EU Theory and Plasma Cosmology

michaelmozina · Apr 5, 2006

My intent in creating this thread on EU theory and plasma cosmology is begin a discourse on EU theory that stays within the framework of current cosmology concepts to as great an extent as possible. I would like to begin this discussion on EU theory by taking a historical look at some of the early pioneering work that was done on EU theory by Dr. Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Birkeland http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology Birkeland was fascinated with the Aurora Borealis, so much so that he went on an expedition and traversed the northern polar regions to methodically study and measure the currents that produce these atmospheric discharges. He eventually came to the conclusion that the sun and the earth are electromagnetically interconnected, and that electrical currents flowed from the sun, and through the earth. It was not until the 1970's that a spacecraft was finally able demonstrate the existence of Birkeland currents inside of our solar system. http://www.spaceweathercenter.org/our_protective_shield/04/04_06.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060331152347.htm We are now starting to realize that these electrical currents are linked to and are at least partially responsible for storms on the earth and for "sprites" that we see go from clouds to space during some storms. http://adsabs.h <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

yevaud · Apr 5, 2006

We are now starting to realize that these electrical currents are linked to and are at least partially responsible for storms on the earth and for "sprites" that we see go from clouds to space during some storms. This is not the same thing. Neither highly energetic plasmas nor Birkeland currents are responsible for either storms on Earth, nor Sprites. Storms are largely driven by heat differentials. Sprites are known as a part of the category of Mesopheric Transient Luminous Events, and are related to the acceleration of electrons above a charged electrical field produced by a thunderstorm, which then interact with the upper layers of the atmosphere. These same forces seem to also play a critical role in solar system formation... Birkeland currents and/or plasma physics are not related to what the NASA article at that link states. What they imply is that the extreme acceleration of matter infalling around this type of protostar in it's magnetic field becomes highly ionized, producing radiation in the form of X-rays (e.g., Synchrotron Radiation). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

michaelmozina · Apr 5, 2006

I knew I get a nibble on at least one of my comments. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />This is not the same thing.<hr /></blockquote> I agree, they are two different issues, but both events are driven by the same force, namely electrical current flow IMO. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Neither highly energetic plasmas nor Birkeland currents are responsible for either storms on Earth, nor Sprites. Storms are largely driven by heat differentials. <hr /></blockquote> In the case of storms, isn't the sun inputting the energy into the system to begin with? Aren't the polar Auroras the result of the sun adding energy to the system, and wouldn't a solar storm put more energy into the system? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Sprites are known as a part of the category of Mesopheric Transient Luminous Events, and are related to the acceleration of electrons above a charged electrical field produced by a thunderstorm, which then interact with the upper layers of the atmosphere.<hr /></blockquote> Well, I would have agree with that assessment. Then again the "charge" of the upper atmosphere is related to the charge of the ionosphere, and the ionosphere is where the earth interacts with the solar wind. The electrical differential between the ionsphere and the clouds are what generate these discharge events. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Birkeland currents and/or plasma physics are not related to what the NASA article at that link states.<hr /></blockquote> You state that with such authority. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Obviously I disagree on this point. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> What they imply is that the extreme acceleration of matter infalling around this type of protostar in it's magnetic field becomes h</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

yevaud · Apr 5, 2006

Of course. I'm a sucker for a good (note the term "good") scientific debate. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> In the case of storms, isn't the sun inputting the energy into the system to begin with? Aren't the polar Auroras the result of the sun adding energy to the system, and wouldn't a solar storm put more energy into the system? No, the amount of heat input into the global system from Auroraes is negligable when compared to the overall amount of solar insolation received. Well, I would have agree with that assessment. Then again the "charge" of the upper atmosphere is related to the charge of the ionosphere, and the ionosphere is where the earth interacts with the solar wind. The electrical differential between the ionsphere and the clouds are what generate these discharge events. In part yes, in part no. In actuality where the Earth interacts with the solar wind is the Magnetopause. The electrical field built up in a thunderstorm is as a result of ice, hail, and water droplets colliding with each other repeatedly. A charge builds up, and the positive and negative charges seperate, the negative dropping to the lower part of the cloud, and the positive to the middle and upper layers. That positive charge is what interacts with the upper layers of the atmosphere, whereby some electrons are highly accelerated, and then interact with the mesosphere, producing the transient events known as "Sprites." The article suggests that gravity as a force only accounts for a small fraction of the force that is causing these formations. Radiation issues related to x-rays aside, the article states: In reply to: "The detection of X-rays this early indicates that gravity alone is not the only force shaping young stars." I think you're misinterpreting what they state there. While they're stating that this effect has rele <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

