One doesn't need "positive" examples; one simply needs to accurately describe reality, period.
I did a little digging and found another hole in EU theory which was proffered by the good folks of the BAUT forums:
EU theory states that the particle zoo is "merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles." I'd almost buy this, except the process by which fermion charge differential is created is never explained. Where does the charge go? Where does it come from? What is the mechanism by which a bottom quark becomes a strange quark?
EU fails utterly in providing an alternate description of the observed phenomenon of quantum spin physics.
EU theory is little else but an intellectual internet cult: it is not science. Where's all the math that accompanies such a description of the universe? There should be VOLUMES of equations validating all these theories, yet they are conspicuously missing.
What gets my back up is when someone I think is pretty smart, and by that I mean someone that isn't afraid to tackle complex scientific topics, starts falling for such internet cults.
EU discussion on another forum
-
kiwi
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
- Location: New Zealand
EU discussion on another forum
Hi , ....busy having a debate with a poster on another site .... here is his latest response, could any one explain the fermion charge statement? ... thanks
-
Siggy_G
- Moderator
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: Norway
Re: EU discussion on another forum
I can't answer to the deeper explanations of the various charge states and sub states (I believe Wall Thornhill is working on this at the moment). But what beats me quite often, is how mainstream cosmologist expect the entire picture of the Universe to boil down to a mathematical formula or two. And if they claim that there is no math tied up to an electrical universe, then did electricity and plasma physics completelly slip them by? Surely, they have worked with Maxwell's equations, some plasma physics and forumals on magnetism, which aren't any less complicated than the formulas on gravity.
The formulas aren't the problem, it's measuring the in situ values for putting into the forumlas. E.g. one didn't know the nature of the Io-Jupiter currents until they were measured. Auroras also require specific measurements and detections. Sun spots can't be predicted by mathematical formulas, clearly. But magnetic fields can be measured at cosmic scenarios, and radio and x-ray astronomy provide also the EU model with many interesting detections.
This is how dusty plasma appear to distribute heavy and light elements, and it's based on a peer reviewed paper :
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... 9d73328054 (paper)
This is the formulas on how a local magnetic field can pinch incoming currents (plasma z-pinch):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_%28p ... igurations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gener ... iagram.png
If you can measure the magnetic field or the electric current, one can derive a whole lot of other aspects, according to these formulas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27 ... ormulation
Then there is the photoelectric effect that happens when e.g. gases are exposed to stellar radiation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelect ... escription
So, I seriously don't see the point of implying that there aren't any equations bound to an electric universe, which is based upon plasma cosmology. But perhaps one should take it as a sign, and make the math more clear when proposing the various scenarios (i.e. in-lining equation and formulas for how each of the dynamics work).
The formulas aren't the problem, it's measuring the in situ values for putting into the forumlas. E.g. one didn't know the nature of the Io-Jupiter currents until they were measured. Auroras also require specific measurements and detections. Sun spots can't be predicted by mathematical formulas, clearly. But magnetic fields can be measured at cosmic scenarios, and radio and x-ray astronomy provide also the EU model with many interesting detections.
This is how dusty plasma appear to distribute heavy and light elements, and it's based on a peer reviewed paper :
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... 9d73328054 (paper)
This is the formulas on how a local magnetic field can pinch incoming currents (plasma z-pinch):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_%28p ... igurations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gener ... iagram.png
If you can measure the magnetic field or the electric current, one can derive a whole lot of other aspects, according to these formulas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27 ... ormulation
Then there is the photoelectric effect that happens when e.g. gases are exposed to stellar radiation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelect ... escription
So, I seriously don't see the point of implying that there aren't any equations bound to an electric universe, which is based upon plasma cosmology. But perhaps one should take it as a sign, and make the math more clear when proposing the various scenarios (i.e. in-lining equation and formulas for how each of the dynamics work).
-
jjohnson
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
- Location: Thurston County WA
Re: EU discussion on another forum
Hi, guys,
There seems to be a cult of mathematics in physics, even though astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe hardly ever uses math in trying to interpret what he observes. There is nothing wrong with using math to support a physical theory, but should not be used as the signpost to come up with new theories. That is reserved for observation and measurement, in the Standard Scientific Method. Mathematical models may or may not be based on reality (ask Gaede or Crothers about black holes, or Ratcliffe about dark energy, for example.) Numerical simulation, no matter how "realistically" it can portray a viewpoint or things purported to be real, does not make them real. Anyone who believes that probably believes that the movie Avatar was filmed on location. Done correctly, math and simulations and modeling can do a superb job, but they have to be based upon real observations and observations of reality, and either very good measurements or very good inferences.
