Conspiracy of science - Modern Cosmology - Fact or Fraud?

Ever heard of plasma cosmology? It is not your typical crackpot science theory, its backed up by a vast amount of underground peer reviewed papers that are constantly overlooked by modern astronomers. This thread is intended for academics, as the science of this issue gets quite complex, but the basic priciples of it are easy to understand. It has drastic implications for the way that scientists view space and also has big implications for the cause of global warming. There is so much material on this i'm not quite sure where to begin, but i'll try to summarize what it all means.

Put simply Plasma Cosmology uses the recently tested characteristics of plasma's in the laboratory and applies them to what is in space. It sounds really simple, but mainstream astronomers absolutely hate this idea, as it contradicts the core assumptions of modern gravity based astronomy (namely the Big Bang, Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark energy, Lambda CDM theory, and many more of modern astronomies hypothetical entities).

There are some very basic facts that clearly demonstrate that plasma cosmology is a better theory than the current scientific understanding. Mainly that 99.999% of the universe is plasma! Using this fact, and the recent actual observed and tested characteristics of plasma on earth, applying these findings to what we see in space is pure common sence science, and does not require the invoking of untestable entities like dark matter that modern astronomy relies so heavily on.


By far the most interesting aspect of Plasma Cosmology is their ideas on the sun. They state that the sun has a capacitance (i'll try to keep this simple) and thus exhibits a high voltage. This means that the sun has a net positive charge and acts like an electrical plasmasphere. This positive charge effects particles in the solar wind differnently, so positive ions (such as protons) are strongly repelled away from the sun, wheras negative ions (electrons) are attracted to it. This gives rise to a constant stream of particles flowing into, and out of, the sun. So, the obvious question arrises; are the incoming electrons sufficient to power the sun? The best research into this has been done by Ralph Juergens, and Earl R. Milton, professor of physics at the university of Lethbridge in Canada, they made a quantative derivation that the answer is yes. www.kronos-press.com... . this clip explains it well; www.youtube.com...


Science currently states that we are completely disconnected from the rest of the galaxy and the sun creates its energy at a constant rate at its core. In contrast plasma cosmologists say that the earth is a part of the suns electrical field, and the sun in turn is part of the galaxies elecrical environment, which are in constant interaction with each other via the galactic flow of ions through space plasma that connect them. This model explains away many of the mysteries of modern cosmology, the main one being that the corona (the area outside the sun) is millions of degrees hotter than the surface of the sun. If the energy the sun uses was being attracted to it externally this would be exactly where this energy would be expessed, which is precisely what we observe. This also explains why the corona is there in the first place (still unexplained by mainstream views), and also explains the filamentary structure of the corona that we can all see when there is a solar eclipse. There are many other reasons to expect this will turn out to be correct, but they get a bit more complex, i will post them later.



DO NOT look up any information on plasma cosmology on wikipedia, as the 'experts' who edit the wesite do their best to stop any information getting through there.

This site has been setup as an alternative, and gives a very strong case for the Electric universe/Plasma Cosmology perspective;

www.plasma-universe.com...

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

I'll list some of the main peer reviewed papers on plasma cosmology for the academics here to have a look at;


adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

adsabs.harvard.edu... =&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

It all sounds very interesting to me, and seems to somehow make sense. Good post, thanks for sharing.

Science today is very closed to new ideas, so its refreshing with someone who speaks of alternative theories.

Greatly appreciated, thanks. I hope some discussion comes up here.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Im afraid that once conventional science students/teachers sink their teeths into this subject, this thread will turn ugly... many scientists seem to hate new theories that upsets their understanding.

We are witnessing the calm before the storm.

Originally posted by Copernicus

Im afraid that once conventional science students/teachers sink their teeths into this subject, this thread will turn ugly... many scientists seem to hate new theories that upsets their understanding.

We are witnessing the calm before the storm.

Well...how would you feel to spend hours, days, months, years of your life studying astronomy then a few more years teaching it and researching it based on those assumptions...only one day to find out that its a bunch of junk? Probably hold on to it.

But apart from that...old views will always be replaced by new views. This doesnt mean the old views were "100% wrong". It just means that something even more precise has come up and can explain phenomena better.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Well...how would you feel to spend hours, days, months, years of your life studying astronomy then a few more years teaching it and researching it based on those assumptions...only one day to find out that its a bunch of junk? Probably hold on to it.

Yes, absolutely. I think thats the reason why they are close minded to new ideas in the first place.


[edit on 2-11-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by ZeuZZ


Interesting post here ZueZZ.