michaelmozina · Apr 5, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"The detection of X-rays this early indicates that gravity alone is not the only force shaping young stars."<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I think you're misinterpreting what they state there. While they're stating that this effect has relevance to the formation of some protostars (but not supplanting gravity as a driving force), they in no way imply it involves Birkeland currents, Z-pinch, or any form of Magnetohydrodynamics or general plasma physics.<hr /></blockquote> I have a hard time with this part of your statement: "...in no way imply....". Actually it does imply that quite directly IMO, specifically in this paragraph: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The observation, made primarily with the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton observatory, suggests that some unrealized, energetic process -- likely related to magnetic fields -- is superheating the surface of the cloud core, nudging the cloud ever closer to becoming a star.<hr /></blockquote> Electricity certainly fits the bill as something that is related to magnetic fields and can superheat a cloud of plasma or metals. I would emphasize here that the cloud can be cold and heated by electricity as long as it contains metals. That directly relates back to an interesting article in today's news related to solar system formation theories: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/05/supernova.blast.ap/index.html <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Matter highly accelerated and interacting with a magnetic field is not per se, a plasma effect. Although it would perhaps cause plasmas to appear, temperatures being what they are in that environment (I think I stated that properly).<hr /></blockquote> I ag <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

yevaud · Apr 5, 2006

unrealized, energetic process -- likely related to magnetic fields -- is superheating the surface of the cloud core, nudging the cloud ever closer to becoming a star. That doesn't imply Birkeland currents (am I spelling that correctly?) or Z-Pinch. Although it does imply a plasma is being created as a result, but that's not quite the same thing. You see, the magnetic field seems to be accelerating the matter, highly ionizing it through collisions with the surrounding matter. Which in the presence of the already fierce temperatures present, would be a plasma. But I believe you're hitching the cart before the horse. The plasma is a result, not a cause. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Apr 6, 2006

Sorry, that was a trifle unclear. What I meant by that is that you are stating that the effects seen are due to the presence of a highly energetic plasma. What I'm saying is that a highly energetic plasma would be one possible result of these effects. Not the same thing at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 6, 2006

Ok, if the state of matter that causes it is not plasma, then the cause must be a solid, liquid, gas, Bose-Einstein consendate, and/or Quark-Gluon plasma. Those are the only other states of matter I know about.

yevaud · Apr 6, 2006

That's not what we've been discussing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 6, 2006

That's not what I said.

yevaud · Apr 6, 2006

Odd. MichaelMozina and I are discussing a new discovery about Protostars vis a vis the EU versus Standard Model Cosmology. What you're attempting to inject into this discussion is unclear. But it certainly doesn't seem to be relevant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

michaelmozina · Apr 6, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />That doesn't imply Birkeland currents (am I spelling that correctly?) or Z-Pinch. Although it does imply a plasma is being created as a result, but that's not quite the same thing.<hr /></blockquote> You did spell it correctly by the way. I guess what makes me a bit uncomfortable with your response is that you seem to be excluding a viable scientific explanation of what might be driving these compression events. In other words, the *outside* of the cloud is being heated and "nudged" toward a central point. That is pretty much the definition of what we might expect to see in a Z-pinch phenomenon. http://www.answers.com/topic/z-pinch I don't see how you could logically rule this out, even if you prefer another explanation. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You see, the magnetic field seems to be accelerating the matter, highly ionizing it through collisions with the surrounding matter. Which in the presence of the already fierce temperatures present, would be a plasma. But I believe you're hitching the cart before the horse. The plasma is a result, not a cause.<hr /></blockquote> Well, I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> IMO you are also hitching the cart before the horse in the sense that electrical current is known to cause magnetic fields, whereas you have the magnetic fields coming first. What is source of the magnetic field, and why would that source affect the *outside* of the cloud, rather than the materials closest to the magnetic field? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

