Is it Birth or Suicide of a Planet?

[Ion01]

Look at birkland's terrella experiments. Also, the work of guys like Don Scott and Wallice Thornhill.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... ission.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ntaurs.htm
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=h103sydx
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/elec ... /index.htm
A lot of this is covered in "the Electric Sky"

[Peron]

Look at birkland's terrella experiments. Also, the work of guys like Don Scott and Wallice Thornhill.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... ission.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ntaurs.htm
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=h103sydx
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/elec ... /index.htm
A lot of this is covered in "the Electric Sky"

I asked for "You have the results of those lab experiments?" Those look like a bunch of html sites. Is there any actual peer reviewed papers written about these experiments?

[nick c]

hi Peron,

The simple theory is the right theory. .......

If all else is equal, then it is most probable that the least complicated theory is correct. However, in this case, 'all else' is not equal. The Nebular Hypothesis for solar system formation is a gravity only model. It does not take into consideration the existence of plasma and its' electrical properties. The hypothesized original nebular cloud would have been just such a plasma, not a cloud of neutral gases. Plamas form cells, areas of differing electrical character with current


flow between them. The electric force is at least 1039 times more powerful than the "puny" force of



gravity, furthermore plasmas can be scaled upward allowing for the rarified plasmas of space to be studied in the lab. The [url2=http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... bular.html]Nebular hypothesis [/url2]was formulated long before [url2=http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/plasma.htm]plasmas were even known[/url2]. Space between celestial bodies was thought to be empty, the gas clouds electrically neutral, and the only force left to act was therefore gravity. This notion is incredibly naive, yet still, the theory prevails as mainstream dogma.

I asked for "You have the results of those lab experiments?" Those look like a bunch of html sites. Is there any actual peer reviewed papers written about these experiments?

Perhaps you should read some of those links. I would especially recommend the holoscience (Thornhill) website:
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php
and the book The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott
A brief summary of the book is on Scott's site:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

As far as "peer reviewed" literature is concerned, this thread has an extensive list of various plasma cosmology related writings:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =634#p5886
The post labeled "section 5: The Universal Domain" has a list titled:
"Peer Reviewed Papers on Plasma / Electricity in the Cosmos" with more links.
[As I am sure that you are aware; criticisms outlining the limitations of the 'peer review' system have been written about extensively on this forum and [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressio ... t#Academia]elsewhere[/url2]]


If the Nebular hypothesis is so "succesful" at explaining the formation of solar systems, why do astronomers repeatedly express puzzlement at what they are finding? for example, the so called "hot Jupiters" orbiting in anomalously close proximity to their primary. Wasp 18b is an extreme example, but many are known. They have to inject the ad hoc speculation that these objects "migrated" to their presently observed position, because the theory does not permit them to form at such a close distance from the primary star. By contrast, the Electric Universe model expects to find newborn planets and stars in close proximity to their primary star. "Hot Jupiters," such as WASP 18b, are another piece of evidence in support of the EU model. So, getting back to your quote at the start of this post... in this case the simplest theory is the electrical fissioning model...no ad hoc "migration" needed.

Mainstream astronomer expresses astonishment over the finding of WASP 18b:

...Hamilton said it is also possible that some basic physics calculations that all astronomers rely on could be dead wrong.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/2 ... lanet.html

That sounds to me like all is not well with the Nebular hypothesis.


nick c

[Total Science]

Anaconda,

I wouldn't call it Wal's hypothesis but you are correct about it being a newborn planet.

The giant gaseous protoplanets are ejected from stars at close orbits as is currently being observed with Betelgeuse's pregnancy.

http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... gnant.html

the sharpest ever views of the supergiant star Betelgeuse. They show that the star has a vast plume of gas almost as large as our Solar System and a gigantic bubble boiling on its surface.

And the rocky inner planets (e.g. Venus) are observed to be born from the giant gaseous protoplanets (e.g. Jupiter).