Here are two superb reference books on the mathematical fundamentals of plasma physics: CalTech's Dr. Paul M. Bellan's Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006, and Anthony Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer Verlag, 1992. Remember that small-scale plasma physics based on experiments and measurements and movies and photos of plasmas, done here on Earth, scale up to describe larger scale plasma physics which can occur over distances of light years, so the time scale is lengthened as well, since this is, after all, a causal universe, and everything can't happen at once. Good luck finding or affording Dr. Peratt's book, however.
I also recommend Schaum's Outline Series (McGraw-Hill) on Electromagnetics, Second Edition, by Joseph Edminister, Prof. Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at the University of Akron, 1993. It's about basic electricity, vector analysis, fields, statics and dynamics, Gauss's Law, Maxwell's Equations, etc. Basic. Good for non-math-y but interested people like me.
The problem of plasma physics is that it has a very large number of participating charged particles, sized from electrons up to dust and grains to pebbles, asteroids and stars. This is almost overwhelming, even at smaller scales, and changes in each and every particle are telegraphed to all the others nearby almost simultaneously, resulting in very massy, sometimes intractable math to adequately and realistically describe many-body events. Even Peratt, in using particle-in-cell routines to simulate plasma pinches and evolutions over short time frames (TRISTAN pseudo-code listing with remarks is found in his Appendix E) had to make simplifying assumptions, and it still took a supercomputer a lot of time to crunch through it all to reveal what look like observed galactic morphologies at various stages of evolution. Plasma physics is complex, chaotic, with a wide variety of instabilities, and not particularly deterministic precisely because of that.
It's like the state of atmospheric simulations today. The cell size is a kilometer on a side, with a lot of air molecules and other conditions within each cell, all affecting each other through well-known laws of fluid dynamics and fluid heat exchange, and so on, with the kilometer cubed cells covering the Earth's surface up to some limiting altitude. Even this simplified model has shown a tendency toward unreliability, both in terms of short range forecasts and long term climate predictions. It has a hard time with topography, with inversions, tornadoes, hurricanes, ice melting, with solar loading versus cloud cover, ground and ocean interactions, types and altitude, etc. etc., plus it does not even consider the possibility that electrodynamic forces and cosmic rays (The Chilling Stars, Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder,Icon Books, Ltd, UK, 2007), play a role in the movement and organization of weather systems and climate. Now scale that up to an active galaxy... no, wait, that's obviously way too big; to the Sun, say, and try to describe its plasma physics. Sorry, our capacity to do that is just not up to it yet. Just getting people to say "plasma moving through space constitutes an electric current" is only the first, easiest hurdle. We haven't even tried to measure the voltage differential between the Sun and its heliosheath yet.
As Siggy G. notes, not enough information has yet been received from a wide enough series of scales and locations to build a good model, yet. And when current probes and particle detectors and counters are flown on missions and get good data, consensus inferences are made. Example: Cassini photographs back-lit particulate fountains being accelerated from Enceladus's surface near the southern "Tiger Stripes" region. Strongly ionized particles and electrons are detected in the ejecta, which Cassini flew through at different altitudes, which match those found in Saturn's 'E' ring, a well known plasma region within which Enceladus orbits. Enceladus's polar regions are inexplicably warmer than the rest of the frozen moon. The inference: geysers of ice particles being squeezed out under pressure by some invisible thermal event ("ice volcanoes"). Why do these mysterious fountains of ionized ices accelerate away from the surface gravity, reaching escape velocity and ending up in the swarm of charged particles that constitute the 'E' ring? How do coronal mass ejections ignore the huge gravity of the Sun and accelerate out through the corona and continue to accelerate out past the orbit of Jupiter? The answers are hard to come by in a gravity model. It will take electricity and plasma physics working with gravity to come up with a better hypothesis of how even a small yellow dwarf G-type star operates, or a little icy moon out near Saturn has "geysers" that dwarf Old Faithful. Then comes the applied math and engineering, and good models to predict with.
Well, that's kind of a brief and scattered overview of a couple of the problems, anyway.
Jim
There seems to be a cult of mathematics in physics, even though astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe hardly ever uses math in trying to interpret what he observes. There is nothing wrong with using math to support a physical theory, but should not be used as the signpost to come up with new theories. That is reserved for observation and measurement, in the Standard Scientific Method. Mathematical models may or may not be based on reality (ask Gaede or Crothers about black holes, or Ratcliffe about dark energy, for example.) Numerical simulation, no matter how "realistically" it can portray a viewpoint or things purported to be real, does not make them real. Anyone who believes that probably believes that the movie Avatar was filmed on location. Done correctly, math and simulations and modeling can do a superb job, but they have to be based upon real observations and observations of reality, and either very good measurements or very good inferences.
Here are two superb reference books on the mathematical fundamentals of plasma physics: CalTech's Dr. Paul M. Bellan's Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006, and Anthony Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer Verlag, 1992. Remember that small-scale plasma physics based on experiments and measurements and movies and photos of plasmas, done here on Earth, scale up to describe larger scale plasma physics which can occur over distances of light years, so the time scale is lengthened as well, since this is, after all, a causal universe, and everything can't happen at once. Good luck finding or affording Dr. Peratt's book, however.
I also recommend Schaum's Outline Series (McGraw-Hill) on Electromagnetics, Second Edition, by Joseph Edminister, Prof. Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at the University of Akron, 1993. It's about basic electricity, vector analysis, fields, statics and dynamics, Gauss's Law, Maxwell's Equations, etc. Basic. Good for non-math-y but interested people like me.
The problem of plasma physics is that it has a very large number of participating charged particles, sized from electrons up to dust and grains to pebbles, asteroids and stars. This is almost overwhelming, even at smaller scales, and changes in each and every particle are telegraphed to all the others nearby almost simultaneously, resulting in very massy, sometimes intractable math to adequately and realistically describe many-body events. Even Peratt, in using particle-in-cell routines to simulate plasma pinches and evolutions over short time frames (TRISTAN pseudo-code listing with remarks is found in his Appendix E) had to make simplifying assumptions, and it still took a supercomputer a lot of time to crunch through it all to reveal what look like observed galactic morphologies at various stages of evolution. Plasma physics is complex, chaotic, with a wide variety of instabilities, and not particularly deterministic precisely because of that.
It's like the state of atmospheric simulations today. The cell size is a kilometer on a side, with a lot of air molecules and other conditions within each cell, all affecting each other through well-known laws of fluid dynamics and fluid heat exchange, and so on, with the kilometer cubed cells covering the Earth's surface up to some limiting altitude. Even this simplified model has shown a tendency toward unreliability, both in terms of short range forecasts and long term climate predictions. It has a hard time with topography, with inversions, tornadoes, hurricanes, ice melting, with solar loading versus cloud cover, ground and ocean interactions, types and altitude, etc. etc., plus it does not even consider the possibility that electrodynamic forces and cosmic rays (The Chilling Stars, Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder,Icon Books, Ltd, UK, 2007), play a role in the movement and organization of weather systems and climate. Now scale that up to an active galaxy... no, wait, that's obviously way too big; to the Sun, say, and try to describe its plasma physics. Sorry, our capacity to do that is just not up to it yet. Just getting people to say "plasma moving through space constitutes an electric current" is only the first, easiest hurdle. We haven't even tried to measure the voltage differential between the Sun and its heliosheath yet.
As Siggy G. notes, not enough information has yet been received from a wide enough series of scales and locations to build a good model, yet. And when current probes and particle detectors and counters are flown on missions and get good data, consensus inferences are made. Example: Cassini photographs back-lit particulate fountains being accelerated from Enceladus's surface near the southern "Tiger Stripes" region. Strongly ionized particles and electrons are detected in the ejecta, which Cassini flew through at different altitudes, which match those found in Saturn's 'E' ring, a well known plasma region within which Enceladus orbits. Enceladus's polar regions are inexplicably warmer than the rest of the frozen moon. The inference: geysers of ice particles being squeezed out under pressure by some invisible thermal event ("ice volcanoes"). Why do these mysterious fountains of ionized ices accelerate away from the surface gravity, reaching escape velocity and ending up in the swarm of charged particles that constitute the 'E' ring? How do coronal mass ejections ignore the huge gravity of the Sun and accelerate out through the corona and continue to accelerate out past the orbit of Jupiter? The answers are hard to come by in a gravity model. It will take electricity and plasma physics working with gravity to come up with a better hypothesis of how even a small yellow dwarf G-type star operates, or a little icy moon out near Saturn has "geysers" that dwarf Old Faithful. Then comes the applied math and engineering, and good models to predict with.