yevaud · Apr 6, 2006

I guess what makes me a bit uncomfortable with your response is that you seem to be excluding a viable scientific explanation of what might be driving these compression events. In other words, the *outside* of the cloud is being heated and "nudged" toward a central point. That is pretty much the definition of what we might expect to see in a Z-pinch phenomenon. I don't see how you could logically rule this out, even if you prefer another explanation. That wasn’t excluding anything. There is nothing in that article to suggest the cloud is already a plasma before it accelerates inwards. Well, I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. IMO you are also hitching the cart before the horse in the sense that electrical current is known to cause magnetic fields, whereas you have the magnetic fields coming first. What is source of the magnetic field, and why would that source affect the *outside* of the cloud, rather than the materials closest to the magnetic field? Protostars do possess their own magnetic fields to begin with. Why go adding yet another one, from outside, when it isn’t either apparent that’s the case or necessary? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Apr 6, 2006

Perhaps so, but at least it's being debated in a friendly and rational give-and-take. That's become somewhat rare here of late. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

michaelmozina · Apr 6, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />EU theory is outside standard physics models and is not science. It's an hypothesis which violated any number of physical facts, and is simply pseudoscience.<hr /></blockquote> Contrary to your opinion, electrical interactions between the sun and other bodies in the solar system have been *well* (and I mean well) documented. Birkeland currents are an accepted part of astronomy today. link <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />This thread belongs in Phenomena as it detracts from real astrophysics. <hr /></blockquote> ?!?!?!? I have gone to great lengths to provide evidence of the interconnected nature of our electric universe while staying completely *inside* of conventional astrophysics. Despite your objections, Birkeland currents have been shown to be the source of energy that is responsible for the Auroras. These electric currents are a well understood part of astrophysics today. I respectfully suggest that you actually object to *some* "concepts" that are typically associated with EU theory rather than EU theory. It would be illogical IMO to suggest there is *no* evidence of eletrical currents inside and outside of our solar system. Likewise, it would not make a lot of sense to move this thread anywhere at this point point in time. So far, it's been a very civil and interesting discussion that has been focused on actual evidence of electrical currents inside and outside of our solar system. I've gone to great lengths here to show that EU theory is already a well recognized part of mainstream astronomy, even if not *every* EU idea being discussed today is currently accepted by mainstream astronomy. **edited long URL into <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Apr 6, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />That wasn’t excluding anything. There is nothing in that article to suggest the cloud is already a plasma before it accelerates inwards.<hr /></blockquote> Well, as long as you promise not to exclude anything, I'll be happy. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I would suspect however that the presense of strong x-rays in the cloud is very consistent with z-pinch phenomenon. In other words I can't rule out it being caused by an electrified plasma cloud. We do however seem to have a "chicken or the egg" dilemma here. Even if we knew for sure that the cloud is plasma now, that doesn't tell us what it looked like "before" the accretion process began. I can't say for sure that was or was not plasma since iron from any cloud would also be affected by magnetic fields and currents and there is isotope evidence to suggest that stars are mostly made of iron. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Protostars do possess their own magnetic fields to begin with. Why go adding yet another one, from outside, when it isn’t either apparent that’s the case or necessary?<hr /></blockquote> Well, there is certainly logic in that statement and some evidence to support your statement even in yesterday's Spitzer news article: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2006-10/release.shtml Of course this new information also suggests that a protostar may never have been a hydrogen ball. It seems that the neutron core from the surpernova explosion is still intact, and still influencing the material in the accretion disk that resulted from the supernova event. Neutron stars tend to form iron shells over time. It should be noted that this new evidence also lends strong support to the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel who has contended for m <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

