Number of galaxies

subtillioN

Well that is one explanation, but it is purely hypothetical and is only necessary if one assumes the fusion model of the sun to be accurate. Since the fusion model has so many problems which are easily explainable by the electrical model then why should we stick with the fusion model?

By adopting the plasma model one can discard all of those ad hoc hypotheticals along with the mysteries. Thus the whole stellar process and the entire Hertzsprung-Russell spectrum of stellar bodies becomes easily understandable.

Hurkyl

Where on the website does it give the presumed geometry of the universe? Where on the website does it give an explanation of the dynamics of the theory? What is the age of the universe? What is the shape and strength of the sun's electric field? What effects should it have on interplanetary probes? Where is the proof from elementary principles of any of the claims it makes?


Notice I put three more words after "theory"


If you call "Neutrinos were once presumed massless because we had not found evidence of their mass, but now we're reconsidering that presumption because we know massive neutrinos change flavor in a way that precisely patches up the deficiency in the observed neutrino flux, and we've built detectors to observe the neutrinos of other flavors and have found them, so we now presume neutrinos are massive and thus change flavor) a kludge", then I don't see why you are trying to use the word "kludge" with a negative connotation.

subtillioN

This is not a Big Bang Theory. The entire universe has not been observed thus there is no reason to assume any specific universal geometry.

Where on the website does it give an explanation of the dynamics of the theory?

ALL OVER. Can't you see? It is all dynamics.

What is the age of the universe?

Has anyone observed the birth of the universe? There is no reasn to assume a creation ex nihilo event whatsoever, thus no age is assumed either.

What is the shape and strength of the sun's electric field? What effects should it have on interplanetary probes? Where is the proof from elementary principles of any of the claims it makes?

The proof is spread throughout the website. If you care to explain how the theory is incorrect then you are certainly welcome to do just that, but don't just claim that the data is not there because it is. What isn't there is not part of the theory that we are discussing.

Originally posted by Hurkyl I'm criticizing the fact the website does not present a theory to be understood. Notice I put three more words after "theory"

So in other words you do not understand the theory. Is that the extent of your critical evaluation?

If you call "Neutrinos were once presumed massless because we had not found evidence of their mass, but now we're reconsidering that presumption because we know massive neutrinos change flavor in a way that precisely patches up the deficiency in the observed neutrino flux, and we've built detectors to observe the neutrinos of other flavors and have found them, so we now presume neutrinos are massive and thus change flavor) a kludge", then I don't see why you are trying to use the word "kludge" with a negative connotation.

Well maybe "kludge" is not the proper term here. How about --retrofitting the theory to match the un-predicted data through a hypothetical process called "flavour change"? What should we call that?

Hurkyl

WMAP observations would disagree...

But ignoring that point...

(a) Classical mechanics DOES assume a specific universal geometry; that the universe is a flat Euclidian three dimensional space, parametrized by a real time parameter.

(b) I didn't even ask for the geometry of the universe as a whole; what about the geometry of the observed universe, or simply the local geometry of the universe?

(Incidentally, the reason to study differential manifolds is because it is the most general model given a specified local geometry. If you think the universe should look like R³ on small scales, then you should model your universe with a riemann manifold. If you think the universe should look like special relativity on small scales, then you use a differentiable manifold with a metric of signature -+++. If you think electromagnetism can be described by a U(1) gauge group, then you tack U(1) onto your differentiable manifold... a.k.a. adding a curled up dimension)


Does F = ma? What is their law of conservation of mass-energy? Do they use Maxwell's equations? Are there any Lagrangians or Hamiltonians on the website?

The website is entirely qualitative descriptions devoid of any proof, or any dynamics that someone could actually learn and apply.


WMAP observations would disagree (at least they think we can see very near the point where GR loses validity).

But ignoring that, one can certainly give a lower bound on the age of the universe.


What is the net electric charge of the sun? What is the ratio of H to H₂ in the universe? What is the strength of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of Earth's orbit... where the earth isn't? What is the net charge of the Earth? What is the predicted rate of nuclear fusion in the sun?


Are you saying Scientists should ignore data that points out flaws in their assumptions?

subtillioN

The visible and known mass and gravity of the universe, as interpreted by BBT, says that the universe has a "negative curvature".

WMAP says that the universe is flat AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL.

If you want to call the WMAP results which show no curvature, a "geometry", then be my guest. I happen to know that it is the human mind that imposes geometry in the very act of measurement.

I don't really care about any universal geometry of the observed or the entire universe at this point. It is irrelevant to Plasma Cosmology. Let's deal with the explanations of stellar structure first and move on from there.

??? Come on. This theory uses standard physics. Why are we debating such banalities? Do you understand the model of the sun put forth on the website? Let us start there.

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

Why don't you read it to find out?

Plasma Cosmology is not a replacement for EVERY SINGLE BIT of cosmology. Just use your current knowledge to understand the things that plasma cosmology does not need to deal with.

To properly learn the model you must simply read it with an open mind. If you spend your entire time looking for things that it doesn't talk about, then you will never learn the model. Perhaps that is your point? Are you simply trying to avoid learning? If such is the case then just stop right here. There simply is no point to continue.

You cannot read apparently. If you don't want to attempt to debunk the theory that is fine, but don't just claim that the theory is inadequate. If you are going to make such a claim then back it up with quotes and demonstrations of were the theory goes wrong.

One can certainly give any bound one wishes but without any evidence then what is the point?

I am not going to tutor you here. If you wish to debunk it then be my guest.

I am saying quite the opposite. I am saying that Scientists should pay very close attention to when the theory makes incorrect pre-dictions because this gives important clues that they are on the wrong track.

The predictions of the solar neutrinos were WAAAAY off. And so, once again they fix their incorrect model to fit the data.

Is the model really predictive?? Nope. It has failed test after test. This is called "falsification". It is the only mechanism by which science can learn of important errors in the theory.

Hurkyl

I do, and so would any physicist.


It certainly does not use standard physics, because it likes to take every opportunity to try and assert that standard physics is flawed. We are debating these "banalities" because the dynamical foundation for a theory is important.

And it has even come up in one of these threads; you referenced a "proof" that classical mechanics can explain the perihelion shift of Mercury... but it used laws that were quite invalid in classical mechanics (the law of conservation of mass-energy is relativistic; classical mechanics has the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass), and fundamentally breaks the classical picture of the (local) universe by demanding that measurements in different locations use different rods and clocks.


I looked; I didn't find any.


My current knowledge is strongly inconsistent with the claims of plasma cosmology.


The things that it doesn't talk about are very important, that's why I'm complaining about it.


There is evidence. For example, I can certainly find evidence that the universe is at least a few days old; I know the properties behind the timestamps on this form and I can check them.


You forget one thing; the model's predictions are mostly correct, and generally only minor corrections of the assumptions need to be made to fix the errors.

subtillioN

Good for you, but I am not debating any universal geometry. You will have to discuss that with someone else.


Is Plasma Physics not standard physics? Please tell me an instance when standard BASIC proven science is rejected by plasma physics?

Plasma Physics is laboratory science. plain and simple.

We have not even got into the dynamical foundation. You are still stuck in the periphery.

There are other proofs that I also referenced which are quite valid indeed.

E=MC2 can be derived by purely classical means. It is not part of the theory of relativity.

You are wrong here. Relativity is superfluous when understanding e=mc2.

So look somewhere else and give up on Plasma Cosmology. You simply cannot open your mind to anything new.


Indeed!!




That is a cop out. It is a tactic for not learning the model. "Let's just debate what it DOESN'T talk about!!!" Just admit that you cannot even understand the theory.


Lol. Oh ok. more banalities....

[zz)]


The predictions have been incorrect and constantly fixed and retrofitted since day one. They certainly aren't going to tell you this in school however.

You want references? I can give them.

Hurkyl

What about the geometry of the observable universe, or local geometry?