Well, that's kind of a brief and scattered overview of a couple of the problems, anyway.
Jim
-
Siggy_G
- Moderator
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: Norway
Re: EU discussion on another forum
Nice input, JJ. There is something interesting about this quote:
Could one perhaps state that "the EU model renders the universe as an open system of dynamic equilibrium"? Doesn't that affect something fundamental about the base cosmological principals - on entropy? Unsure how this justifies light -> heavier elements, but there is another saying derived from Tessla, saying that electromagnetic entropy returns energy to potentials.
As others on the forum have pointed out, there is a link from Holoscience website, to papers related to plasma cosmology. These can give direct access to several of the principals which one may find the books quoted by JJ:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
I really wish someone can do an updated simulation on galaxies based on all the proposed scenarios of the EU model! Hereby, a dusty plasma scenario, Marklund convection, Birkeland Currents, z-pinch and build-up of matter/inertia. I hope Thornhill&co can gather funding to get such work done. Peratt's simulation is nice, but outdated. We need updated simulations that ends up as smooth high resolution animations, to visually show what the model renders. I think the major part of the problem is that many who have heard about the EU model, don't understand it or have only been told about bits and pieces in an ridiculing manner, by people like Tim Thomson or Nereid.
It indicates that one can't just sit here and simply calculate from a couple of formulas how the universe's structure, time line and processes are. One need a new approach to how stars and galaxies work, get rid of premature knowledge of an expansion and origins, and map out the various states among stars and galaxies. It seems further likely that one simply needs specific measurements and extrapolate from that, undependingly of cosmological model. Just look at what we know about the Sun. No mathematical approach can "predict" what will happen next. One can only observe and extrapolate. The only thing one knows for sure is the solar cycle and its approximate outcome. But even here the curves don't behave exactly like predicted."The universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know." David Bohm
Could one perhaps state that "the EU model renders the universe as an open system of dynamic equilibrium"? Doesn't that affect something fundamental about the base cosmological principals - on entropy? Unsure how this justifies light -> heavier elements, but there is another saying derived from Tessla, saying that electromagnetic entropy returns energy to potentials.
As others on the forum have pointed out, there is a link from Holoscience website, to papers related to plasma cosmology. These can give direct access to several of the principals which one may find the books quoted by JJ:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
I really wish someone can do an updated simulation on galaxies based on all the proposed scenarios of the EU model! Hereby, a dusty plasma scenario, Marklund convection, Birkeland Currents, z-pinch and build-up of matter/inertia. I hope Thornhill&co can gather funding to get such work done. Peratt's simulation is nice, but outdated. We need updated simulations that ends up as smooth high resolution animations, to visually show what the model renders. I think the major part of the problem is that many who have heard about the EU model, don't understand it or have only been told about bits and pieces in an ridiculing manner, by people like Tim Thomson or Nereid.
-
Maddogkull
- Guest
Fermion Charge?? Confused
While reading another thread I came upon this ,"except the process by which fermion charge differential is created is never explained. Where does the charge go? Where does it come from? What is the mechanism by which a bottom quark becomes a strange quark?" Does Eu/Plasma theroy have an explanation for this 
(FMV 7-1-10: Merged into original thread.)
(FMV 7-1-10: Merged into original thread.)
-
Maddogkull1
- Guest
Re: EU discussion on another forum
If anyone has an explanation it would be great. Or any links reffering to what I am looking for.
-
Siggy_G
- Moderator
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: Norway
Re: EU discussion on another forum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FermionMaddogkull wrote: ... except the process by which fermion charge differential is created is never explained. Where does the charge go? Where does it come from? What is the mechanism by which a bottom quark becomes a strange quark?
