EU Theory and Plasma Cosmology

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But as it relates to the EU, I agree -- by all means, go ahead and discuss it. I would be interested to hear what you have to say on the subject. I admit I'm not as well educated in physics as many of the other members here, but I am an interested nerd. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />As it relates to plasma physics, and electromagnetic fields in space, I'm afraid I'm pretty much in the same boat as you are. I'm still experiencing quite a learning curve at the moment. You might check out the work of Anthony Perrat from Los Alamos. I think he's probably the world's foremost leading expert on that subject.<br /><br />http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/PrincetonEditorial.1993.pdf<br />http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html<br /><br />You may also want to checkout work of Hannes Alfven as well. This is where plasma cosmology comes into play. <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>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>...ever see a so called accretion disk generate a planet or measure a single glob and record its growth over time to even suggest that it might grow into a planet?</i><br /><br />Various Imaged Protoplanetary Accretion Discs<br /><br />Beta Pictoris Accretion Disc<br /><br />Imaged Accretion Disc at HH30<br /><br />Another Image of HH30's Accretion Disc<br /><br />Abstract: Direct Imaging of Circumstellar Disks in the Orion Nebula<br /><br />So in answer to your question, yes there have indeed been Protoplanetary accretions discs imaged. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
ah, I see the light now. <br /><br />Thanks for staying in to get me on with the program (Yevaud and Calli). I was posting chunks because I understood most won't follow a link, and that seemed a shame, but I see your point about killing traffic to someone's site.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
Not the answer I was looking for Yevaud. Those disks are there, but has anyone measured the clumping and growth of a discrete body within one over time? To my knowledge, that the disks give rise to such bodies (ala gravity) is totally hypothetical awaiting specific confirmation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
C

colesakick

Guest
In the UE model, those images are of plasma toruses and jets of highly charged electrcial currents, a whole other animal from quiet dust coming together to clump into planets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Well no, certainly not. Unless you know of a several million year old Astronomer (I can name a few ancient specimens I know, but...).<br /><br />However, there have been images taken of all numbers of Protoplanetary discs in various stages of development, which is to say we do see how they begin, develop, and end up. That's about the best we can ever hope for, unless you can think of some effective Immortality treatment. If so, I'll buy a bottle! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
You're very welcome, colesakick. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Thank you very much for having the patience to bear with us too! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I think our best bet, other than finding examples of them in various states (a practise somewhat akin to paleontology in that you only get to study frozen moments in time), is to observe the evolution of Saturn's ring system. If accretion theory is correct, it should demonstrate the basics on a more manageable scale. It'll still take a lot of time, and probably more Saturn orbiters, but at least we'd be able to observe changes within a human lifespan. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That's exactly right. The M-M experiment and those scores of confirming studies, showed that there was NO discernible 'ether'. The beliefs that there IS an ether, simply ruin credibility in the EU beliefs, which are simply NOT science, but unsubstantiated hypotheses, which lack solid scientific bases.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This would be akin to me saying:<br /><br />"Despite our best efforts, no "God particle" (to produce mass) has ever been found, so the credibility of the whole field of nuclear physics is ruined. It is *not* science but unsubstanciated hypothesis which lacks a solid scientific basis."<br /><br />Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. What we call "virtual particles" could easily be explained in terms of "fields" of moving particles.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>And, moreover, which beliefs simply & largely violate major areas of solidly established scientific facts.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So explain to me how virtual particles do not violate the convervation of energy laws? How do you know these are just preexisting particles interacting with one another in a *non* vacuum? How is that not a "field" of energy? How about neutrinos? Did these experiments detect the presense of vast quantities of neutrinos?<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Those very scientific objections clearly invalidate any belief in EU. It's fringe, cranky beliefs like this which sadly divert attention from real astrophysics.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think it's sad that folks lump the work of Dr. Birkeland, and Dr. Alfven into the realm of "crank beliefs", yet cling to concepts like "dark energy" and "sigularities".<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>However, it does provide a forum by which real, existing science can be demonstrated. And for those who can learn, not having commi</p></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>
 
C

chew_on_this

Guest
<font color="yellow">Those very scientific objections clearly invalidate any belief in EU. It's fringe, cranky beliefs like this which sadly divert attention from real astrophysics. </font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">And for those who can learn, not having committed themselves emotionally to false or unsubstantiated beliefs, their scientific knowledge and critical thinking WILL advance. <br /><br />Unlike some few here.</font><br /><br />Is it possible for you to post without insulting others? This is classic trolling. Why the mods allow this to continue is beyond me. I guess you need to be a TEM crank to be moderated.<br />
 