Plasma physics does not assert that, for instance, gravitational lensing is a myth. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm does. If you search for respectable plasma physics sites (instead of the crackpot sites like http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm ), you'll find that they aren't trying to replace any established theories (such as providing an alternative to the fusion model for the sun's power source)... they're working to supplement established theories.


(Note: up until this point, whenever I refered to "plasma cosmology" or similar phrases, I was referring to the crackpot theory expoused by you and sites like http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm , not the actual science of plasma)


Open mind != believe anything without proof.


So? That's the cycle of knowledge; formulate a hypothesis that explains known data. Gather more data. Revise the hypothesis to account for any inconsistencies. Gather more data. et cetera.

subtillioN

So your definition of a crackpot theory is one that is attempting to supplant a faulty theory with a better one?

Open mind != believe anything without proof.

nope. it means understand first, falsify later.

So? That's the cycle of knowledge; formulate a hypothesis that explains known data. Gather more data. Revise the hypothesis to account for any inconsistencies. Gather more data. et cetera.

RETRO-FITTING

How does falsification fit into such a scheme?

Are you aware that this is exactly how the Earth-centered model of the solar-system survived for so long? The retro-fitting in this case was called an epicycle.

Hurkyl

Nope.


When an observation is made that contradicts predictions, you change your assumptions. How else would it fit in?

subtillioN

Really? So when the data comes in that the Doppler interpretation has been falsified what happened? Absolutely nothing. It was ignored and the astronomer who took the pictures was barred from using the telescopes.

The question is which assumptions do you change? You can change them at a superficial level like adding epicycles or hypothetical flavour change or you can dig deeper and search for a more consistent model that solves many problems at once, such as the Plasma model of the plasma sun.

Hurkyl

You make changes in which you have the least confidence, and the ones that don't cause the model to fail in areas where it is currently successful.


You're not getting it; it solves nothing. It is merely a vague theory that gives vague mechanisms for observations, but no concrete, mathematically precise model from which we can make numerical predictions that coincide with observations.

meteor

If in the electric sun model there's no production of energy at the core of the sun, what prevents the sun from collapse?

subtillioN

I thought we already discussed this. Try to follow along.

subtillioN

You still do not know the theory. You are rejecting it in ignorance of it. If you think it is faulty then prove it plain and simple.

meteor

Why? Because the sun is positively charged? And why must be the sun positively charged? This is an ad hoc assumption.

subtillioN

Nuclear energy is simply not needed to prevent collapse. I'll post it again in case you missed it

---

Why Doesn't the Sun Collapse of Its Own Weight?
How can we account for the fact that the Sun has been around for a long time with something like the same luminosity, yet has not collapsed in upon itself? 3 In orthodox theory, a main-sequence star like the sun behaves like a ball of gas, its temperature and pressure both increasing monotonically from the outer surface toward the center. The temperature is needed to sustain the pressure, and the pressure is needed to fend off gravitational forces which, in the absence of sufficient pressure, would lead to collapse. It is hard to understand how in Juergens' theory, with no fusion going on in the core, such a "reverse" temperature gradient can be maintained.
The answer is best stated by physicist Wal Thornhill:
"The electric star model makes the simplest assumption - that nothing is going on inside the Sun. ..... So for most of the volume of a star where the gravity is strongest, atoms and molecules will predominate. (In the electric model that applies to the entire star). The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. These dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same density throughout, or isodense."

We should remember, considering a pair of such protons, that the strength of the electrostatic repulsion force between them is something like 35 orders of magnitude greater than the strength of gravitational attraction! (Not 35 TIMES, but 35 Orders Of Magnitude). So the offset of the electron from the nucleus can be truly minuscule and yet produce an extremely strong electrical force to counteract gravitational collapse.

The Sun does not require internally generated heat in order to avoid collapse.

3. The same question ("Why doesn't it collapse due to gravity?") should be asked about globular clusters of stars. The real answer in this case is also electrical in nature. And no "missing matter" or "dark energy" is required.