Plasma cosmology 3

What are the objections to plasma cosmology?

(a) It would like to make us believe that the cosmos is not really expanding when observation tends to show otherwise;

(b) Plasma cosmology offers no explanation to the cosmic background radiation;

(c) From a Christian viewpoint, the plasma universe is a return to the eternal universe belief which leaves God out of the picture; and

(d) Entropy which is a well-established tenet poses as a big problem for any view that holds the eternality of the universe.

[Image credit: Los Alamos Natl. Lab.]

Related post: Plasma cosmology
Related post: Plasma cosmology 2

Technorati Tags: CMBR, entropy, eternal universe, plasma cosmology, plasma universe, steady state theory

Comments

[Chris Reeve]

It is not true that plasma cosmology offers no explanation for the cosmic background radiation. I would like to refer you to the documentary, "Universe -- The Cosmology Quest", which addresses this precise issue among many others. I will summarize to the best of my abilities here what it states:

The cosmic microwave background radiation can exist for all cosmologies and therefore cannot be used to conclude that any single cosmology is correct. In fact, predictions by big bang theorists ranged from 5 to 7 and then to 50 degrees K for the value of the CBR. When the observed value was seen to be around 3 K, the big bang theorists adjusted their formulas to reflect the observed value. Many of the steady state predictions mentioned in the documentary centered closer to the observed value of around 3 K. The explanation given in the documentary was that the microwaves are most likely local in origin. In fact, if I read correctly, it was recently discovered that local galaxies are not casting microwave shadows as would be expected if the microwaves were originating from very far away.

It is very important to note that the big bang theory has lost much of its predictive capabilities in terms of the things we see in space these days. By contrast, plasma cosmologist Wallace Thornhill recently accurately predicted the results of the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1. I highly recommend reading "The Electric Comet" at http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf.

The results of Deep Impact are for sure open to interpretation. But the electric comet theory seems difficult to argue against. There does not appear to be enough water on comets to explain the massive tail and coma. Furthermore, the tails of comets in detailed photographs actually look a lot more like lightning than any kind of smooth vapor trail. It's not hard to notice zig-zags. The comets appear to be releasing matter in discrete jets and these jets appear to have little to do with any sort of sublimation process because they typically occur on the side *opposite* the sun. Also, the Electric Comet document makes the point that comets have been observed to flare up far away from the sun in proximity to one of the gas giants. They also point out that comets have also been observed to emit x-rays, and this would seem to be the clincher that this is an electric phenomenon. Deep in the www.thunderbolts.info site that Thornhill helps to maintain, they also point out that it's been observed that in one particular case when a comet broke into multiple pieces, the two pieces were connected by a filament that spanned hundreds of thousands of miles (check out the link on the Great Chicago Fire under Picture of the Day).

This is all a really really big deal. If it's shown that comets are in fact electrical phenomenon, then there must be some field that's stripping charge off of them and this field would have to be located at the Sun. Plasma cosmology has a *LOT* to say about the Sun. There are a couple of major problems with our traditional view of the sun as nothing more than a nuclear reactor of sorts. First of all, the temperature of the corona is 2 million Kelvin whereas the surface of the sun is only 6,000 K. How does the energy get from inside of the sun to the outside? Also, sunspots allow us to see into the sun farther than anywhere else, and yet sunspots are the darkest regions we can see on the surface of the sun. These contradictions have rigorously tested big bang theorists' creative story-telling abilities. However, the plasma cosmologists have exceptionally detailed explanations for all of these "mysteries".

There are two extremely important implications of the electric comet hypothesis: first, that the craters on comets and asteroids are the result of electric machining, and second, that comets can acquire the charge of their surroundings as they move through space. If these electrically-created craters were confused for impact craters, then scientists need to re-evaluate the origins of *ALL* craters we've been observing in the solar system, including here on Earth. In fact, it seems really fishy that so many "impact craters" on Earth and the planets of the solar system are exactly round. This would be unlikely if they were the result of bombardment from any possible angle, whereas it would be completely expected if the crater was the result of an electrical charge transfer (since they always follow the least resistance path, which is always a 90 degree angle). It's also worth noting that Meteor Crater in Arizona has undisturbed rock layers beneath the crater. If that crater was in fact the result of an impact, we would expect that these layers would be highly fractured. Furthermore, there are very good electrical explanations for all of those melted spheres that appear around "impact craters".

The other implication is that if comets can acquire charge, then we must also wonder if planets can acquire charge too. And this is where things become extremely interesting with plasma cosmology. I'm not going to go into it in any depth here unless somebody prods me to do so, but I'll just say that it is a very fascinating theory that actually does a pretty good job of explaining why the dinosaurs went away.

I am not an academic of any sort. I'm actually an electrical engineer, so I can't exactly speak with authority on these issues. But there are increasingly people who can these days, which is evident based upon the number of books recently published on plasma cosmology. I will say that after spending a very large amount of time reading about plasma cosmology in my free time that I am personally very impressed with the theory and I believe that anybody who actually takes the time out to research it for themselves with an open mind about what they'll learn will similarly be impressed. These are not people posing a bunch of baseless conjectures. Their theories have very solid foundations in computer simulations and laboratory simulations of plasma (which perfectly scale in both time and space). Furthermore, these theories never resort to mysterious phenomenon like black holes or neutron stars in order to explain the things we're seeing with our telescopes. Instead, all that's needed for the most part is plasma and E&M (electricity and magnetism) physics.

[MK/CC]

Hello Chris,

Thanks for dropping by and for your informative comments in this post and in the other post.

I do have the dvd-docu you mentioned and have watched it several times. Am still evaluating the theory up to now.

My order of Halton Arp's "Seeing Red" just arrived by the way, and I look forward to reading that soon.

Indeed theories that depart from the one being held by the 'establishment' [i.e., big bang, and it is gravitation that is the force that will determine the ultimate fate of the cosmos, etc.] tends to get sidetracked. What does one expect?

And that's how scientists of old who made radical discoveries were treated. There's nothing new under the sun for sure.

But as to whether a particular radical theory is the next killer app (to borrow a term in computing :), only time will tell.

In the meantime, we all continue to study them.

Thanks again for your comments.

MK

[Michael Martin]

c) From a Christian viewpoint, the plasma universe is a return to the eternal universe belief which leaves God out of the picture; and

I'm not quite sure how this ever comes into a scientific discussion. I guess I made the wrong assumption that any scientist ( physician, chemist, physisist, astronomer ) checked their religion at the door when they showed up to work. If we are talking about what theory is best from a Christian view point, I would think one that showed a very rapid 7 day expansion of a 5000 year old universe which will abruptly end in the next few hundred years would be the best one.

[Nagashree]

I would like to know about the latest technical improvements in the field of "Plasma cosmology". Please let me know it.

[avmlms]

I too am very impressed with all I have read about Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe, it seems to make much more sense than resorting to dark energy and matter, black holes etc. What would be great is to get it into the mainstream media as a sensible discussion. Any ideas?

[Fabio]

LOL!!!! Ahahaha so now you admit that the only thing that support the Standard Model is the fear of the Infinite.
That's scientific materialism, that's really sick in XXI century, as Heisenberg lived one century ago!
But most of all: why don't you say that the BB is definitely pro-God!?? Popes always loved the BB (proposed by a monk, Georges Lemaître) as the BB is "a day without a yesterday".
Listen boy, avoid making philosophical considerations and try to do bettere scientific considerations...