Plasma Introduction
History
I History
II
Technical
I
Technical II
Further
FAQs The
Electric Universe Science
and Philosophy Ancient
Testimony Cutting Edge The
Way Forward Latest
News
Video |
 | |
 |
 |
Some of the implications of Plasma Cosmology |
|
|
|
|
|
Shift happens! |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems a perspective shift may
be required before the paradigm can do likewise.
From a conventional perspective, planets
and stars are seen as tiny dots of matter punctuating
the vast 'emptiness' of space. In this dubious model
gravity and inertia dominate, albeit with a little magnetism
stirred into the equations now and again.
Plasma Cosmology turns this perspective
on its head.
In reality 'empty' space is actually
a vast sea of Plasma, and dominated by electromagnetic
forces. The tiny dots of matter are formed by the Z-pinch
effect (see Technical I), and surrounded by protective
sheathes or Double Layers (again, see Technical I).
"In order to understand the phenomena
in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not
only the magnetic but also the electric field and the
electric currents."
Hannes Alfvén
Space is filled with a network of currents
which transfer energy and momentum over vast distances.
The currents have a tendency to pinch into filaments
which give rise to cellular structures. These are separated
by capacitor-like double layers, producing plasma phenomena
which are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy,
discontinuity and inhomogeneity.
Galaxies are thus expected to lie like
pearl beads on a filamentary necklace, as is observed.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Radio Astronomy puts the universe in a new light |
|
|
|
|
|
Mysterious Circular Radio Objects — could they be Plasmoids? A new set of precision distance measurements made with an international collection of radio telescopes have greatly increased the likelihood that theorists need to revise the "standard model" that describes the fundamental nature of the Universe.
Full paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.14805.pdf
"We have found an unexpected class of astronomical objects which have not previously been reported, in the Evolutionary Map of the Universe Pilot survey, using the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder telescope. The objects appear in radio images as circular edgebrightened discs about one arcmin diameter, and do not seem to correspond to any known type of object…"
|
|
"Radio telescopes shed new light on the universe - an electic light!" Anon |
EM versus Gravity |
|
|
|
|
|
Contrast the plasma model, capable of
being reproduced in straightforward simulations, with
the Nebular hypothesis — the idea that vast clouds
of dust produced by the BB eventually accreted to form
planets and stars. The latter relies almost entirely
on gravity, and that most famous of Free Variables —
Time. It ignores the existence of plasma and its electrodynamic
properties!
Gravitational forces are only attractive,
whereas electromagnetic forces are both attractive and
repulsive, and 10^39 stronger! They both vary inversely
with the square of the distance.
EM forces are known to produce the spheroid,
toroid, and spiral structures that we witness throughout
the universe. Gravity is NOT the only force at work.
Misconception #1
"Sure, the electric force is much
stronger than gravity at the sub-atomic level, but at
the macrocosmic level gravity is incomparably more powerful
than electricity.
Martin Rees compares the electrostatic
forces between two submicroscopic charged particles
with the force of gravitational attraction between two
Jupiter-sized masses and makes the statement above.
Talk about comparing apples and oranges! By this method
we could say: Compare the power of the water coming
over Niagara Falls with the power emitted by the average
incandescent flashlight bulb see falling
water is much more powerful than electricity.
Such incompatible comparisons defy clarification.
Don Scott, retired professor of Electrical
Engineering, adds the following:
"This assertion is like saying gravity affects
elephants more than microbes. It is simply invalid.
For two protons, the electrostatic force of repulsion
between them is 1.2x10^36 times the force of their gravitational
attraction. The electrostatic repulsion between two
electrons is 4.2x10^42 times their gravitational attraction.
For one proton and one electron, the electrostatic force
of attraction between them is 2.2x10^39 times the force
of their gravitational attraction.
The Electric
Sky (TES)
|
|
 |
'Gravitational Lensing' or simple Refraction? |
|
|
|
|
|
Light appears to bend around large objects in space. Proponents of gravitational cosmology are quick to interpret this to fit their cherished theory - that of mass bending space and time. They even invoke mysterious dark matter on occasion, but it turns out there is a more simple and verifiable explanation at hand.
Ranitesh Gupta is a professor of Electrical Engineering & Technology at Lucknow university, India. He explains it in terms of refraction. See his paper here.
