Plasma Cosmology, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news87136118.html

[MrGrynch]

http://www.physorg.com/news87136118.html

Plasma cosmology suggests that stars are not thermonuclear objects, powered internally, but rather externally powered by Birkeland currents in a z-pinch.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...11elec-nova.htm

If the electric model is correct, then whether or not a star goes supernova has less to do with age, and more to do with the invisible electric currents that power it.

-G

[sward]

Theoretically has a likeness from outer space to inner space been considered ... take molecular structures and the different forms of molecular bonding ... could this be what we are seeing in the Thunderbolts article relating to the Virgo system linking M31 and M33 alignments. ???

[MrGrynch]

Current cosmology currently does not address the apparent physical connection that new, younger galaxies often have with older active galactic nuclei. Instead they refer to these observations as anomalous gases and/or luminousity. The reason for this is simple; if they acknowledged the link, they would have to address how a younger body can have a higher redshift than the parent, and this acknowledgment would be the death blow for the Big Bang theory, the expanding universe, dark matter, dark energy, black holes and neutron stars. This was pointed out by Halton Arp, a student of Hubble. For his trouble, he had his telescope access revoked in the U.S.

Plasma cosmology, unlike current theory, is testable in a lab because plasma events are scalable. Small-scale reproductions of many of the large-scale galactic structures, have been achieved, including the reproduction of spiral galaxy formation and motion, without the need for dark matter to make it all work. Plasma events scale, which means if we can produce these effects in the lab, there is no reason that these can't occur at much larger scale, throughout the cosmos.

Because molecular bonding is very much ruled by the electric force, which is billions of times stronger than gravity, and the plasma cosmology paradigm assumes the electric force and NOT gravity is the primary force in galactic structure, it is not surprising to see similarities, and I would doubt it is coincidental.

The short answer to your question is, while it may not have been directly considered, it would not come as a surprise to any plasma cosmologist.

-G

[kaneda]

Electric currents as we call them tend to be properties of "cold systems". If you try it inside a star, while there are electrons in motion, it would be chaotic, unlike on Earth where electrons can flow from one atom to the next atom, etc. You are not going to get an electric current of any kind in space without a directional imperative on them.

How do electric currents create heavier elements? Perhaps a nuclear bomb going off is really an electrical bomb?

We can detect electrical currents on Earth. Has any been detected in space?

The need for dark matter to explain why galaxies don't fall apart suggests that gravity may be a lot stronger force than we thought over cosmic distances.

[sward]

Thanks -G .. What a fantastic subject Plasma cosmology is .. it certainly makes the debate How the Universe was created a more interesting one .. now there is something to Challenge the Big Bang Theory.
Molecular Bonding ... You cant Physically see the bond but you know the force Exists .. Maybe the same for this so called Dark Matter but this Dark Matter may turn out to be Electrically charged... perhaps trying to physically observe the molecular bonds may assist with the large scale theories.

[sward]

kaneda I have just read your post .. I wonder as with Molecular bonds there are many Different Types but can interact .. so could this apply to Space ... Gravity force combining with "cold " electrical force ???

[MrGrynch]

@Kaneda

Sorry for the delay... my response is a long one.

When you refer to currents, you are referring to electrons in motion, just like those on a wire. In space, the "wires" are Birkeland currents, which exist PRIOR to the star's formation, and form a net throughout the entire universe. Stars form when a body is pinched between these currents in a cosmic z-pinch. Sure, individual electrons are chaotic, but those aren't the electrons driving the process. Electrons traveling inside Birkeland currents are just like electrons on a wire. Normally, these currents are invisible, but as seen by the filamentary nature of many spectacular photos taken by our space telescopes, these currents can sometimes be seen. When plasmas become excited enough, they will start to glow.

In plasmas, charge potentials will self-separate into like potentials. This is called a plasma sheath or double layer. They will normally be found in twisted braids of two or more "strands" and form Birkeland currents.

There is no justification to suggest that gravity behaves any differently than we already observe in our local neighborhood, other than it is a convenient way to salvage the standard model, which puts the gravitational for as king of large scale structure.

Electric currents have been detected in space. Every satellite we've ever launched capable of such measurements has shown that charge separation does occur. The aurora phenomenon seen on Earth has been demonstrated to be electrically driven from currents arriving from the Sun. The filamentary nature of aurora also suggest that the current carrying mechanism is indeed Birkeland currents. Similar aurora phenomenon have been observed above the poles of many bodies in our own solar system, and their cause is the same. This is currently attributed to magnetic fields, but one mistake science continues to make, despite Hans Alfven making a correction to his own theory during his Nobel acceptance speech, is that there can be no "frozen in" magnetic fields. In other words, magnetic fields are dynamic and the electric currents that form them must remain present in order for them to remain. Therefore all of the phenomenon which we attribute to magnetic fields must first be attributed to the electric fields that form them.

A nuclear bomb is indeed a nuclear explosion, but there is no proof or even corroborating evidence that the Sun is a sustained nuclear fusion reaction. In fact, there are many things to suggest it is not. For example, why is the surface of the Sun, closest to the supposed "nuclear reaction" actually millions of degrees cooler than the corona? Why does the flow of ions (emphasis on ions) follow an 11-year cycle and sometimes stop completely? Why do the ions (again emphasis on ions) that constitute the "solar wind" actually increase in velocity as they speed away from the Sun? And then there is the problem of the mission neutrinos. I emphasize ions in a couple of places here, and that is intentional. Scientists of the standard solar model are happy to call the outpouring of charged particle a "solar wind", but that is a misnomer. We don't call the flow of charged particle down a conductor an "electric wind". No, the movement of charge particles is called a current, and more precisely, an electric current.

How do we know these things about plasmas? Many of the effects seen in the cosmos can be reproduced in a lab, and bear a striking resemblance to the phenomenon they are meant to model, at much smaller scale. Even the formation and motion of spiral galaxies has been modeled using the laws of plasma dynamics by Peratt. He showed that the motion of spiral galaxies could be explained almost entirely through plasma laws, and that gravity played only the minutest of roles. No dark matter was needed to reconcile the model.

The only question I cannot answer is your regarding heavy elements. Is there some reason that is important? If it is, I will research this a bit and see if I can't provide some insight from the Plasma Cosmology paradigm.

-G