Since no one has responded yet (less activity on the forum these days - holiday I guess), I really think this sounds like what Wall Thornhill refers to as "the weird zoo of short-lived particles" that otherwize could be interpreted as different resonant charge structures.
http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_strange.htmI think J R Saul highlighted the language problem we are seeing here when he wrote, "Ten geographers who think the world is flat will tend to reinforce each other's errors. If they have a private dialect in which to do this, it becomes impossible for outsiders to disagree with them. Only a sailor can set them straight. The last person they want to meet is someone who, freed from the constraints of expertise, has sailed around the world." J R Saul, Voltaire's Bastards.
What seems to happen in "annihilation" is that the complementary resonant charge structures of a particle and its antiparticle combine so that almost all of the internal energy is radiated away and the combined charges form a new collapsed particle of low internal energy.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8dfThe most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has a vanishingly small mass. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles – a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray to reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle. "Empty space" is full of neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma-radiation to expand them to form the stuff of atoms. The weird "zoo" of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge.
-
D_Archer
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: EU discussion on another forum
What are fermions? What are quarks? particles maybe? but there is this thing about particles, insofar that they are not really particles.... see http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-intro.asp be sure to click next, interesting stuff.Maddogkull wrote:While reading another thread I came upon this ,"except the process by which fermion charge differential is created is never explained. Where does the charge go? Where does it come from? What is the mechanism by which a bottom quark becomes a strange quark?" Does Eu/Plasma theroy have an explanation for this
(FMV 7-1-10: Merged into original thread.)
Matter is mostly just structure of different charges, the structure of matter is the key not the parts. The structure determines our view of matter.
Kind regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
-
mharratsc
- Posts: 1405
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am
Re: EU discussion on another forum
I'm with you Daniel, even if I don't *entirely* agree with everything that is suggested on the Blaze Labs site, I DO concur with what they find to be wrong with current accepted models in subatomic theory.
Particle accelerators being used to explore 'the insides of the atom' are like using train wrecks to study the inside of human anatomy- it's rediculous.
And at the Mad Dog Kull team- the veracity and validity of Plasma Cosmology, or Electric Universe theory do not stand on any refutation of existing theory.
Understand? It's not about what it proves wrong at all.
It's about what it predicts, and can prove right! Can you understand that? That you can prove something by experiment, rather than by whether or not you can come up with a formula for something.
MATHEMATICS IS A LANGUAGE, DUDE. It does nothing more than describe observation in our Universe in a way that can convey understanding of a phenomena and possibly make predictions from it.
It is simply a much more detailed language than most spoken languages, hence it's use in the Sciences. Still with me so far?
You cannot consider something disproven just because someone hasn't 'explained the math' to you about something... otherwise aboriginals in Papua New Guinea would be floating around all over the damn place because no one had explained to them how Newtonian gravity works!
My point is this- despite what mainstream would have all of us think, lots of science *starts* with the experiment, then goes on to define mathematical formula to *define* the event. You will probably find that most science that is conducted in this fashion shows much better success than what is currently trendy- namely sitting around making up formulae and farting with simulations, then going and trying some whacky experiment to prove yourself right. Rather- conducting an experiment to better understand an observation of the existing Universe seems to make much more sense, don't you think?
There are TONS of math to validate mankinds knowledge of plasma dynamics. Please-understand that 'plasma' in this sense simply means 'matter showing non-neutral electromagnetic characteristics'. And there are TONS of observations showing that plasma is THE FIRST STATE of matter in the Universe. It isn't that the Universe is made of 95% dark matter and dark energy and invisible pink unicorns- it's that 99.99% of the Universe is matter that is in a plasma (non-electromagnetically-neutral) state... even we human beings are plasma!
Particle physicists want to talk all about quantum bits and spins and this and that, but oddly they want to completely gloss over how almost everything that they experiment with and observe is a charge-carrying vehicle- namely, a plasma. How can they hope to understand subatomic particles if they continue to avoid how those particles behave in relation to one another??
Anyway- I bring this up because it seems that there are a few people on the forum now that are strongly biased towards mainstreamist explanations and seem to be attempting to 'debunk' as it were anything having to do with PC/EU. Surprisingly enough- they are pursuing this task with a great deal of courtesy for which I do applaud.