From the conclusion:
"It is suggested that Gravitation is only between material bodies and that the zero-rest mass photon is unaffected by gravity. The alternative novel approach to explain phenomena such as bending of light near a star and gravitational red/blue shift is based on refraction phenomenon of optics. Bending of light is due to bending of ray due to refraction within the star’s atmosphere. The red/blue shift is due to optical-phenomenon of change of wavelength (frequency remaining same) due to change in velocity of light in the atmospheric medium. Other aspects such as blackhole and gravitational-lensing are also re-examined in the new perspective of refraction phenomenon. Interesting predictions are also made. In fact many of the general-relativity-tests are explained without general-relativity on the basis of refraction. The new approach could have important bearing on understanding of space-time, gravity and cosmology."
The straightforward idea that refraction causes the lensing effect attributed to General Relativity has also been proposed by Dr. Edward Dowdye, a physicist and laser optics engineer formerly with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He has derived a mathematical solution for lensing using refraction, and presented his findings at the EU 2012 conference. Paper: Gravitational Lensing in Empty Vacuum Space Does NOT Take Place
Dr. Dowdye points to the fact that observations of solar lensing are in the plasma ionized atmosphere of the Sun, as predicted by refraction, and not at varying elevations from the mass of the Sun, as predicted for gravitational lensing. He also highlights the lack of gravitational lensing observed in the stars rapidly orbiting the Milky Way's galactic center. YouTube - The Failed Attempts to Detect Macro Lensing
"Evidence of gravitational light bending at the site of Sagittarius A*, as is predicted by the light bending rule of General Relativity, is yet to be observed."
Dr. Edward Dowdye
Schoolboys the world over know that if you put a stick in water it will appear to bend as a result of refraction. We also know that the atmosphere of planets and stars is more dense than the space between them. In other words, why resort to complicated mathematics and esoteric hypotheses when simplicity will suffice? KISS (keep it simple, stupid) is the expression that springs to mind. |
|

"Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Occam's razor

|
|
|
|
Matters of no little importance |
|
|
|
|
|
Standard scientific texts focus on just three states
of matter — solids, liquids, and gases. This is no
small omission. Not only should Plasma be added to this
list, but it should take first place, not least because
of the fact that it constitutes 99% of the known Universe!
Space travel has confirmed this fact. It is misleading
to describe plasma as an ionized gas when it is in fact
a state in its own right.
Given the dominance of Plasma in the universe, it seems
more sensible to consider solids as cooled Plasma (Or
matter with energy removed), as opposed to highly energised
or heated matter.
Moreover, because of the ability of Plasma to interact
with electromagnetic forces, it is capable of forming
far more complex structures than those seen in solids,
liquids, or gases.
Plasma is for everyone as Anthony Perratt, a leading
contemporary astrophysicist, is wont to say.
|
|
[T]he professional tends to interpret the pictures
by using the theory he was taught while the amateur
tries to use the picture to arrive at a theory.
Halton Arp, Seeing Red
|
|
|
|
Houston, we have a problem! |
|
|
|
|
|
Within the limited confines of our own backyard, the
Solar System, existing gravitational models seem to
be holding-up. We have succeeded in sending probes to
neighbouring planets and, despite the crashes and anomalous
accelerations that have afflicted many space programs,
the Huygens mission recently scored a spectacular success
— landing on Titan, a moon of Saturn, despite unexpected
atmospheric conditions.
It should be noted, however, that g models begin to
break down when we look further a field. Gravity, of
course, is generally described as a property of mass.
The trouble is that we have not discovered enough mass
in our own galaxy, The Milky Way, to account for its
fortunate tendency not to disintegrate.
The existence of mysterious Dark Matter is hypothesised
to account for this shortfall in mass, but it is yet
to be discovered despite extensive searches. Its existence
is only inferred on the basis that g models 'must be'
correct. The alternatives raise too many uncomfortable
questions!
Furthermore, Dark Matter is no small kludge factor
— it is alleged to account for about 80% of
the universe, but accounts vary from one moment to the next.
This has lead to further problems in relation to expansion
models, and another hypothetical, Dark Energy, has been
invented to overcome these. In summation, Dark Matter
and Dark Energy are the blank cheques required to postpone
the falsification of bankrupt theories.
Moreover, as per the work of Anthony Peratt, it can be shown that electromagnetic forces
are several orders of magnitude greater than gravitational
forces in certain types of plasma, and also
that electromagnetic forces can have a longer range.
On the largest scales, evidence that plasmas exhibit
external forces on physical objects such as galaxies
is the same as that which has lead standard model researchers
to postulate dark matter and dark energy. Need anymore
be said?
|
|
"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms
of matter in the universe remain hypothetical."
Jim Peebles, Princeton Cosmologist
|
|
|
|
The space tether experiment |
|
|
|
|
|
In 1996, in a joint venture between the US and Italy,
a large spherical satellite was deployed from the US
space shuttle at the end of a conducting cable (tether)
over 12 miles long. The idea was to let the shuttle
drag the tether across the Earth's magnetic field, producing
one part of a dynamo circuit. The return current, from
the shuttle to the payload, would flow via the Earth's
ionosphere.
The deployment was almost complete when things went
wrong. The tether suddenly broke free, and it took some
smart detective work to discover the cause. The nature
of the break suggested it was not caused by excessive
tension, but that a strong electric current had melted
the tether.
|
|
"In
the beginning was the Plasma." Hannes Alfvén |
|
|
|
As Above ... So Below |
|
|
|
|
|
It is often said that there is no reason to believe
that the universe knows about us, or that our solar
system knows about the universe. In this purely mechanistic
view, contradictory evidence is generally explained
away as merely coincidental.
Anomalies in CMB measurements seem to suggest that our
solar system reacts to conditions outside it, which
was not expected, but this situation is dismissed as
... coincidental.
sciencealert.com hint that new physics may be required.
Plasma Cosmology promotes a more holistic view of the
universe. This is a profound differentiation, and permits
many theories previously excluded in a purely mechanistic
gravity-dominated universe. Bodies immersed in plasma
are not isolated — they are connected by circuits.
|
|
"When
Kepler found his long-cherished belief did not agree with
the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable
fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions;
that is the heart of science." Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Quasars and quasi-science |
|
|
|
|
|
Quasars (quasi-stellar radio sources) question Big Bang assumptions. The galaxy below, NGC 7319, is a Seyfert type 2 galaxy. That's a Seyfert galaxy where most of the bright and active nucleus that defines a normal Seyfert is shrouded by heavy dust clouds. The galaxy has a redshift of 0.0225. The white spot is a quasar that has a redshift of 2.114. That's a big problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
"...past 90% it [Dark Matter] begins to make observations
irrelevant." Halton Arp
"The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend." Novelist, Robertson Davies |
|
|
|
These differing redshifts expose the big bang for what it is — quasi-science. One of the two major foundational principles of the big bang hypothesis is that redshift is proportional to distance. That means the bigger the redshift of an object, the farther away it should be. Redshift is also supposed to be a measure of velocity. Again, the bigger the redshift, the faster the object is supposed to be moving away from us. Combined, these two foundational principles give rise to the notion of an expanding universe starting out at the big bang.
In other words, this quasar should be billions of light years farther from us than the galaxy, because its redshift is so much larger, and yet the galaxy is opaque, so the quasar must be near the surface of the dust clouds or even in front of them. This is not the first definitive falsification of the redshift = distance claim, although it is one of the best. Halton Arp has been accumulating discordant redshift evidence since the late 1960's. See also the big bang page. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Dynamic Universe
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Plasma Universe is an extremely dynamic, quasi
Steady-State Universe. It may seem strange to consider
Galaxies lasting billions of years as mere transient
phenomena, but this is how it is. Planets, Stars and
Galaxies are born and die. The universe is cyclical!
In the plasma model, super clusters, clusters and galaxies
are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex
filaments. The plasma cosmology approach can easily
accommodate large scale structures, and in fact predicts
them. Since the plasma approach hypothesises no theoretical
starting point, the amount of time necessary for large-scale
structures presents no problem for the theory.
|
|
"The
universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous
states we are not privileged to know." David Bohm |
|
|
|
The Queen of The Sciences |
|
|
|
|
|
Cosmology
is considered the Queen of the Sciences because it provides the
building blocks for most other scientific disciplines. This adds to the inertia against change, as mentioned on the home page. A
new approach to cosmology will require a reassessment
in most if not all scientific disciplines. See also Skepticism / Paradigm Shifts. |
|
|
|  |
 | |
 |
|