yevaud · Apr 6, 2006

I would suspect however that the presense of strong x-rays in the cloud is very consistent with z-pinch phenomenon. In other words I can't rule out it being caused by an electrified plasma cloud. Remember, all of the necessary requisites are already there with which to explain this effect: a Protostar with a fluctuating and increasing gravitational field, rapidly spinning, with a dense accretion disc present. Simple scientific principles now – don’t go adding complexity where none is necessary. We do however seem to have a "chicken or the egg" dilemma here. Even if we knew for sure that the cloud is plasma now, that doesn't tell us what it looked like "before" the accretion process began. I can't say for sure that was or was not plasma since iron from any cloud would also be affected by magnetic fields and currents and there is isotope evidence to suggest that stars are mostly made of iron. You yourself stated in the other thread that there wasn’t a thread specifically focused on EU, so any discussion of an “Iron star” hypothesis should be discussed there, not here. Else we then have two identical and rapidly fluctuating discussions ongoing. Of course this new information also suggests that a protostar may never have been a hydrogen ball. It seems that the neutron core from the surpernova explosion is still intact, and still influencing the material in the accretion disk that resulted from the supernova event. Neutron stars tend to form iron shells over time. Neutron stars are comprised of degenerate matter. Iron couldn’t exist as iron in that extreme gravitational environment. That very concept belies what such an intense gravitational dynamic does to “normal” matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

CalliArcale · Apr 6, 2006

I agree; let's try to keep the iron sun thing in the Surface of the Sun (a very stimulating thread in its own right) and the general EU discussion here. Obviously the two threads will inevitably make reference to one another, but we should probably keep the main discussions distinct so we don't confuse ourselves. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

colesakick · Apr 8, 2006

“Remember, all of the necessary requisites are already there with which to explain this effect: a Protostar with a fluctuating and increasing gravitational field, rapidly spinning, with a dense accretion disc present. Simple scientific principles now – don’t go adding complexity where none is necessary.” Actually, standard explanations are based primarily on conjecture and assumption (about gravity), not empirically derived facts. Electricity is something we can toy with and model in the real world of physics, the same goes for plasma. When tests on electricity and plasma produce the same exact features noted in space, you have to stop and ask some hard questions about prior assumptions. We have long presumed that a plasma cloud’s electrical charge does not flow, but we cannot reproduce such a plasma cloud in the lab. Confirmation of electric currents in space is now published in mainstream science literature and agrees with theorists who asserted that the electricity in plasma clouds must flow. It’s time to let go our assumptions about astronomy in the face of hard evidence contrary to them. The electrical model does not add complexity, the perplexities noted by NASA discoveries disappear and all such shocking observations fall into a coherent system already well understood by electrical engineers and plasma physicists. There is nothing complicated about viewing electromagnetic signatures in space within an electrical paradigm (unless one understand little about electrical engineering, I suppose). As far as I know, there is no way to produce electromagnetic energy in the absence of flowing electricity. The thinking that you can have the one without the other exists only in theory (because electricity was ignored they had to evoke the notion), no physical demonstration that an electrified plasma can be produced without an electrical current exists, that I’ve ever read anyway. The problem that gives rise to respectful resistance like your Y <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