S

siriusmre

Guest
Those are all excellent questions, Michael...again. It seems that no one here is up to the task of actually debating these points with you. On more than one occasion, you have posed sticky questions for the adherents of the "standard models." For a while there, things were going pretty well with you and some others here, debating the finer points of either side back and forth. When you seemed to gain the upper hand in the debate, though, the "serious" debate suddenly dried up a bit. What we are left with are what appear to me to be reactionary and "trollish" posts that spew venom and contempt with every phrase, and snipe at those true laymen (like me) who merely chime in to support what you are saying, rather than take you on honestly. (It truly is a wonder that the Mods allow this type of double-standard to continue.)<br /><br />No one seems to want to touch the serious questions that you pose. That really is too bad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>It seems that no one here is up to the task of actually debating these points with you.</i><br /><br /><i>No one seems to want to touch the serious questions that you pose. That really is too bad.</i><br /><br />Then apparently you haven't bothered to read the give and take between Calli and Michael and Colesakick and myself, just yesterday. We are precisely debating various aspects of this.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/elec_currents.html<br />http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/elec_fields.html<br /><br />Here are some more links for Steve.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Then apparently you haven't bothered to read the give and take between Calli and Michael and Colesakick and myself, just yesterday. We are precisely debating various aspects of this. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think you and Calli have done a much better job of articulating the objections you might have in a highly scientific manner. You've both also done a much better job of noticing the fact that some aspects of EU theory *are already* a part of "standard" astronomy, even now.<br /><br />It should also be noted that good "skeptics" are a very necessary component in any scientific "discussion". Furthermore, disagreement and discussion is a very healthy part of science. I personally appreciate the efforts that you and Calli have made to keep things "honest" in that respect, and to keep things "interesting", but I can't really say the same for Steve's attitude.<br /><br />I think the thing Steve needs to do is be much more "specific" about his actual objections. Just saying "EU Theory is wrong" is a bit too general to be scientifically useful or accurate. <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>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I agree. stevehw33, please try to be specific and clear in your objections. Vague ridicule of the other side, while perhaps emotionally rewarding in some circumstances, is exactly the sort of thing we're trying to get above here. It doesn't advance the debate, and in fact tends to seriously degrade it by making it personal. There's no need for that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
Here is an interesting article that relates to back to plasma cosmology and Alfven waves. According to Alfven, the electrical and magnetic fields tend to wrap themselves up in a complex helix shape around the plasma during a current flow scenario.<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19746<br /><br /> <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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/olympic_aurora.html<br /><br />FYI, here is a really cool video of the electrical interaction between the sun and the earth caused by a coronal mass ejection from the sun.<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/63595main_fuv_aurora_320x240.mpg<br /> <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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I reference my objections, almost all the time. One can hardly be more concise or specific than that. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I must have missed your reference to this particular objection. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Birkeland currents and Alfven's waves are accepted parts of current cosmology, so your statement that EU theory is not a part of major scientific references is simply false. You can look up Birkeland and Alfven on Wiki. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Birkeland<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfven<br /><br />The Nobel prize that Alfven earned in the 1970 is proof that his work *is* an accepted part of standard cosmology. I did not see any references from you that demonstrate that Birkeland curents or Alfven waves have been disproven. I therefore do not understand the nature of your objection to electric currents and EU theory and plasma cosmology. <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>
 
V

vonster

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I therefore do not understand the nature of your objection to electric currents and EU theory and plasma cosmology<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />in cases like this it has just about everything to do with his own ego and need to feel superior ... and just about nothing to do with finding out the truth<br /><br />... in my opinion ... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />but please keep this conversation going, i find the thread really interesting and theres a lot of good food for thought here, thanks<br /><br />.
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/05/23/voyager.2/index.html<br /><br />I thought I would mention that recent Voyager data confirms that the sun's heliosphere isn't spherical in shape but rather it is deformed by the flow of charged particles from the universe. This deformation is due to charged particle flow from the south much like the deformation seen in earth's magnetosphere is due to the flow of charged particles from the sun. The tail effect we see in the heliosphere in the northern regions is evidence of cosmic scale Birkeland currents that interact with our solar system, and flow inward from the southern end of the solar system and toward the north. <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>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
The shape can also be explained simply by aerodynamics on a vast scale; it's a classic bow shock. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Probabilistic Universe: Maybe probability can explain origin of universe and its underlying cosmology
Replies
0
Views
360
Cosmology
teominator
T
RobbyQbit
It's incomprehensible.
Replies
6
Views
1K
Cosmology
Atlan0001
A
Catastrophe
Universe and universes - some conformity please.
Replies
1
Views
813
Cosmology
Catastrophe
Catastrophe
T
Theory of Creation "Popcorn theory"
Replies
3
Views
627
Cosmology
Atlan0001
A
Q
Alternate Gravity Theory
Replies
17
Views
942
Cosmology
Atlan0001
A

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom