A Plasma Universe

[MrGamma]

I was wondering if this is a popular theory or if it basically has no possibility. If it's already been talked about then my apologies.

 

Specifically... Could this be possible? If not... why? I would like to research it more but would like trained minds to give insight as to it's legitimacy.

 

Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 1 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEbatH0ssYE

 

Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 2 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wchV5R9NhqY

 

Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 3 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy39vI41kF4

 

Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 4 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBAUqLIT4k8

 

Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 5 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-4jPllBldM

 

Thank you... Enjoy...

[Klaynos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

 

Seems to imply that it might have some bassis but there's not enough work and it's certianly not mainstream.

 

The fact that the CMBR has a black body spectrum basically shows that it wasn't caused by a plasma, so is a BIG setback....

[MrGamma]

The fact that the CMBR has a black body spectrum basically shows that it wasn't caused by a plasma, so is a BIG setback....

 

Isn't a black body another way of saying "nothing is there". How does nothing prove anything? I ask because I don't understand and others have mentioned the CBM to be false.

 

This series suggests that red-shift is more of an optical illusion rather than a means to gauge distance with doppler.

 

Cosmology Quest - Critique of Cosmology - Pt1 of 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Pme3XL1AA

[Klaynos]

A black body emmitter is a specific type of EM radiator, they produce a very distinctive spectrum, Big Bang predicts such a thing from CMBR, plasma universe does not.

 

I'll watch the vid to have a look at what they say about red shifting being just optical :S

 

But all the predictions match the evidence for BB pretty much... Far better than plasma it seems...

[MrGamma]

But all the predictions match the evidence for BB pretty much... Far better than plasma it seems...

 

These guys seem to suggest that the Sun is an electrical process... They seem very passionate about the facts they claim. Not scientific for sure... but for some of the more scientific people here it might be interesting...

 

How the Sun Really Works

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVaL-FHUyk

 

(see links below for details of this model, numerous peer reviewed publications, and direct observational evidence) The first thing that any person can see is that the current standard model of the sun is highly inadequate. Its assumes that the top of the convection zone (photosphere) is the final stage in the mechanism that makes the sun shine. But this is not true. It has no explanation for the majority of the sun from this point onwards, it fails to explain why the photosphere is at a temperature minimum, it fails to explain why the corona is millions and millions of degrees hotter than the sun, it fails to explain why the solar wind stops completely on occasions (sometimes for days), it fails to explain why the equator rotates more rapidly than the rest of the sun, the filamentary structure of the corona, why particles accelerate with increasing distance to the sun, and a whole host of other issues that are better explained with the electric sun model.

 

The main Problems with the current model of the sun are as follows:

 

* Temperature of the halo-like corona is 300 times that of surface, violating the inverse square law for radiation

* Rotates faster at equator, faster on surface

* Solar wind accelerates (somehow) upon leaving the Sun

* Sunspots reveal cooler interior

* Sunspots travel faster than surrounding surface

* Sunspot penumbra (interior walls) reveal structured filaments and move much faster than slow convection should allow

 

An eletcrical model would solve many of these problems.

 

To its advantage the electric sun model is relatively simple. It is entirely self consistent and does not require the existence of mysterious entities such as the unseen solar dynamo that lurks somewhere behind the fusion model and creates impossible 'tangled magnetic fields' that produce sunspots. (The very word dynamo was coined by electrical engineers to describe a direct current generator. Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents in coils, inductors and transformers, not by the movement of hot gasses.). The ES model does not require arbitrary adjustments, exceptions to the laws of physics, or after-the-fact speculations. It passes the Occam's razor test far better than the current model.

 

In the ES sun hypothesis, the power of the sun does not lie deep within it, the sun sits as the focus of not only the planets but also a large plasmasphere. Due to its size the sun has a large electric capacitance; this capacitance receives charge from cosmic (birkeland) currents that exist in our arm of the galaxy. The sun thus exhibits a relatively high voltage. The suns voltage multiplied by the total value of current coming towards it could be sufficient to produce the suns observed power output. The sun is powered by its galactic environment, and not from within itself.

 

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

 

Check out these links for some direct proof of this model, and the science behind it;

 

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001A%26A...376..288I&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73305181

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/spacesciences/research/sun.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/11/21/solar.gas/index.html

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0111/21sohogas/

http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_astro/news/gtbr/rx1914.html

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4346305

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Texts:On_Possible_Electric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021003.html

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Heliospheric_current_circuit

http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Sun/SunGasFallsInward.html

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996Ap%26SS.244...89P&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73311457

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k38204671658130q/

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633L..57S

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation

Edited August 19, 2008 by MrGamma

[D H]

These guys seem to suggest that the Sun is an electrical process... They seem very passionate about the facts they claim.

Crackpots are passionate. Ignorant, but passionate.

 

The main Problems with the current model of the sun are as follows:

There are always unknowns and open questions in science -- at least that is the fervent hope of all of those clunky old mainstream scientists. They are not so clunky or old or hidebound as you think. The vast majority of scientists who are making active contributions to their field are between 25 and 45 years old. These younger scientists yearn for weird discoveries.

 

The problem with crackpot science (and this electric sun stuff is pure crackpot science) is that the proponents see these unknowns and open questions as fatal flaws and try to build ill-formed, non-scientific explanations to answer these questions. The proponents of crackpot science do little to develop their own concepts and instead hang the validity of their concepts on disproving the existing science. This is a fatal flaw in crackpot science. Discrediting existing science does not prove their science correct. If successful, it would only prove existing science incorrect. The author of this particular concept has failed in discrediting the standard models and has completely failed in establishing the validity of his own conjectures.

 

An eletcrical model would solve many of these problems. To its advantage the electric sun model is relatively simple.

Most crackpot science is simple. Unfortunately, this electric sun conjecture violates laws of physics, does not explain facts, and does not explain how the stars shine for billions of years. It hangs its validity not on its own ill-developed concepts but on the open questions in solar science.

 

Like other crackpot science, this one continues to hang on to the open questions long after the questions have been answered. A good example is that the problem of the missing neutrinos. This problem vexed solar scientists in the latter half of the last century. However, this problem has been fully solved. We now know that neutrinos change flavor, and this flavor change fully explains why we see fewer solar neutrinos than expected per 1960s era models.

 

The sun thus exhibits a relatively high voltage. The suns voltage multiplied by the total value of current coming towards it could be sufficient to produce the suns observed power output.

What high voltage and what current? The solar wind comprises positive ions (mostly protons) and negative ions (mostly electrons) and is on the whole electrically neutral and is moving away from the Sun en-masse. There is no current coming out of or going into the Sun.

 

Check out these links for some direct proof of this model, and the science behind it

Those links you provide talk about magnetohydronamics, a very important part of the standard model of the Sun. They do not describe an "electric sun".

Edited August 19, 2008 by D H

[MrGamma]

Those links you provide talk about magnetohydronamics, a very important part of the standard model of the Sun. They do not describe an "electric sun".

 

I just grabbed those links from the youtube video in case others found them interesting...

 

I really don't know how much truth there is in this theory but for the most part it seems to hold alot of potential... Even if most would consider it crackpot... it looks like a valuable resource of information and theories to peruse... I would think some of the info would even work interchangeably with the current standard model...

 

I'm not really arguing for this theory... I just think it's extremely interesting... but I give you 70 points... 10 points for each use of the word crackpot...

[insane_alien]

I really don't know how much truth there is in this theory but for the most part it seems to hold alot of potential... Even if most would consider it crackpot...

 

if they are crackpot(which they are) then they have absolutely no scientific value whatsoever. no potential except maybe as a plot device in a science fiction story.

[Klaynos]

We understand how the sun works VERY well. Our measurements of neutrino flux match our predictions this would not be the case for an "electrical sun" and the amount of energy the sun would have to absorb to not have to "burn itself" would be massive! The rest of the universe would have to have a greater flux towards the sun than away from it so the night sky would literally be glowing.

 

It's a crackpot video and it makes it clear the person making it does not understand current theories.

 

Find a good peer review journal with this in... you wont.

[MrGamma]

Find a good peer review journal with this in... you wont.

 

Well... I'll admit I haven't read all of the papers... but those links point to peer reviewed papers...

 

This thread is just in the speculations section... The problem with most non-mainstream videos like these is that they seem to be built to appeal to a wide audience... I get the feeling they are after funding more than a "scientific fanbase"... this particular video had some connection to spiritual religious theories cut out... but I imagine the other versions are going to get their money from where ever they can... right? I don't know alot about it... just guessing...

 

if they are crackpot(which they are) then they have absolutely no scientific value whatsoever. no potential except maybe as a plot device in a science fiction story.

 

For someone like me there is one really convincing arguments to the story... The Umbra is mentioned as being the looking point closer into the sun yet it's a lower temperature when it should be hotter...

 

Is it true that area should be hotter to reflect the nuclear processes within?

 

Also I know I read something about recently discovered x-ray eruptions from the suns surface as observed by the Japanese... and they are saying it contributes to the surface temperature being a little hotter further out into the suns atmosphere but are they correct ( in the sun video ) when they mention that if the sun was being fed energy from the universe it would solve the problem? Could that even be possible?

Edited August 19, 2008 by MrGamma
multiple post merged

[insane_alien]

yes, this is the speculation section but as this is a science forum we tend to put speculation through a bit of rigor as speculation doesn't mean 'pull anything out your ass and its fine by us'.

[Klaynos]

Non of the peer reviewed articles talk about an electrical sun... they talk about things like the current flow similar to the northern lights....

 

Speculations doesn't mean not science.

[MrGamma]

Speculations doesn't mean not science.

 

I completely understand that... That's why I posted this in the speculations section... For the most part... you'll never find a peer review paper which rolls everything all up into one... I haven;t read any papers on string thoery or anything... but I imagine a paper like that would show "everything" all at once...

 

These guys are just suggesting some of the sun's phenominon could be explained via traditional electrical means... I would imgine the volumes of work which would have to be spit out to prove every aspect... and "overthrow" the standard model all at once... who would want to do that really... but for the most part... I can see how people like this would show a little passion in their video... I can imagine since they think slightly out of the box they must get called crackpot a few hundred thousand times a day... who wouldn't be bitter after that right?

 

So... ya... your only going to find papers here and there which nibble at the concepts... isn't that the whole point of the scientific process?

 

yes, this is the speculation section but as this is a science forum we tend to put speculation through a bit of rigor as speculation doesn't mean 'pull anything out your ass and its fine by us'.

 

Well... honestly... how is an electrical engineer going to understand particle physics and argue that with you right? They do make some arguable points even though it might not be all accurate... right?

 

What do you think about the umbra argument?

[Klaynos]

Actually you very often find papers that wrap everything up... they're called review papers.

 

But you also find papers that are less broad but that would cover something like this.

 

I wouldn't expect an electrical engineer to argue this because frankly they don't have a good enough understanding of the physics.

 

But then again I wouldn't expect a physicist to do the job of an electrical engineer...

[insane_alien]

the umbra is at a lower temperature because it is the volume that is in total shadow. you cannot see the sun at all from the umbra(maybe a faint ring like during a total eclipse(that is actually you in the umbra).

 

this means you do not have a lot of radiation hitting you(mostly thermal IR from the planet whos umbra you are in) where as further out you can be bathed in the full force of the suns glow.

 

basically, the guy is trying to argue that it should be hotter in shadows.

 

seeing as people seek out shadows to keep cool even here on the surface of the earth i think we can quite clearly say that he is talking rubbish.