Looks like I have a little reading to do. I won't pretend to understand all about this theory but after clicking a few of your links, there is some decent info in there. I really enjoy hearing/reading alternative science. Makes me question and research.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
But apart from that...old views will always be replaced by new views. This doesnt mean the old views were "100% wrong". It just means that something even more precise has come up and can explain phenomena better.

That is the point i often try to raise when i try to debate this with physicists. I am not saying that every thing we know now is wrong i am just trying to see why this theory is not correct, and to this date i have not heard one adequate scientific answer as to why plasma cosmology is not correct.

I am looking forward to replying to this tommorrow, as on this site it seems i am not going to get banned for saying these things (like i have done from all other mainstream physics forums on the internet ). As soon as i hear a scientific reason as to why this is not correct i will be happy to debate it.

So far ALL the arguments i have heard against it are purely Ad Hominem, and not based in science.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

everyone should check out this documentary on the Electric universe (plasma cosmology and the 'electric universe' are the same thing) Its very popular. video.google.com...

I would ignore the parts about history and plasma formations in the atmosphere causing ancient art, that is a completely separate issue, the parts about science are the really interesting ones.

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
everyone should check out this documentary on the Electric universe (plasma cosmology and the 'electric universe' are the same thing) Its very popular. video.google.com...

I would ignore the parts about history and plasma formations in the atmosphere causing ancient art, that is a completely separate issue, the parts about science are the really interesting ones.

Well...I watched it. But I cant give an informed opinion on it...which is why I look forward to studying the pros and cons. You will have some con-positions here by tommorow for sure.

it would seem that the universe is composed of a number of interconnecting field/s.
The phenomenon of teleportation via entangled states:

the behaviour of electrons and light(both behave as a quantum field and particle,perhaps they are spikes in their respective "field/s"?)

the ELECTRO MAGNETIC FIELD,

gravity field?
Space/time field?.....
etc etc

....distinct or part of one superfield?.

i found a fine quote that summarises why scientists are unaccepting of plasma cosmology, by Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. (from www.electric-cosmos.org...)



"When such a firm foundation has been laid for continued work in the electrical properties of the universe, why do "mainstream" astrophysicists continue to ignore this field of study and, instead, patch up their failing "gravity only" models with more and more arcane, invented theoretical fictions? Why do conventional astronomers and cosmologists systematically exclude electric fields and currents from not only their consideration, but fromtheir curricula? Why do they intentionally ignore the fact that many here-to-fore "unexplained" phenomena are quite simply explained by recognizing the existence of electric fields and currents in solar and galactic plasma?

The answer is this:

Magnetism was known to exist in the middle ages. They knew, even back then, that a piece of iron could act on another - at a distance.

But, the early astronomers (like their modern brethern) were simply unaware of electrical phenomena. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) had already mathematically explained the shape of the orbits of the planets when Isaac Newton published his treatise on gravity in 1687. Once that occurred, nothing more was needed to explain and predict the planetary motions that could be observed in those days. Everything was solved.

This, of course, was all long before Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) flew his kite in a thunder storm or James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed his equations relating magnetic and electric fields. But, electric fields were difficult to measure. And astronomers didn't know they needed to know about them. So, they never got included in the "accepted" model of how the solar system or the cosmos works.

That is why, to this day, most astrophysicists have never taken courses in electromagnetic field theory or experimental plasma discharges. They attempt to describe the actions of plasma by means of equations that are applicable only to fluids like water - and magnetic effects. This is what Alfven called 'magneto-hydrodynamics'. They do not realize, as he did, that the prefix 'magneto' implies 'electro'. And that, in turn, explains why astrophysicists blithely talk about stellar winds, vortex trails, and bow shocks instead of electrical currents in plasmas, electrical fields, z-pinches, and double layers. It also explains why they make wrong claims about how magnetic fields must pile-up, merge, and recombine - they are simply uneducated in, and therefore understandably mystified by, this now well known area of engineering science. "



there is a lot of top academic support for this theory, to briefly name a few;

-Gerrit L. Verschuur, PhD, University of Manchester. A well-known radio astronomer and writer, presently at the Physics Department, University of Memphis.

-Lewis E. Franks, PhD, Stanford University, Fellow of the IEEE (1977), Professor Emeritus and Head of the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts.

-Timothy E. Eastman, PhD, Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups.

- Nobel prize laureate Hannes Alfven, lifetime member and director of the IEEE.
etc, etc.

This one of the few theories with academic support. which is why i find it so interesting.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]