| Frequently Asked Questions, and a few
objections... |
|
|
| |
|
|
| This might seem like a stupid question,
but how come we don't all get electrocuted if space is
so full of electricity? |
|
"Men
occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them
pick themselves up and carry on as if nothing ever happened."
Winston Churchill |
| |
|
|
This is actually a common question, and the answer
is straightforward. Imagine a bird sitting on a high
powered cable. That cable might carry many thousands
of volts, but the bird is safe providing that it doesn't
touch another cable, or any other object with an electrical
differential. The air around the bird acts as an insulator.
Standing on the earth we are much like the bird sitting
on the cable, and the magnetosphere acts as a protective
cocoon, shielding us from most of the energised particles
flying through space.
The occasional crackle and hum of electric cables reminds
us of their purpose. Likewise, thunderstorms remind
us that our planet seeks electrical equilibrium with
its solar environment.
|
|
| |
|
|
| Why is space considered electrically neutral
in mainstream science? |
|
|
| |
|
|
| See History II |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Why don't we see more aurora like phenomena
if space is so electrically active? |
|
|
| |
|
|
| The auroras occur at the poles where charge
is concentrated by the Earth's magnetosphere. In space
plasmas are more tenuous, and the electric currents that
flow through them are invisible to the naked eye, much
like most power cables here on Earth, which are very often
hidden from sight. Also, power plants may be many miles
from the cities they supply. There is strong evidence,
however, that the heavens were far more electrically active
in recent millennia. See Ancient Testimony. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| If only half of what you say is true,
how could mainstream science be so blind? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
A few words from Alfven seem appropriate here. In 1986
he said:
"We should remember that
there was once a discipline called Natural Philosophy.
Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today.
It has been renamed science, but science of today is
in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect."
Alfven believed that territorial dominance, greed,
and fear of the unknown were factors in this transition.
"Scientists tend to resist
interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory.
In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the
fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete
unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish
their own opportunity for research."
|
|
"Gravitational
systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems."
Hannes Alfven |
| |
|
|
| There is so much we don't understand about
plasma and electricity! How can we hope to build cosmological
models with it? |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Sure, we may have a lot to learn about
something like electricity, although it is taken very
much for granted, but we can measure and observe the properties
and behaviours of both plasma and electricity, which enables
us to make predictions. This approach stems from a branch
of philosophy known as empiricism, which is the basis
of science. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Isn't this just fringe science? |
|
“We have to learn again that science without contact
with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go
completely astray into imaginary conjecture.” Hannes
Alfvén |
| |
|
|
Emphatically NO! A number of respected scientists and
electrical engineers support most of the ideas expressed
here. This web site is simply a synthesis of the basic
principles. It should also be borne in mind that two
of the founding fathers, Alfven and Langmuir, won Nobel
Laureates, and Birkeland probably would have done had
he lived long enough. See History.
While many questions remain, Plasma Cosmology is gaining
ground, whereas Big Bang cosmology relies on an increasing
array of ad-hoc assumptions and hypotheticals. The BBT
is increasingly under attack, even if does still dominate
academic circles at the present time.
|
|
| |
|
|
| Can Plasma Cosmology live with the Big
Bang? |
|
"The
universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous
states we are not privileged to know." David Bohm |
| |
|
|
Surprisingly, yes. The Big Bang does not necessarily
preclude the importance of Plasma and its electrodynamic
properties. Even within conventional Big Bang cosmology,
the entire early universe consisted of plasma before
recombination (the process in which electrons become
confined to protons to make neutral atoms) occurred.
However, it should be noted that most scientists and
engineers in the Plasma field prefer an actualistic
approach to science -- the method of working backwards
from observation, rather than starting out at idealised
theoretical principals.
The Big Bang fails to account for the 'clumpiness'
of the universe and the filamentary structures that
we see. These are consistent with Plasma models.
|
|
| |
|
|
| Who needs Plasma Cosmology? Gravitational
models work just fine! |
|
"It
is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter
in the universe remain hypothetical." Jim Peebles,
Princeton Cosmologist |
| |
|
| Problems with
g models require the invention of a number of hypotheticals.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain highly speculative
despite extensive searches over more than twenty years! |
|
| |
|
|
| Where is the
Math? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Do not worry. If mathematics turns you on, there is
plenty of it in some of the more technical pages that
we link to.
See the philosophy
page for some discussion about the relative importance
of math in differing cosmologies.
|
|
"Physics
is mathematical not because we know so much about the
physical world, but because we know so little." Bertrand
Russell |
| |
|
|
| You seem to insinuate that there is a
conspiracy against Plasma Cosmology! |
|
|
| |
|
| Not really. As has been stated, academic
circles are currently dominated by Big Bang proponents,
and they tend to promote their own theories, but science
will move on. |
|
| |
|
|
| Isn't Plasma Cosmology just a re-hash
of old Velikovskian ideas? |
|
|
| |
|
|
| No. PC does not rest on any ideas about
catastrophism, but it does not preclude them, and many
plasma physicists acknowledge that our solar system may
have been more electrically active in recent millennia.
Electric Universe supporters are generally more sympathetic
to ideas relating to Catastrophism. |
|
"In
the end The Universe will have its say." Sir Fred
Hoyle |
| |
|
|
| When can we expect to see PC gaining wider
acceptance? |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Progress is being made, slowly but surely,
but plasma physicists grow increasingly impatient. See
the Way Forward |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Could gravity have an EM origin? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Electric Universe supporters view gravity as an electrostatic
dipolar force. It should be noted that we don't actually
know what gravity is -- it remains a descriptive term
for a force that we know very little about; a force
which is described mathematically. It may also be described
as a property of mass, of course.
Research is being carried out into the potential existence
of gravity waves and graviton particles, but it has
so far achieved little if any success. Also, see the
speculations page.
|
|
"But
hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of
those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame
no hypotheses." Isaac Newton |
| |
|
|
| Why is there relatively little research
into Plasma Cosmology? |
|
|
| |
|
|
| A lack of funding doesn't help. Again,
see the Way Forward |
|
|
| |
|
|
| I thought that the The Electric Star Model
had been debunked? |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Electric Star models suffer fewer vulnerabilities
than highy speculative mainstream models which rest on
a number of unverified assumptions, notably in relation
to neutrino flavours, iron content, and 'magnetic reconnection',
amongst many others. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| If the sun is electrically powered, as
proposed by EU supporters, why do we not see electrons
flying towards it? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
This is a good question in so far as it pretty well
sums up the mainstream gripe with the the electric star
model.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that we should
base our models on what we see, and not on what we might
expect to see. Plasmas exhibit many behaviours not expected
or recognised, let alone understood, in mainstream astronomy/astrophysics.
Check out double layers and birkeland currents in the
technical section. These provide some clues as to what
may be going on.
Electrical engineers, it seems, are better qualified
to recognise and understand so many astronomical phenomena.
Significantly, Wal Thornhill and Don Scott point out
that it would be difficult to detect low energy electrons
as they stream towards The Sun.
|
|
“The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent
times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such
as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve
the status quo.” Hannes Alfvén |
| |
|
|
| Does your model supprt astrological ideas? |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Please forgive me, as I'm no expert on
astrology. I will concede, nonetheless, that plasma cosmology
permits a more holistic view of the universe, although
I have no idea how this could support conventional astrology. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Are UFOs electromagnetically driven? |
|
|
| |
|
|
| I have no idea! For a scientific perspective
try www.ufoskeptic.org
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| You are not the first to try and come
up with a unified theory of everything, and get it totally
wrong! |
|
|
| |
|
|
| This is not a unified theory of everything.
Plasma Cosmology simply represents a fresh approach to
many cosmological problems, and this web site is a synthesis
of many of the ideas. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| You seem to suggest that the mainstream
ignores plasma physics? |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Far from it. The point is that the mainstream
thus far assigns little importance to the role of plasma
and electromagnetism on cosmic scales. It is one thing
to contemplate that space isn't the vacuum once predicted,
but quite another to acknowledge that Plasma and its EM
interactions may play a role in cosmical structures, from
planets and stars to galaxies and super-clusters. The
passive role of plasma assumed by the mainstream is wrong! |
|
"...no
knowledge is complete or perfect." Carl Sagan |
