Plasma

[lw1990]

I'm trying to understand what EU theory thinks plasma is, what its made of, what its characteristics are, what it can do, why it does what it does, etc

So far I've gathered that EU theory seems to think that:
Plasma occupies 99.9% of the 'visible' universe
Which begs the question, what is the visible universe vs the non-visible universe?
Plasma is what you get when you 'make atoms very hot' (or atoms are what you get when plasma isn't very hot?)
Plasma is like a liquid


Anything else? If it makes up 99.9% of the 'visible' universe surely plasma deserves attention and detail?

[BeAChooser]

So far I've gathered that EU theory seems to think that:
Plasma occupies 99.9% of the 'visible' universe

Actually, that's not something that only EU theorists believe. The mainstream has long acknowledged that 99.9% (more or less) of all we actually can see is plasma. For example, Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is quoted on NASA’s website saying “99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma.” The difference is that EU theorists think that’s significant. Dark matter loving Big Bangers do not. They think it can pretty much be left out of their modeling of the universe.

[lw1990]

Ok but is there any place that actually claims what plasma is/does beyond being significant liquid goo that you get when you superheat atoms'?

[BeAChooser]

Ok but is there any place that actually claims what plasma is/does beyond being significant liquid goo that you get when you superheat atoms'?

Michael Mozina noted some good places to answer your questions:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 84#p120531

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 84#p120541

I’d say start here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyleDts9RiI

then read through these in particular ...

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/

http://dl2.yazdanpress.ir/LIB/PHYS/2962016-PHY-2.pdf

and Eric Lerner’s “The Big Bang Never Happened”.

You’ll have a pretty good idea what plasma is after that.

And why it matters.

[lw1990]

Is this theory that new? I have to basically 'learn of all of EU theory from a shotgun approach' or read an entire book to learn about the properties/definition of EU plasma? Even orthodox theories aren't that obscure.

[BeAChooser]

Is this theory that new?

What do you mean "that new"? It's as old or older than most of the gnomes that astrophysicists now rely on to TRY and explain what they see. For example, inflation was dreamed up in the 70s. Dark Matter as we currently know it was *discovered* in the late 70s. Black holes didn’t become accepted subjects of mainstream research until the 60s (in fact, the term was first used in 1964). Dark energy wasn’t added to the zoo of gnomes until 1998. In contrast, Hannes Alfven proposed his plasma cosmology back in the mid 60s … see Alfven and Falthammer (1963) “Cosmic Electrodynamics”. He won his Nobel Prize in Physics for magnetohydrodynamics (MDH) theory in 1970. In the early 80s, Alfven and Peratt were hard at work defining all aspects of the “plasma universe” (see Alfven, H. (1981) “Cosmic Plasma”, Alfven, H. (1986) “Model of the Plasma Universe”, A.L. Peratt (1989) “Plasma Cosmology” and MANY other publications). They referred to experiments on plasma that were conducted years earlier. For example, Kristian Birkeland predicted Birkeland currents and explained auroras in 1908. Proof of his theory about auroras only came in 1967 when a satellite was sent into space with a magnetometer. His terrella experiments were being performed around 1895-1900. In 1913, Birkeland wrote: "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. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in 'empty' space.” So you see, EU and plasma cosmology is every bit as “old” as the house of cards that modern physicists have built.

[lw1990]

Maybe 'new' was the wrong term, a better way to say it is that the EU model is poorly presented if one cannot even learn about a fundamental aspect of the model without having to read novel after novel or dense website/videos which take vasts amount of time..

[Lucien_Beckmann]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/eg_chapter_3.htm

[Metryq]

Plasma is like a liquid

No, it isn't. In fact, many of the articles on this site take issue with the mainstream astronomy treatment of plasma as though it were a liquid or neutral gas—"bowshock", "wind" and the like.

Irving Langmuir gave charged gas the name plasma because it reminded him of biological plasma—forming cells and isolation zones. No, the behavior of plasma is "counter-intuitive" to people who live in an environment of solids, liquids and gases. There are plasmas in our immediate environment, but we are ill-equipped to appreciate its distinction from other forms of matter.

[comingfrom]

I don't think EU has a different definition for plasma than mainstream Plasma Physics has.

[BeAChooser]

Maybe 'new' was the wrong term, a better way to say it is that the EU model is poorly presented if one cannot even learn about a fundamental aspect of the model without having to read novel after novel or dense website/videos which take vasts amount of time..

Look, I’m trying to help you. The linked articles and books that Michael (and others) have mentioned are NOT poorly presented. They may be difficult because they often contain a lot of math, but they are not poorly presented. Don't display the laziness that modern day astrophysicists do and refuse to read them. If you do, I guarantee that you will not learn. You'll be left reading (and maybe believing) the pop culture presentations of a universe that truly does not exist.

[BeAChooser]

Here’s an article that might further open your eyes, w1990: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... e_Big_Bang “Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang”

[Michael Mozina]

Maybe 'new' was the wrong term, a better way to say it is that the EU model is poorly presented if one cannot even learn about a fundamental aspect of the model without having to read novel after novel or dense website/videos which take vasts amount of time..

Here's a very short, two minute video presentation of Birkeland's experiment with a cathode solar model if it helps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Adding electric fields in spacetime helps to explain all sorts of phenomenon related to planetary and solar physics that simply isn't explained without it, including aurora, the sun's corona, solar wind, coronal loops, polar jets, electron beams from the sun, etc.

In term of "cosmology theory", Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma is considered to be "the book" that started EU/PC theory. It's actually a collection of his various published papers which are organized into a presentation of the whole model. Alfven essentially applies circuit theory to all high energy events in space and he describes the interwoven circuitry of spacetime. You'll find an assortment of Alfven's papers here:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/

You can find an assortment of material related to Birkeland here:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Birkeland/

Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" is also an excellent book and it contains many more mathematical explanations. Peratt was Alfven's student. Lerner's book is a great transitional book from big bang theory to EU/PC theory. Scott and Thornhill also have some great books on the topic.

Cosmology models in general tend to take time to understand and appreciate. EU/PC theory is somewhat more "complicated" in terms of understanding it's options, because there are actually different solar models to choose from. If you have a good library in your area, I suggest you start by reading Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma.

[Lucien_Beckmann]

or for something a bit more Material :

Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP)

'soup made of matter's fundamental building blocks - quarks and gluons - has a temperature hundreds of thousands of times hotter than the center of the sun and an ultralow viscosity, or resistance to flow, leading physicists to describe it as "nearly perfect."'

//phys.org/news/2017-08-liquid-quark-gluon-plasma-vortical-fluid.html#jCp