I would simply encourage you gents here for this reason to open your eyes and take a mental step back- consider that every single claim made by the major proponents of plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe concept can be explained by the application of some of the oldest formula that mankind has had available to them- Maxwells.
Face it- the IEEE are the guys who've made it possible for you to have the computer on your desk, the monitor that displays the info from it, the internet connection that gives it connectivity, and and most of the connectivity that humankind currently has on planet Earth- do you *really* think that they would bother having an entire section on plasma cosmology within their international community of electrical and electronic engineers if the science and theory behind it was garbage??
These guys have more business talking about the dynamics of charged plasma in space than some mathematician with a degree in statistics and no training in electrical physics... But that's just my two cents... I'm just a layman myself! 
Particle accelerators being used to explore 'the insides of the atom' are like using train wrecks to study the inside of human anatomy- it's rediculous.
And at the Mad Dog Kull team- the veracity and validity of Plasma Cosmology, or Electric Universe theory do not stand on any refutation of existing theory.
Understand? It's not about what it proves wrong at all.
It's about what it predicts, and can prove right! Can you understand that? That you can prove something by experiment, rather than by whether or not you can come up with a formula for something.
MATHEMATICS IS A LANGUAGE, DUDE. It does nothing more than describe observation in our Universe in a way that can convey understanding of a phenomena and possibly make predictions from it.
It is simply a much more detailed language than most spoken languages, hence it's use in the Sciences. Still with me so far?
You cannot consider something disproven just because someone hasn't 'explained the math' to you about something... otherwise aboriginals in Papua New Guinea would be floating around all over the damn place because no one had explained to them how Newtonian gravity works!
My point is this- despite what mainstream would have all of us think, lots of science *starts* with the experiment, then goes on to define mathematical formula to *define* the event. You will probably find that most science that is conducted in this fashion shows much better success than what is currently trendy- namely sitting around making up formulae and farting with simulations, then going and trying some whacky experiment to prove yourself right. Rather- conducting an experiment to better understand an observation of the existing Universe seems to make much more sense, don't you think?
There are TONS of math to validate mankinds knowledge of plasma dynamics. Please-understand that 'plasma' in this sense simply means 'matter showing non-neutral electromagnetic characteristics'. And there are TONS of observations showing that plasma is THE FIRST STATE of matter in the Universe. It isn't that the Universe is made of 95% dark matter and dark energy and invisible pink unicorns- it's that 99.99% of the Universe is matter that is in a plasma (non-electromagnetically-neutral) state... even we human beings are plasma!
Particle physicists want to talk all about quantum bits and spins and this and that, but oddly they want to completely gloss over how almost everything that they experiment with and observe is a charge-carrying vehicle- namely, a plasma. How can they hope to understand subatomic particles if they continue to avoid how those particles behave in relation to one another??
Anyway- I bring this up because it seems that there are a few people on the forum now that are strongly biased towards mainstreamist explanations and seem to be attempting to 'debunk' as it were anything having to do with PC/EU. Surprisingly enough- they are pursuing this task with a great deal of courtesy for which I do applaud.
I would simply encourage you gents here for this reason to open your eyes and take a mental step back- consider that every single claim made by the major proponents of plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe concept can be explained by the application of some of the oldest formula that mankind has had available to them- Maxwells.
Face it- the IEEE are the guys who've made it possible for you to have the computer on your desk, the monitor that displays the info from it, the internet connection that gives it connectivity, and and most of the connectivity that humankind currently has on planet Earth- do you *really* think that they would bother having an entire section on plasma cosmology within their international community of electrical and electronic engineers if the science and theory behind it was garbage??These guys have more business talking about the dynamics of charged plasma in space than some mathematician with a degree in statistics and no training in electrical physics...
But that's just my two cents... I'm just a layman myself! Mike H.
"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
-
keeha
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:20 pm
Re: EU discussion on another forum
Every big bang scatters electrons further than ions. Life is about the drive for balance.EU theory states that the particle zoo is "merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles." I'd almost buy this, except the process by which fermion charge differential is created is never explained.
But if you really were asked about subatomic particles, I'm not sure how the dead end of sub-atomic particle theory needs to be invoked and given life in order that he may understand EU theory.
-
kiwi
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
- Location: New Zealand
Re: EU discussion on another forum
Hi again and thanks all for the input, what an awesome site this is , cheers
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest