Universe

Many remarkably intelligent people subscribe to the idea that the cosmos is driven primarily by electricity, not gravity. If you’ve never heard of this, please look at some of these resources before trying to answer this question:

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html

http://www.holoscience.com/

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm

"The Big Ban Never Happened" by Eric Lerner

There are many apparently startling results that come out of this perspective. First, it has produced cosmological predictions vastly more accurate than those of the classical model (cf. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm). Second, it offers explanations of phenomena still "mysterious" to modern science (e.g. the temperature of the sun’s corona). However, whenever I hear scientists not of this camp comment on plasma cosmology, they just reject it out-of-hand with little more explanation than "It’s just wrong."

Would someone please explain why?
Sorry, one link doesn’t work. For a successful plasma-based prediction, look up references to "Deep Impact" for July 4th, 2005 in the archives of Thunderbolts Picture of the Day:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00archive.htm

This should be the correct link:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm

First, if you’re going to tell me that plasma cosmology is objectionable "because it’s wrong," don’t bother. I want to know WHY it’s considered wrong. Calling it "pseudoscience" doesn’t get us anywhere unless you care to define what that means and why it’s justifiable to call plasma cosmology pseudoscientific.

Second, please don’t appeal to the "You know too little to understand" argument. I have no trouble understanding Penrose’s "The Road to Reality." If you think I’m missing something, please explain.

Third, thanks to the third respondant for posting the Kronia video. I didn’t know that had been uploaded! I’ve met those people and I respect them. However, some of their science is off. The whole point of relativity was to solve a problem in electromagnetism.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that plasma cosmology (a) predicts and (b) explains phenomena that standard cosmology apparently does not. I’d like to know why this is considered unworthy of comment.

Firstly, I would point out that the websites you linked to seem fairly antagonistic towards the mainstream of astronomy. While not in and of itself a disqualifying property, it does get things off to a bad start. One particular statement that I have to point out is wrong about astrophysicists is from your third link, under the heading "Chapter 1", the seventh paragraph of the section "Questions and Answers" which says, "Astrophysicists do not study experimental plasma research in graduate school. They rarely take any courses that discuss Maxwell’s equations and electromagnetic field theory." As a first year graduate student heading towards working in astrophysics and cosmology, I can attest heartily and strongly that at least the second sentence is patently untrue (as I have an exam on advanced electromagnetism this coming Monday… ). Again, not disqualifying, but

Secondly, there’s a lot of exposition, but not a lot of numbers/equations. Maybe it’s that these are intended for a popular audience, but it may be a more general issue. Moreover, whenever I read things that claim to have discovered something radically new and different from the mainstream, when they do give numbers, they usually eschew mentioning estimated errors (go to http://xxx.arxiv.org/list/astro-ph/new and pick a paper at random, and look for numbers… they should have a "+/-" such and such to represent an error. I’d beware ones that don’t give an error estimate). They often times presnt results without giving reasoning.

Thirdly, mainstream cosmology is dismissed as too theoretical while plasma cosmology explains observations as they exist. The issue here is that there is some value in having an explanation which is a bit ahead of observations as it gives observers something specific to look for which can help prove or disprove the said theory. So a theory which sticks its head out a little bit is desirable. One which sticks its head out too much is probably just asking for trouble, admittedly.

Fourthly, reading some of what is on Arp’s website (he’s spoken of highly in the second link, as the "Galileo of the 20th Century"), it seems somewhat silly. Under http://www.haltonarp.com/articles, the article "Faint Quasars Give Conclusive Evidence for Non-Velocity Redshifts", apart from being devoid of any equations or numbers of basically any kind (see point number two), his argument seems to be that among several objects obersved in a survey of the sky were close together, including two of high redshift (quasars) and two of one of low redshift and that this is somehow evidence that quasars are high redshift ejecta of low redshift objects (where high redshift is generally taken [in mainstream cosmology] to mean greater distance, though I don’t remember what Arp thinks). He furthermore says (with no math or citations in support) that the odds of this being a chance alignment (which would be the mainstream explanation) is 3.5 chances in 10 million (or, about one in three million). Granted that the survey (according to Arp) only catalogued 243 objects, still in astronomical terms those aren’t bad odds. Moreover, one is tempted to ask why, if this is something we should expect, don’t we see it *more* often? Why was there apparently only an alignment of these three objects out of all the 243 catalogued in that survey? Wouldn’t one think that there should be stronger relationships? Of course, without a firmer (and preferably somewhat mathematical) explanation of any expected relationship, I have little to say.

Fifth, as to the explanation that stars are nexuses of galactic currents, this it seems to me would be readily testable, even with data that we should already have. After all, let’s say you have two lines of current crossing each other at the position of the Sun. Wouldn’t a space probe, while travelling around the Sun (or even the Earth) pass through varying electric and magnetic fields, something which is potentially readily detactable? And we have been sending out lots of probes across the Solar System, so that we haven’t heard of such things from all that travelling seems disappointing, though admittedly it’s not conclusive. And again, without knowing the mathematical details, I can’t say anything more concrete, though I would ask the question, "Where is the energy which these currents are pumping into stars coming from? Or if it’s always been around, where did it come from, or how did it assume the observed form over possible alternative forms?" If the answer violates the principle of conservation of energy, then all bets are off and we can’t say anything about the rest of the universe (after all, if the laws of physics as we know them on Earth don’t apply across space, whatever’s happening in the universe might as well be magic for what we know; this of course, isn’t ruled out by mainstream cosmology, but it’s the only reasonable assumption to make, as without that we have nothing to base any astrophysics of any kind on…). These are questions that are asked in mainstream cosmology and theoretical physics.

I think I’ll stop there before my fingers fall off. I could spend more time, but I have other things to do (remember that exam… ). To make a long story short, these theories do seem to be pseudo-scientific and not very rigorous. That’s not to say mainstream cosmology should be treated as sacred: it’s just the best set of answers we have so far. There are problems (not leastwise, what are Dark Matter and Dark Energy), problems which could potentially lead to answers which would flip cosmology on its head (the "discovery" of Dark Energy being an example; we really don’t know what it is, or why it’s there, and we certainly didn’t think ten or twelve years ago that it would be there…).

Lecture 3 of Leonard Susskind’s Modern Physics concentrating on Cosmology. Recorded January 26, 2009 at Stanford University.

This Stanford Continuing Studies course is the fifth of a six-quarter sequence of classes exploring the essential theoretical foundations of modern physics. The topics covered in this course focus on classical mechanics. Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Physics at Stanford University.

Stanford University:

http://www.stanford.edu

Stanford Continuing Studies:

http://continuingstudies.stanford.edu/

About Leonard Susskind:

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/physics/people/faculty/susskind_leonard.html

Stanford University Channel on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/stanford

Duration : 2:0:27

Read the rest of this entry »

I have had advanced level astronomy and cosmology, read the popular magazines on the topic but have not found a place to ask questions that seem above YA level.

It’s not your education level Mike – it’s your inability to put your words together to explain what is inside your mind. I’ve read your astronomy answers. There is a reason why they are not picked BA. If you want to be in other categories than the Singles and Marriage zones which you tend to frequent, try taking some courses in communication.

It matters not what your head contains if you have no way of communicating it to others.

Science@ESA Vodcast (Episode 2): Planck – Looking Back To The Dawn Of Time (Part 1): Big Bang Cosmology.

—
Subscribe to Science & Reason:
• http://www.youtube.com/Best0fScience
• http://www.youtube.com/SagansCosmos
• http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker
—

In the Science@ESA series Rebecca Barnes will take you on a journey of discovery into the rapidly evolving field of space astronomy and planetary exploration.

In this second episode Rebecca takes a close look at Planck – a European Space Agency mission built to detect radiation from the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This mission will help find answers to some of the most important questions in modern science.

• http://astronomy2009.esa.int
• http://www.youtube.com/esa

—

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.

As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

—

Planck was selected as the third Medium-Sized Mission (M3) of ESA’s Horizon 2000 Scientific Programme, and is today part of its Cosmic Vision Programme. It is designed to image the anisotropies of the Cosmic Background Radiation Field over the whole sky, with unprecedented sensitivity and angular resolution.

Planck will provide a major source of information relevant to several cosmological and astrophysical issues, such as testing theories of the early universe and the origin of cosmic structure.

Planck was launched on 14 May 2009 together with the Herschel satellite. After launch, Planck and Herschel separated and are now proceeding to different orbits around the second Lagrangian point of the Earth-Sun System.

• http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Planck/index.html
.

Duration : 0:6:4

Read the rest of this entry »

I’d like to just get an idea – how many of those denying anthropogenic climate change tend to reject science generally? That is to say, how many denialists also reject biological evolution and the Big Bang model of cosmology, and by extension, also implicitly reject most if not all of the findings of:

Geology
Chemistry
Physics
Archaeology
Astronomy
Cosmology
Biology
Paleontology
Et cetera

Well?

Climate change deniers only deny the science which doesn’t mesh with their belief system. Or in the case of the few ’skeptical’ scientists, when it’s to their advantage. For example, most of the scientists ’skeptical’ of global warming also coincidentally are ’skeptical’ that CFCs cause ozone depletion, that secondhand smoke causes lung caner, and in some cases, they even deny evolution (see Roy Spencer).

Most deniers have no reason to deny biology (except maybe evolution) cosmology, astronomy, etc. They only deny climate science because its conclusions are inconvenient, requiring government action, conservation, and change in general. They don’t deny it because they’re anti-science, they deny it because they’re afraid of change.

Hi, I am having trouble writing a this paper about Cosmology (study of the universe and how humanity is involved with the universe) I understand most of the minor concepts and such, but i am suppose to relate this topic on a Global Level…like how it affects various nations…most other topics people are writing about in my class involve economics globally…so i am a little worried about my topic and how to relate it globally to my professors liking…Help me out guys with any ideas!

Check out the united nations web sight .

Our studies and developments of new discoveries are going to change
everything .

The exploration of space travel and planets , pollution of our orbit with space junk , and the possibility of setting off a retaliatory attack
from another life forms are becoming a reality .

Cosmology -is the study of the Universe in its totality, and by extension, humanity’s place in it. Though the word cosmology is recent (first used in 1730 in Christian Wolff’s Cosmologia Generalis), study of the universe has a long history involving science, philosophy, esotericism, and religion. In recent times, physics and astrophysics have played a central role in shaping the understanding of the universe through scientific observation and experiment; or what is known as physical cosmology shaped through both mathematics and observation in the analysis of the whole universe. In other words, in this discipline, which focuses on the universe as it exists on the largest scale and at the earliest moments, it is generally understood to begin with the big bang (possibly combined with cosmic inflation) an expansion of space from which the universe itself is thought to have emerged ~13.7±0.2×109 (13.7 billion) years ago.[1] From its violent beginnings and until its various speculative ends, cosmologists propose that the history of the universe has been governed entirely by physical laws. Theories of an impersonal universe governed by physical laws were first proposed by Roger Bacon, a somewhat persecuted member of the Catholic Church.[2] Later, another member of the Catholic Church, Dmitry Grinevich, supported Bacon’s proposed laws through some experiments that he performed involving different physical laws. Between the domains of religion and science, stands the philosophical perspective of metaphysical cosmology. This ancient field of study seeks to draw intuitive conclusions about the nature of the universe, man, God and/or their relationships based on the extension of some set of presumed facts borrowed from spiritual experience and/or observation.

But metaphysical cosmology has also been observed as the placing of man in the universe in relationship to all other entities. This is demonstrated by the observation made by Marcus Aurelius of a man’s place in that relationship: “He who does not know what the world is does not know where he is, and he who does not know for what purpose the world exists, does not know who he is, nor what the world is.”[3] This is the purpose of the ancient metaphysical cosmology. However, Stoicism rejected Aristotle’s theory of universals as being “in the things themselves,” calling them “figments of the mind.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy adopting the concept of universals as being “concepts,” and therefore of the mind, and therefore controllable by free will. Thus, we get the analysis of Aurelius’ that the nature of the universe is not from “intuition,” but from a free-will, conceptual understanding of the nature of the universe.[original research?]

Cosmology is often an important aspect of the creation myths of religions that seek to explain the existence and nature of reality. In some cases, views about the creation (cosmogony) and destruction (eschatology) of the universe play a central role in shaping a framework of religious cosmology for understanding humanity’s role in the universe.

A more contemporary distinction between religion and philosophy, esoteric cosmology is distinguished from religion in its less tradition-bound construction and reliance on modern “intellectual understanding” rather than faith, and from philosophy in its emphasis on spirituality as a formative concept.

There are many historical cosmologies:

” the universe itself acts on us as a random, inefficient, and yet in the long run effective, teaching machine. our way of looking at the universe has gradually evolved through a natural selection of ideas.” —Steven Weinberg[4]

Duration : 0:9:30

Read the rest of this entry »

In the book the Copernican revolution Kuhn says that “Nicholas of Cusa had propounded a radical Neoplatonic cosmology and had not even bothered about the earth as a moving star, like the sun and the other stars, and though his works were widely read and had great influence, he was not condemned or even criticized by his church”. Why was it that this radical theory not condemned by the church and the Copernican theory was? Was it the content of the theory or were the times just different, what makes theories in general dangerous to the church?

From my point of view, everything that is radical and even if it have sense is not supported by hard defined organizations such is the catholic church, so every point of view that have to destabilize in a way something rigid like the church doctrine is treated like something negative. The reason is that, because the church is an immense organisation can’t be flexible, if it do so (to became flexible) it instantly loses its credibility and soon stop to act like a base (terra firma) for belivers, so it start like a domino effect one trouble start another, felxibility runs to loosing credibility, losing credibility runs to losing believers, with a million of side effects, more or less important. Nicolas of Cusa didn’t want to remove the base, his essential feeling was to put together euclidean geometry (figurative speaking) with philosophy, he was so much a believer that is possible to reach his feelings easily trough his docta ignorantia when he he speaks about the universal truth, maybe just this sentence catch fully his thinking.. when he speaks about the circle and the polyandrous object… the basic difference between Copernicus and nicolas of cusa is that cusa used God as a point of view, but copernicus used him (Nicolas Cusanus).

Velikovsky revisited, again. Dr Immanuel Velikovsky, Hero or Villain?

Plasma Cosmology Astronomy Carl Sagan Cosmology Space Electricity in space Electric Universe Wal Thornhill Dave Talbott Don Scott Petroglyphs rock art dragons and serpents celtic art spirals mythology myth plasma toruses comets venus mars jupiter saturn planets catastrophism catastrophes gradualism geology astrophysics alternative science scientific suppression peer review history of the solar system empiricism

Music By Delirium (First track) and Felix (Second and Third tracks)

Duration : 0:10:6

Read the rest of this entry »

I am really interested in getting into the field of Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology.
Suggest a school in any country in the world, one not it the united states would actually be better, please.
Thanks for the help!

Princeton. Just look at some of it’s past alumni. Even me! But if you don’t want it to be in the USA, Cambridge University in UK is one of the top overseas seats of learning. You could also try the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark. Practically all developed countries have first class facilities for study.