solellus," or electrically-driven, miniature Sun in the laboratory, answer the longstanding mysteries of the solar atmosphere? Monty and his research group are confident that the technology is now available to rigorously test the electric Sun hypothesis. The conference presentation will cover the project plan from engineering and design through construction, commissioning, and testing, and will include a review of prior experiments (some known, some publicized), on which much of the team's confidence is based. Monty is the author of three college engineering text books and holds eight international technical patents. He was lead design engineer of the Canadian National Research Council for Rocket Design to measure for oxygen in the upper atmosphere.
These theories are not mutually exclusive, they can exist side by side perfectly congruently. Sure there is a lot less depth and detail in plasma cosmology based theories as it has been given far less academic attention, but over the years a lot of the predictions PC has made about large scale structure, the anisotropy of the CMB and other things fits the current data far better than LCDM cosmology.
However, as hard as it may be, I would ask that the debate on the validity of the EU end. We have many threads on that topic already and nothing is going to change here.
And when I say model I mean "the model that has not yet been actually presented".
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by vind21
This thread and this blog give a good overview of what the EU supporters were claiming about Elenin. There was as almost as much doomsaying coming from them as there was from the Nibiru crowd.
Comets: Deep Impact Missing water Thornhill: An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the "dirty snowball" hypothesis) is unlikely. see [ 2005 July 03] Result The explosion removed many thousands of tons of material. But prior to impact, the calculated "water" output was 550 pounds per second; and not long after the impact, the calculated output was, once again, 550 pounds per second (See picture above regarding the return to previous level). So despite the impressive explosion, the envisioned sub-surface water refused to reveal itself. By NASA's own calculations, therefore, Deep Impact has only made matters worse for standard theory. see [ 2005 July 16] Comet breakup Thornhill: So there is some small chance that astronomers will be surprised to see the comet split apart, if the projectile reaches the surface of the comet and results in an intense arc. see [ 2001 Oct 18] Result Thornhill: These predictions remain but the intensity of the electrical effects depend upon the degree to which the comet is charged with respect to the solar plasma at the impact point. So it is disappointing that NASA chose a short period comet that only ranges between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars. Long period comets spend more time travelling slowly in the lower voltage regions of the outer solar system. So when they rush toward the Sun their electrical display is more energetic than the short period comets. Also, the same electrical circuit that drives the Sun energizes comets. The Sun’s activity is near minimum, so we may expect reduced cometary activity. Of course, none of these electrical considerations figured in NASA’s thinking. see [ 2005 July 03]
Originally posted by ElohimJD
This question might sound silly but...
Why does an electric comet origin = proof of EU model theory?
Can't the current model of gravity driven astrophysics remain true even if the origin of comets is electric rather then a dirty snowball?
It gets confusing when one observation leading to the change in comet origin theories (admitting scientists were wrong about the theoretical origins of comets) leads to either full acceptance of EU or denile of the evidence presented?
Why throw out the baby (gravity model) with the bathwater (dirty snowball false conclusion of comet origin)?
When I saw the video, I saw observations leading to the conclusion that our previous understanding of comet origins was in error, the solar wind used in this theory is real and measuarable and can exist within the theoretical gravity model or the theoretical EU model.
So, in my opinion, comet origin as "dirty snowballs" has been disproven by science, but that does not mean the same thing as the whole EU theory being proven factual and the need to recreate the gravity model for astrophysics. A change in comet origin does not mean the whole current model is disproven, just that solar wind affects molucules in a manner not understood in the past, resulting in a coma. This change can be explained fully using either origin (source) thought responsible for supplying that wind (EU or Gravity).
There were enough good links to it, I'm surprised he didn't find those, including the direct link in the OP.
Originally posted by vind21
Are you still having issues with the video? Here is a direct link: Electric Comet
As I said I think the comet does have electrical interaction with the solar wind which is what produces the X-rays, but the solar wind is well known and documented.
Originally posted by dragonridr
We all ready showed the information on the comet was false and it by no means proved anything about a comet having electrical qualities. And doesn't disprove rthe standard model what so ever that's why the conversation moved on.