Frequently Asked Questions, and a few
objections...
This might seem like a stupid question,
but how come we don't all get electrocuted if space is
so full of electricity?
This is actually a common question, and the answer
is straightforward. Imagine a bird sitting on a high
powered cable. That cable might carry many thousands
of volts, but the bird is safe providing that it doesn't
touch another cable, or any other object with an electrical
differential. The air around the bird acts as an insulator.
Standing on the earth we are much like the bird sitting
on the cable, and the magnetosphere acts as a protective
cocoon, shielding us from most of the energised particles
flying through space.
The occasional crackle and hum of electric cables reminds
us of their purpose. Likewise, thunderstorms remind
us that our planet seeks electrical equilibrium with
its solar environment. See Electric Weather
Why is space considered electrically neutral
in mainstream science?
Basically, because popular (consensus) science works on the preconceived notion that most of the charges in space should have already found each other and neutralised given the time span since their creation event, the Big Bang. This highlights the importance of working backwards from observation rather than starting out at idealised principles. Electric currents and, therefore, charge separation can now be observed in space, and it's time to deal with it rather than play it down.
Why don't we see more aurora like phenomena
if space is so electrically active?
The auroras occur at the poles where charge
is concentrated by the Earth's magnetosphere. In space
plasmas are more tenuous, and the electric currents that
flow through them are invisible to the naked eye, much
like most power cables here on Earth, which are very often
hidden from sight. Also, power plants may be many miles
from the cities they supply. There is strong evidence,
however, that the heavens were far more electrically active
in recent millennia. See Ancient Testimony.
If only half of what you say is true,
how could mainstream science be so blind?
So much relates to perception and the inertia of prior belief. An old expression springs to mind. People often say "I will believe it when I see it". But do people believe what they see, or do they tend to see what they believe? In other words, are we vulnerable to interpreting what we see according to our prevailing belief system, especially when there is pressure to conform? Conventional wisdom, as has been said elsewhere on this web site, usually owes at least as much to convention as wisdom.
A few words from Hannes Alfvén also seem appropriate here. In 1986
he said:
"We should remember that
there was once a discipline called Natural Philosophy.
Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today.
It has been renamed science, but science of today is
in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect."
Alfvén believed that territorial dominance, greed,
and fear of the unknown were factors in this transition.
"Scientists tend to resist
interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory.
In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the
fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete
unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish
their own opportunity for research."
"Men
occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them
pick themselves up and carry on as if nothing ever happened."
Winston Churchill
"Gravitational
systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems."
Hannes Alfven
There is so much we don't understand about
plasma and electricity! How can we hope to build cosmological
models with it?
Sure, we may have a lot to learn about
something like electricity, although it is taken very
much for granted, but we can measure and observe the properties
and behaviours of both plasma and electromagnetism, which enables
us to make predictions. This approach stems from a branch
of philosophy known as empiricism, which is the basis
of science.
Isn't this just fringe science?
“We have to learn again that science without contact
with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go
completely astray into imaginary conjecture.” Hannes
Alfvén
Emphatically No! A number of respected scientists and
electrical engineers support most of the ideas expressed
here. This web site is simply a synthesis of the basic
principles. It should also be borne in mind that two
of the founding fathers, Alfvén and Langmuir, won Nobel
Laureates, and Birkeland probably would have done had
he lived long enough. See History.
While many questions remain, Plasma Cosmology is gaining
ground, whereas Big Bang cosmology relies on an increasing
array of ad-hoc assumptions and hypotheticals. The BBT
is increasingly under attack, even if does still dominate
academic circles at the present time.
Can Plasma Cosmology live with the Big
Bang?
"The
universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous
states we are not privileged to know." David Bohm
Surprisingly, yes. The Big Bang does not necessarily
preclude the importance of Plasma and its electrodynamic
properties. Even within conventional Big Bang cosmology,
the entire early universe consisted of plasma before
recombination (the process in which electrons become
confined to protons to make neutral atoms) occurred.
However, it should be noted that most scientists and
engineers in the Plasma field prefer an actualistic
approach to science — the method of working backwards
from observation, rather than starting out at idealised
theoretical principals.
The Big Bang fails to account for the 'clumpiness'
of the universe and the filamentary structures that
we observe. These are consistent with Plasma models.
How old is the universe? Until you answer this, you can't be taken seriously.
This is another common gripe. In truth, however, we do not know how old the universe is, or how big it is. A little humility is surely preferable to assumptions in this regard, which select evidence to fit. Red Shift controversies highlight problems with these assumptions. There seems to be a psychological need, especially in western cultures, to have a beginning and an end. Just think of the many children's stories which begin Once upon a time and end when they all live happily ever after. Eastern philosophy doesn't necessarily demand such child like simplicity. Plasma cosmology represents a paradigm shift, not simple answers.
Who needs Plasma Cosmology? Gravitational
models work just fine!
"It
is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter
in the universe remain hypothetical." Jim Peebles,
Princeton Cosmologist
Problems with
gravitational models rely on a heavy dose of mathematical speculation and, furthermore, require the invention of a number of exotic hypotheticals.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy, among others, remain at very best speculative
despite extensive searches over more than forty years!
Where is the
Math?
Do not worry. If mathematics excites you there is
plenty of it in some of the more technical pages
we link to.
See also the philosophy/math
page for some discussion about the relative importance
of math in differing cosmologies.
"Physics
is mathematical not because we know so much about the
physical world, but because we know so little." Bertrand
Russell
You seem to insinuate that there is a
conspiracy against Plasma Cosmology!
Not really. As has been stated, academic
circles are currently dominated by Big Bang proponents,
and they tend to promote their own theories, but science
will move on.
Isn't Plasma Cosmology just a re-hash
of old Velikovskian ideas?
No. PC does not rest on any ideas about
catastrophism, but it does not preclude them, and many
plasma physicists acknowledge that our solar system may
have been more electrically active in recent millennia.
Electric Universe supporters are generally more sympathetic
to ideas relating to Catastrophism.
"In
the end The Universe will have its say." Sir Fred
Hoyle
When can we expect to see PC gaining wider
acceptance?
Progress is being made, slowly but surely,
but plasma physicists grow increasingly impatient. See
the Way Forward
Could gravity have an EM origin?
Electric Universe supporters view gravity as an electrostatic
dipolar force. It should be noted that we don't actually
know what gravity is — it remains a descriptive term
for a force that we know very little about; a force
which is described mathematically. It may also be described
as a property of mass, of course, but this helps little as given that the famous God particle (Higgs-Boson) also remains hypothetical.
Research is being carried out into the potential existence
of gravity waves and graviton particles, but it has
so far achieved little if any success. See the
Cutting Edge page.
"But
hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of
those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame
no hypotheses." Isaac Newton
Why is there relatively little research
into Plasma Cosmology?
Because of ideological bias, plain and simple. Related to this, a lack of funding doesn't help. Again,
see the Way Forward
I thought that the The Electric Star Model
had been debunked?
Electric Star models suffer fewer vulnerabilities
than highy speculative mainstream models which rest on
a number of unverified assumptions, notably in relation
to neutrino flavours, iron content, and 'magnetic reconnection',
among many others. The Electric Star model is incomplete, but it should be remembered we still have a lot to learn about electromagnetism and its many complex behaviours.
If the sun is electrically powered, as
proposed by EU supporters, why do we not see electrons
flying towards it?
This is a good question in so far as it pretty well
sums up the mainstream gripe with the the electric star
model.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that we should
base our models on what we observe, and not on what we might
expect to see. Plasmas exhibit many behaviours not expected
or recognised, let alone understood, in mainstream astronomy/astrophysics.
Check out double layers and birkeland currents in the
technical section. These provide some clues as to what
may be going on.
Electrical engineers, it seems, are better qualified
to recognise and understand so many astronomical phenomena.
Significantly, Wal Thornhill and Don Scott point out
that it would be difficult to detect low energy electrons
as they stream towards the Sun. See Electric Stars and the Safire Project on It's Electric. A return to some form of æther based physics could also be helpful, although big bang supporters now dismiss the idea. The æther hasn't been conclusively falsified, however.
“...Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory...” Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads.
“The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent
times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such
as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve
the status quo.” Hannes Alfvén
Does your model support astrological ideas?
Please forgive me as I'm no expert on
astrology. I will concede, nonetheless, that plasma cosmology
permits a more holistic view of the universe which does not exclude many alternative ideas ... from the nature of consciouness to human history and much more.
What about UFOs?
Do plasma phemonena account for many UFO/UAP sightings? This is not to suggest that something akin to ball lighting can explain all of them, but there are striking visual similarities to many eye witness reports. This thoughtful analysis is therefore strongly recommended.
There is also www.ufoskeptic.org for another scientific perspective.
You are not the first to try and come
up with a unified theory of everything, and get it totally
wrong!
This is not a unified theory of everything.
Plasma Cosmology simply represents a fresh approach to
many cosmological problems, and this web site is a synthesis
of many of the ideas. Plasma cosmology represents a paradigm shift, not simple answers, and is admittedly incomplete.
You seem to suggest that the mainstream
ignores plasma physics?
Far from it. The point is that the mainstream
thus far assigns little importance to the role of plasma
and electromagnetism on cosmic scales. It is one thing
to contemplate that space isn't the vacuum once predicted,
but quite another to acknowledge that Plasma and its EM
interactions may play a role in cosmical structures, from
planets and stars to galaxies and super-clusters. The
passive role of plasma assumed by the mainstream is clearly wrong.
"...no
knowledge is complete or perfect." Carl Sagan