michaelmozina · Apr 8, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Remember, all of the necessary requisites are already there with which to explain this effect: a Protostar with a fluctuating and increasing gravitational field, rapidly spinning, with a dense accretion disc present. Simple scientific principles now – don’t go adding complexity where none is necessary.<hr /></blockquote> I will certainly grant you that we should be seeking the simplest answers where possible. I would also grant you that fully formed stars do seem to posess magnetic fields. I do not know however if protostars, where fusion has yet to occur, would even posess a magnetic field. We also cannot be certain that internal solar magnetic fields account this behavior, since we do not know whether this cloud is composed of plasma, gas or solids or all of the above. While these fields might be helpful in explaining the behavior of plasma and solid iron particles in the cloud, they are less useful in explaining how cold dark clouds of hydrogen gas are formed into suns. Since this is true of my arguement as well, and we do not know the distances involved, the real arguement seems to be centered on how you might explain magnetic fields in the absense of a fusion process in the protostar's core. This brings me to some new Spitzer data: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2006-10/release.shtml While it is quite easy to understand how these magnetic fields are formed by a "protostar" that includes a neutron core, it is a bit more difficult to explain how pre-fusion balls of hydrogen create a strong magnetic fields. Could you briefly explain what you believe is the cause of these strong magnetic fields in a pre-fusion protostar? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You yourself stated in the other thread that</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Apr 8, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I agree; let's try to keep the iron sun thing in the Surface of the Sun (a very stimulating thread in its own right) and the general EU discussion here. Obviously the two threads will inevitably make reference to one another, but we should probably keep the main discussions distinct so we don't confuse ourselves. <hr /></blockquote> I wholeheartedly agree. I do believe that an iron sun model helps explain these EU phenomenon, but I will try to limit my support of that aspect of EU theory to the sun thread itself. I wil try to support EU theory in that thread, but I'll certainly do my best to keep these thread as separate as possible. It should be noted that EU theory is not predicated upon the existence of iron suns, and the mere existence of iron suns, in and of itself, does not support EU theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Apr 8, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Confirmation of electric currents in space is now published in mainstream science literature and agrees with theorists who asserted that the electricity in plasma clouds must flow. It’s time to let go our assumptions about astronomy in the face of hard evidence contrary to them. <hr /></blockquote> I think you touched on quite a few very relevant points. Over the past few decades, we have amassed a considerable and growing body of evidence to demonstrate the presense of electrical currents flowing through space. During this relatively short timeframe however, very little has changed in mainstream thinking. Many theoretical models fail to to include these new observations. For instance mainstream thinking has still not embraced electrical currents as it relates to solar formation theories or orbital configurations etc. These new observations suggest that we need step back and rethink a lot of our preconcieved ideas, but that really hasn't happened yet. Mainstream astronomers still "assume" for instance that gravity alone is the primary "glue" that holds everything together. Much of this new information regarding the presense of electrical currents flowing through our universe has yet to be "processed" and brought into mainstream astronomy circles. I believe that is about to change, and has already started to change, but change takes time, and it tends to be very slow and very conservative in nature. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Apr 9, 2006

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/AtHomeChall.html Here was one article on plasma cosmology that I thought was very appropriate to this discussion, and rather timely too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

colesakick · Apr 9, 2006

That link is to Los Alomos Lab website, in case anyone wanted to know. It strongly admits electricity and plasma belong to the topic and study of cosmology but then laments that the old model is too popular to give way any time soon, pity that people are content to know a lot about what isn't so and not too interested in knowing what is so. I read a quote one time that said that paradigm shifts take hold on the youth first and don’t infiltrate society much until the old school dies off a generation later. This certainly seems to be the case with this topic too. Many prestigious colleges and universities sent professors and post graduate students to attend the Crisis in Cosmology Convention last year; the EU model was heavily represented along side presentations on where the Big Bang model breaks down in face of the empirical data from Hubble, spectrum scans etc. . .. The evidence is overwhelming to anyone not indoctrinated into the old model. To those that are convinced they already know all they need to know to understand and explain cosmology the EU material can’t penetrate their minds, it seems. It used to make me angry that this topic always got canned into the Phenomenon category, but I now accept that this is inevitable, at least for the next ten to twenty years or so (noting when Hannes Alfven introduced this and when the resistance will begin retiring and dying off as these young scientists that embrace the EU model and attend events like the one above begin taking on pivotal positions in their respective fields). But still, it defies my imagination that things as concrete as electricity and plasma as understood by credentialed astronomers, cosmologists, electrical and plasma engineers aren’t allowed to be discussed here as if they are suggesting imaginary pseudoscience. In contrast, purely imaginary constructs (of purely mathematical relevance and no other) like dark mater, dark energy, black holes, multiverses, Wimps, and on and on have <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

siriusmre · Apr 11, 2006

I agree, colesakick. When I think about this situation, it reminds me of a quote from Gandhi: "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." Of course he was talking about politics, whereas here we are speaking of itellectual or theoretical intractabilty. The point is not dulled, though; both situations involve a ponderous and outdated ideology. As some of us have posted here, the inertia of prior belief is a strong force to counter. Like Michael, though, I am optimistic. And thank you, Michael. You pose some compelling and difficult questions for standard theory adherents. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

EU Theory and Plasma Cosmology

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

yevaud

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

yevaud

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

colesakick

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

colesakick

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page