"As Zeus's daughter [Venus] she'll be immortal and live in heaven with her brothers, Pollux and Castor, the heavenly twins, an extra star for ships to steer their courses by." -- Euripides, playwright, Orestes, 408 B.C.

"Nay, truly, I might carry this matter still higher, and if one planet must be made parent another, justly claim the principal place for Jupiter, probably above 200 times as big as our Earth, and the largest and most considerable of all the Sun's chorus...." -- William Whiston, mathematician, 1737

"For the past 50 years or so, scientists have been talking about dust condensing at low pressures and gradually becoming pebbles, then boulders, etc. and building planets. While that process goes on to some extent, it would lead to oxidized planets without massive cores. I think in the main the planets rained out of the centers of giant gaseous protoplanets, which would account for their massive cores and, in the case of Earth, for her two component surface." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, October 2008

[mharratsc]

The simple theory is the right theory. .......

cite: http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1454

The key word is "expected". The reality is that the assumption that it will crash into mars is based upon numerous other unfounded assumptions based in math and not science or the "scientific method". On the other hand the conclusion that the star is not "in a death spiral" is based upon lab experiments in plasma science. It is testable unlike the death spiral conclusion.

You have the results of those lab experiments?

I think Peron is having issues with the 'Big Picture'... he's not catching how EM forces from flowing currents in plasmas affect... well, everything!

You may be right about Phobos you know, Peron. The EU model doesn't exactly preclude the concept of a gravitational death spiral, if I'm correct. If the charge of Phobos is very near equal to the charge of Mars, then it's entirely possible that the captured asteroid-cum-moon of Mars may spiral in like a failing man-made satellite on Earth.

Regarding the original planet however, I think the notion of a death spiral is very unlikely, given the characteristics reported in the article. The EU theory considers gas giants & brown dwarves to be likely created by fissioning of the star. The Electric Sun model by Prof. Don Scott explains that very well, and he surmises that is why we see so very many binary systems in the Universe (which goes completely unexplained by the Gas-Light Era model of gravitational domination.

I dunno if you're still here reading, or whether you were just another flash-in-the-pan pseudo-skeptic who decided to run whooping behind enemy lines then bolt back to your own trenches or not, but you might consider putting aside the 'peer-review prejudice' that has been instilled in you, and read some of the stuff that was linked.

One thing that seems to boggle astronomy/astrophysics mainstreamers about Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology ideas, is that you rarely see a peer-reviewed paper regarding a particular astronomical observation (which is pretty much ALL you see in the mainstream). Rather, all of the papers that are peer-reviewed (peer-reviewed by IEEE member scientists/engineers mostly) in Plasma Cosmology that I have looked at seem to focus on the physics proposed to explain one or more astronomical observations. It's a matter of approach and perspective, I think. In other words- you would think to go look for papers regarding observations of this particular planet and why respectable scientists would think what they do regarding it's proximity to its primary, whereas in the IEEE realm they would more likely suggest the electrical/EM reasons they think a planet would be that close to its primary, and probably cite that particular planet as an example of the physics involved.

Make sense?

Seriously- no one will know if you hide in your closet with the light out and look at EU/PC sites on your laptop... take a chance and check it out! You may find that it's a lot more logical, rational, and thought-provoking that you were originally willing to believe.

If, however, you are still wanting lots of documentation and paperwork, I suggest you check out Ian Tresman's amazing site http://www.plasma-universe.com. If you go to the [url2=http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph ... l:Allpages]All Articles[/url2] link and browse the topics there, you will see the amazing compilation of reference material that Ian has compiled over the years.

Mike H.

[jjohnson]

Thank you very much for the pointer tip, Mike! I've bookmarked that web site and glanced through the pix several times and completely zeroed out om the fact that they lead through the wardrobe to so much more. Now my homework has tripled and I love it. Learning = endorphins.

Jim